Thoughts about Easter

================
Brethren, I am sending this to pastor friends and acquaintances. There are many more I would send this to if I had their address. I have received a number of “Happy Easter” greetings and well wishes for the “Resurrection day.” I have also been somewhat surprised at brethren who otherwise seem more prudent, who broadcast on social media about their Easter celebration services. I am thinking most of you here would agree with what I am about to say. But if you will allow me to explain my bewilderment in this, please let me do so.
Regarding Easter, I truly do not understand brethren who coincide the celebration of our Lord’s resurrection with that of pagan Ashtereth. Nor do I understand how they can even follow along with the date of heathen tradition, which is not the anniversary of our Lord’s resurrection. We celebrate the resurrection every Sunday (which is why we gather on the Lord’s day and not Saturday). But Easter is not about the Lord’s resurrection. The concept of the Lord’s resurrection is only appended to the pre-existing heathen holiday. That is why there is a month’s difference between the actual anniversary of our Lord’s resurrection and the date of Easter this year. April 26 is the date to observe the Lord’s resurrection if you are not synthesizing it to coincide with the Vatican’s ancient Babylonian holiday. It is appalling to me  how “Baptist” brethren follow in lockstep with mother Babylon as they observe Easter, calling it “resurrection Sunday.” Oh, they will say that the date is not really the issue, but that they observe the principle of the risen Saviour. If that is truly the case, then why not observe the resurrection of Christ on any other date than the one that Rome harmonized with the resurrection of Tammuz?  These things are common knowledge and easy for anyone to see. It is so obvious to any Bible believer that the Easter traditions in both testaments were not of God. (Hint: wicked king Herod was NOT celebrating the Lord’s resurrection in Acts 12:4.)
God condemned the observance of the Ashtoreth/Ashtaroth/Asherah religion from which this holiday is designated. It was/is pervasive worldwide and called after many different names in different pagan cultures: Ishtar, Astarte, Ostara, Eostre, etc. The Wiccans today publicly praise the fact that Christians celebrate the same holiday they do.  Even early Protestants were adamant against Christians observing “Easter” as the supposed resurrection day. This is because it was known to be in concord with ancient heathenism. It is not a matter of how devout or emotionally sincere we are as we mix the resurrection with heathen rites, sunrise services (Ezek 8:16), easter egg games, etc.- or even just relabeling their day as the “resurrection sunday.” The Ashtoreth tradition is NOT the date of the resurrection Sunday. So why do we say so as we ride along with the pervading occult tradition?
Furthermore, why would we imagine that it pleases God to assimilate a heathen holiday for a “good thing”? Perhaps we should honestly ask if “pleasing God” has anything to do with it. Was God ever pleased when His people worshipped Him with admixture of the heathen ways or observed heathen times? Did it please God when Israel worshipped the Lord at the golden calf or the high places, or the groves* of Baal*?       (The groves אשירה ashirah [Phonecian Astarte] were Baal’s female Easter consorts.  Baal means “Lord.” ).  
So why is it so necessary to enjoin Babylon in the name of the Lord? If it is important to celebrate the anniversary of our Lord’s resurrection, why not do so on that anniversary? And why would some Christians brush this off as if this matter was a minor “hair splitting” issue of “misplaced zeal”? Perhaps because they are walking in lock-step with Rome in the spirit of Samaritan Christianity. In 2Kings 17:33-34, When the people “feared the Lord, and served their own gods, after the MANNER of the nations . . .” God said ” . . . .they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel;”  
Yes, the Ashtoreth holiday tradition has great emotional sentiment to many. Some out of ignorance as they follow pastors and Christians who observe such things. Those who are familiar with the origins of Astoreth but continue to observe Easter do so out of regard for their own sentiment above that of God. And what can you say for pastors who follow the sentiment of the people rather than the word of God? What would God say of them? When we fall short in our purpose in such things, we not only fail the Lord, we do our people a great disservice.  The discernment of other brethren in this matter is truly none of my business. However,  since so many friends and acquaintances have shamelessly broadcast their Easter wishes to me and the public, I feel at liberty to likewise voice my opinion. Surely many will be angry at my disregard of their emotional attachment to that which they should know better. But if brethren will take public delight in the mongrelizing of the blessed resurrection, am I therefore constrained to hold my peace? Is their emotional sentiment of such greater importance than mine toward Biblical truth that I should not respond?  And should I not be pained at seeing the shameless disregard of brethren toward God in is matter? I think not.
We all understand the pagan nature of most holidays, even the names of our months and days of the week are after pagan gods. We are not going to change the world’s institutions. We live in this world and we make the best of it as we can.  But I see in Easter something that crosses a greater and more obvious line. The Babylonian resurrection of Tammuz is a satanic counterfeit to the most blessed event we hold dear. Unlike the Lord’s birth, the resurrection of Christ is paramount to everything.
To adulterate the observance of our Lord’s resurrection with a heathen counterfeit is serious. To observe the Lord’s resurrection according to the date of mystery Babylon’s counterfeit (even calling it by their ancient designation) is joining with her. How is it any different than the whoredom of Israel who observed the customs of the heathen at Baal-peor? All of this is bad enough. But what is worse is that this Ashtoreth holiday is always on Sunday, where the Midianitish woman is brought into the congregation in the sight of the Lord – and in the name of the Lord. Is this not a major point for the devil, who is ever seeking to adulterate the legitimate worship of the Lord? You may call it “Resurrection Sunday” but if you must do so according to the Babylonian date and tradition,  you cannot deny an emotional tie to the tradition of Babylon.
” . . . .Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev 18:4

Bro Les Potter

Posted in Doctirnal Articles | Comments Off on Thoughts about Easter

Holy Trinity

The Scriptural Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

(Compiled by T.H. Brown)

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions: of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness: the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be Three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

The second article in the appendix declares that the Son of God is very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, and that in the Son two whole, perfect and distinct natures, the Godhead and Manhood, were inseparably joined together in one Person.

The basis concludes with the declaration that, “The Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.” These were not new statements, but were reproduced verbatim from the statements of faith of the Reformed Churches at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

The inerrant authority of the Bible

From the earliest period of the history of the Christian Church the true doctrine of the Holy Scriptures on this vital subject has been challenged and denied, and most of the major heresies which have disturbed the peace of the Church have begun with a conception of this doctrine. At the present time the testimony of the professing Church is weakened by the lack of explicit teaching on the one hand, and by hostility and unbelief on the other. Meanwhile many false sects challenge the faith of the Lord’s people, some of whom are at a loss when asked for an immediate, concise and Scriptural answer. For this doctrine there is no other authority than the Bible, the divinely inspired, inerrant, authoritative revelation which God Himself has given. The following brief statement of the evidence is drawn from that fountain alone.

There is but one God

The Scriptural doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests upon this foundation. “The LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.” (Deuteronomy 4.35) “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.” (Isaiah 45.5) The New Testament is no less explicit when the Lord Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12.29) Paul tells the Corinthians, “we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.” (I Corinthians 8.4) He makes the same assertion to Timothy, “For there is one God.” (I Timothy 2.5)

The one God is “Living and True”

These are the exact words of Holy Scripture. Jeremiah says, “the Lord is the true God, he is the living God.” (Jeremiah 10.10), and Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” (I Thessalonians 1.9)

God is Everlasting

The expressions ‘everlasting’ and ‘eternal’, which mean the same thing when applied to God, are constantly used by the sacred writers when speaking of the Almighty. Moses said, “The eternal God is thy refuge.” (Deuteronomy 33.27) “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” (Psalm 90.2) Isaiah speaks of “the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 40.28) Paul speaks also of “the everlasting God”, and of “the King eternal, immortal…” (Romans 16.26; I Timothy 1.17) Many other passages could be added, but these assert the truth plainly enough.

God is without body, parts, or passions

The Lord Jesus Christ said to the woman of Samaria, “God is a Spirit”, and after His resurrection He said to His disciples, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (John 4.24; Luke 24.39), God is revealed in the Bible as a pure spiritual Being, everywhere present at every instant of time. “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.” (Jeremiah 23.24) Admittedly, the Scriptures speak of the hands, ears and eyes of God, and of His pleasure, anger, love and hatred, but this is the language of His condescension to our imperfect knowledge. In order that we may understand something of His being and works He allows men to apply their human words to things divine. In this way He reveals His divine being to our human understanding.

God’s power is infinite

“Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine.” (I Corinthians 29.11) The divine Saviour says, “with God all things are possible.”, and the angel assures Mary that “with God nothing shall be impossible.” (Matthew 19.26, Luke 1:37) These and other Scriptures reveal that He is of infinite power.

God’s wisdom is infinite

“Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.” (Psalm 147.5) The perfection of His wisdom is seen in the works of creation; “in wisdom hast thou made them all.” (Psalm 104.24) His knowledge embraces all that is past, and all that is to come; “Known unto god are all his works from the beginning of the world.” (Acts 15.18) “All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” (Hebrews 4.13) “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Romans 11.33)

God’s goodness is infinite

All that he created He looked upon and saw to be “very good”. (Genesis 1.31) “The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.” (Psalm 33.5) “He is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.” (Psalm 136.1) The Christian needs no proof of God’s goodness beyond the knowledge of His gracious gift of His eternal Son to redeem His people and save them from their sins. This is divine goodness, truly infinite, and beyond our comprehension.

God is the Maker and Preserver of all things

“In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” (Exodus 20.11) “By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible” (Colossians 1.16) He is Preserver; “thou hast made heaven,…the earth, and all things that are therein,… and thou preservest them all” (Nehemiah 9.6) These declarations are all derived from the sure Word of God, and they are the foundation upon which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests. They reveal the majesty and glory of ONE GOD. The Scriptures show with equal clarity that the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, and that there is a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead.

The True Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ

Among the errors relating to the Person of the Son there is the notion that He is God only in an inferior sense, a created being, and not ‘very’ and ‘true’ God, and not co-equal and of one substance with the Father. Some deny the divinity of the Son altogether, and some deny that He had “two whole and perfect natures, the Godhead and manhood.” Some would assert that on earth He was man only, and that after His resurrection He was God only. Some would deny His perfect humanity and some would deny His perfect deity. However, the Lord Jesus Christ is “very and eternal God”.

The Old Testament speaks of the Messiah in these terms: “Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty.” (Psalm 45.3); “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Psalm 45.6); “he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.” (Psalm 45.11); “his name shall be called…The mighty God.” (Isaiah 9.6); “this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jeremiah 23.6); and Zechariah declares that He is the “fellow” (or equal) of “the LORD of Hosts” (Zechariah 13.7).

He exercises the power and wisdom of God

When the promised Messiah was on earth He showed by His works and by His Word that He was indeed “God with us”. (Isaiah 7.14; Matthew 1.23) Those mighty works which could be done alone by “the LORD God,…who only doeth wondrous things” (Psalm 72.18), Chris performed by His own power and by His own word. He healed the leper, gave sight to the blind, raised the dead, calmed the storm, all by His own power. If it is objected that the Apostles wrought miracles although they were only men, it must be remembered that they derived their power from Him, and acknowledged it. Another proof of the Saviour’s deity is seen in His knowledge of the hearts of men. Solomon prayed to Almighty God, “thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men.” (I Kings 8.39), and yet we read that Jesus perceived the thoughts of men’s hearts (Luke 9.47), that “he knew all men…he knew what was in man” (John 2.24, 25). In this He exercises a power that belongs only to God. Again, who can forgive sins, but God only? He says, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions.” (Isaiah 43.25), but the Lord Jesus said, “the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” (Matthew 9.6)

He is worshiped as God

The Saviour said, “it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4.10), and yet without rebuke He allowed this worship to be paid to Himself and declared that “all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. (John 5.23) We read of a leper, a ruler, disciples in a ship, a woman of Canaan and a man born blind, that they came and worshipped Christ. After His resurrection, Mary Magdalene and the other women “held him by the feet, and worshipped him.” (Matthew 28.9) Thomas met with no censure when he addressed him as “My Lord and my God.” (John 20.28) He who properly received the worship due only to the Lord our God, He must be indeed the Lord our God.

He is declared to be God

How do the disciples speak of the risen and ascended Lord, when He has sent the Spirit of Truth to guide them infallibly into all truth? John says, “the Word was God…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory…) (John 1.1, 14). In another place he says, “his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (I John 5.20) Paul tells the Romans that Christ “is over all, God blessed for ever.” (Romans 9.5) To the Colossians he declares that “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2.9) To Timothy he affirms that “God was manifest in the flesh” (I Timothy 3.16). In the Epistle to Titus he speaks of the Lord Jesus as “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2.13). Peter also speaks of him as “God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1.1).

In the vision of Christ in glory set forth in the Revelation, Christ announces His presence to the beloved Apostle, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1.8, 17; 21.6; 22.13) “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” (Philippians 2.10) All creatures must raise one united voice of adoration to our Saviour God, saying, “Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.” (Revelation 5.13)

The Son is God, and of one substance with the Father

The Lord Jesus Himself said, “I and my Father are one.” (John 10.30) He is “the only begotten of the Father…full of grace and truth.” (John 1.14) “He is before all things.” (Colossians 1.17) “His goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5.2). He was the Word, who was “in the beginning with God”, and who “was God”. (John 1.1,2)

He took upon Him man’s nature

He was born into the world and “increased in wisdom and stature”. (Luke 2.52) He hungered and thirsted, ate and drank, felt weariness and fatigue, pain and sorrow, was moved with compassion, and wept over the grief of those whom He loved and over the foreseen ruin of Jerusalem. He was “made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2.17), and as they are “partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same”. (Hebrews 2.14) He “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself. (Philippians 2.7,8) In this respect He is described as “a man approved of God”. (Acts 2.22); “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, God sent forth his Son,  made of a woman made under the law.” (Galatians 4.4) The Godhead and Manhood were inseparably joined together in one Person This mysterious union we cannot understand or presume to explain, but we maintain it to be true because it is clearly revealed in the sure Word of God. As God, He could say, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8.58); as man, He was the seed of Abraham. As God, He was David’s Lord; as man, He was David’s son (Matthew 22.43-45) As god, all power and honour in heaven and earth were His; as man “he himself also is compassed with infirmity.” (Hebrews 5.2) As God, He was Lord of all things by right of creation, for “without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1.3); as man, He was destitute of worldly goods and had “not where to lay his head.” (Matthew 8.20) As God, in His hands were the issues of life and death, and He had power to lay down His life and power to take it again (John 10.18); as man, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth.” (Acts 8.32)

The divine and human natures were never to be separated. Even after His Ascension He is revealed as the One Mediator – “The man Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2.5). Paul speaks of the ascended Lord as the future Judge – “that man whom [God] hath ordained” (Acts 17.31). The Scriptures thus makes it plain that the Lord Jesus Christ, as He was while on earth, is now and ever will be both God and man. In Him, though sitting upon the throne of His glory, the human nature is in a mysterious way united to the divine.

The Holy Spirit is revealed as a Person

It is needful to establish this aspect of the truth first, so that it may then be shown that this Person is Divine and of one substance with the Father and the Son. Those who deny the deity of the Holy spirit invariably deny His distinct personal existence.

When the Lord Jesus was about to leave His disciples He promised them, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of Truth.” (John 14:16- 17) “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26) “He shall testify of me.” (John 15.26) “I will send him unto you.” (John 16.7) “He will guide you into all truth:…he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16.7, 13,14)

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself was a Person, and it is clear that the “other Comforter” was to be a Person also. The things which Jesus said of the Comforter are quite intelligible if the Comforter is not a Person. He must be a Person, if He is sent, teaches, brings things to our remembrance and shows the things of Jesus to us. These are descriptions of a Person – hearing, receiving, testifying, speaking, reproving, instructing and guiding.

Testimonies from the Epistles of Paul

Paul tells us that “the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: … [and] maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Romans 8.26) This can only be true of a Person who helps and intercedes. “To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge… But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” (I Corinthians 12:8-11) It is incredible that an inspired writer should use language of this character, attributing all the operations to the Spirit, if that spirit were not a person. Again the Apostle warns us not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, and grief is an affection that cannot be attributed to anything but a Person. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a Person, and this is clearly asserted to the Holy Scriptures.

The consideration of those Scriptures which name the Holy Ghost conjointly with the Father and Son leads to the same conclusion. The command is given to baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. The Father and Son are Persons and the same must be true of the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus did not command His disciples to baptize in the Name of two persons and an abstract influence. The inspired benediction, “The grace of THE Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” (2 Corinthians 13.14), makes it equally clear that just as the Father is a Person and the Son of a Person, so also is the Holy Spirit a Person.

The Holy Spirit is a Divine Person: “Very and Eternal God”

Here again the present brief article does not attempt a full exhaustive proof, but sets forth a sample of the evidence from the storehouse of divine truth. In Judges 15.14 we read, “the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon” Samson but in Judges 16.20, after Samson had yielded to Delilah, “the Lord was departed from him.” Therefore “the Spirit of the LORD” is the Lord Jehovah, the eternal God. In 2 Samuel 23.2-3 David affirmed, “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me…The God of Israel said”, and thus makes it plain that the Holy Spirit is the God of Israel. In Job 33.4 Elihu says, “The Spirit of God hath made me”, but God is the maker of all things; therefore, the Spirit is God. In Psalm 139.7 the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence…”. The following words assert the omnipresence and therefore the deity of the Holy Spirit. In Isaiah 6.5-9 the prophet says, “mine eyes have see the King, the LORD of Hosts…Also I heard the voice of the Lord…And he said, Go, and tell his people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not…”. The Apostle Paul quotes these words in Acts 28.25-26: “Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, “Hearing ye shall year,” etc. The Person whom Isaiah names as the King, the LORD of Hosts, is none other than the Holy Spirit.

The Apostles show that the Holy Spirit is God

In the New Testament the Angel who announces to Mary the miracle of the Saviour’s birth says, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy things which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1.35) Here the angel assigns as a reason why Christ should be called the Son of God, the fact that He was to be conceived by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and it must follow that the Holy Ghost is God. In Acts 5.3-4, Peter in condemning Ananias uses the expressions lying to the Holy Ghost and lying to God, as synonymous. “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?…thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” In lying to the Holy Ghost Ananias lied to God. Therefore the Holy Ghost is God. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “ye are the temple of God.” (I Corinthians 3.16), and “your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.” (I Corinthians 6.19) From a comparison of these texts it follows that the Holy Ghost is God. Paul says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3.16), and Peter says, “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1.21) Therefore the Holy Spirit who inspired the writers was God. All these texts, and many more, lead to but one conclusion: that the Holy Ghost is God. The Lord Jesus Christ describes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as a sin more unpardonable even than blasphemy against the Son of Man. (Matthew 12.31) How can this be, unless the Holy Ghost is God? The same Spirit is said to search even the deep things of God to know the things of God, to give all spiritual gifts, such as wisdom, knowledge, healing, miracles, prophecy, etc. Almighty God alone can do these things, but they are constantly ascribed to the Holy Ghost, who is thus declared to be God. He is “of one substance, majesty and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.”

He is equal to the Father and the Son

The writer to the Hebrews expressly calls the Holy Spirit “the eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9.14) If further confirmation were needed it would be gathered from the words concerning baptism in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. How could the Name of the Holy Ghost be placed side by side with that of Father and Son, unless He is in truth “very and eternal God”? In administering the ordinance of baptism is it conceivable that the name of an inferior being should be placed on a perfect equality with that of the Almighty Father? The Scriptures make it known that there is no God else beside Him; He says, “my glory I will not give to another”. (Isaiah 42.8) The Person whose Name stands with that of Father and Son in Himself God, the Holy Ghost. The same may be said of the benediction with which Paul invokes the grace and blessing of God upon the Christians at Corinth: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” It would be blasphemous to introduce into such a benediction the name of one who was not of substance, majesty and glory with the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son

He is “the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father”, as our Lord declares in John 15.26. He is therefore said to be sent by the Father (John 14.26; Matthew 3.16; I Corinthians 2.11,14, 3.16; and Matthew 10.20). The same Holy Spirit is said to be sent by the Son, and is called the Spirit of the Son, and the Spirit of Christ (John 15.26, 16.7; Romans 8.9; Galatians 4.6; Philippians 1.19; I Peter 1.11). Thus the same expressions which are spoken of the Spirit in relation to the Father are spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son, and for the same reason, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds’ from the Son even as He ‘proceeds’ from the Father. Father and Son send forth the Spirit, Who is a Person, eternally Divine, and One with them in His being, in His majesty, in His glory, and in His power.

Trinity in Unity

From these Scriptures it is made plain that there is but One Almighty God, and it is demonstrated with equal clarity that in the unity of the Divine Being there are Three Persons “of one substance, power and eternity”. The solemn words, “In the Name of the Father”, signify the Son Who is God, and the Holy Spirit Who is God. Paul well knew that it is written, “To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One” (Isaiah 40.25); “I am God, and there is none like me.” (Isaiah 46.9) Paul himself wrote, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” (2 Corinthians 13.14) No reasonable or reverent Christian can for a moment imagine that the inspired Apostle would have penned a solemn blessing in the Name of Almighty God deliberately placing the Divine Name in the middle, between the Names of Jesus and the Holy Ghost, unless he believed, and desired us also to believe, that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, and that in unity with the Father they are the One Almighty God.

The doctrine unfolded in the Old Testament

 

The revelation of this truth formed a part of God’s earliest revelations to mankind. The Hebrew name which we translate “God” is “Elohim” – a noun of the plural number, often joined with plural adjectives and verbs clearly denoting a plurality of Persons in the Godhead (e.g., Genesis 20.13, “God caused me to wander”, where “God” and “caused” are plural; Joshua 24.19, “He is an holy God”, where “holy” and “God” are plural.) To show that the Deity is nevertheless One, the plural “Elohim” is often joined with singular nouns and pronouns. “In the beginning God created…”. Here “God” is plural, while “created” is singular. The title by which the Almighty is designated, “The LORD thy God”, is in the Hebrew – “Jehovah Elohim” – Jehovah is singular, denoting the unity of the Godhead, while Elohim is plural, denoting a plurality of Persons in that unity. It must be remembered that these revelations were made to a people constantly warned against the polytheism of the surrounding nations. It is inconceivable that Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, should use words indicating a plurality of Persons in the One Eternal God, unless he had been irresistibly impressed with this mysterious truth, and desired to communicate it as an essential part of that revelation.

The truth revealed in the words of the Holy One

Again, God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1.26); “Behold, the man is become as one of us” (Genesis 3.22); “Let us go down” (Genesis 11.7); “Who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6.8). No reason can be given why the Almighty should speak thus of Himself, if it were not true that “in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons of one substance, power and eternity”. There are also many places where the same truth is intimated, even if not so precisely stated. The Lord commands Aaron to bless the people thus – “The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: the LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” (Numbers 6:24-26) In Genesis 18:1-2 we read that “the LORD appeared unto [Abraham]…and he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him.” Why should God appear to him under the similitude of three men, unless it was to shadow forth his truth which he purposed to reveal more clearly in later times?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Book of Isaiah

There are some very clear testimonies in Isaiah. “When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, …saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 59.19,20_ Who is this “Redeemer”? “I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.” (Isaiah 60.16) Three Divine Persons are spoken of: the Spirit of the LORD, the Redeemer – the Eternal Son, who should come to Zion – and the LORD, who speaks by the Prophet. In another place we read, “the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” (Isaiah 48.16) A study of the context shows that the speaker is the Messiah, the Son of God, and the three persons of the Holy Trinity are clearly indicated, the Lord God (the Father), the Holy Spirit and the Son.

The changeless Truth of God

There is a wonderful harmony and agreement of doctrine in the different portions of God’s revelation to mankind, and holy men of God in all ages, though not always with the same degree of light, have looked with the eye of faith to God the Father who elected them, to God the Son who redeemed them, to God the Holy Spirit who regenerates and sanctifies, and have lifted up their hearts in worship to the Triune God, in unison with the saints and angels above, who “rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” (Revelation 4.8)

“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen”

(Jude 25)

Posted in Doctirnal Articles | Comments Off on Holy Trinity

Who is She?

So, who is she?

Rev. 19:7-9 7 ” Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.8  And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.9  And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.”The bride of Christ is a Biblical subject with which many Baptists are either vaguely familiar or avoid altogether. In some circles, it is a subject that is best left alone lest you cross someone’s dogma or bring suspicion of heresy upon yourself.  If, indeed, cultic groups have wrested this subject (as with every other Biblical teaching), that is nothing to the Bible believer. In fact, we do ourselves a great disfavor by not sharpening our understanding in any Biblical subject the Lord has given us. Furthermore, as we begin to fully understand this subject, it may come as a surprise to discover how important it is.
So relax
Be assured that we will not put forth anything here that is heretical. There is very little of this subject that could be controversial among those who regard the Bible as their final authority. In fact, if you were to ask all Christendom to define it in a word, there is probably no Biblical subject with such universal agreement. No matter whether you are liberal, conservative, neo-evangelical, fundamentalist, post-millennial, pre-millennial, hyper-dispensationalist, anti-dispensationalist, Catholic, Protestant or Baptist. The definition of the bride transcends in agreement so generally, we would be hard pressed to find a Biblical truth that is so clear and universally accepted. So if we have captured your interest, please read on as we give a simple definition of what is the bride of Christ.  Are you ready? Here it is:
The bride of Christ is the church.
That was pretty easy. Now, although most everyone already believes this statement, we want to lay out a brief Biblical foundation to show how it is indeed Scriptural.  The term “bride” only appears five times in the New Testament. One of those times it is in reference to the fall of Babylon in which the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride would be heard no more (Rev. 18:23).  It is used another time when the Apostle John saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem prepared as a bride adorned for her husband (Rev. 21:2). The remaining three times we understand it (by context and comparison) to be used metaphorically in reference to the church (John 3:29; Rev. 21:9; 22:17).  There are other places where the actual term “bride” is not used, but which cement the concept together that she is indeed the church. There are also Old Testament illustrations that picture this for us, which goes beyond the scope of this writing.  So for the sake of continuity, let’s put it all together and look at some interesting things about the bride from the beginning.
The bride is introduced by a friend or agent
In the culture of a Jewish wedding, the honored friend of the groom had the ceremonial duty of acting as an intermediary agent on his behalf, presenting the bride and attending them to the bridal chamber. This is why John the Baptist said “Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled”.  (John 3:28-29) The Apostle Paul likewise saw himself in this role when he wrote to the church of Corinth “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”  (2Cor. 11:2)  The espousal of a bride was a contract in which the honor of chastity was the utmost necessity. It is the supreme requirement on which the contract was dependent. Chastity does not mean perfection from human faults. (The church of Corinth was far from that).   It is simply that she has kept herself reserved completely for her husband and no other. It is a matter of great joy for the groom’s friend to present to Him a pure, chaste, virgin bride.
The church is married to Christ in the present
It is vitally important that we understand the present tense relationship of Christ and a New Testament church. Due to the influence of popular Protestant teaching, the common misconception is that the bride of Christ is a futuristic entity. This pretext throws a veil over what God has revealed to us on this subject.  If we cannot identify to whom the bride metaphor applies at present, we cannot understand who she is in the future.The marriage metaphor was given in the epistle to the church of Ephesus. The eleven verses of Ephesians 5:22-33 expound the relationship between a husband and wife. They are weaved together with revelation of that church’s relationship with Christ. The first three verses of that passage say:  22“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” From this passage we see how the church is to submit to its present Head (at this present time) in the same way a wife is to submit to her husband. The verses that follow in that passage show us also how Christ nourishes His church (at this present time) the way a husband is to nourish his wife.
Christ and the New Testament church: Past, Present and Future
Continuing in Ephesians 5, we read:  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. The marriage of a church and Christ has a three-fold aspect to its relationship. In verse 25 we see how Christ gave Himself for the church. This is in past tense.  Verse 26 it shows that he sanctifies cleanses and washes it by the word. This is present tense. No church is perfect, but a church whose head is the Lord is being cleansed, washed and sanctified in this present time. In verse 27 we see “That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle . . .” That presentation is the crowning event of a marriage. In the scope of time for us, this will be in the future. We get a glimpse of this presentation in Revelation chapter 19: 7 “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8  And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.9  And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God”. Notice how she is arrayed in fine linen. The end of verse 8 says “fine linen is the righteousness of the saints”. This fine linen obviously has nothing to do with imputed righteousness (salvation) which is the Lord’s righteousness. This righteousness is of the saints. It is therefore something that goes beyond; as works that are built upon the foundation of salvation. This virgin bride in white linen is unique and precious.In a Jewish wedding, the marriage became legal with the betrothal contract.  From that time on, they were husband and wife though the groom did not take her unto himself until he had prepared a place for her. When that task was complete, the wedding took place and the marriage was consummated. As far as the bride is concerned, the espousal contract is contingent on only one thing – that she reserves herself solely for her head. Nothing else will break that contract. The book of Revelation contrasts this bride to the harlot and her daughters in previous chapters. The distinguishing factor between the bride and a harlot is her faithfulness to one man.  A church body that is not faithful to acknowledge Christ as her literal head is not a faithful bride.
She is unique among the saints
Continuing in Revelation 19, verse 9 says “And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. . .” Beside the bride, there will also be those blessed ones in heaven who are called to the marriage supper. This further illustrates for us that the bride does not symbolize the entire realm of salvation within the kingdom of God. The bride is selected by the groom from among it. All who are at the wedding supper are there solely on the merit of Jesus Christ. The bride is not an elite class of “super-saints.” Her distinction among the daughters of Jerusalem is not her perfection or beauty. It is solely that she wears the ring of her beloved.There are many Christian congregations throughout Christendom. Most regard Christ worshipfully as head of an invisible, universal realm, but not as the actual, literal head of their congregation. Most, in fact, are estranged from birth. They are instituted not by Christ, but by another. The lord and founder of most congregations is a denomination, a board of directors, a college or even an individual. The New Testament church, however, was founded by Christ in His earthly ministry. He gave it ordinances; He commissioned it and promised its perpetuity until He returns. Man-made organizations doing works in Jesus name cannot supplant Christ’s New Testament church.  Nor can any presume its authority by their sincerity or fundamental orthodoxy. A plethora of congregations, for example, are formed by church splits where disgruntled factions charter a new church on their own authority.  As such, the people themselves are the lord of that congregation (as they will be in every successive split thereafter). Likewise others are created by the consensus of Christians in an area desiring a church to suit their needs. Certainly all Christian churches cite Christ as their authority and hold Him in preeminence to one degree or another. What distinguishes a New Testament church from all others, however, is not its object of worship; neither solely by a select list of doctrines. A true New Testament church will hold Jesus Christ as the literal, actual head of that body (Eph.5:23; Col. 1:18; Col 2:19). When Christ is the head of the church, sound doctrine will follow.
She has remained faithful.
There are many, while in the way of serving the Lord, find the comforting embrace of a theological system, a movement, a personality or even a pastor who now dwells in the place of her Lord. They may faithfully preach the gospel, stand on the right Bible, defend the truth and bear fruit for the Saviour. But if that church no longer regards its betrothed as the actual head of that body, there will surely be another to occupy that space. As we read again in Ephesians 5:22-25: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” A church is to submit to Christ – and Christ alone – as a wife is to submit to her own husband and no other. A wife that regards her husband as a figure-head but submits to other men cannot be a wife. How much less can a church call itself the bride of Christ when it does not regard Him as her literal husband and head? Revelation 2:1-7 gives a sobering lesson on this. The Lord addresses this issue with the church of Ephesus (to whom the relationship of Christ and the church was revealed in the book of Ephesians). The Ephesian church had, perhaps, the most things right among all the seven churches of Asia. Yet she would lose her candlestick for this one thing– she left her first love.
Disagree?
We said at the beginning that the definition of the “bride of Christ,” enjoys almost universal agreement. Yet, the Biblical outcome here somehow differs in one major point from that of Catholicism, Protestant evangelicalism, Protestant neo-Baptist fundamentalism, etc.  So what is the difference? The difference is not in the definition of the bride at all. Nearly everyone agrees that the bride of Christ is the church. The difference between the popular Protestant concept and that of the Bible is in how they define the church. However we define the bride will reveal our true concept of the church.  Baptistic sentiment toward the local, visible church, notwithstanding, if our concept of the bride is universal, invisible and futuristic, it is ultimately because our true doctrinal understanding of the church is also.Most Christians within the Baptist variety today are indoctrinated at birth in the Protestant, dual-church concept. The word “church” in Protestant-fundamental Baptist circles is a double-entendre homonym. All claims to Biblical literacy aside, their use of the word is adulterated to include that which is not Biblical at all. This is not strange because the dual-church doctrine itself is certainly an adulterous affair.  God is gracious and longsuffering in our shortcomings, but from Genesis to Revelation, the Lord always withdraws in the event of spiritual adultery.
But isn’t “church” synonymous with “salvation”?
Christ tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9) and Christ gave Himself for the church (Eph. 5:25). Neither of these truths, however, teach that salvation is the church, or that the church is salvation. Salvation is by the grace of God, not by church (Eph. 2:8-9). The thief on the cross is just one example of the grace of God upon a man that was never baptized and never part of any church.  This does not negate from that fact that the Lord’s NT church is the great treasure and object of His affection for which He gave His blood (Acts 20:28).In Matthew 13:44, the parable of the treasure hid in the field gives us an important illustration. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.” The man in the text bought the entire field for the purpose of obtaining the treasure. The treasure, however, is not the field – and the field is not the treasure. Christ paid the price that He might forgive all that come to Him in repentance without violating His holy demand of justice upon our sin. Salvation is solely by the grace of God, whether you are a church member or a thief on a cross. Salvation is the blood-bought field under which we come under new ownership by the grace of God. The treasure is the church for which purpose the Lord gave all to buy. That church is not a man-made religious organization. It is not the great whore, the mother of harlots of Revelation 17. Nor is it any of her daughters or those that espouse their doctrines. The New Testament church was founded by Christ Himself and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Every New Testament church is a microcosm of its own, with Christ as its Head. This is the church for which Christ gave Himself.  The metaphor of the bride illustrates the relationship it has with its Head in the present tense. Its hope of the future is contingent to its fidelity and submission to cleansing by the word.
Some parting thoughts
There are two common misconceptions which may cause us to either miss or malign this wonderful truth. Those are, that the concept of the “bride” is something other than a metaphor and that it only applies to the future. The Lord gives us metaphors to teach us important truths. When men twist those metaphors into a self-serving entity, it destroys those truths. Worse still is when we react with an equally errant alternative. The truths we learn from Ephesians chapter 5 concerning the headship and husbandry of a NT church are substantive truths that should be taken seriously. As we begin to comprehend it Biblically, it becomes obvious that the Lord’s bride is not the whole family of God, which is the realm of salvation. The groom doesn’t marry an entire family. He chooses a special one from it.  The New Testament church is that special treasure hid in a field for which the entire field was redeemed to obtain.The bulk of Christianity whose ecclesiology operates on the platform of universalism has always taken exception to this truth. Those who presume the “true church” to be a mystical, invisible, universal body of Christians will naturally miss the present-tense reality of Christ being the actual, literal Head of a literal, local, NT church. Consequently, they will also presume the bride to be a futuristic entity comprising all who claim to be Christian. It is, therefore, not an important matter to them. It is completely reasonable from their viewpoint, therefore, to assume this truth to be a presumption of cultic elitism. It is laughable to them that any could presume what they consider to be a  “denominational” supremacy. Moreover, they will also conclude that those who believe the bride metaphor applies only to the NT church must think they are the only ones that are saved.The key element here is that the bride metaphor illustrates a relationship that is realized only in the sphere of a true New Testament church. His churches have been called many different names in history. Their true identity, however, is clear only in the continuity of Christ’s doctrine. Whatever the name we have identified with here, the bride will ultimately take the name of the groom. When the Groom returns, He will have a name written, that no man knew, but He Himself (Rev. 19:12). Some have coined the term “Baptist bride” in the pejorative sense, which is generally maligned. Some of whom it is appended will accept it as a badge of separation from their Protestant/Baptistic brethren. It is not, however, an elitist term depicting ones status in the bride by simply wearing the “Baptist” moniker. It is obviously not based on a name, since so many calling themselves “Baptist” today have long ago ceased to regard Christ as their literal and only Head. They left their first love when they began to regard and embrace another through Protestant doctrine. There are many churches of Baptist polity and name that are Protestant by reason of their doctrine. Protestantism is built on the root of its mother system, presuming the root of Catholic universalism to be legitimate.  The grace of God is offered to all who will repent and call on the name of the Lord. But the Lord’s NT church is distinct within the realm of salvation. Its distinction from all other religious organizations within Christendom is maintained by more than its name. They were first called Christian (Acts 11:26) and Nazarene (Acts 24:5).  Through history,they may have been called Waldensian, Danatist, Paulican, Anabaptist . . . or Baptist. Their status as a NT church was never determined by their name, but their Head.

Ephesians 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Posted in Doctirnal Articles | Comments Off on Who is She?

Bible Wine

Bible Wine and the Communion Cup

By Les Potter, Mt. Carmel, Israel.

©COPYRIGHT  2004

 

The subject of wine in the Bible is sometimes confusing. In fact, if you view all references to it, it can appear almost self-contradictory. Not surprisingly, there are therefore strong, absolute dogmas among the brethren in regard to it. As often as not, dogmas are comprised of elements other than the precise examination of the words of Scripture. Furthermore, it is a trait of human nature that once a “position” is taken, further evidence to the contrary is generally not welcomed. Nevertheless, for the sake of any who have not yet closed the books on this case, please allow me to present a few things for consideration.

Over the years, I have met some Baptist brethren that believe the cup of the Lord’s supper must be fermented wine. There are even some who almost consider it a litmus test of fellowship.  Some have even contended that “The Bible says WINE, not grape juice.”  It is understood by most on both sides of this issue, however, that “the cup” of the Lord’s supper is never called either.  The synoptic gospels record the Lord referring to its content as “the fruit of the vine.”  There are those however, who insist that all fruit of the vine is “wine,” by today’s definition of the word.  It is to that position that I would like to address.

The first mention: Proponents of the idea that wine is always alcohol will sometimes refer to the first mention of wine in the Bible. We see in that first mention that when Noah drank it, he was drunken. The principle of first mention can indeed be a useful tool in understanding Bible terms. But the first mention of a word is not the absolute definition without regard to further mention.  As in every other Biblical term, the first mention is compared with further usages throughout the entire Bible to determine its meaning. As we examine further evidence, we learn from Biblical context that there are three different connotations to the word “wine” in the Bible. This is not a problem at all in light of the fact there are various connotations to other Biblical words. Words that have alternate definitions are usually instinctively understood by their context. Take, for example, the word “kill.” When we read the first mention of killing, it is a murderous act. Furthermore, God said “thou shalt not kill” but then later commands “to kill” the sacrifice and even “to kill” transgressors of the law. By observing the way the word is used, we understand there is no contradiction. Rather, there are different connotations within that word that can denote murdering a human or killing an animal or lawfully executing criminals.  It is all clearly understood by context, yet it is the same identical word. Likewise, we all know how the word “love” has at least three different applications. There is the kind of love we have for the brethren, another kind we have for our children, and another kind we have for our spouse. Yet any one of these different meanings is expressed and understood with the same identical word. We could go on with numerous examples, but suffice it to illustrate that a consistent, literal understanding of Scripture does not allow for us to force every word into one chosen definition for every use apart from context.

Further observance reveals that some terms do not always mean the same thing today that they did when our language was at its peak in the 1600’s. The word “apparel” for example means any article of clothing in today’s language. But when Paul used it in 1Tim 2:9, it was far more defining. It was a particular word denoting a “loose, long, flowing outer garment.”  Sure, the word “wine” always means alcohol today, as contrasted to grape juice, which is non-alcoholic. But if we must insist on forcing modern definitions to Biblical terminology, then our understanding “gay clothing” in James 2:3 takes on a new dimension.  The old English term for wine was as generic as “yine” was in Biblical Hebrew. It could denote it as either fermented or unfermented. But as bottling techniques were invented which purposefully produce controlled alcohol content, we began making a distinction between “wine” and “juice”.  The difference is according to its intentional alcohol content; or absence thereof. In Biblical Hebrew there are places where the freshly squeezed, unfermented new wine is called “Tirosh”. Modern Hebrew generally makes the distinction today calling the alcoholic variety “yine,” and juice “meetz.”

In the Bible, the word “wine” is used generically and can be understood three different ways. Sometimes, we are given the added description of “Old Wine” or “New Wine.” Please bear in mind that in Bible times, they did not have the bottling methods we have today. Wine was kept in skins or containers, but they had no way of sealing them from bacteria. Furthermore, the juice from grapes rapidly turns to vinegar when exposed to temperatures above 70 degrees. There is a narrow corridor of temperature in which wine can ferment without turning to vinegar. The grape harvest in Israel is in August and September, which is the hottest time of the year. Temperatures usually soar above 100 degrees at that time. If you were living in the time before modern bottling methods and refrigeration, you would have limited options to preserve your new wine from becoming vinegar. If you wanted it to ferment, you must carefully keep it cool in a deep cave or a well. The common method of preserving it in Bible times was to boil the fresh squeezed juice into a jam and store it in skins. This method could easily preserve the wine for the entire year in any temperature. It was simply reconstituted with water when they were ready to drink it. This was called “Old Wine” in the Bible. Boiling the wine killed the bacteria which would otherwise cause the vinegaration and fermentation process. Thus “old wine” was never alcoholic.

