Should a Christian be baptized in the name of Jesus?

What is the correct baptismal formula to use? Is it that given in Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19? In Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 Peter says, “In the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 10:48" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48 we read, “In the Name of the Lord.” In Acts 16:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:5 “They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus.”

Does Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19 refer to the millennium?

The commission of Matthew 28:19" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28:19 was given by the Lord to His disciples before leaving them, as their immediate “marching orders,” and there is no hint that it was intended for the millennium, some far- off future dispensation, or that it was superseded by some other commission. Indeed, who had the right to supersede it? It is shallow reasoning to infer that because the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 is not specifically mentioned in the Acts, it was not used.
Then the formula of blessing in Numbers 6:23-27" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 6:23-27 was never used in the history of Israel, since it is not once mentioned! On the contrary, it was doubtless often used, and so with the baptismal formula of Matthew 28." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28. There are two prepositions used in connection with baptism in the Acts—”en” and “eis.” The first means “in”, and with “the Name” it simply explains the authority for baptism. Peter commands them “in the Name of the Lord” to be baptized (Acts 10:48)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 10:48)—order of the Greek. The “eis” occurs twice: i.e., in Acts 8:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:16, with reference to the Samaritans, and in Acts 14:5" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:5 of the John Baptist disciples at Ephesus, in both of which cases special importance attached to the confession of the right name—”into the Name of the Lord Jesus.” But this was in no sense a formula, and we need have no doubt but that the formula of Matthew 28" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 28 “into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Holy Ghost,” was used in every case. What more appropriate for a Christian dispensation, or less so for a future Jewish economy? The “epi” of Acts 2:38" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:38 has to give way to “en,” it is generally agreed. Peter here too refers back to the authority of the Lord for baptizing. And if we are doing something on another person’s authority, should we not carry out that person’s direction to the letter?

It should be noticed that in any case, a person is not saved by being batpized correctly or incorrectly. Baptism is for a believer who has already received Christ as his savior. See the other questions below regarding salvation and baptism.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does Christ Jesus still have marks on his body from the cross?

CHRIST’S GLORIFIED BODY
Does the Lord still bear in His glorified body the marks of the Cross?

Most certainly. In Revelation 5:6" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 5:6 John was granted a vision of the Lord in ascension on the throne of God, and He was seen as a living Lamb, standing, and yet as having been slain, that is, as plainly bearing in His body the sacrificial marks, or in other words, the scars, of Calvary. Besides, how could we admit for a moment that the marks in His resurrection body to which He made appeal again and again to prove His identity, have been removed since? How, moreover, could such appeal be real, unless the marks were something more than temporary and indeed an essential part of His spiritual body? It would be like some one appealing to imitation scars, to prove identity with someone who had received real wounds. We should lose, too, antitypically in a very serious way were we to admit the possibility hinted at in the question. For then how explain the blood on the live bird let loose into the open field in the day of the leper’s cleansing? (Lev 14:7)." TARGET="_blank">Lev 14:7). Or what would there be in the Heavenly temple to correspond to the blood on the earthly mercy seat, if the One on the throne no longer bore the marks of Calvary? When the Lord arose He had the same body that was crucified and slain, but under new conditions, that is, it was now a spiritual body. Again in ascension He had the same body as before, but once more under new conditions, for it was a glorified body, but still bearing as its highest glory the scars of Calvary.
It is indeed the presence of the Lord on the throne, which gives it its character as a throne of grace, and how appropriate then that He should retain His scars of atonement!

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is gift required for all spiritual work?

Is gift required for all spiritual work?

Not every Christian can speak in the assembly, but all can fulfill the responsibility to "exhort (encourage) one another daily" (Hebrews 3:13)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3:13) by writing notes (Philemon 7)" TARGET="_blank">Philemon 7) or speaking personally (Acts 18:26)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 18:26). Gift does not enhance "praying in the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:18). Our placing undue emphasis on capability displaces dependence on the Spirit and undervalues the work of the Spirit in a believer. Business-like efficiency and effectiveness is helpful when coupled with evidence of the Spirit’s working within; when alone, it is unproductive spiritually in contrast to the hesitating labors of a Spirit-filled believer. We must do God’s work in the best possible manner, while remembering that we can accomplish such work only by the Spirit’s energy.

Some spiritual work, however, requires spiritual gift. Not every brother ought to be preaching the gospel or ministering to the saints or leading a Bible reading, nor should anyone whom God exercises for such work fail to find encouragement to do it.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does once-saved-always saved give permission to sin?

Doesn't teaching eternal security give license to sin?

Part of the reason for John's first epistle is to refute the false notion that since believers know God spiritually, they can freely sin physically. John shows that life from God cannot be characterized by sin. "Whoever has been begotten of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him" (1 John 3:9," TARGET="_blank">1 John 3:9, JND). Divine life imparted at salvation precludes a life of sin. Paul asked. "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound" (Romans 6:1)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:1)? He shows that our new standing in Christ (6:1-14), our new service, not to sin but to righteousness (6:15-23), and our new supply of power by the indwelling Spirit (8:1-16) preclude a Christian from living under the power of sin.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should sisters ccover their heads at events outside of the assembly where the Bible is being read?

