September 12, 2018

An Overview of the Lord's Supper by Trevor Bowen

http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/Lords_supper.html

An Overview of the Lord's Supper

INTRODUCTION

"What is the Lord's Supper?" "How is the supper observed?" "What is its purpose?" "What is its significance?" "How often should we partake of this supper?" "What does one partake?" These and many more questions could and should be asked about the Lord's Supper. If one approaches this topic with a humble heart seeking God's will, then these questions will be answered quickly and easily. However, if we seek to justify our personal opinions or group traditions, then we may have to wrestle longer with the Scripture as we seek to undo our prejudice and simply follow God's will in God's way.

"WHAT IS THE LORD'S SUPPER?"

For those who are considering this topic for the first time, then this question may seem to be a reasonable place to start. For those who have lost track of the number of times they have studied this topic, this may also be an appropriate place to start. After repeated exposure to the details, we can lose sight of the primary purpose for the observance of the Lord's Supper. Therefore, for the sake of all humble truthseekers, regardless of past knowledge, let us consider the answer to this question based upon the Bible.
The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ during his last week before his crucifixion (Matthew 26:17-30). This week fell during the time of the Jewish holidays, the Passover feast and the week of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26:17). The Lord's Supper does share some features common to the Jewish Passover, which also focused around a meal. In each case, the elements of the meal symbolized specific events, ideas, or objects that were of great significance. The meal provided a time for a group's common reflection and the significance of the objects behind the emblems (Compare Exodus 12:1-13:10 with Matthew 26:26-29).
Beside the gospel accounts of Christ's institution of the Lord's Supper (Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-20), we have one other passage that provides detailed information, I Corinthians 11:17-34. This additional passage is a rebuke from the apostle Paul to the Corinthian church, which was abusing this memorial supper. Besides these passages, we have only traces and references of detail. With these passages and a few others at our disposal, we look to the Bible to see what is God's will for our observance of the Lord's Supper by answering our questions from the introduction.

"HOW DO WE OBSERVE THE LORD'S SUPPER?"

Desiring to observe this memorial supper in a manner that is authorized by God, we turn to the Scripture to see what Jesus commanded when He instituted the supper, and we look to Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians abuse. Therefore, we ask the question, "What did Jesus do when He instituted the Lord's Supper?"
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." Matthew 26:26-29
Jesus took the unleavened bread, gave thanks for it, broke it, and divided it among His disciples, which they ate. They also took fruit of the vine, or grape juice, divided it and drank it. In brief, this is the Lord's Supper and how we observe it, yet the Lord's Supper is more than a common meal among Christians. It offers two symbols, illustrating spiritual principles that are key for the Christian to remember and consider at every observance.

"WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER?"

Having established how the Lord's Supper is observed, we now turn our attention to discerning why we are to observe it. What is the significance of each emblem? What is its purpose?
From the passage we observed earlier (Matthew 26:26-29), we learn that the bread represents Christ's body, and the fruit of the vine represents His blood, which Jesus said was His "blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins". What is the significance of these symbols? We have learned what they symbolize, but what is the significance of Christ's body and blood? The answer lies within understanding the nature of sin, justice, mercy, and sacrifice, but first let us examine the reasoning behind the similar Old TestamentPassover, which served as a shadow, or illustration of things to come.

The Old Testament Passover Feast:

God told Moses on the night of the institution of the Passover feast the Israelites were to choose a firstborn lamb without spot or blemish. They were to kill the lamb, roast it, and eat it. Additionally, they were to dip hyssop into its blood, and strike the doorposts of the house in which they were staying. That night God's avenger killed the firstborn of each house that did not have blood on the doorposts. Many lambs' lives were sacrificed so that the children of Israel might live (Exodus 12:1-30).

The Consequences of Sin:

God continued to use this symbol in His requirements for worship in their covenant. Every year the Israelites sacrificed two goats as atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16:1-34). Throughout the year sacrifices were offered for every trespass and sin. In each case the one who violated God's law was to bring forth a sacrifice, usually a young bull, lamb, or goat, kill it before the priest, and the priest would offer it as an atoning sacrifice to the Lord (Leviticus 4:1-5:7). The temple, the focal point of these sacrifices, became a bloody place, filled with the blood of countless animal sacrifices. For each sacrifice the sinner had to lay his hands on the animals head and then kill it. The innocent animal suffered for their sins. What was the lesson they must have learned? Sin has profound penalties and consequences. Something was required to pay the price.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." Leviticus 17:11
The consequences of sin are death (Romans 6:23). Every sin demands separation from the pure and holy God (Isaiah 59:2). It is the highest price. A price which we cannot afford to pay. God made a covenant with the Jews in which they offered animal sacrifices for their sins, but there was a deficiency in the sacrifice.
"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. ... For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." Hebrews 10:1-4
Animal sacrifices could never justify the souls of the people for whom they atoned. Justice will not allow an animal's life to substitute for that of a man. The consequences of man's sin were greater than any animal could bear, so something, or someone equally worth a man's soul had to be offered. These sacrifices served merely as illustrations of the gravity and consequences of sin and our need for a redeemer, until the true Redeemer came (Galatians 3:10-25; Romans 7:12-13):
"Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
"'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, "Behold, I have come -- In the volume of the book it is written of Me -- To do Your will, O God." "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law)' ...
"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. ...
"'"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,"' then He adds, '"Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."'
"Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh. Hebrews 10:5-20
The only thing equal or greater in value to all of the creation, was the Creator Himself. Innocent Jesus was the only One who could justly take the punishment due us. With His body, He suffered what should have been the fate of each human. Through His sacrifice, the wrath that should have befallen us fell on Him. He became our Passover lamb (I Corinthians 5:7).

"WHY IS THE LORD'S SUPPER A SUPPER?"

Having understood the significance of the elements, let us consider, "Why is it a meal?" "Why do we eat these elements?"
"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." ...
"For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." ...
And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."
"I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die.
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world."
Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." John 6:27-58
Just as earthly food gives health and nourishment to the body, Jesus' life brings spiritual health and nourishment to our souls. One cannot help but be impressed with his deep and profound need for Christ while he partakes of the Lord's Supper.

"ARE WE TO OBSERVE THIS MEMORIAL?"

How do we know that Jesus meant for all Christians to observe this memorial, and that it was not a one-time event which Jesus observed with His disciples?
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." I Corinthians 11:17-22
Not only did the apostles partake that one time, but Paul preached and instructed New Testament disciples to continue to observe this supper. Not only were they instructed to partake, they were instructed to partake in a worthy manner (I Corinthians 11:26-32). This is part of the pattern that God left for us to obey in the New Testament.

"ABOUT WHAT SHOULD I THINK WHILE PARTAKING?"

In addition to considering the lesson behind the symbols of the Lord's Supper, the apostle Paul referenced related thoughts for complimentary consideration:
"For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. "For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." I Corinthians 11:26-32
In addition to considering the sacrifice of Christ, we are to consider the implications upon our lives. We are to judge ourselves. Are we partaking in a worthy manner? No one is worthy of the sacrifice of Christ. It is truly a gift (Romans 6:23), but the manner in which we partake is to be worthy. Are we giving all diligence to follow and obey Christ? Or, is our commitment a halfhearted commitment? By using the supper as an opportunity to reflect upon lives, we judge ourselves now, repent of our sins, gain forgiveness through Christ's blood, and avoid the condemnation of God. Therefore, the supper serves as a time to focus on our priorities, commitment, and the direction we are taking in our life.
Also, the supper serves as a means to "proclaim the Lord's death till He comes". In addition to being a reflective memorial, both past and inward, it is a forward-looking memorial that is to be observed until He returns. The hope extended by Christ's sacrifice is a powerful, buoyant ideal that helps to keep our heads above the water until the Last Day.

"HOW OFTEN SHOULD WE OBSERVE THE LORD'S SUPPER?"

Once we learn the significance, the blessings, and the way of observing the Lord's Supper, one question naturally follows, "How often are we to observe it?" We know the New Testament disciples observed it with some frequency (I Corinthians 11:17-22), but what was the frequency? To answer this question, we turn to a New Testament example of the disciples observing the Lord's supper.
"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." Acts 20:7
The disciples came together on the first day of the week for the purpose of breaking bread. The phrase, "breaking bread" is a figure of the breaking and distributing of bread that is referenced in the institution of the Lord's supper (Matthew 26:26-29). We know this could not refer to a common meal because New Testament Christians were rebuked for eating common meals at assemblies, noting that their homes were intended for such social occasions (I Corinthians 11:17-22; 34).
Since they came together not on "the first day of the month", or the "first day of the year", but on the "first day of the week", what must be the frequency that God is communicating to us through this example? If we desire to adhere to the New Testament pattern, will we not also observe the Lord's Supper every "first day of the week"?
One might ask, "How do we know this is what God intended?". It is true that we have no direct statement for the frequency of observance. We are left without direct command, so are we to presume that God did not care? All we have is this single example of the occasion of its observance (Acts 20:7).
First, we must recall the deliberate and flawless wording of the Bible, authored not by man but by God. Second, God instructed us to observe apostolic examples as part of the pattern for our lives as Christians (Philippians 3:17; 4:9) . Third, we must not presume that any word is meaningless or incidental without reason to dismiss as material to another topic. As divinely illustrated, Jesus based one of His answers to the Pharisees questions on the tense of a verb and another upon the plurality of a noun (Matthew 22:23-33; John 10:31-36). Paul also based one of his logical arguments upon the plurality of a single word (Galatians 3:16). God's Word is intended and able to be studied with incredible scrutiny. God does not make any mistakes, or write anything rashly. Such conclusions challenge our faith in God and His Word, but the"just shall live by faith" (Hebrews 10:38).
Understandably, because many truthseekers' backgrounds are steeped in human traditions, many will question such a conclusion because it contradicts their beliefs. Consequently, several questions that would be naturally raised in response to this conclusion will be provided in a future article.

"WHY IS THE SUPPER ALSO CALLED 'COMMUNION'?"

In the few Bible references to this supper, it is typically called "breaking bread" (Acts 2:46; 20:7) or just the "Lord's Supper" (I Corinthians 11:27). Jude 12 may contain a brief reference to the supper as the "love feast". Many disciples today use other names for this supper. These names may be appropriate, if they are rooted in Bible based ideas. However, human names communicating human notions and opinion have no place in the Christian's vocabulary.
The usage of the title, "communion", is probably based on its usage in I Corinthians 10:15-16:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." I Corinthians 10:15-16
The word communion means a sharing together, joint participation, or fellowship. The Lord's Supper was intended to be taken together in a local church (I Corinthians 11:17-22,33). Therefore, the word communion aptly describes the sharing in which we all participate in observing the Lord's body and blood.

SUMMARY

Although some difficult questions can be raised that require much study to answer, the significance, elements, application, and frequency of observing the Lord's Supper are clearly detailed in Scripture. The supper was given to Christians as a memorial to help remember the significance and relevance of Christ's death to our lives. It provides a time of recalibrating our priorities in accordance with the profound application that is necessitated by our commitment to following Christ. The unleavened bread and fruit of the vine symbolize His body and blood that was offered in our stead for the remission of our sins. As we partake in this meal, we must not neglect to focus on our profound spiritual need for the spiritual nourishment that is provided for our souls in the life, teaching, and sacrifice of Christ.

If you have further questions concerning this topic, please read another article on this site, More Questions about the Lord's Supper, or feel free to e-mail the author.


Trevor Bowen

Is There Any Evidence that Christ's Return is Imminent? by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1336


Is There Any Evidence that Christ's Return is Imminent?

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


Q.

A major advertisement has appeared recently in newspapers around the country. It is titled: “Christ Is Coming ‘Very, Very Soon.’ ” The piece begins: “The evidence for the soon return of Christ is overwhelming.” Several “clues” are then offered whereby one may calculate that Jesus’ return is near. Would you comment on this?

A.

I have the advertisement before me. I will review the so-called “clues” as to the time of Christ’s return.
  1. It is alleged that the nation of Israel was “miraculously reborn on May 14, 1948,” and that this is “God’s time clock” indicating that the end is near. Amazingly, not one passage of scripture is cited to prove this baseless assertion—the reason being, there is none.
     
  2. It is argued that 2 Timothy 3:1ff.,which describes a “plummeting morality,” reveals that Jesus’ return is imminent. First, there is not a word in this context about the Lord’s second coming. Second, the verb in verse 5, “turn away,” is, in the original language, a present, middle, imperative form. The imperative mood reveals that it is a command to Timothy. The middle voice suggests that Timothy is to personally turn himself away from the evil persons thus described. The present tense “be turning away,” reveals that Paul’s young companion was living in the time of this corruption, the “last days” (vs. 1), at that very moment. The expression does not focus, therefore, on an age 2,000 years in the future.
     
  3. It is contended that the “signs” of Matthew 24:6-8 (e.g., famines, wars, and earthquakes) indicate that Jesus is coming “very, very soon.” But the “signs” of Matthew 24:6ff. had to do with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, not this modern era. Christ plainly taught that “this generation” (vs. 34)—i.e., the generation contemporary with Him (Arndt, 1967, p. 153)—would witness these signs. There is historical evidence aplenty to document the presence of such events in the forty-year interval between the time of Christ’s death and the fall of Jerusalem. There were conflicts in the administrations of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.1.6). Josephus penned a work designated, The Wars of the Jews. The title itself is a commentary on these tumultuous times. It is well known that famines were frequent during these four decades (cf. Acts 11:28). Suetonius, a Roman historian, described the administration of Claudius as characterized by “continual scarcity” (Claud., c.18). As for earthquakes, they were devastating during this era. They are recorded by historians Josephus (Wars, 4.4), Tacitus (Annales xii.58; xiv.27; xv.22), and Seneca (Epistle 91). It is thus futile to apply the predictions of Matthew 24 to this current period of history (see Jackson, 1998). Is it not strange that Christ, Who gave these signs, did not know when the “end” would be (Matthew 24:36), but modern “prophets” can read them and provide us with the precise schedule?
     
  4. It is suggested that Daniel 12:4 prophesies an increase in travel and education at the end of time, and that such is clearly characteristic of our age. This passage is quite ambiguous, and various views are entertained by good scholars—e.g., that “run to and fro” really means to “read thoroughly,” and thus encourages a careful study of this inspired book (Rose and Fuller, 1981, 6:392). At any rate, there is nothing in the passage that can identify a particular age. The fact is, transportation and knowledge have accelerated in every period of human history, and will continue to do so until the end of time. That is the nature of human genius. It is useless to cite Daniel 12:4 as a clue to the end of Earth’s history.
     
  5. The advertisement under review alleges that the current explosion of “cults and the occult” is detailed in biblical literature; we therefore can know that the end is near on this basis. Two passages are cited as proof-texts—Matthew 24:24 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Again, though, Matthew 24:24—a prediction of false Christs, prophets, etc.—has to do with that period prior to Jerusalem’s demise (cf. 34). Josephus recorded that the administration of Felix, a Roman procurator in Judea (A.D. 52-60), was known for its “impostors (Antiquities 20.8.5). Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, said that Simon Magnus went to Rome, where he deceived many with his magic and was honored as deity. He cited an inscription that bore these words: “To Simon the holy God” (Apology, I.26).

    The reference in 1 Timothy 4:1ff. is a general allusion to the apostasy that would defect from the apostolic faith throughout the Christian age. The expression “latter times” likely is equivalent to “latter days” (cf. 2 Timothy 3:1), i.e., the final dispensation of time, the Christian era. Though Paul intended to warn regarding the future, he nonetheless saw the apostasy as already in operation (cf. White, 1956, 4:120). In fact, this point is made quite clear in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 where the “mystery of lawlessness” is “already at work.” This context contains no clue as to the end of time.
     
  6. It is asserted that the Bible predicts the rise of a “new world order” involving a “centralization of world financial and political power” in the end times, and that these conditions are current. Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 are cited vaguely as proofs. The truth is, both of these contexts have to do with developments out of the ancient Roman empire (see Jackson, 1995, pp. 48-71). They do not refer to America!
     
  7. Finally, it is claimed that just as angels announced Christ’s first coming (Luke 1:26), even so, angels recently have visited a number of folks, reporting that the end is near. This testimony is about as reliable as those who declare that they have been abducted by space aliens. There is no evidence whatever that angels are appearing to, or communicating with, people today.
There is no biblical information regarding the time of the Lord’s return. The end will occur unexpectedly (Matthew 24:36ff.).

REFERENCES

Arndt, W.F., and F.W. Gingrich (1967), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).
Jackson, Wayne (1995), Select Studies in the Book of Revelation (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Jackson, Wayne (1998), At His Coming, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University), in press.
Rose, H.J., and J.M. Fuller (1981), The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
White, N.J.D. (1956), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Israelite Midwives in Egypt by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1167

Israelite Midwives in Egypt

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


Q.

Were the midwives who attended the Israelites Egyptians or Hebrews?

A.

Students of Old Testament history will recall that as the Hebrew people prospered under Egyptian bondage, their numbers began to grow to the point that it greatly disturbed the Egyptian pharaoh. In order to curb their numbers, and thereby quell any possibility of a future rebellion against his kingdom, the pharaoh gave orders that when male children were born to the Hebrews, they should be killed at birth. Exodus 1:15-16 records:
And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah. And he said, “When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birthstool, if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.”
There never has been any controversy over the intent of the pharaoh’s edict. The text of Exodus 1 makes it clear that the Hebrews’ neonatal sons were to be destroyed at birth, in order to prevent the Hebrew nation from growing too powerful for the Egyptians to control. But there has been some controversy over whether the midwives who attended the Israelite women were of Hebrew or Egyptian descent.
At first glance, the controversy would appear to be “much ado about nothing,” since the text itself states: “And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives….” But the issue is not quite as clear as it might seem. Numerous biblical scholars and commentators, who have studied the original Hebrew language within the text of Exodus 1:1-22, have concluded that, in the context, the term “Hebrew midwives” actually should be construed as “midwives to the Hebrews.”
For example, in his discussion of Exodus 1:15, commentator Albert Barnes, suggested that the phrase “Hebrew midwives” should be translated literally as “midwives of the Hebrew women.” He then observed: “The women bear Egyptian names, and were probably Egyptian” (1970, p. 8). In volume one of his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr wrote:
These midwives were not Hebrew women but Egyptian according to Josephus. But they are here called Hebrew midwives because they had the special assignment of that work for the Hebrew women. This is apparent also from their names, which are not Hebrew in form. Also, in verse 22 it says his people when charging those on duty at the time of birth of the children. Furthermore, it is not likely that Pharaoh would entrust the business to the Hebrew women since he was much interested in having the babies destroyed in whom they would have had a personal interest (1954, p. 104, emp. added).
W.H. Gispen, in his commentary on Exodus, remarked:
The king summoned the two Egyptian midwives of the Hebrews.... It does not make sense to assume that Hebrew midwives are meant, since the king’s plan would then have been doomed to failure from the start. The speech in verse 16 also indicates that the king was not dealing with women who themselves were Hebrews (1982, p. 36).
I find myself in agreement with these commentators. In its context, Exodus 1:22 provides a critical piece of information when it notes that “...Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, ‘Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.’ ” It was not the Hebrews that Pharaoh charged to carry out this ghastly deed, but “his” people, i.e., Egyptians. And, as Gispen correctly noted, the whole idea of Pharaoh expecting Hebrew midwives to destroy Hebrew newborns would make little sense, and would be doomed from the start. Furthermore, in verse 19, the midwives offered an excuse to Pharaoh to explain why they were unsuccessful in destroying the newborn Hebrew males. “And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwife come unto them.’ ” The question obviously arises—how would Hebrew midwives have such intimate knowledge of the birthing process of Egyptian women? Egyptian midwives certainly would be expected to know such a thing, but how could Hebrew midwives be expected to possess such knowledge? Additionally, notice that Pharaoh accepted their excuse. Is it likely (again, considering the context) that an Egyptian Pharaoh would have accepted what he very likey would have viewed as a “lame excuse” from Hebrew slave-women serving as midwives? Hardly.
All things considered, therefore, I believe it is correct to state that the phrase of Exodus 1:15, “Hebrew midwives” is, in fact, correctly understood as “Egyptian midwives to the Hebrews” (as the Jewish historian Josephus corroborated).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1973 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Exodus-Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Gispen, W.H. (1982), Exodus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

It is not Enough to be JUST a Creationist by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=452


It is not Enough to be JUST a Creationist

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


INTRODUCTION

Origins. The mere mention of the word stirs controversy, especially in our day and time when evolutionists battle creationists in oral debates, in print, in the news media, and even in the courts. Most people understand that when a discussion centers on origins, in reality it is an entire cosmogony—a whole system of thought regarding where we came from and why we are here—that is under consideration. Evolution and creation are admittedly “thorny” topics, and often evoke very strong, deeply seated emotions, because of the dichotomy that exists between the two concepts. The Universe and its inhabitants came into existence either through natural means (viz., evolution), or supernatural means (viz., creation), those being the only two possibilities.
However, it is not my purpose in this discussion to examine either the many fallacies of evolutionary theory, or the many reasons why biblical creationism should be accepted and defended. Instead, my comments will be directed at people who accept the Bible as God’s inspired, inerrant Word, and who believe in the literal, historical account of creation as recorded in Genesis 1-2. The point I would like to make is that it is not enough to be just a creationist! Here is why I make such a statement.

IF CREATION, THEN WHAT?

James Coppedge, in his book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, remarked: “The growing evidence against evolution will eventually force American evolutionists to face the fact that the position is untenable. Some will then openmindedly explore the idea of creation, while others will doubtless persist in materialism at any cost” (1975, p. 180). Over the past several years, as the creation/evolution controversy has become both more public and more heated, and as the many scientific and biblical evidences for creation have come into view more clearly, there have been some who have made changes in their views on origins—abandoning their belief in evolution and accepting creation in its place. Good scientific evidence, and good biblical interpretation, establish the fact that they have made the right choice. And, of course, there always have been those who have accepted creation in the first place, and who simultaneously have rejected evolution.
But, is merely accepting “creation” enough? As unorthodox as my answer may seem at first glance, I suggest that the proper response to such a question must be an unequivocal “No.” It is not enough to be just a creationist. Please do not misunderstand. It is imperative that those people who wish to be pleasing to God accept what He has said regarding creation (or any other issue, for that matter). Henry Morris correctly observed:
They tell us not to “waste time on peripheral controversies such as the evolution-creation question—just preach the gospel,” not realizing that the gospel includes creation and precludes evolution! They say we should simply “emphasize saving faith, not faith in creation,” forgetting that the greatest chapter on faith in the Bible (Hebrews 11) begins by stressing faith in the ex nihilo creation of all things by God’s word (verse 3) as preliminary to meaningful faith in any of His promises (verse 13). They advise us merely to “preach Christ,” but ignore the Savior, and that His finished work of salvation is meaningful only in light of His finished work of creation (Hebrews 4:3-10). They may wish, in order to avoid the offense of the true gospel, to regard creation as an unimportant matter, but God considered it so important that it was the subject of His first revelation. The first chapter of Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; if the foundation is undermined, the superstructure soon collapses (n.d., p. 2, emp. in orig.).
Certainly, creation is important. But that is not all that is important. With the acceptance of either of the two systems of origins (evolution or creation) must come an acknowledgment of the implications and inferences that accompany each system. Acceptance of evolution, for example, will force an acceptance of the implications surrounding that system (e.g.: nothing supernatural exists, therefore, there is no God; man is nothing but an animal, religion is merely an “invention” of evolved man; naturalistic forces are responsible for everything we see and are, etc.). Acceptance of the biblical account of creation also forces acceptance of the implications surrounding that system (e.g.: there is a God, man is a creation of, and responsible to, that God; there is an objective, moral code given by the Creator, etc.). The question thus becomes: if creation is true, then what are some of the implications and inferences accompanying it, and how do these affect me?

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE JUST A CREATIONIST

Acceptance of biblical creationism carries with it many implications. Space will not permit a discussion, or even a listing, of all of them. We would like, however, to mention one which we feel is perhaps the most basic of all: acceptance of the biblical concept of creation acknowledges the existence of the God of the Bible, and therefore His system of man’s salvation. In other words, my point in titling this tract as I have is this: it is not enough to be just a creationist; one also must believe exactly what God has said in regard to salvation as well. There will be many creationists who will not inherit heaven, because although they accepted God’s account of creation, they rejected His plan of salvation. That is to say, although there are many people who accept creation, who believe in God, and who claim to accept the Bible as His word, they will be lost because they are not New Testament Christians.
While it is important to be a creationist, it is more important to be a saved creationist. It is both admirable and commendable to defend the biblical account of creation, but it is of even greater importance to obey God’s commands regarding the salvation of one’s soul. How sad it will be to see those who, on the Day of Judgment, will be turned away from heaven in spite of the fact that they believed in the biblical account of creation. They were creationists, but they were not saved! Jesus Himself remarked:
Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23).
The Lord’s point is quite clear: there will be those people who were “good” people—doing works in “His name”—but who, in reality, had not done what He told them to do. They had built their houses on sand (human doctrines), not rock (the Lord’s commands). Consequently, their houses did not stand (see Jesus’ comments in Matthew 7:24-27).
Some will argue, of course, that there are many good and sincere people today who are creationists. That is no doubt true. But “sincerity” or “goodness” alone is not enough. No doubt Uzzah was “sincere” when he stretched forth his hand to steady the ark of the covenant of God as the oxen stumbled, and he thought the ark would be destroyed (2 Samuel 6:6ff.). But God struck him dead, because he disobeyed a direct command not to touch the ark (Numbers 4:15). Saul (later called Paul) was “sincere” in his persecution of the church, and even did what he did “in all good conscience” (Acts 22:19-20; Galatians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 15:9), yet God struck him blind (Acts 9:3-9). Paul later would admit, in his own writings, that he was sincere, but sincerely wrong. God does not want justsincerity. He wants obedience (John 14:15).
It is by the Word of God that we one day will be judged (John 12:48). That being the case, it behooves us to ask, “What does the Word of God say about my salvation?” Fortunately, the Scriptures are crystal clear on this important point. God has not left us without divine wisdom regarding what to do to get out of sin and into Christ. He has told us what to do to be saved. God wants creationists, yes. But God wants saved creationists! He does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet only those who come to Him in the way He has stipulated will enjoy eternal life (Acts 17:30; John 14:6).

WHAT MUST ONE DO TO BE SAVED?

Jesus Christ, speaking as the Son of God, said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). Jesus invites all men everywhere to enjoy salvation in Him (John 3:16). He came to “seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10). Since “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), all are lost and in need of being saved. What, then, must one do to be saved?
Obviously, one who accepts creation, and who wishes to seek the God of that creation, wants to be pleasing to that God. Hebrews 11:6 then becomes important: “And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing to him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.” How, then, does one build such a faith? Romans 10:17 provides the answer: “So faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Thus, faith is built by the Word of God. In addition, however, there is the important step of believing that Jesus Christ is Who He claimed to be—the Son of God. John said: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” He also stated: “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life” (John 3:16,36).
Hearing and believing, however, are not enough according to the Scriptures. Repentance also is necessary. “The times of this ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth all men everywhere that they should repent” (Acts 17:30). Jesus Himself said: “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish” (Luke 13:3).
Once a person has heard the Gospel message, believed in Christ, and repented of his former sins, he then must be willing to confess publicly that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. “Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33).
This person, then, who has heard, believed, repented, and confessed, is faced with one last, and very important question: How do I get rid of my sins? To a person who wishes to become a New Testament Christian, this is the single most pressing question in his or her life. What must a person do to get rid of sin? Once again, the answer is provided by Scripture. Examine Acts 22:16. What did Ananias tell Saul to do to get rid of his sins? “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” Saul was told rid himself of his sins through baptism. Jesus Himself said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16, emp. added). On the Day of Pentecost when the church was established, Peter commanded those people who wanted to know what to do to be saved, to “repent ye, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38, emp. added).
Where is salvation found? Salvation is found “in Christ.” Paul stated in 2 Timothy 2:10: “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesuswith eternal glory” (emp. added). Where are all spiritual blessings found? Spiritual blessings are found only “in Christ.” Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (emp. added).
The obvious question, then, is: How does one get “into Christ”? Baptism brings us “into Christ.” Paul told the first century Christians in Rome:
Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).
He told the Galatians: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27, emp. added). Peter said it was baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21). If we do as God has commanded, then his grace saves us because our faith has brought us in line with His teachings (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9). Baptism, of course, is neither more nor less important than any other of God’s commands regarding what to do to be saved. But it is necessary, and without it, one cannot be saved. One thing we know for certain—“faith only” is not enough. Belief in Christ is simply not enough. John 12:42 makes that clear. The rulers “believed on him; but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess it.” James said their “faith alone” did not save them (2:19). In fact, James even went so far as to say: “Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (2:24, emp. added). One must undergo baptism (immersion) in order to: (a) wash away sins, (b) get “into Christ” and (c) come into contact with the cleansing blood of Christ.
After a person becomes a New Testament Christian, the Lord Himself then adds that person to the church of Christ (Acts 2:47; cf. Romans 16:16), not any man-made denomination. That person becomes a member of the one church established by Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:24; Ephesians 1:22; 4:4-6). He then is commanded by Scripture to live a faithful life, which will be followed by a crown of righteousness in heaven (Revelation 2:10).
It is not enough to be just a creationist; one must be a saved creationist. This article is written with an urgent plea to those who may be “creationists,” but who are not saved creationists. Many creationists will not enter heaven because they have not obeyed God’s simple commands regarding their own salvation. I urge you to consider your salvation. Have you done all that God commands in order to secure that salvation? If not, please read, and then re-read the Scriptures mentioned in this article, and come to the Lord in humble submission to His will, so that you can be a New Testament Christian as well as a creationist.

REFERENCES

Coppedge, James (1975), Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Morris, Henry M. (n.d.), “The Gospel of Creation and the Anti-Gospel of Evolution,” Impact Article No. 25 (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research).