As you might guess, “new wine” was un-boiled wine. New wine could be either  fermented, or unfermented, depending on its stage. The Bible refers to new wine in some places as a blessing (Isaiah 65:8; Joel 3:17; Zechariah 9:17) and in other places as a curse (Hosea 4:11; Joel 1:5; Isaiah 28:1&7). The difference between wine being a blessing or a curse is fermentation. In fact, Proverbs 23:31 says “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.” This warning to avoid it while it is fermenting is a good indication of God’s view of alcohol. The Lord also said in Proverbs 20:1 “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Yet the Lord Himself turned water into wine for a wedding in John chapter 2. Does the Lord contradict Himself? Not at all! The difficulty is in our modern frame of reference, though the answer can be demonstrated in a modern grocery store.  Please allow me to illustrate.

Cider: A good comparison of new wine today would be apple cider. There is only one real difference between cider and apple juice. That is that apple juice is pasteurized (boiled) which kills the natural bacteria, thus preserving it from ‘turning’ in fermentation or to vinegar (in cooler temperature it ferments, in warmer temperature, it vinegarizes) Cider, on the other hand, is not boiled or pasteurized. It therefore can naturally ferment. When I was a boy, I loved cider, and I especially loved it as it began to turn “hard.” That tangy flavor came when it began to ferment. Apples are harvested in the fall, and October is a good climate to ferment cider. The term “cider” in itself does not define whether it is fermented. Likewise, the term “new wine” in the Bible does not whether it was fermented. There are many places in the Bible where the generic term “wine” is used, without the specification of whether it is old wine or new wine. Thus, it may refer to old wine (boiled, preserved and non-fermentable) or new wine (which may be freshly squeezed juice, or may be have been kept in conditions where it could ferment.) In most cases, it is readily understood by context. You will recall that the mockers at Pentecost accused the disciples of drinking“new wine” (Acts 2:13.) They were clearly accusing them of drinking alcohol.

What about a little wine for thy stomach’s sake? Some have cited Paul’s admonition in 1Timothy 5:23 as an occasion for alcoholic wine. The verse reads: “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” While I would not deny the usefulness of alcohol for medicinal purposes such as topical cleansing, mouthwash, and even cough remedies, it is certainly not stomach medicine. In fact, the first thing a doctor will warn a patient suffering from stomach ailments (such as ulcers) is to avoid alcohol. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to prescribe a nip of booze for such an ailment. However, grape juice (old wine) has the opposite affect. Not only could it have nourishing qualities to soothe an upset stomach, it would have been the best alternative to the impure water conditions prevalent to that era. But if we force the definition of “wine” to abide strictly by modern definition, you have the Holy Spirit prescribing a remedy that would be very hurtful to Timothy’s condition. We discern the opposite, however, by way of understanding the different connotations involved in the Biblical use of this word “wine.”

The Lord himself spoke of the difference between old and new wine. He said that the old wine is better (Luke 5:39). Some today might imagine this to be speaking of “vintage.” But in the context of the biblical times, there was no such thing. Here again, as true Bible believers, we must seek to understand Biblical terminology rather than forcing Bible terms to fit our frame of reference.  The Lord spake about what happens when you put new wine in old skins. The new wine swells and destroys old skins that cannot stretch with it. The reason new wine swells is because of the leavening effect of the bacteria in it. We put leaven in bread to purposely get this same expanding effect. We all know how that leaven is a type of sin in Scripture. The Passover bread was to be unleavened and pure. In the Lord’s supper, this Passover bread (matzah) was given as a type of the Lord’s pure body. He who was pure and holy, knowing no sin, gave his body to be broken for us. The Lord gave also the cup to represent his pure, sinless blood to pay for our sins.  Does it seem reasonable that the Lord would use the leavened, fermented wine which he warned us not to look upon (Pr 23:31) to represent his pure unleavened blood? As for me, I think not.

Les Potter

Posted in Doctirnal Articles | Comments Off on Bible Wine

The spirit of today’s neo-Christianity

The Spirit of Today’s Neo-Christianity

Today’s Christians enjoy a greater relevance in Christ that supersedes obedience in the baser things such as holiness, separation, gender roles or sound doctrine. After all, we all know “the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life”. In contrast to the understanding of former generations, the testimony and fruit of today’s Christian is known by their statement that they are a Christian. It is an esoteric concept, which no longer assumes ones devotion to antiquated words of Scripture.  In fact, anyone observing their lack of outward evidence in a visible, physical difference from the world is considered primitive and legalistic by today’s Christians. Biblical reference to areas of disobedience is condemned as being unspiritual, unloving and motivated by pharisaical snobbery. After all, literal adherence to Holy writ is relative to what one “believes,” not that which is actually written.

It is expected, therefore, that they be recognized as fellow ministers of Christ. It is OK that you have “your beliefs” but don’t offend anyone with Biblical words. That would be “un-Christ-like”. The concept of today’s “Jesus” is likened to an earthy, grinning guru with a maternal nature who appreciates all that is done in his name. This “Jesus” is naturally pleased with worship based on their own terms, which is relevant – to them. This is because this “Jesus” is them. Their “Jesus” needs and desires their praise. He basks approvingly in the glory given him through their worldly music and anything else they can do for him. This “Jesus” absolves them of all wrong and frees them from the oppressive concepts of obedience and holiness. Their worship is also validated by the “spirit” who may even energize it with feelings and emotions. This “spirit” is also worthy of praise and exaltation for his work.

The “Jesus” of today’s neo-Christianity changes with the times and follows the fads of men. He is always there for you and is whatever you want him to be. Those whose concept of him is based on His words are legalists. The Bible, after all, is only a reference and literal adherence to the words of God is contrary to the character of today’s “Jesus.”

Mt 7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Posted in Doctirnal Articles | Comments Off on The spirit of today’s neo-Christianity