What about head coverings for social gatherings in the hall or outreach activities?

Where assembly believers meet is not the issue. If the gathering is social, wearing a head covering is discretionary for a woman. If the Word of God is opened at a social function (how becoming!), it remains a Christian social gathering. If a social gathering of the assembly gives way to a teaching session or a missionary report, it has moved into the character of an assembly meeting. To distinguish the social gathering from an assembly meeting, why not move to a different setting? The sisters then wear head coverings, as the Scriptures direct for assembly meetings.

When assembly believers open their home to discuss the Bible with friends or neighbors, this is not an assembly meeting, although these believers are accountable to the elders in what they are doing. These believers are using this setting to gain the confidence of unbelievers and to sow the seed of the Word of God. Hopefully, they will be able to bring those friends and neighbors to assembly gospel meetings.

We cannot limit the personal witness of believers to only unscheduled encounters with individuals. "By all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:22).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the tree in the Garden of Eden a real tree or merely a symbol?

Would it be correct to say that the two trees mentioned in Genesis 2:9," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9, viz, the “Tree of Life,” and the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” are only symbols, and not literal trees? Does the latter tree represent the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to-Adam?

Mere statements of opinion, even when said to be shared by “leading theologians,” carry no weight, unless supported by scriptural proof. Personally, I have never beard of any theologian or indeed anyone else who held such views as stated above, although of course, modern unbelief hates the story of the fall of man, and would fain get rid of it at any cost. But if the tree of knowledge is only a symbol, representing “the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to Adam,” (!) (whatever this exactly means), of what is the tree of life a symbol?

The two trees are mentioned first in Genesis 2:9" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree, that is pleasant to the sight, etc.: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here the same Hebrew word for tree is used throughout, and in each case the tree is said to have been made to grow out of the ground. Surely they are literal trees all through. Again, in verses and 17 the tree of life is not mentioned apart from the trees whose fruit might be eaten; the only exception being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would be very strange if it were intended to convey the injunction that they might eat of all the literal trees (including the symbolic tree of life), but that they must not eat of the symbolic tree of knowledge. It is the same in Genesis 3:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:2, “We may eat,” says Eve, “of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it.” Here we see that the tree of knowledge was like the tree of life, in the most accessible part of the garden, even the midst. How could two abstract symbols be in the midst of the literal garden? Eve clearly understood the tree of knowledge to be a literal tree, and so it is to the end of the chapter— “Hast thou eaten of the tree?” etc. The tree of life certainly was literal too, bearing fruit capable of maintaining the human body in its daily wear and tear—a kind of elixir of life, so much sought after since. I see that Cruden gives an interesting note in his Concordance under “Tree” in this sense: “Tree of life so-called because it was a natural means of preserving man’s life and freeing him from all infirmities, etc., during his abode on earth.” This agrees with the fact that after the fall God deprived his creatures of access to the tree of life, lest their existence should be indefinitely prolonged in a sin-haunted body.

Perhaps the great ages of the early patriarchs resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve had eaten of this life-preserving fruit. What then was the tree of knowledge? We do not know what kind of fruit it bore, except that it was very attractive, but God chose it to be the test tree for their obedience (for every moral creature, angel or man, has had to be tested). Much objection has been raised by unbelief against so much depending on such a simple thing as eating a bit of fruit! But surely the simpler the test, the easier of fulfilment, and the greater the responsibility of failure. If God had chosen to give them only one tree to eat from, and forbidden all the rest, that would have been, of course, perfectly legitimate, but much more difficult for them. Instead God gave man in His love an infinitely easy test, and solemnly warned him of the dreadful consequences of disobedience, but he fell and was alone responsible. How great the contrast of the Second Man! The commandment He received of His Father was to lay down His life. This was a test infinitely difficult of passing, but He came out triumphant: “He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name,” etc. Had Adam passed his easy test, I do not think he would have been put to another, but would for ever have been in blissful harmony with God’s will. I think what we have seen shows that we may safely reject the ideas referred to by our questioner, as unsupported by Scripture, and so contrary to the facts.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Judas present at the institution of the Lord

WAS JUDAS PRESENT

Was Judas present at the institution of the Lord’s Supper?

This is a much debated point, on which godly men have differed, so one would hesitate to dogmatise. Before giving what I believe to be the correct answer, I would say that the anxiety to prove that Judas was not present seems to rest on the false assumption that his presence would sanction to-day the admission of the ungodly to the Lord’s table. I believe this to be an entire mistake. Judas was a professed disciple of the Lord and one of the twelve apostles. He had passed all the tests and was apparently the most trusted of all by his fellow apostles, though the Lord knew from the beginning that he was a devil and would betray Him (John 6:64, 70)." TARGET="_blank">John 6:64, 70). He did not, however, use His omniscience to expose Judas before the time, in fact not till he had irretrievably committed himself. His presence then at the Lord’s table would no more justify the reception of those known to be ungodly, than his being sent forth to preach would sanction the sending forth of the ungodly for this purpose. Matthew 26:25" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25 seems to shew he was present up to the institution, and verse 26 begins, “As they were eating.” That is, the passover was not yet formally over; is it conceivable then that Judas would have left the room thus prematurely, as he must have done, to bar his being present at the institution of “the supper”? However, whether he did or not is not clearly stated in this Gospel, nor yet in Mark 14:22." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:22.

It is true that before that, the Lord had said plainly that the traitor would be found “among them that dipped with Him in the dish”; and He had said to Judas, “Thou has said,” in answer to his query, “Master (not Lord) is it I?” which for very decency’s sake he must have felt bound to make, lest he should draw attention to himself by his silence (Matthew 26:25)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:25). But this was probably only to Judas’ ear, who sat next to Him. This must not be confounded with the Lord’s definite sign to John, in answer to what I believe was his subsequent question, “Lord who is it?” “He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it.” This revealed definitely to John the name of the traitor, and he alone narrates the incident (John 13:26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:26, 27).

When we come to Luke’s Gospel we have a definite statement which must be allowed to have its influence, and I believe, its determinative influence with us. After the Lord has instituted the supper of remembrance, He immediately adds, “But, behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” The force of this definite statement is met at once by some who assert that Luke does not give us things in historic, but in moral order. Certainly there is a measure of truth in this, though it can not mean that the historic order in some detailed account by Luke is never to be followed, but only has weight when Luke gives us an order of events (as he does, e.g., in the last journey to Jerusalem) which seems to clash with the other Gospels. But what moral order is concerned in such a statement as that of our Lord? (Luke 22:21)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 22:21). It would seem to be going out of the way to introduce confusion, rather than moral order, unless we are to take it literally. If Matthew and Mark had clearly stated that Judas had left before the supper was instituted, then such an argument might have force, and Luke’s testimony be discounted. John 13" TARGET="_blank">John 13 does not seem really to help us, as there is no hint that Judas went out before the first “breaking of the bread,” for nothing is said of it. He did go out when the Lord had given him the sop and that was, I believe, after he had par- taken to his own condemnation of the bread and the wine, symbols of that very body and blood, of which by his betrayal he became guilty.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Material on noah ark for children church

Material on Noah's Ark for children church

The following lesson activities will help a Sunday school teacher plan a lesson using Noah's ark for a Children's church activity.

3D model of Noah's Ark - Scale model 130:1 includes artwork of Noah, his wife and the animals.

Worksheet and Lesson Plan - Guided discussion on Noah's Ark and the flood.

Go to the main Sunday school page for puzzles, lesson plans and other activities for Sunday school teachers.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How does a deacon differ from an elder?

How does a deacon differ from an elder?

Paul addressed both bishops (elders) and deacons in the Philippian epistle (1:1). In his writing to these believers, he is concerned that the assembly is endangered and needs to be saved from the spiritual condition of "murmurings and disputings" (2:12-14). By addressing the bishops and deacons, he seems to imply that together they carry a responsibility for the assembly’s spiritual condition. The elders are responsible to care for the condition of the sheep, while the deacons were to communicate healthy food for the spiritual strengthening of the believers.

Although someone observing our usual practice might not think we believe this, but not all elders are deacons and not all deacons are elders. Elders are responsible to the Lord for the guidance of the assembly (Hebrews 13:17)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17) and for the state of the flock (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). They guide the assembly to recognize the capabilities of certain individuals and they entrust spiritual responsibility to them. Those to whom they entrust such responsibilities are deacons, serving the Lord and the assembly and they are accountable to those elders.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the title "the Son of Man" a messianic title?

Is the title "the Son of Man" a messianic title?

At least a dozen times in the Old Testament the expression "son of man" designates an ordinary mortal human. The two potentially messianic passages (Psa 80:17; Dan 7:13)" TARGET="_blank">Dan 7:13) use the same form of expression. If we had only the Old Testament, we might wonder if "the Son of Man" designates the Messiah or merely describes a man.

The records of the Lord’s trial before the high priest, however, are conclusive. Matthew (26: 63-65) and Mark (14:61-63) record the high priest’s question, "Art Thou the Christ, the Son of God (Mk: "the Blessed")?" The Lord’s answer was, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." This is an incontrovertible reference to Daniel’s prophecy (7:13). The Lord used the title "the Son of Man" interchangeably with "the Christ" and "the Son of God," therefore it is a messianic title.

Luke’s account (22:67-71) adds another detail, confirming that the Jews understood this to be a messianic title. After the Lord claimed to be the Son of Man, all who were with the high priest asked practically the same question as the high priest, "Art Thou then the Son of God?" They understood that His use of the title was a messianic claim.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu