Was Jesus Second Miracle Really His Second?

In John 2, John says turning water into wine was Jesus 1st miracle. In John 3, Nicodemus says he knew that Jesus had done signs. In John 4, John says Jesus did his second miracle. The question is, was it really only his 2nd miracle?

I appreciate this question. It shows that someone is thinking about the Bible and what it says. The Bible is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). This means that everything in it is true because it is impossible for God to lie (Heb.6:18; Titus 1:2). As a result of having a book of complete truth, it is impossible for one part of that book to contradict another part of that book. If one part of the Bible contradicts another part of the Bible, then the Bible contains a lie and it cannot be the product of God. It really is as simple as that. So the Bible must contain absolutely no contradictions within its pages in order to be God’s word.

Now, in order for one statement to contradict another statement, certain conditions must be true of both statements. First, those statements must be talking about the same thing. That is, the definition of the words of both statements must be in reference to the same things. For example, if someone from South America were to say to me, “Football is a sport that uses a round ball,” I might disagree and say that football is a sport that uses an elongated ball. In my mind there is a contradiction because I may not understand that he is discussing what we call the game of soccer, but what in South America is called the game of football. Our definitions of the word “football” were different and so we thought we had a contradiction when we really did not. Second, the events under discussion must have occurred within the same time frame. If I were to say to Rusty that I had a chicken fried steak for lunch and he said to me, “How is that possible since we had lunch together and we ate Bubba’s BBQ?” We might think that we had a contradiction. But when I explain that I was talking about lunch a couple of weeks ago and he was talking about lunch last week, then we both realize there is no contradiction, just cholesterol laden arteries. Third, the events under discussion must have occurred within the same place. If I am on the phone with my mother and I step outside and say, “Well, would you look at that rain,” my mother might say, “There’s not a cloud in the sky.” We could both be correct because we may be in different places. In order for someone to contradict whether it is raining or not, you have to be talking about the same place. Finally, in order to show that something is NOT a contradiction, one need not have to prove so. The person who is pointing out the contradiction has the burden of proof upon them. In order to show that there is not a contradiction, one must merely show the possibility that the alleged contradiction can be understood in a non-contradictory way. So, having these things in mind, let’s see whether or not we have a contradiction with John’s statement in John 4.

The context is in regard to a nobleman’s son sick at Capernaum. The nobleman walks about twenty miles to Cana of Galilee in order to seek help from Jesus. When he arrives and inquires of Jesus concerning his son, Jesus tells him that his son lives. So the nobleman returns to Capernaum and on the road a servant meets him to tell him that his son lived. When he inquired at what time he became well, the servant indicates that it was about the same time of the day that Jesus told him that his son was going to live. All of this is found in John 4:43-54. In verse 54, John writes, “This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judaea into Galilee.” Our question is along these lines, “How can John say that this was the second miracle Jesus did when he had done more than two since the changing of the water into wine where John clearly says, that was Jesus’ first miracle?”

First, John 2:11 states the following, “This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him.” While it is true that this was Jesus’ first miracle, it is a mistake to assume that John was keeping a specific count of all of the miracles that Jesus did. John was not saying, “This is number one, that is number two, this is number three, etc.” Rather, he was marking the specific time and occasion when Jesus started performing the signs. Remember, John says that there were many other signs that Jesus did that he does not record (John 20:30). So to compare this miracle to the first as if John was keeping a running total is a mistake to begin with.

However, John does mention in John 4 that this was Jesus “second” sign. What do we make of this? Well, he says that it was his second sign “when he was come up out of Judea into Galilee.” First, understanding that John is not necessarily comparing this sign with the first sign, he could be saying that since Jesus decided to come up out of Judea into Galilee, this is his second sign, that is, on that journey–in that specific amount of time. This is a possibility and it at gives us a reason to say that this is not a contradiction. Second, notice that at the beginning of this narrative in John 4:46 we read, “So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.” He was in the same place that he was in when he turned the water to wine. John may be saying that this is the second sign that he had performed in this specific place. I think this is the more likely meaning. Again, there is no implication here that this was only the second sign that Jesus did in his entire ministry. So, there is no contradiction involved. This is a good question, though, and I am glad that it was asked. Peter says that we should always be ready to give answer to EVERY man who would ask of us the reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15).

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Was Jesus Second Miracle Really His Second?

Why Does God Refer to Jerusalem as His Daughter?

Why does God refer to Jerusalem as his daughter?

The first reference to Jerusalem as a daughter occurs in the Psalms. Psalm 9:13, 14 says, “Have mercy upon me, O LORD; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death: That I may shew forth all thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion: I will rejoice in thy salvation.” The phrase, “daughter of Zion” is a poetic phrase used to symbolize the relationship between God and his people. The phrase is used at least fifty times in the Old Testament to refer to God’s people. However, the word “daughter” is sometimes used to describe other nations as well as in “daughter of Egypt” or “daughter of Babylon.” Usually in these cases it is simply referring to the nation itself. Sometimes the context in which the phrase is used refers to God’s people in a favorable way and sometimes in an unfavorable way. The emphasis, however, is not upon the people themselves, but the relationship that they have with God–one of a Father and daughter. The phrase is mostly found in the prophets. Out of all of the prophets, Jeremiah uses it the most. The poetical context of the book of Lamentations is replete with the phrase.

We get more information about this metaphorical relationship between God and his people in Ezekiel 16. Here, God describes his people as a female child that had been tossed out in an effort of abortion. Abandoned, rejected, naked, cold, and still bloody, God rescued this child from a likely death. Ezekiel then describes God as raising the child, clothing the child, and even providing a permanent household for the child. On top of this, God gave this child clothing and raiment and jewelry and held nothing back for her profit. The result was that this young child grew into a beautiful woman. However, the response of the woman once she was grown was to trust in her own beauty and play the harlot, rejecting the one who had rescued her and blessed her with so many great and wonderful things.

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to the people of Jerusalem as God’s daughter in Matthew 21:5. This is from a prophecy in Zecheriah 9:9. The prophecy is related to the triumphal entry of the Messiah into the city of Jerusalem and in this context the phrase refers to the people of Jerusalem. Today, the daughter of God is the church. She is the bride of Christ (Eph.5:21ff). She will be presented to Jesus in heaven without spot and blameless (Revelation 21:2, 9).

There is another point that I would like to make in regard to this particular metaphor. God speaks to us in terms that we can understand. We can understand the metaphor of the relationship between a father and daughter and so we learn a little more about God and who He is by understanding that relationship. The Bible uses this type of language frequently. We refer to it as accommodative language–language that uses terms and illustrations that we can understand so that God can teach us lessons. This is one of the reasons why Jesus spoke in parables. He used terms that we can understand. God makes every effort on his part to try to communicate with us in ways that we can understand.

There are some today who say you can’t understand the Bible. That it is too difficult and too hard. These metaphors and illustrations stand as a testimony against those who say such. God wants us to understand His word and speaks to us in ways that we CAN understand His word. The problem is usually on our part–that we simply do not want to hear. In a beautiful illustration of this very point, Moses says to the children of Israel, “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (Deut.30:11-14). What will your response be to God’s word today?

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Why Does God Refer to Jerusalem as His Daughter?

Is the Church of Christ the only ones going to Heaven?

I have a very tough question. I have been a member of the Lord’s Church for a few years, and once people find out, the first question they ask is “Why does the church of Christ think they are the only ones going to heaven and not the denominational churches?” I think they ask this because they do not understand the Bible. Could you help me with this because a lot of my friends ask me this. I need some scriptural versus on this matter.

You are correct that it is a misunderstanding of the scriptures. It is also a misunderstanding of what the name “church of Christ” means. To a denominational person, the name “church of Christ” is no different than “Baptist,” “Methodist,” or “Presbyterian.” You may have heard people say, “I am church of Christ” as opposed to saying, “I am a Christian.” Such speech simply perpetuates the misunderstanding. The name “church of Christ” is not a denomination, it is an effort on the part of Christians to honor and glorify the Savior. The early churches were mostly referred to as the church of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:13; 1 Timothy 3:5). This was not a “name,” but a description to whom they belonged. The early churches were also called churches of Christ (Romans 16:16 KJV). Jesus said that the church belonged to Him (Matthew 16:18) so it is the church that belongs to Christ–the church that is Christ’s–the church of Christ. The name is not a label to be stuck on the outside of a product. Rather, it is descriptive of the group of people who meet to worship at that particular location. This is a difficult concept to get denominational people to understand because they are so stuck on labels. In fact, this is exactly what Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing in 1 Corinthians 1:10–labeling themselves and using the label as a reason for division. Even those who labeled themselves “Christ” were wrong because they were using the name “Christ” as a label and not as a description of who they were. The only name that we as individuals should be worried about carrying is the name “Christian.” A person cannot be a true Christian and be a “Baptist-Christian” or a “Methodist-Christian” or a “Presbyterian-Christian.” Either one is a Christian or one is not. The concept of a “flavored” Christian is not found in the Bible and is, in fact, forbidden by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10. Now, if you can get them to understand this, then you can get them to understand the next part, but if they do not understand this, then they will never understand the next part.

The Bible teaches that there is only ONE church–the church that belongs to Jesus (Matthew 16:16-18) and that there is only ONE body (Ephesians 4:4). The Bible also teaches that the body is the church (Eph.1:22,23). That means there is just ONE church. In addition, we read in Ephesians 5:23 that Jesus is the Savior of the body. He is not the Savior of anything else but the body. So he is the Savior of the church and only the church. Now, applying the principles that we learn from above, we can understand that Jesus is the Savior of the church–His church–the church that belongs to Him–the church of Christ. He is not going to save anyone who is not a member of His church as only the saved are added to His church (Acts 2:47 KJV). So to state it plainly, the saved are members of the church and the church is made up of saved people. No one outside the church is going to be saved.

At this point the denominationalist will probably say, but you are talking about the universal church, not the local church and we all know that the universal church is made up of all of the denominations. This is completely false. In the scriptures we only read of two different descriptions of the church. There is the universal church and there is the local church. A denomination doesn’t fit either of those categories. A denomination is bigger than the local church, but smaller than the universal church. Moreover, even if the organization was correct, a congregation would have to practice all of the things that are enjoined upon churches in the New Testament to practice. Many denominations just are not doing this today. To be the New Testament church, a church must have an authorized description (church of Christ, church of God, etc.), an authorized worship, an authorized plan of salvation, an authorized organization, and an authorized mission. A person has no authority from God to just go somewhere and set up a congregation of people to do whatever they want to do and call that the church. The church must conform to God’s pattern for the church and that is what makes the church the church of Christ! When we do things the way God has told us to do things, then by His grace, we will be saved. If we fail to do things the way God told us to do things, then we have no promise of salvation.

The accusation, “the members of the ‘Church of Christ’ think they are the only ones going to heaven” is a straw man argument. It assumes that the churches of Christ are denominations just like everyone else. It assumes that it doesn’t matter how the church is organized. It assumes that all denominations are members of the one universal church. To speak to someone about this issue you must first point out the falasies of these assumptions.

So, to answer this question or statement, I would tell the person who made the statement that this is a misrepresentation of what we believe and if you would like to find out what we do actually believe, then we can have a Bible study to discuss it. You might also point out to them that they believe that Christians are the only ones going to heaven and they don’t seem to have a problem with that. Then you could get into a discussion how does a person become a Christian. If they don’t believe that only Christians are going to heaven, then you will need to have a discussion with them regarding the resurrection of Christ and the authority that Christ has in our relationship with God (John 14:6, etc.)

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Is the Church of Christ the only ones going to Heaven?

Super Bowl Sunday is Every Sunday

Today is the day that has come to be known as America’s unofficial holiday. Yes, that’s right, it is Super Bowl Sunday. Of course, the Super Bowl is the penultimate sports experience for most people who live in the United States. People start planning weeks in advance for their parties and get-togethers at which they eat, it is reported, more snacks than any other day of the year. It is said that more Americans watch the Super Bowl than any other program on television. In fact, over 150 million are expected to watch (that’s over half the population of the U.S.) and during that time advertisers will pay $2.4 million dollars per half minute to promote their product. The revenues alone for the entire event would be enough to fund the startup of a small country. It is an event that truly vies for the national attention.

In contrast, there are those places to which people frequent on Sundays called, in the vernacular, “churches.” While there are many Americans who claim to be Christians, not nearly as many show the kind of devotion and zeal that is seen in preparation for the Super Bowl. Oh, there are some who prepare, preachers, teachers, students of the word, but most simply decide at the last minute whether they will show up or not. While Super Bowl Sunday boasts a record number of snacks consumed, many “churches” throughout the land won’t even observe the one holy meal of which the Lord’s church partakes every Sunday (Acts 20:7). And it is quite doubtful that anyone will pay $2.4 million dollars per half minute in order to hear the greatest message ever known. These events hardly merit the attention of the local media, much less the national attention.

Yet for all of the hype surrounding Super Bowl Sunday and its events and all of the apathy toward the other fifty-one Sundays of the year and their events, just one ordinary Sunday is still more super than Super Bowl Sunday, provided that Sunday is spent in the pursuits of the Lord. For Sunday is the day that the saints of God gather in fellowship one with another to recount the apostles doctrine, break bread, and pray (Acts 2:42). It is the day that those devoted to God may return to Him that portion of blessings which is His due (1 Corinthians 16:1, 2). It is the day that a remembrance is made of God’s only begotten Son in the memorial feast that commemorates His body and blood (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Because it was on this day, Sunday, that Jesus rose triumphantly from the grave proclaiming the defeat of Satan and victory over death, that we assemble to honor, praise, and worship He whose plan redeemed mankind from inevitable and eternal defeat.

On Super Bowl Sunday, there will be winners and there will be losers. There will be those who are victorious and those who fall, ignominiously, to ruin. Some will indeed be heroes this Sunday and some will be goats. I’m not necessarily speaking of the gridiron, but of the grand field upon which the souls of men and women are gained and lost. Whose team are you rooting for this Sunday? Indeed, for whose team will you be playing eternally? There are only two sides in this contest and the odds of winning are heavily favored for one side against the other. The choice as to whether we will be winners or losers, victorious or defeated, is ours. Let us choose sides prayerfully and devote ourselves to that team whose victory is assured.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Super Bowl Sunday is Every Sunday

When Money Trumps Morality

The past couple of weeks there has been a news story making its way through the media regarding an unemployed German woman. The woman evidently lost her job and went on government unemployment. In the course of her unemployment, job office contacted her and said something was available; it wasn’t the kind of job she was expecting. In fact, she was told by the unemployment office that if she didn’t accept this job that her unemployment benefits would be terminated.

“Standard policy” you may think? Well, it’s not every day that an unemployment office tells you to become a prostitute or lose your benefits. That’s right, the job that had become available was with a German brothel and the government expected this woman to prostitute herself or lose her unemployment benefits. After all, a job is a job, right?
What happened here?

You may be wondering, how did something like this happen? Well, two years ago, the German government declared prostitution legal. In so doing, they required brothels to provide health insurance and pay taxes. In return, the brothels gain access to the government’s roles of the unemployed. When some questioned the morality of the matter, one lawyer stated that since prostitution has been legalized it is no longer immoral.

The fact of the matter is that in this situation money has been allowed to define morality. What was the rationalization for legalizing prostitution? Likely it was to reduce state health care costs and to levy taxes�money. And what was the result of said legalization? Prostitution is no longer considered immoral by the government. So now, the people come under the tyranny of the government’s definition of morality.

Where do we begin?

There are several things wrong with this. First, Germany has already once tried to redefine morality in order to accommodate their government. Does anyone remember Hitler and a little thing called genocide? The defense of those who followed his rule was that they were only doing what they were ordered to do and that after all, morality is subjective to the culture in which we live; each country defines morality in their own way. That was the defense, of course, until the prosecuting attorney’s at the Nuremburg trials argued that morality was beyond the provincial and the transient and that it didn’t matter what the laws of the country were in which you lived, some things were wrong for everyone simply because they were wrong. Has Germany learned that lesson or not? Evidently not. The Bible teaches that God is always the standard for what is right and wrong; for what is moral and immoral (Proverbs 3:5, 6, Jeremiah 10:23, 24).

Second, legalization of something that is immoral doesn’t make it moral. We have been arguing this point for years in the United States in reference to the question of abortion. Just because it is legal to get an abortion doesn’t mean that it is moral. Smoking may be legal, but that doesn’t mean that it is moral. Drinking may be legal, but that doesn’t mean it is moral. Cursing may be legal, but that doesn’t mean that it is moral. Public nudity may be legal (it is in some places) but that doesn’t mean that it is moral. Whether something is legal or not has absolutely no bearing upon the question of its morality. The Bible says that the purpose of government is to uphold that which is good and punish that which is wrong (1 Peter 2:14). This means that the government must first know what is and what isn’t moral and then act accordingly.

Third, don’t individuals have a fundamental right to personal morals? That is, one job is not just as good as another if a person has a moral objection to such a job. Shouldn’t governments be obligated to respect an individual’s moral beliefs instead of penalize them? Evidently, the German government doesn’t believe in personal morals. The Bible teaches that even in the face of overwhelming adversity, we are not to follow a multitude to do evil (Exodus 23:2). Governments ought not to require individuals to so do.

Finally, money ought never to be used as a justification to do that which is immoral. We have placed too much value upon money today when it comes to matters of morality. We’ve recently seen multiple business leaders face criminal trials due to their unethical handling of financial matters in their companies. The message that is portrayed is that if you can avoid getting caught it is worthwhile to make money unethically and immorally. Business leaders often pressure their subordinates to do things that are questionably ethical upon penalty of losing their jobs. Truth is no longer the driving force for that which is moral, but money. The Bible teaches that money, far from being the valuable thing that most consider it to be, is not to be loved (Hebrews 13:3) and that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10).

Benjamin Franklin is known to have said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Indeed, it is not freedom that defines virtue, but virtue that defines freedom. It takes a virtuous people to understand that money doesn’t trump morality. But when governments and institutions make laws and rules that vacate morality for the case of money, the people suffer. And when the people suffer, liberty is lost. The only true freedom comes through knowing, loving, and living the truth (John 8:32).

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on When Money Trumps Morality