How are the written and the Incarnate Word related?

How are the written and the Incarnate Word related?

John’s gospel begins with e Word," who "became flesh" (John 1:1, 14)." TARGET="_blank">John 1:1, 14). John concludes his treatise with the Lord’s blessing on those who believe His words, rather than, like Thomas, depending on sight (John 20:29)." TARGET="_blank">John 20:29). Faith in the written Word is the purpose (20:31) and theme of John’s gospel. The miracles developed the disciples’ faith (John 2:11;" TARGET="_blank">John 2:11; John 20:30);" TARGET="_blank">John 20:30); all were through His word. The Lord taught His own that His words afforded them the same sufficiency as His person.

In 18:9, John notes the fulfilling of the Lord’s sayings with the same expression He uses regarding the fulfilling of Scripture (John 12:38; 15:25)." TARGET="_blank">John 12:38; 15:25). The incarnate Word and the written Word are equally authoritative; their sayings both must be fulfilled.

Only John tells us the Lord is "the true Bread"(6:32), the Bread of which manna was typical. Manna, then, typifies the Incarnate and the written Word (Deuteronomy 8:3)." TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 8:3). The written Word is as life-sustaining, sufficient, and authoritative to us as the Incarnate Word was to the disciples.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is capital punishment right when God says "thou shalt not kill"?

Does God's Word support capital punishment?

Yes. God's decree to Noah in Genesis 9:6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:6 has never been rescinded, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." In Romans 13:4" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:4 we read about civil leaders, '...for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The reference to "the sword" would indicate that civil rulers have the God-given right - and responsibility – to execute capital punishment when it is necessary to do so justly. However, the Word of God does protect the innocent by teaching that there should be clear proof of guilt before anyone is put to death. We read in Deuteronomy 17:6," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 17:6, "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death."

W. Gustafson

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is respectable Christian behavior a prerequisite for baptism?

Is becoming Christian behavior a prerequisite for baptism?

Four cases come to mind. If a believer expects himself to be perfect before being baptized, he will wait for the Rapture. At that point, it will be too late to obey the Scriptures. Willingness to unreservedly obey the God’s Word is a sufficient condition for baptism (Acts 2:41)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:41). If a believer carelessly persists in self-will, he is not giving evidence that he is a Christian. For that person, baptism is inappropriate. If, in the third case, a person is obviously unaware of New Testament teaching regarding some aspects of Christian behavior, then patience, support, and counsel are appropriate, but not baptism. If he gladly receives further teaching, baptize him. Fourth, if a person still struggles with an addiction, such as smoking, baptizing him seems inconsistent. Baptism declares that the believer has died with Christ and been raised with Him to walk in "newness of life" (Romans 6:4)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:4). This newness of life is not merely a life that has changed, but a life energized by a different kind of power; it is resurrection life. To suffer under the power of a visible, addictive sin denies the power professed in baptism. Apart from daily salvation from the power of sin, any believer could founder. However, to baptize a person who is smoking, for instance, publically states that smoking is acceptable Christian behavior. Some think being baptized will help break their habit. That’s seldom the case. Breaking the nicotine habit is admittedly difficult for some, especially when they have suffered other "more serious" addiction. Perhaps the real difficulty is in confronting the fact that this "lesser" addiction is as unacceptable and sinful as the "more serious" addiction is.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

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

How can I overcome being nervous about talking about the Bible?

How can I overcome being nervous about witnessing?

Unfortunately, many face nervousness when seeking to witness for the Lord. Feelings of inadequacy, a lack of Bible knowledge, and the fear of man can hinder some from sharing the gospel in a calm and collected manner.

Keeping three things in mind helps overcome this difficulty: 1. All without Christ are lost and in danger of perishing eternally; therefore view people with compassion as did the Lord, seeing them as sheep having no shepherd (Matthew 9:36); 2." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 9:36); 2. Interest individuals in God's Word and make the Bible the basis of your beliefs and discussion (1 Peter 3:15); 3." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:15); 3. Rely on the Holy Spirit to work through you as you share the greatest message in the world (Acts 1:8)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:8).

