Thank you to everyone who supports us throughout the year. We hope that you, your family, and your loved ones have a very safe holiday season whether at home or traveling about. A special thank you to all of the writers on this website past and present. Your efforts are appreciated and they have helped my spiritual growth throughout the years. Stay warm, have fun, and all praise to God who continually blesses us. Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas
In writing this article, it can be noted that the temperature outside is -2 F (-18 C). Brrr! Inside I have my big hairy monster slippers on and a coffee mug here at my desk ready with warmth to tickle my innards. However, I trek outside a couple of times a day to throw some wood in my outdoor wood burner. The cold bites out there. I protect myself with a big trapper hat, heavy coat, and gloves. Still, I do not linger out in the cold for long. The wind chill supposedly makes the air feel like -24 f (-31 C) and I believe every bit of that! Baby, it’s cold outside!
This weather makes me pause a moment and think about cold. In the KJV, “coldeth” (just kidding), cold is mentioned 18 times. There are some notable positives written about.
Of course, there is the other side of cold that should not be overlooked.
It is my hope that this insight into the Bible’s presentation of cold set a gentle flame in your mind. As the cold days of winter visit you, enjoy the positives of some chill. Break out some hot cocoa and don’t forget the marshmallows. If there are those in need of warmth, protection, and care in these times of cold, reach out, and share the fire of your heart, hospitality, and love. It’s cold outside, but don’t let it put the freeze on you. May the good works and good news of Christ abound in your life and conversation and stoke the coals of hope and joy over these frosty days.
This examination focuses itself on eschatology, the unfolding of events in “end times”. I suggest to you we are indeed in the “end times, latter days, last days” (Isaiah 2:2, Micah 4:1, Hebrews 1:2). The broader term of these days which I would personally use is the Christian Dispensation. In these last days, our discussion includes a context of Dispensational Pre-Millenialism (DPM). Central to this context are beliefs regarding the Kingdom of God and the role of physical Israel. Believers of DPM hold that physical Israel (the DNA of Jacob) will again be gathered again as a nation and serve an important role in a thousand year Kingdom reign upon earth with Christ. In this role a thousand years may be held figurative for eternity, however, most DPM believers see a final judgment at the end of the millennium. At the heart of all DPM teaching are the questions: 1. What is the Kingdom of God? 2. What is God’s plan for the physical descendants of Jacob? The answers reside within God’s promises regarding Israel and the Church. The predominance of this study will focus on the answer to the second question.
Opening the pages of the Bible and looking for passages regarding the “kingdom of God” results in four different kingdoms. Searching in Psalm 103:19 and Daniel 4:3, it is found that the Kingdom of God can refer to God’s universal kingdom over all things. From I Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 13:8, and Mathew 21:43 it is seen that physical Israel was considered God’s Kingdom. Next, Daniel 2:44, Mark 9:1, Acts 1:8, Acts 2, Colossians 1:13, and I Timothy 3:15 demonstrate that the Church is referred to as the Kingdom of God. Finally, 2 Peter 1:10-11 and 2 Timothy 4:18 present the eternal home of the Faithful in heaven as the Kingdom of God. Sesame Street is an American children’s television show which often plays a game called “one of these things is not like the other”. Indeed, that is the situation with the four Kingdoms of God mentioned above. God’s universal kingdom, the Church, and the heavenly kingdom are all eternal. National physical Israel is not like the others. It is not eternal. The physical descendants of Israel are scattered and no longer a Kingdom of God, nor will they ever be again. Their purpose has been served and the physical descendants of Jacob no longer serve any more importance than any other individual upon earth. We are undertaking this study because adherents of DPM reject these statements and declare promises to Abraham and Israel prove otherwise.
Dispensational Premilenialism finds its error in many ways.
What were the promises to Abraham? The book of Genesis provides five instances where God spoke to Abraham and detailed the given promises (Genesis 12:1-7, 13:14-17, 15:18-21, 17:2-8, 22:17-18). Specifically referenced are a nation promise, a land promise and a seed promise. The Genesis 12 passage makes it clear that from Abraham would come a great nation. Yes, this was physical Israel from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Additionally, Abraham was promised the land of the Canaanites. Finally, this same passage also makes it clear that all families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham. This is known as the seed promise. Further information is gleaned about each of these promises as God speaks to Abraham in additional Genesis texts. Genesis 13 details the land of the Canaanite would be given to Abraham and his seed “forever”. This passage further figuratively declares the descendants of Abraham would be as numerous as the dust of the earth. Genesis 15 provides not only information that the seed of Abraham would be as numerous as the stars of heaven, but specifics to the land promise. It details a northern and southern border demonstrating the scope of the possession would encompass many other peoples. Important to notice in this passage are the terms “river of Egypt” and “great river, the river Euphrates”. This will be considered later in our examination. Genesis 17 sees God declare His covenant with Abraham and his seed would be everlasting. Additionally, God states the land of Canaan will be for an “everlasting possession” to them. Finally, Genesis 22 essentially repeats the three promises, but it declares the reasoning for giving them – “thou has obeyed my voice”. The promises given to Abraham and his descendants would also be directly promised to Isaac and Jacob. The critical issue surrounding these promises is: were the promises fulfilled?
There is no doubt in Christendom or within the DPM circle that the nation promise to Abraham was fulfilled. The question do be answered later is whether or not Israel will be gathered again as a Nation. Deuteronomy 1:10, 4:6-8, and 2 Samuel 7:23 all make it clear the descendants of Abraham became a great nation. In the first passage the words of Moses proclaim fulfilled prophecy in that he describes Israel in number as the stars of heaven. In the second passage Moses calls Israel a nation three times. Finally, in 2 Samuel 7, King David of Israel in proclaiming the might of God recognizes Israel as a nation whom God redeemed from Egypt.
The promise to Abraham regarding the boundaries and duration of the possession of the promised land by the nation of Israel are hotly declared as unfulfilled by DPM adherents. This is a must for DPM doctrine. If Israel’s role is over, if there place as a nation is over, then DPM fail to stand. Later, their objections shall be examined. At the present, let us search the inspired scriptures of God and see what He has said. Joshua 21:43-44 declares all the land sworn to the fathers of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) was given to them and they possessed it. The context follows from Joshua 18:1 in which the land was said to be subdued before Israel. Thus, Joshua sent me out to detail the boundaries and he then divided the land among the tribes. Prior to this in Joshua 11, it is said that Joshua took the whole land promised unto Moses (who brought the children of Israel to the land to claim the promise given to the Fathers.). I Kings 4:21 details the third king of Israel holding all the land from the Border of Egypt to the Euphrates (the land promised). Nehemiah 9:7-8 sees Israel centuries after it had taken the land. They were now returning from captivity in Babylon. Having been centuries since Israel had taken the land, common sense would declare there would have been much grumbling and complaining if God had not fulfilled His land promise to Abraham. Yet, during that time frame there is not a single utterance about a lack of fulfillment. In fact, when Nehemiah and the other Israelites returned to the land, Nehemiah references the promise God made to Abraham and declared that God had performed it. Are the scriptures God breathed as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? Are they from the mind of God 2 Peter 1:20-21? If God be true, then the scriptures proclaim the Land promise fulfilled. Further evidence of this is seen in Deuteronomy 19:8-9 and Joshua 20:7-8. God told Moses that three cities of refuge should be established in the land of Israel. Then, when all the land God had promised the fathers had been given three more cities of refuge should be set up. Following the fulfillment of the promise, Joshua appointed the three additional cities of refuge. Once more in the Old Testament, the psalmist writes in Psalm 105:42-44 that Israel had inherited the promised lands as he had spoken to Abraham. But does the New Testament say anything about the Land Promise to Abraham? In Acts 13:19 the apostle Paul declares Canaan was conquered and divided among the tribes. Never in the Old Testament or the New Testament were the words of fulfillment to Abraham challenged. Never did the people cry out that God had failed to be faithful. This cry comes only from the 1800’s AD by a people looking back at history and questioning the veracity of the very people to whom the promise was made and acknowledged fulfilled.
From scripture it has been seen that the nation and land promise to Abraham have been fulfilled. This leaves an examination of the seed promise. Galatians 3:8-9, 16, 26-29 provides us with the words of the apostle Paul. He preached both to Israel and non-Israel. He shared the gospel with everyone. All those that are in Christ through baptism are considered the Children of Abraham. Paul says these people of all families and nations of the world are blessed by the seed promise to Abraham. The apostle Peter declared to the Jews who would convert to Christianity that the seed promise to Abraham would also be fulfilled in them and 5,000 were baptized (Acts 3:25-26). Paul speaks later to the Jews and he provides an understanding of exactly what the blessing to all promised to Abraham would be. In Acts 13:32-33, 38, it is established that through Christ was the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness was available to all and the blessing experienced by those who acted in faith to the commands of God.
A straightforward look at the scriptures has demonstrated that the promises to Abraham (nation, land, seed) have been fulfilled. Specifically regarding the Land promise, those who took the land believed it, those who returned to the land believed it, and the apostle Paul declared it so. With such strong witness as the Word of God, his prophets, and his apostles teaching this it is a fair question to ask why anyone would question the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. Next up a number of DPM arguments are presented as to why they believe the way they do.
Some DPM believe that Abraham himself did not receive the promised land and must therefore rise before the millennium to enter the promised land. Stephen filled with the Spirit of God testified in Acts 7:5-7 that the fulfillment of Abraham’s possession would be with that of his descendants. He clearly states Abraham would not even put a foot in it. As he spoke his reference was the promise given by God in Genesis 15:7-8, 13-16, when Abraham asked how he would know if he inherited the Land. God told him that he would die before going, but his inheritance would come with his descendants returning to the land after their stay in Egypt. Promise fulfilled.
Some DPM believe that physical Israel was to receive the promised land forever (previously read). Consider this from two different approaches. First, remember the promise was given to Abraham based upon his obedience. The children of Israel were told before entering the land that though they would receive the Land, they would perish if they were disobedient to God (Deuteronomy 8:19-20; 30:17-18). Joshua repeated this and declared their disobedience would destroy them off the Land God gave them (Joshua 23:12-16). Consider the promised land like a car. A father gives his son a car and tells him this is your car forever. He tells him before handing him the keys, if you transgress the law you I will not let you enjoy its blessings. The son later breaks the law with the car. The father “impounds” the car. The car may still be the son’s car, but he no longer has the right to be in it. The father may drive the car. The mother may drive the car. The sister or neighbor may drive the car. However, the son is excluded from driving his own car based on his disobedience. Promise fulfilled. A second way to consider the concept of forever is to examine the Hebrew language. Though the English words “forever” and then “everlasting” are used in translation in Genesis 17 and 13 the translation is not adequate to explain the Hebrew. The Hebrew words are “Olam” and “Ad”. “Olam” is used in Leviticus 24:7-9 and 2 Chronicles 2:4 in reference to the showbread offering of Israel. Though the terms everlasting, forever, and perpetual are used, it is quite clear the Law of Moses would end and so would the earthly sacrifices. One might argue that these could again begin. Why on earth would someone reject the once for all sacrifice of Christ which could forgive sin in order to go back to an imperfect sacrificial system? “Ad” is used in Job 20:4 and Psalm 132:13-14. As used in Job it references mankind from the beginning of earth… not an eternal timeframe. In the book of Psalms the references God’s connection with Israel, yet God would cast off that people and place. Alternative definitions for “Olam” and “Ad” prohibit certainty of the solution stating these terms mean the English “forever”. Israel held the land for a period unseen into the future. The end of that period became visible with their sins. Promise fulfilled.
Some DPM believe that despite the nation of Israel declaring it received the promise of God that not all the land promised was truly given. This is based upon the words in Genesis 15:18 that the land would be possessed to the “River of Egypt”. By this it is declared that the River of Egypt is the Nile. Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4, I Kings 8:65, and 2 Chronicles 7:8 reference the River of Egypt in regard to the possession of Israel. Yet, all obvious scriptural references to the Nile use H2975 to reference the Nile. None of the aforementioned verses use that word. Additionally, other passages describing the promised land of Israel use “Brook of Egypt”, “Border of Egypt”, “Shihor”, and “From the wilderness” (Exodus 23:31, I Kings 4:21, 2 Kings 24:7, 2 Chronicles 9:26, Isaiah 27:12, Jeremiah 2:18). These terms are all synonymous with the river name or location of the Wadi el Arish. That this land was held is not disputed. The River of Egypt in Genesis 15:18 is the same. Note: From Genesis 15 we drew attention to the “great river, the river Euphrates”. The Nile was not smaller than the Euphrates. To call the Euphrates “Great” in comparison would indicate the truth that the Nile was not being referenced. Again, the fulfillment of the land promise was never questioned by ancient Israel.
Some DPM declare Replacement Theology is responsible for substituting the Church for Israel and it should not be done. It is declared that the Bible does not spiritualize literal Israel. Jeremiah 31:31-40 speaks of the ending of the Law of Moses and points to the New Covenant in Christ. It is said this new covenant would be with the “House of Israel”. Then the text continues on to mention a faithful Israel, forgiveness of sin, and God’s faithfulness to that Israel. The question is whether or not this “House of Israel” is the Church or physical Israel. The truth of the matter is that the Law of Moses, the sacrifices, the tabernacle, all of it was a shadow or type of what was to come. Hebrews 8ff puts the context and fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-40 into proper understanding (Hebrews 8:6-13, 9:28, 10:14-22). The Hebrew author first quotes Jeremiah. Then he ties this to Christ and forgiveness of sins. Finally, he ties all of this to those who would be sanctified by Christ. That is the “House of God” which Timothy declares is the Church (I Timothy 3:15). What DPM says cannot occur, the spiritualization of physical Israel in the form of the Church, is exactly what God does.
Finally, though there are countless arguments that DPM attempt to assert, we now consider the claim that Israel was promised to be restored. It has already been seen from Jeremiah 31 that speaking of a physical faithful Israel can reference the Church. I suggest to you all such passages speak of the Church. Historic Israel never returned faithful to God. It is understood as well that there are passages like those in Daniel 9 and Jeremiah 25:8-13 referencing the return of Israel from their 70 year captivity in Babylon. This was certainly fulfilled. However, in regard to the destiny of physical Israel Jesus proclaimed in Mathew 21:42-44 that their kingdom would be taken from them. Jeremiah 19:1,10-11 proclaims physical Israel to be like broken pottery – impossible to make whole again! The destiny of Physical Israel is complete. Physical Israel had the purpose of showing the world God’s blessings and curses (Romans 15:4). They had the purpose of carrying the seed who is the Christ (Galatians 3:16). In doing so, they fulfilled the seed promise of Abraham. There will be no physical restoration of the nation of Israel. The salvation of all mankind is united in Christ not divided in DNA.
DPM is a false doctrine that looks to a future plan for physical Israel. These plans rest upon assertions that God has not fulfilled His promise to Israel. Yet, scripture refutes these claims. God is faithful and just. God cannot lie. What he declares by Word has and will occur. His plans for faithful men revolve around Christ’s Church and not physical Israel.
How can we make our local congregations stronger? Stop allowing members to hide behind the elders and instead, encourage reconciliation. Teach members how to confront other members in the spirit of humility, mercy, and love. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard about elders confronting members or the preacher with a complaint from another member. Oftentimes, this confrontation is done while keeping the complaining party anonymous. And so, the confronted member sits in an elders meeting being on the receiving end of comments like:
• We’ve been told your children made a mess in the teacher’s workroom.
• We’ve had complaints that your sermons are too short/long.
• Someone came to us about something you put on Facebook.
• We’ve had complaints about your children running through the building.
• The sermon you preached offended some of our members.
• Someone came to us about your daughter’s immodest dress.
And the list goes on and on and on.
Sadly, when you ask who the complaining party is the common response is: “They have asked that we not reveal their name.” As a result, the person who is confronted never has the ability to fully explain to that person their side or more importantly, to reconcile. (Instead, the confronted party spends the next 24-hours trying to figure out exactly who brought up the complaint—and bitterness often ensues.)
I know personally of 2-3 elders who have positioned themselves in various congregations as the person to “go to” if you have charges against someone else. They are quick to hear complaints. Sadly, these same men are not pursuing reconciliation between members. They are simply trying to be people pleasers and smooth things over.
While they may believe this anonymous approach is most beneficial, simply put, it does not work—and it goes against the biblical principle of reconciliation. (It also goes against Matthew 18 when sin is involved.) Instead, it turns the situation into a big battle of “he said/she said,” with members trying to determine whose side the elders are on.
Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” Solomon recognized that the first person to complain “seems right”—but he recognized there are two sides to every story.
Imagine the changes that would happen if elders refused to hear these complaints, and instead directed the complainer to the person who offended them.
Don’t like something the preacher said? Let’s go talk to him and see if he really meant it the way you heard it. Imagine how many relationships could be salvaged if the leadership of the congregation just facilitated a face-to-face meeting between the two parties.
For instance, imagine this hypothetical situation: A woman comes to the elders complaining about someone’s children making a mess in the teacher’s workroom. She demands they confront the mother of the children, put a lock on the door to the workroom, and make an announcement that children under 16 are no longer allowed in the workroom.
Imagine the difference that would happen if the elder she approached asked her to meet with him and the mother of the child. Maybe before the meeting he studies with her on humility or loving as Jesus loved. Imagine if the mother of the child was allowed to apologize and offered to have her child clean up the mess or offered money to replace wasted supplies. Or imagine if the mother pointed out that while she and her children were in the workroom, it was actually the youth minister who made the mess.
The point is this—bringing the two parties together allows both sides to be clearly explained and allows for the chance of reconciliation. If we want our local congregations to be strong, we must be able to confront one another in the spirit of love—realizing we are all a part of the same Christian family with the same goal of heaven!
LOS “EVANGELIOS”! Quienes están a favor de afirmar que estos libros (a los que voy a continuar refiriéndome como los cuatro) lo hacen así por claras razones, desestimarlos como parte de la autoridad que la Iglesia debe seguir en cuestión de divorcio y nuevas nupcias de Mt.19 así como la instrucción de la disciplina en Mt.18 solo por mencionar algunas. Pero ¿Quién y cómo se determina si pertenecen o no al N.T.? La respuesta a esto en mi estimación es: la razón y el sentido común.
Aplicación profética
Si todo este asunto es construido con doble intención para sacar del juego a pasajes y doctrinas importantes contenidas en estos libros entonces estamos frente a intenciones obscuras y diabólicas. Debe de existir una aplicación profética a las palabras de Jesús sin duda alguna, respecto a lo cual Moisés dijo en Det.18:18 que se levantaría un profeta como él. Por cierto Jesús a parte de ser Dios y conocer el futuro está en la categoría de profeta. Hay un paralelismo muy remarcado con Samuel quien ocupó el oficio de profeta y juez al mismo tiempo. Existen esfuerzos que están claramente encausados para eliminar las enseñanzas de Jesús ya que el vivió en el antiguo pacto y por lo tanto estos libro pertenecen al mismo, creo que se despedazan todos esos esfuerzos en la persona de Jesús como profeta. Observe, si El fue profeta todas sus enseñanzas concernientes a la Iglesia (que todavía no estaba en existencia) son igualmente autoritarias por su calidad de profeta. Cualquier intento en descalificar a los 4 relatos como parte del Nuevo Testamento quedan si relevancia en la persona profética de Jesús.
La ley y los profetas hasta Juan…
Observé este argumento en el artículo de Wayne Jackson que lidia sobre el mismo tema. Su punto se basa en el texto de Lucas 16:16. La ley y los profetas son hasta Juan, de hecho en la poesía Hebraica principalmente en los salmos encontramos varios “selah” esto era un tipo de silencio para acentuar realmente lo que se había dicho. También había cierto tipo de silencio en la forma de puntuación hebrea que conocemos como niqud, estos servían como un tipo de signos diacríticos que señalan las vocales en el alfabeto hebreo entre otras cosas. Traigo todo esto a colación para indicar sencillamente que Dios en su infinita sabiduría colocó un silencio en el tiempo (periodo intertestamentario) para dejar acentuado la dispensación que termina y Juan el bautizador es la “introducción” del la nueva era que apenas habría de arrancar. Ignorar ese silencio y actuar como si todo es igual en la antigua ley es verdaderamente un abuso. Al respecto cito textualmente al hermano | Wayne Jackson en su pagina “Christian Courier” quien acertadamente dice lo siguiente:
Aunque este no es el lugar para una exégesis detallada de este pasaje, el texto indica claramente que el ministerio de Juan inició un curso preparatorio de instrucción, en vista del reino que se acercaba. Ese nuevo cuerpo de información contenía muchas verdades que serían aplicables y obligatorias con la inauguración del régimen de Cristo, como tal comenzó el día de Pentecostés.
Si Juan marca el inicio de un cambio de legislación, no veo una razón suficientemente fuerte para descalificar a los 4 relatos como parte del canon del Antiguo Pacto. Me parece incluso un asunto de sentido común al estar del “otro lado” del periodo del silencio, ubicarlo dentro del canon del Nuevo Testamento y no del viejo es la cosa más coherente que uno podría hacer.
La cuestión de Mt.19
Realmente no deseo hacer este artículo uno extenso. Pero aparte de haber mencionado este asunto brevemente en renglones anteriores deseo ser mas especifico aquí. La desestimación de los cuatro como parte del canon del Nuevo Testamento se realiza en la gran mayoría de ocaciones para desestimar lo que Jesús dijo sobre la única causa para disolver el matrimonio y volver al contraer nuevas nupcias. Sin embargo en lo que Jesús dijo la frase “pero yo os digo” dicta el sentido de pertenencia de esta nueva legislación nunca antes vista en el antiguo pacto. De alguna forma los fariseos estan intentando encerrar a Jesús en lo que Moisés había dicho. El Señor le da al clavo al devolver la cuestión al Genesís en el plan original de Dios. De esta manera resulta completamente irrelevante si el libro entero pertenece al Nuevo o al Antiguo, el comentario de Jesús conduce nuestra atención al diseño original planeado en la mente de Dios. Sus palabras no provenían de la ley de Moisés ni mucho menos. Si el intento principal era desestimar a los 4 para escaparse de nueva ley de Cristo sobre matrimonio y divorcio, lamentó decepcionar a muchos pero no fiuncionó.
Indicios de pertenencia.
Todos los indicios que existen apuntan precisamente a que estos 4 relatos deberían de pertenecer al Nuevo Testamento y no al antiguo. Más precisamente podemos observar 4 indicios espero puedan servir como ejemplo:
Indicio N.1 La gran comisión. La gran comisión es una de las cosas que se pueden observar como indicio. En Mt. 28 este gran encargo es dado para esparcir la semilla del reino. En el sentido estricto del concepto, si este libro no fuera parte del canon del Nuevo Testamento entonces la conclusión lógica sería que aquí se está pidiendo esparcir la semilla del judaísmo. Quienes insisten en que los 4 sean excluidos de canon neotestamentario no les agradará encontrarse en esta encrucijada lógica en lo absoluto.
Indicio N.2 La disciplina. Este punto no puede escaparse de nuestro enfoque. Lo que Jesús instruyó en Mt.18 para nada podía ser aplicado bajo la antigua legislación por el simple hecho que el maestro menciona a la Iglesia al final del proceso de la disciplina. Interesantemente la Iglesia no existía, por que este es otro indicio de pertenecía de los 4 al Nuevo Testamento y no al viejo.
Indicio N.3 El reino. Muchas ocaciones se menciona el reino de los cielos. Pasajes como Mt.6:33 y otras instancias como lo son las parábolas la enseñanza sobre el reino está diseminada a través de los 4 relatos. Claramente este concepto no pertenece al antiguo pacto pero es claramente definido por Pablo en lugares como Col.1:13 e incluso Juan en Apo. 1:9 y 10 donde se incluye como parte del reino. Con todo esto es fácil identificar este nuevo concepto como uno legitimo del nuevo pacto. Nuevamente si tuviera que escoger, lo más lógico sería colocar los 4 relatos como parte del canon del Nuevo Testamento y no del antiguo.
Indicio N.4 Bautismo. Dos pasajes son extremadamente reveladores con respecto a la salvación del hombre. El primero de estos pasajes está en Marcos 16:16 donde con una afirmación absoluta el Señor declara cual es el requerimiento para ser salvo a saber; creer y ser bautizado. Este requerimiento solamente había sido insinuado en el antiguo pacto en prácticamente cada libro de los 37 que componen el canon antiguo. El otro pasaje son las palabras del Señor a un principal entre los fariseos que se llamaba Nicodemo, al mostrarle en Juan 3:5 la absoluta necesidad y el imperativo de nacer de nuevo para poder ver el reino de Dios. Juntas estas dos declaraciones del maestro con respecto al requerimiento para ser salvo necesariamente nos llevan a pensar que algo así no fue necesario en el antiguo pacto, pero que efectivamente como ya fue mencionado Juan el bautizador marca el inicio del cambio enfatizando prescisamente la necesidad se ser sumergido en agua para alcanzar perdón. Una vez que la resurrección de Cristo ocurre el bautismo en agua llega a tomar el significa exacto de la obra redentora del salvador y la mejor explicación de este acto imperativo. A todas luces la práctica del bautismo en agua para salvación es una que pertenece al Nuevo Testamento y no veo motivo alguno porqué (de forma arbitraria a la evidencia) alguien pondría a los 4 en el canon del Antiguo testamento.
Diatesarón
El reconocido padre de la iglesia Taciano es quien realiza este magnifico esfuerzo por armonizar los relatos ya que la fuerte critica destructiva “respiraba” en sus hombros, la creación de un solo relato en combinación de los cuatro es vital para resolver este problema. Por cierto esta solución fue mucho más coherente que la que propuso Marción de tomar un solo relato y desechar los otros. El diatesarón(que significa “a través de los cuatro”) ocupó por muchos años una posición remarcable entre la iglesia Siríaca por siglos. Es obvio que el papel que tenía era casi indispensable. La razón por la que este punto capta nuestra atención es precisamente hacer notar que en el siglo II en el uso de las reuniones eclesiales la armonía de los “evangelios” eran usados para la adoración y como si fuera poco ellos lo consideraban como parte de la nueva dispensación o nuevo pacto. Preguntamos: ¿Acaso existía una razón ajena a la que ya hemos presentado? ¿Pensaban ellos que estuvieron tan cerca del siglo I que realmente este material debía de desestimarse? Quizás es solo mi apreciación pero sería un poco arrogante pensar de forma contraria. Aunque no estoy argumentando que lo que los padres de la iglesia hicieron es suficiente autoridad para nosotros seguir su ejemplo, en lo absoluto eso no es la intención real de esta mención. Más bien, es sugerir la idea de que en los primeros 4 siglos al menos, no existió discusión alguna sobre la pertenencia de los cuatro al Nuevo Testamento.
Referencias
Jackson, Wayne. Are the gospels part of the New Testament?. Christian Courier website