The Scriptures illustrate many interesting ways to initiate conversations about spiritual things. The Lord spoke about the new birth after Nicodemus opened the door by mentioning miracles (John 3)." TARGET="_blank">John 3). In the next chapter with the woman at the well, the Lord used the subject of water to lead into a conversation about true satisfaction.

Be constantly alert for openings to speak for Christ and do it in His strength (Philippians 4:13)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 4:13).

B. Funston

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do differences in the manuscripts mean that our Bible is not totally reliable?

Do differences in the manuscripts mean that our Bible is not totally reliable?

The Lord in His wisdom did not preserve to us the original autographs of the Scriptures. Our translations have come from manuscripts formed from documents which may be many copies removed from the originals. These documents have been found in many places and in varying conditions. Finding them, evaluating their authenticity, and assessing their accuracy is a complex science. There are some variations in the manuscripts. W.E. Vine quotes men considered experts in the text saying that the variations are "formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities." Further, these men tell us "the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text." Mr. Vine concludes, as do others, "There is no doctrine in Scripture which would be affected if all the various readings were allowed or if all the disputed words, or those about which there is any doubt, were omitted." (W. E. Vine, "The Divine Inspiration of the Bible, Ritchies’ Christian Book Service, pp. 27, 28.)

Our Lord asserts the exact inspiration of the original words (Matthew 22:29-32;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:29-32; John 10:35)." TARGET="_blank">John 10:35). Their precise truth has been divinely preserved (Psalm 119:89; 117:2;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 119:89; 117:2; 1 Peter 1:25)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:25). We build safely on the reliability of God’s immutable Word (Matthew 7:24-25)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:24-25).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can I balance my family responsibilities with discipleship?

How can discipleship (Luke 14:26)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26) be reconciled with family responsibilities?

The God-breathed teachings of a perfectly wise God cannot be contradictory (2 Timothy 3:16;" TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 3:16; Psalm 12:6;" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5;" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 30:5; Jude 25)." TARGET="_blank">Jude 25). God never gives conflicting responsibilities.

The Lord’s disciples can have no higher claim than His. The natural claims of possessions, family, and even life itself (Luke 14:26; 18:29)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:26; 18:29) cannot rival total obedience to Him. Placing limits on our obedience to Christ disqualifies us from discipleship.

The Lord Himself attended to family responsibilities. If, during the Lord’s public ministry, Joseph’s absence indicates that he had died, this explains the Lord’s leadership in moving his family home to Capernaum (Matthew 4:13;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 4:13; Mark 6:3)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 6:3). The first 9 chapters of Mark find the Lord Jesus returning to His home during His journeys of service. Even in His passion, the Lord fulfilled His responsibility to His mother (John 19: 26, 27)." TARGET="_blank">John 19: 26, 27). As the Lord entered into Abraham’s concerns for his family (Genesis 17:18, 20)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 17:18, 20), so, in the days of His flesh, He shared Peter’s family concerns (Mark 1:29-31)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 1:29-31).

Those who follow the Lord are responsible both for full commitment to the service He chooses for them and also for full commitment to family responsibilities. This may mean finding creative ways to keep in contact with each in the family, spend times together, and share in the joys of serving the Master. It likely requires a heightened sensitivity to the difference between divinely entrusted service and self-assumed service.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a difference between the

Is there a difference between the “Principalities” and “Powers” mentioned in Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16;" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:16; 2:10 and 2:15?

Some of the statements made concerning them suggest that they are good, others that they are evil.

The words “principalities” and “powers,” when used together, define the status of certain who hold high place of rule, whether among men, or among angelic beings. In the former connection they are found in Titus 3." TARGET="_blank">Titus 3. i, where we are exhorted to be subject to them; while of the latter the clearest example is perhaps Ephesians 6:12, in which they are definitely set in contrast with “flesh and blood.” In some passages, as Romans 8:38," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 1: 16," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1: 16, they occur in a statement of such a character that it might perhaps be thought of as inclusive of both.
With regard to those principalities and powers which are angelic, there certainly does seem to be a difference on the lines indicated in the question above. Against those mentioned in Ephesians 6:12" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:12 we have to fight, and verse I shows that their leader is the Devil. But on the other hand, the principalities and powers of Ephesians 3:10," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:10, who are even now learning lessons through the Church of the manifold wisdom of God, can scarcely be thought of as other than good, especially when comparison is made with the similar statement of 1 Peter 1:12," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:12, “Which things angels desire to look into.” It must not be thought however that their being described as “in heavenly places” is sufficient proof of their goodness, since this is the very same term which is rendered “high places” in connection with those of chapter 6. z (see R.V.).
According to Col 1:16," TARGET="_blank">Col 1:16, all principalities and powers were created by Christ, and this of course implies that they were all good originally. But we read in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 (R.V.) of “Angels which kept not their own principality,” an expression which will at once suggest a reason why there should now be found both good and evil amongst them. Then in Revelation 12:7-9" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12:7-9 we read of a conflict between good angels under the leadership of Michael and evil angels led by the Devil, in which the latter and his host will be defeated, and cast down to the earth from the heavenly position until then occupied by him.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is wavering faith the reason for unanswered prayer (James 1:7)?

Is wavering faith the reason for unanswered prayer (James 1:7)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:7)?

No. On occasion, God allows us to have what we request. The result is not initially the best for us (Psalm 106:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 106:15). He allows this so we will appreciate the security of His will. What He allows in our life is always only for our good -eventually, it is the best for us. The motive of such prayer was self-will, not faith. Nevertheless, God granted the prayer.

In James 1:6," TARGET="_blank">James 1:6, 7 the tried believer asks for wisdom. Verse three makes it clear that faith is being tried. In verse five, faith is being expressed and strengthened. The enemy of faith is double mindedness, a mind for the values of this world and a mind for the values of the world to come. That's the basic conflict James highlights throughout his book. When the thinking of the world motivates a believer's prayer, he cannot "ask in faith." Faith sees another and eternal world; it asks in keeping with that realm. In response to that prayer, our God gives liberally.

What hinders prayer is a mind that tries to accommodate itself to two worlds: the temporal and the eternal. Faith is not working consistently and the result is receiving nothing from God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Was there more than one Tabernacle made by Moses?

What Tabernacle is referred to in Exodus 33:7-11" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7-11?

According to the sequence of the chapters, the Tabernacle was not yet built. Some have inferred from Deuteronomy 10:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10:1-5 that Moses made the Ark during this interval, between his destruction of the first tables and the bringing down of the second, as a receptacle for the second tables which could not be entrusted to Israel. What do you say to this?

Certainly Deuteronomy 10:1-5" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10:1-5 would bear the above interpretation, “and I made an ark of shittim wood. . . and I put them (the tables of the Lord) in the Ark which I had made.” Yet we must remember that in Deuteronomy, Moses is admittedly only giving a summary of things, so that events spread over a period, are compressed, as occurring almost synchronously. For dates and details we must consult Exodus and Numbers. In Exodus 25:10" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:10 the directions as to making the Ark are given to Moses, during his first sojourn on the Mount, but were only communicated to the children of Israel in Exodus 35:12," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 35:12, after his second sojourn there. Only in Exodus 37:1" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 37:1 does Bezaleel actually make the Ark of shittim wood, in which the tables were eventually placed. We cannot admit that there were two Arks; for it is evident in Deuteronomy 10" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 10 that the tables were to be permanently in the Ark which Moses is said to have made for them—”and there they be as the Lord commanded me.” This was actually done in Exodus 40:20" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 40:20 “And he took and put the testimony into the ark.” There is nothing really contradictory to this in the passages quoted. As for the tabernacle mentioned in Exodus 33:7-11," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7-11, it could only have been a temporary tent of meeting called “The tabernacle of the congregation” (Exodus 33:7)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 33:7), to which anyone went, who sought the Lord.” After the sin of the golden calf, God would not go up in the midst of the people, so this tent was pitched without the camp. When the actual Tabernacle was constructed and erected, Jehovah once more took His place in the midst of His people (Exodus 25:8;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 29:45; Numbers 2:2)," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 2:2), no doubt, on the ground of sacrifice. The other temporary tent would naturally fall into disuse.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu