The Anabaptists

Acts 19:1-7

INTRODUCTION: Who are the Anabaptists? Before we can accurately identify who they are, we must first understand what they are. The term Anabaptist comes from two words transliterated from the Greek: ana meaning “again” and baptises meaning “baptist.” Hence, the word Anabaptist refers to those who baptize over again or rebaptize. However, Baptists have never called themselves Anabaptists because they do not rebaptize people who have scriptural baptism. This name has been given to them by their enemies. In their confessions of faith Baptists have always denied they were Anabaptists. On the title page of the First London Confession of Faith printed in 1644, the following appears: “The Confession of Faith of those Churches which are commonly (though falsely) called ANABAPTISTS.” 

The Oxford Universal Dictionary of Historical Principles defines anabaptism as: “1. Re-baptism: 2. The doctrine of the Anabaptists; also occas., of modern baptists.” This same dictionary gives the following definition of Anabaptist: “1. lit. one who baptizes over again (whether frequently or once). Hence 2. Ch. Hist. Name of a sect which arose in Germany in 1521. 3. Applied (invidiously) to the Baptists.” In a further statement, the OUD states: “Baptists never called themselves anabaptists; as they did not admit that immersion. . .was baptism [without] an intelligent concurrence. . . on the part of the recipient.”

Baptists have never baptized anyone over again any more than Paul did in our text, as we shall explain later. Baptists were in Germany in 1521, but they did not originate there. Interestingly, the OUD admits immersion was practiced in 1521, a fact some Baptist historians who follow the Whittsitt theory claim never happened until 1641, especially in England.

The American Dictionary of the English Language 1828 Edition by Noah Webster defines an Anabaptist as “one who holds the doctrine of the baptism of adults, or of the invalidity of infant baptism, and the necessity of rebaptization in an adult age. One who maintains that baptism ought always to be performed by immersion.”

The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia states: “The name Anabaptists (meaning Rebaptizers) was given by their opponents to a party among the Protestants in Reformation times whose distinguishing tenet was opposition to infant baptism, which they held to be unscriptural and therefore not true baptism. They baptized all who joined them; but, according to their belief, this was not a rebaptism as their opponents charged.”
(Vol.1, p. 161.)

WHO THE ANABAPTISTS WERE

The Compendium of Baptist History by J. A. Schackelford identifies many ancient groups of Christians outside the state church or churches as those who were called Anabaptists. On pages 107, 108 Mr. Shackelford says: “The Waldenses, Albigenses, Paterines, Paulicians, Donatists, and Montanists were all known as Anabaptists, from the fact that they rebaptized all who came over to them from the Catholics.”

John Lawrence Mosheim wrote of the Anabaptists, “The true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of the Anabaptists by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites, from the famous man, to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained (Ecclesiastical History, John Lawrence Mosheim, Vol. 2, pp. 119, 120). Mosheim then showed that the Anabaptists of the seventeenth century were descendents of the Waldenses, the Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects.

Perhaps the most significant statement of the antiquity of Baptists came from the two men whom the King of Holland appointed in 1819 to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church. Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and Rev. I. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King published their History of the Dutch Reformed Church in 1823. In their history they devoted one chapter to the Baptists in which they wrote: “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin.” Then these commissioned historians said, “On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and as a Christian society has preserved pure the doctrine of the gospel through all ages.” (This well-known and oft cited quotation is taken from Baptists in History by W. P. Harvey which appears in Pillars of Orthodoxy, or Defenders of the Faith edited by Ben M. Bogard, p. 417). When the authenticity of this quotation was questioned in the late 1800’s, Dr. Harvey contacted Dr. George Manly who was President of a college of languages in Berlin to verify this statement. Dr. Manly found the volume by Ypeij and Dermout written in the Dutch Language containing the quotation and translated it for Dr. Harvey. Thus the authenticity of their oft-quoted statements concerning the Baptists was confirmed (Baptists in History, Harvey, cited in Pillars of Orthodoxy, edited by Bogard, pp. 418-420).

Were the so-called Anabaptists really rebaptizers? Absolutely not! They could no more be charged with rebaptism than Paul can. The Apostle Paul baptized, not rebaptized (1 Cor. 1:14-17) the twelve disciples mentioned in Acts 19:1-7. They did not have scriptural baptism, nor were they baptized by John the Baptist whose baptism was scriptural enough for our Lord and all the Apostles (Matt. 3:13-17; Acts 1:21, 22). These twelve disciples at Ephesus had “been baptized unto John’s baptism,” not by John the Baptist. “Unto John’s baptism” means with reference to John’s baptism. That they could not have been baptized by John the Baptist is evident from the fact he never left Galilee and Judea. Furthermore, he had been dead for many years at this time, and these twelve disciples had been recently dunked by Apollos, who before being taught the way of God more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, knew only the baptism of John (Acts 18:24-28). Since he at that time knew only the baptism of John, he himself had evidently been baptized by John many years previous to this occasion. Therefore, it had to have been he that baptized these twelve disciples unto John’s baptism. But Apollos was not sent to baptize as was John (John 1:6, 33). Therefore, these twelve disciples did not have scriptural baptism until they received it from Paul. Thus, Paul administered baptism, not rebaptism.

WHAT THE ANABAPTISTS BELIEVED

Those falsely called Anabaptists held to Biblical positions advocated by all true Baptists in every age. Doctrines are not true because they are historical; they are true because they are Biblical. In a paper read before the American Society of Church History in 1890, Henry S. Burrage, D.D., stated the following concerning the beliefs that characterized the Anabaptist movement of the Sixteenth Century: “(1) That the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and practice. (2) That personal faith in Jesus Christ only secures salvation; therefore infant baptism is to be rejected. (3) That a church is composed of believers who have been baptized upon a personal confession of their faith in Jesus Christ. (4) That each church has entire control of its affairs, without interference on the part of any external power. (5) That the outward life must be in accordance with such a confession of faith and to the end it is essential that church discipline should be maintained. (6) That while the State may properly demand obedience in all things not contrary to the law of God, it has no right to set aside the dictates of conscience, and compel the humblest individual to set aside his view, or to inflict punishment in case such surrender is refused. Every human soul is directly responsible to God.” (Henry S. Burrage, “American Society of Church History, pp. 157, 158, quoted by W. A. Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity, pp. 182, 183). Following are some of the beliefs that characterized the Anabaptists:

A Regenerated Church Membership: It was this conviction that caused them to reject infant baptism. No person could be a member of an Anabaptist Church who had not been regenerated and professed his faith in Christ. “They believed in regeneration by the atoning blood of Christ, but they demanded the fruits of regeneration” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183). Neither did they believe in baptismal regeneration in any form. Balthazer Hubmeyer, a prominent leader among the despised Anabaptists from 1525 to 1528 said, “Salvation is conditioned neither on baptism nor on works of mercy. Condemnation is the result, not of neglect of baptism, but of unbelief alone.” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p.184). 

A Baptized Church Membership: The Anabaptists obviously believed in and practiced baptism, else they would never have been called Anabaptists. Hubmeyer called baptism an ordinance of Jesus Christ, saying, “It is not enough that one believes in Jesus; he must confess him openly. . .The divine order is, first, the preaching of the Word; second, faith; third, baptism” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183). Hubmeyer further said, “Where there is no baptism, there is neither church nor ministry, neither brothers nor sisters, neither discipline, exclusion, nor restoration” (W.W. Everts quoted by Jarrel, p. 185). Obviously, they believed in baptism by immersion only. In a book which appeared in Holland in 1532 by an unknown author, with reference to baptism it is said: “So we are dipped under as a sign that we are as it were dead and buried as Paul writes in Rom. 6 and Col. 2” (Jarrel, p. 192). The Baptist Quarterly, Rev., July 1889 quotes the following from Dr. Philip Schaff: “The controversy between the reformers and the Anabaptists referred only to the subjects of baptism. . .The mode of baptism was no topic of controversy, because immersion was still extensively in use, and decidedly preferred by Luther and the other reformers as the most expressive and primitive, though not the only mode” (Jarrel, p. 195).

The Reformers believed in a parish church, i.e. everyone within a certain locale was a member of the church whether or not he was regenerate and had professed his faith in Christ publicly. The so-called Anabaptists rejected this practice, and they were in turn rejected by the Reformers. Leonard Verduin discusses the difference between the Anabaptists and the Reformers concerning who constituted the church in a chapter entitled Catharer in his book, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. The Anabaptists were, he says, falsely accused of perfectionism, but “when the Cathars said that the church consists of changed men and women, they were not saying that it consists of sinless men and women” (Verduin, p. 102).

A Separated Church Membership: Those called Anabaptists were a separated people. Not only were they separated from wicked men in their church membership, their churches were separate from the state. Leonard Veruin discusses their separation from both a worldly society and the state in a chapter entitled Winckler (The Reformers and Their Stepchildren). The Anabaptists refused to get permission or a license from the state to preach (Verduin, p. 182), and they did not make their marriage vows in a state church, for which they suffered great hardship and had their marriages looked upon as illegal cohabitations (Footnote in Verduin, p. 161). Of this important difference, Philip Schaff wrote: “The Reformers founded a popular state-church, including all citizens with their families; The Anabaptists organized on the voluntary principle select congregations of baptized believers, separated from the world and the state” (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, vol. 8, p. 71). 

An Instructed Church Membership: The hated Anabaptists were well-instructed in the Word of God. “The supreme authority of the Scriptures was made especially prominent in these teachings. The great evangelical truth which the Swiss reformers preached, they held” (Burrage, quoted by Jarrel, p. 183). They believed in total depravity, unconditional election, and Holy Spirit regeneration. “They held that there could be no contradiction between God’s doctrine of his church and of salvation, that election and justification by faith and regeneration by the Spirit result in a church of believers (An article in the Standard by Prof. Howard Osgood, quoted by Jarrel, p. 189). Philip Schaff is quoted in the Baptist Quarterly as saying of the Anabaptists, “They preached repentance and faith, baptized converts, organized congregations, and exercised rigid discipline. . .They accepted the New Testament as their only rule of faith and practice. . . They were generally orthodox. . .Their demand of rebaptism virtually unbaptized and unchurched the entire Christian world. . .These two ideas of a pure church of believers and of baptism of believers only were the fundamental articles of the Anabaptist creed” (The Baptist Quarterly, quoted by Jarrel, p. 194). Do not these teaching clearly identify the ancient Anabaptists with modern Baptists who hold to historical Baptist positions?

THE MUNSTER AFFAIR

What is known as the Munster Affair occurred in connection with the Peasant Wars. There had long been trouble in Germany between the peasants and the nobility. For one hundred years, the peasants had attempted to throw off the yoke which their feudal lords had laid upon them. Thomas Munzer was a leader of this tumult. This insurrection had more to do with politics than it had with religion. The men of Munster wielded the sword and dreamed of establishing a secular kingdom. They even practiced polygamy, insurrection, and other actions which were repugnant to the true Anabaptists.

“Thomas Munzer was never really an Anabaptist. Though he rejected infant baptism in theory, he held to it in practice, and never submitted to rebaptism himself nor rebaptized others” (The Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 26). Conrad Grebal, Thomas Manz, and others wrote to Munzer to exhort him, while passing judgment upon his inconsistencies. They exhorted Munzer to abandon all non-scriptural usages (The Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 29). Since he resisted the abuses of magistracy with the sword, he certainly was out of step with the Anabaptists who were always a passive and peaceful people. Munzer and the whole episode at Munster wrongly became a calumny against the Anabaptists. Accusing the Anabaptists of every conceivable evil and heresy had long been the practice of their enemies. Thus, we are not surprised that they were quick to identify the Munster Affair with the Anabaptists.

THE CONNECTION WITH PARTICULAR BAPTISTS

There were several different groups of Anabaptists just as there are many different fellowships of Baptists today. Some so-called Anabaptists believed in a general atonement and the free will of man. These Anabaptists were located in northern Europe. The General Baptists of England descended from them. Other Anabaptists believed in Particular Redemption and the bondage of the will. They were primarily located in southern Europe and were also known as Albigeness and Waldenses. In a footnote in Ecclesiastical History in a Course of Lectures by William Jones, vol. 3, p. 45 this statement is made: “Clark, in his Martrology, p. 111, says, ‘About this time, A. D. 1210, the English, who now possessed Guienne, which bordereth upon the earldom of Toulouse, began to help the Albigenses, being stirred up thereto by Reynard Lollard, a godly and learned man, who by his powerful preaching converted many to the truth and defended the faith of the Albigenses.’” The Lollards in England were named for this man who had preached among them. Henry Danvers called him a Waldensian barb or pastor (A Treatise of Baptism, p. 275). Samuel Moreland whom Oliver Cromwell sent to aid the persecuted Waldenses wrote, “Lollardo, who was in great Reputation amongst the Evangelical Churches of Piemont, by reason of a commentary that he made upon the Revelation: As also for having conveyed the knowledge of their Doctrine into England, where his Disciples were known by the name of Lollards” (The History of The Evangelical Churches of the Vallleys of Piemont, p. 184). Another writer has said: “Seemingly they [the Waldenses] took no share in the great struggle which was going on around them in all parts of Europe, but in reality they were exercising a powerful influence upon the world. Their missionaries were everywhere, proclaiming the simple truths of Christianity, and stirring the hearts of men to their very depths. In Hungary, in Bohemia, in France, in England, in Scotland, as well as Italy, they were working with tremendous, though silent power. Lollard, who paved the way for Wycliffe in England, was a missionary from these Valleys [emphasis mine]” (Cross and Crown, McCabe, p. 32).
Baptist Historian Abel Morgan wrote, “AND THAT THE FIRST THAT REVIVED THE ANCIENT PRACTICE OF ADULT BAPTISM IN ENGLAND HAD IT FROM THEM [the Waldenses], IS NO MORE UNLIKELY, THAN FOR THE PRESBYTERIANS TO HAVE THEIR DISCIPLINE FROM GENEVA; FOR THE ENGLISH HAD POSSESSION OF THOSE PARTS OF FRANCE WHERE THE WALDENSES WERE MOSTLY COUNTENANCED, FROM THE YEAR 1152 TO THE YEAR 1452, WHICH WAS LONG ENOUGH FOR MANY PERSONS TO BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THOSE GODLY PEOPLE, BY SUCH INTERCOURSE, AND FROM THEIR EXAMPLE, TO ENDEAVOUR A REFORMATION IN ENGLAND, though with no great success for a while. . .” (Anti-Paedo Rantism, pp. 172,173). Consequently, Baptist Historian R. E. Pound has concluded, “Please note when those in England became acquainted with the principles and practices of the Godly people in Southern France, between 1152-1452. He [Abel Morgan] further notes that those who first revived adult dipping in England, in modern times, revived the ancient practice of adult baptism from those in Southern France. He points out that their efforts in this revived practice met with no great results for a while. This testimony shows that the London Particular Baptists secured their baptism from the already existing Albigensian-Waldensian churches in Southern France, not in Holland” (The French Connection).
CONCLUSION: THOUGH THEY WERE FALSELY CALLED ANABAPTISTS, THESE CHURCHES WERE THE TRUE CHURCHES OF JESUS CHRIST.
There are those who would call our Baptist Churches Anabaptist Churches today because we baptize those who come to us from the both the Church of Rome and Protestant Churches so-called. We do not rebaptize; we baptize, because those who have been either sprinkled or dipped by these societies do not have true and Scriptural baptism.
As we have seen, there were many more distinguishing characteristics of the Anabaptists than baptism alone. They held tenaciously to the old, Apostolic faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). May we, as their spiritual descendents, continue to hold to that same faith. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cathcart, William. The Baptist Encyclopedia. Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. Reprint, 1988 (First Published in 1881).
Danvers, Henry. A Treatise of Baptism. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications Reprint, 2004 (First Published in 1674).
Jackson, Samuel Macauley (ed.). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. 12 vols. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1908.
Jarrel, W. A. Baptist Church Perpetuity. Dallas: Published by the Author, 1894.
Jones, William. Ecclesiastical History in a Course of Lectures. 3 vols. London: G. Wightman, Paternoster Row, 1833.
McCabe, James D. Cross and Crown. [n.p.] Jones Brothers and Company, 1880.
Moreland, Samuel. The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont. London: Henry Hills, 1658.
Morgan, Abel. Anti-Paedo Rantism. Philadelphia: Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1747.
Onions, C. T. (ed). The Oxford Universal dictionary on Historical Principles (3rd. ed.). London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Pound, R. E. The French Connection. Electronic Mail, July 24, 2008.
Shackelford, J. A. Compendium of Baptist History. Louisville: Baptist Book Concern, 1892.
Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. Sarasota, Florida: The Christian Hymnary Publishers Reprint, 1997 (First Published in 1964).
Webster, Noah. An American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed.). San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education Reprint, 1967 &1995 (First Published in 1828).

Baptists from the time of Christ to the Reformation

Matthew 16:18

INTRODUCTION: It is clear from this passage that Christ Himself built His ekklesia or church during His earthly ministry. It is also evident from Ephesians 3:21 that the ekklesia of Christ would continue to exist through the ages. Matthew 28:20 confirms this conclusion. What Christ was building during His earthly ministry must still exist in the world; otherwise, His promise was bogus. Holding to the authority and inerrancy of the sacred Scriptures, we believe the same kind of ekkelesia Christ instituted during His ministry still exists today, even as the same kind of marriage God instituted between one man and one woman continues to exist today despite attempts by men to institute new kinds of marriages. That other sorts of so-called churches exist does not mean Christ’s ekklesia has ever ceased to exist. While individual local churches do cease to exist, the ekklesia of Christ as an institution has ever existed somewhere in the world from the days of Christ until this very day.

The Nature of the Church. The church or ekklesia Jesus built was a local and visible institution, not a universal, visible church, as Rome claims, or a universal, invisible church as the Reformers affirm. Sometimes the word ekklesia is used in a generic sense, as in Ephesians 5:23. Sometimes it is used figuratively for all the redeemed, as J. M. Pendleton explains in his Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches, p. 5. All of the redeemed are not the church, but they are like a church or ekklesia in that they are the called-out.

The Meaning of Church Perpetuity. “All that Baptists mean by church ‘Succession,’ or Church Perpetuity is: there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth.” (Baptist Church Perpetuity, W. A. Jarrel, p. 3).

The Sources of History. Most of what we find written in history about the various groups of ancient Baptists was written by their enemies, although some of their own writings have survived to this day. The enemies of these ancient people misrepresented and calumniated them. They not only burnt and otherwise martyred them but burned their books as well. However, enough truth has survived even in the false accusations of their enemies to tell the story of these ancient Baptists.

The Name “Baptist.” Baptist denotes a baptizing or immersing church. The term anabaptist which is applied erroneously to all ancient Baptists refers to a church which ostensibly rebaptizes, hence; they are said by their enemies to be rebaptizers. This name was given to the ancient Baptists; they did not take it to themselves and always denied they rebaptized anyone.

The Prominent Issue in Church History. Ancient Baptists are always recognized by the fact they always immersed believers, not infants. The immersion of believers only on the profession of their faith has always characterized true Baptists. We must remember that many orthodox teachings were held at first by the apostate Church of Rome. Little by little, the apostate or false church exchanged these orthodox beliefs for novel ones. The Nicene Council established new doctrines which differed from those held by the original New Testament Churches. All Baptists have held a Biblical Theology and their practices have been consistent with that theology. If we as Baptists hold to the same Biblical truths today as the early New Testament Churches held, then we will expect to find churches adhering to these same doctrines and practices in every century between the first and the twenty-first. We do in fact find in every century groups of believers and churches known by different names who were Baptists, i.e. they practiced the immersion of believers only.
While every group of ancient Baptists may not have agreed with one another, or with us on every issue, let us remember that various fellowships of modern-day Baptists do not always agree in all their doctrines and practices. The independency of each church and liberty of conscience among believers accounts for such differences.

THE MONTANISTS, About A.D. 156-180

Perhaps no other group has been more maligned and falsely accused of heterodox views than the Montanists. The Montanists get their name from one Montanus who was accused of believing he was the Holy Spirit by the Lutheran historian, John Lawrence Mosheim. This slander was corrected by Mosheim’s translator in a footnote (Ecclesiastical History, John Lawrence Mosheim, Vol. 1, p. 65). Schaff wrote of Montanus, “His adversaries wrongly inferred from the use of the first person for the Holy Spirit in his oracles, that he made himself directly the Paraclete, or, according to Epiphanius, even God the Father.” (History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vol. 2, p. 418). The Montanists have been vindicated of many false accusations against them by other historians such as Agustus Neander as well as Philip Schaff. Schaff cites a work by Wernsdorf Theoph entitled Commentatio de Montanistis Saeculi II, golgo creditis hoereticis which is “A vindication of Montanism as being essentially agreed with the doctrines of the primitive church and unjustly condemned.” Montanus’ aim was to maintain or to restore the scriptural simplicity, nature and character of the religion of the New Testament with a constant reliance on the promise of the Holy Spirit (Jarrel, p. 70).

Thomas Armitage wrote of the Montanists, “Both the opposition of Tertullian, and the open denial of the Montanists that baptism is the channel of grace, renders it unlikely that they adopted this practice [infant baptism]. They insisted so radically on the efficacy of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, that to have immersed unconscious babes would have nullified their basic doctrine of the direct agency of the Spirit, and have thwarted their attempts at reform, in the most practical manner.” (A History of the Baptists, Thomas Armitage, Vol.1, p. 177). Armitage also said of the Montanists, “The one prime-idea held by the Montanists in common with Baptists, and in distinction to the Churches of the third century was, that membership in the Churches should be confined to purely regenerate persons; and that a spiritual life and discipline should be maintained without any affiliation with the authority of the State” (Armitage, p. 175). Jarrel concludes that “when Montanism arose, no essential departure from the faith in the action, the subjects of baptism, church government or doctrine, the Montanists, on these points, were Baptists.” (Jarrel, p. 69)

THE NOVATIANS, About A.D. 250

This group of ancient Baptists was called Novatians after the name of Novatian. The Novatians are linked with the Montanists in that they renewed the moral protests of Montanus (Jarrel, p. 77). Many of Novatians followers united with the Montanists (Schaff, Vol. 2, p. 197). When a division occurred in 251 A.D. in the church at Rome over the election of a pastor, the conservative element of the church sided with Novatian against a more liberal group which elected Cornelius as pastor. The issue was a lax discipline on the part of Cornelius and the church at Rome toward those who had denied their faith because of persecution. The liberal party was for receiving them back into their fellowship; the conservative party opposed it. The conservative and minority group withdrew from the liberal majority and elected Novatian as their pastor. Thus, the Novatians stood for the purity of the church in both doctrine and practice. They maintained the discipline of the church was essential to its doctrinal purity.

The baptism of Novatian has been questioned. It is asserted by some that he was not immersed. Because he was ill, Novatian received what is called clinic baptism. He was covered with water while on his sick bed. The intent was to cover him in water, which act would have been immersion. It is difficult to believe that, if he had not been properly immersed while sick, he would not have sought to be baptized properly when he was well. Novatian, however, was not the founder of a church. He was simply a leader among those who stood for the purity of the church. Since the Novatian Churches certainly immersed, it is highly unlikely Novatian himself was unbaptized.

Neander says, “The controversy with the Novatian party turned upon two general points:—1. What are the principles of penitence? 2. What constitutes the idea and essence of a true church? “ (General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Agustus Neander, Vol. 1, p. 339). Neander further quotes Novatian as saying, “We ought doubtless to take care of those who have thus fallen, but nothing can be done for them beyond exhorting them to repent, and commending them to the mercy of God. . .they must not be received to the communion; they should only be exhorted to repentance--the forgiveness of their sins must be left to that God who alone has power to forgive sin.” (Neander, pp. 339, 40). It is not surprising to learn that the Novatians were the first to be called the cathari or pure. J. M. Cramps concludes, “We may safely infer that they [the Novatian Churches] abstained from compliance with innovation [infant baptism], and that the Novatian churches were what are now called Baptist churches, adhering to the Apostolic and primitive practice.” (Baptist History, J. M. Cramp, p.45.).

THE DONATISTS, About A.D. 311

The Donatists were given this name by their adversaries because of their leader, Donatus. The Donatists were much like the Novatians (Neander, Vol. 3, p. 258). Schaff links the Donatists with both the Montanists and Novatians (Schaff, Vol. 3, p. 360). It is obvious, that they, like the two aforementioned groups, held to the purity of the church. Armitage quotes Merivale as saying of the Donatists: “They represented the broad principle of the Montanists and Novatians, that the true Church of Christ is the assembly of really pious persons only, and admits of no merely nominal membership.” (Armitage, p. 200). Henry Danvers quotes Cryspin’s French History as saying, “We put the Donatists and Novatians together, because they did so well agree in Principle” (A Treatise of Baptism, Henry Danvers, p. 225). They considered their own churches pure and denounced the catholics as the schismatics. Mosheim wrote, “The doctrine of the Donatists was conformable to that of the church, as even their adversaries confess. . .The crime, therefore of the Donatists lay properly in the following things: in their declaring the church of Africa, which adhered to Caecillanus, fallen from the dignity and privileges of a true church and deprived of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. . .” (Mosheim, Vol. 1, pp. 109,110).

Bohringer, a biographer of Augustine is quoted by Jarrel as saying, “Infant baptism is the only point of difference between Augustine and the Donatists, and this grew out of the Donatist notion of the church.” (Jarrel, p. 96). That the Donatists rejected infant baptism is obvious from the fact that Austin’s controversy with them was over this issue (Danvers, p. 107). David Benedict in his History of the Donatists concludes that the Donatists were “thorough-going antipedobaptists” (p. 134).

The Donatists believed in the independency of the local church. Jarrel quotes W. W. Everts, Jr., .of whom he wrote, “perhaps, no one in America has a better knowledge of church history” (p. 96) as saying, “We clearly trace among them the polity of the apostolic and Baptist church. Independence of the hierachy was universally maintained, and no higher authority than the local church was acknowledged.” (Jarrel, p. 98). That the Donatists believed in a local, not a hierarchal church is evident from the fact that at the Council of Carthage 279 Donatists bishops were present. At another time 410 Donatist bishops assembled together. In a hierarchal church, only a few bishops are necessary for the largest country, but the bishops among the Donatists were obviously pastors of local, independent, and individual churches. 

Jarrel quotes Prof. Heman Lincoln, Professor of Church History in Newton Theological Seminary as writing: “The Donatists held. . .many of the principles which are regarded as axioms by modern Baptists. They maintained absolute freedom of conscience, the divorce of church [and state], and a regenerate church membership. These principles, coupled with their uniform practice of immersion, bring them into close affinity with Baptists.” (Jarrel, p. 105). It is clear, then, that the Donatist Churches consisted of regenerate members who were baptized by immersion. Because they were falsely called Anabaptists, it is obvious they baptized those who came to them from the catholic party.

THE PAULICIANS, About A.D. 611

The Paulicians were given their name by their enemies because of their adherence to the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Like Baptists today, they strictly adhered to New Testament Order in their faith and practice. They are linked with the Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists in doctrine and practice. As we shall see later, they are also linked with the Albigenses and known as Bogomiles, Patereni, and Cathari. They received the New Testament as their inspired guide. Because they did not use the Old Testament as their rule of faith and practice, they were falsely accused of rejecting the Old Testament. They had a high regard for Scripture. Neander says, “. . .it is evident, even from the manner in which their teachers write to the members of the sect, and from the order and denominations of their ecclesiastical officers, that they designed and strove to derive their doctrines from the New Testament; and particularly from the writings of the Apostle Paul.” (Neander, Vol. 5, p. 339).

The Paulicians are falsely called Manichaeists or dualists, a system of belief that claims there are two basic and opposing principles of good and evil. Men derive the elements of goodness in the world from the former and badness from the latter. Neander wrote, “We find nothing at all, however, in the doctrines of the Paulicians, which would lead us to presume that they were an offshoot from Manichaeism; on the other hand, we find much which contradicts such a supposition.” (Neander, Vol. 5, pp. 337,338).

Jarrel writes, “In these churches of the Paulicians, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper they held to be peculiar to the communion of the faithful; i.e. restricted to believers” (Jarrel, p. 115). He then gave this summation of the Paulicians: “While I have more testimony to prove the Paulicians were Baptists as to the ordinances, I conclude this point with these as amply sufficient: (1.) They did administer the ordinances. (2.) Only to believers. (3.) They recognized the scriptural truth, that only immersion is baptism. (4.) As they baptized only believers they believed in a regenerate church membership.” (Jarrel, p. 119).

George Stanley Faber vindicated the Paulicians of all the calumnies their enemies brought against them concerning the orthodox faith. He writes,”They held the allied doctrines of theTrinity and the Incarnation: but they renounced the worship of the Cross and of the Virgin and of the Saints; while they evidently disbelieved that material presence of the Lord’s body and blood in the consecrated elements which finally received the name of Transubstantiation. The God-denying speculation, which explains away the doctrine of the Trinity and which asserts Christ to be a mere man, they abhorred.” (The History of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, George Stanley Faber, p. 54).

THE ALBIGENSES, About A.D. 900

The Albigenses get their name from Albiga or Albi in southern France. They were both numerous and influential there for many years. In fact, it is said they filled and molded France and Italy with their pure lives, affecting in a lesser degree other parts of Europe as well. Coming from Asia where they had been known as Paulicians, they came also to be known as Albigenses. Jarrel quotes a Dr. Carl Schmidt, an eminent German authority of Strasburg, speaking of their being called Albigenses, saying: “Before that time the sect was spoken of as Publicants or Publicani, probably a corruption of the name Paulicians, which the Crusaders had brought back from Western Europe” (Jarrel, pp. 124, 125).

Like the Paulicians, the Albigenses were falsely called Manichaeans, a charge that Faber literally destroys in 131 pages of his excellent work. Since they are linked with the Paulicians, they are also linked with the Donatists, the Novatians, and the Montanists. They were also known and Paterines and Cathari.
The Albigenses denied marriage was a sacrament but did not reject marriage, as they are falsely accused. They rejected both infant baptism and baptismal regeneration (Armitage, pp. 278, 280). They also had a very simple ecclesiastical organization. The Albigenses are one and the same people with the Waldenses.
THE WALDENSES, About A.D. 1100
The Waldenses received their name from a valley of the Pyrenees Mountains, not from Peter Waldo. They have been called the Valdenses, Vaudois, Vallenses, as well as the Waldenses. As it is with Baptists today, there were different groups or fellowships of Waldenses. They believed in a professedly regenerate church membership, practiced immersion, rejected baptismal regeneration, held to the authority of Scripture, and believed in salvation by grace and election (Jarrel, pp. 161-166). They issued a Confession of Faith in 1120 A.D. They were persecuted mercilessly by the agents of Rome. Many of them later became Protestants and practiced infant baptism, though there are still some Waldenses who hold to the true and Apostolic faith.
THE LOLLARDS About A.D. 1315
The Lollards were given this name by their enemies for their leader, Walter Lollard, a German preacher of renown among the Waldenses who came to England. The Lollards are known best for John Wycliffe, the great translator of the Bible, of whom Danvers wrote, “Of whose opinions and doctrines so well agreeing with the Waldenses of old, we have an account, as from his own writings, so from many authors that have collected the same from them. . .” (Danvers, p. 278). That Wycliffe was a Baptist is evident from 29 tenants he held as listed by Danvers (Danvers, pp. 279-287). The Lollards were among the forerunners of the English Baptists. Obviously they were linked with the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Paulicians, the Donatists, the Novatians, and the Montanists.
CONCLUSION: WE HAVE THUS SEEN THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT! Running like a pure mountain stream from its source, the church has continued, though at times unseen because of being underground, to this very day. It has been called by various names but is known for its uncompromising stand for the faith once delivered to the saints. Existing today because of Christ’s promise and the fidelity of its members, the church will continue into the ages of the ages. Will we who are privileged to be members of the Lord’s churches continue to be faithful and willing instruments whom the Holy Spirit uses to perpetuate the Church of Jesus Christ?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armitage, Thomas. A History of the Baptists. 2 vols. Watertown, Wisconsin: Baptist Heritage Press Reprint, 1988 (First Published in New York, 1890). 

Benedict, David. History of the Donatists, with Notes. Gallatin, Tennessee: Church History Research & Archives Reprint, 1985 (First Published in Providence, R. I. 1875).

Cramp, J. M. Baptist History from the Foundation of the Christian Church to the Present Time. Watertown, Wisconsin: Baptist Heritage Publications, 1987 Reprint (First Published in London, 1871). 

Danvers, Henry. A Treatise of Baptism. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications Reprint, 2004 (First Published in London, 1674).

Faber, George Stanley. An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses. Gallatin, Tennessee: Church History Research & Archives Reprint, 1990 (First Published in London, 1838).

Jarrel, W. A. Baptist Church Perpetuity. Dallas: Published by the Author, 1894.

Mosheim, Henry Lawrence. An Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, from the Birth of Christ to the Beginning of the Eighteenth Century. Trans. Archibald Maclaine. 2 vols. Rosemead, California, 1959 Reprint. (First Published in 1764).

Neander, Dr. Augustus. A General History of the Christian Religion and Church. Trans. Joseph Torrey. 9 vols. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1850.

Pendleton, J. M. Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches. Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1867.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Reprint, 1995 (First Published in 1910).

The Authoritative Word of God

The Bible is the written Word of God. What God has spoken has been recorded in words inspired by God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (1 Tim. 3:16). Because the Bible is inspired of God, its words are truth (John 17:17). Holy men of God spoke and recorded God’s Word as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:20, 21). The Bible is not a compilation of men’s ideas; it is the truth as spoken by God Himself.

The God who inspired the words of Scripture has preserved those words through the ages. Our Lord said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Thus, either the very words of Christ remain with us, or He lied. Since Christ is God and cannot lie (Titus 1:2), we therefore still have His very words with us as they are recorded in the Bible. Christ Himself being truth (John 14:6), His words are therefore true. Among His words are His statements which verify the trustworthiness of all the Scriptures.

Therefore, when the Word of God speaks on any issue, it speaks with the authority of truth. It is to be believed. We are to live by it because we shall be judged by it (John 12:48; Rev. 20:12). Today many do not believe the Bible is God’s Word. Does their unbelief make His Word null and void? Let the Apostle Paul answer this question: “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. . .” (Rom. 3:4). Rank unbelief thrives in this age under the guise of scholarship and intellectualism, and many tend to believe the unbeliever instead of the God of truth. As for me, I stand with the Psalmist who said, “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalm 119:128). Where else could one ever hope to find the truth?

Man's Way vs. God's Way

Proverbs 14:12 states, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” What appears right to men is not always right. When the majority of a society endorses a certain viewpoint, one would do well to suspect that viewpoint. The truth is seldom found in the mainstream of thought. Because of their fallen nature, men are inclined to believe a lie before they believe the truth. Certain ancient societies believed in human sacrifices. Today we abhor such practices; most likely, future generations will abhor evil practices this generation endorses such as abortion, sodomy, gambling, etc.

Another popular misconception of man is that his technological advances create climate change. It is not his technology but his sins that cause droughts, floods, famines, etc. Evidence has been found recently that shows the Sahara Desert was verdant and supported animal life many centuries ago. What made it a desert? It certainly was not the burning of fossil fuels or the combustion engine. Rather, it was the Lord. Psalm 107:33-35 declare, “He turneth rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground; A fruitful land into barrenness for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. He turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry ground into watersprings.” 

Men can put a band-aid on the problem of climate change by trying to go green, but they will not thereby solve the problem. In fact, they will create new problems. Soon we will hear about all the damage to birds and the environment wind farms are causing. The ends of the ways men think to be right are always ways of death. If men are really willing to solve climate problems, then let them repent of their evil ways and seek the Lord (2 Chron. 7:12-14).

Man's Sin Problem

Mankind has a serious problem; that problem is called sin. It colors and debases everything he does. When he would do good things, the evil of sin is still with him (Rom. 7:20, 21). Except for the God-Man who was sinless, every man, woman, and child since Adam have been infected with sin. The Apostle Paul wrote, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

All men are sinners on three counts. First, they sinned in father Adam (Rom. 5:12). When he sinned, we all sinned because he was our representative head. He acted in behalf of the entire race. Second, all people are sinners by choice (Rom. 1:21-23). No man is made to sin against his own will; rather he wills to sin (Eph. 2:3). Thirdly, all men are sinners by practice. The Word of God declares, “For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not” (Eccl. 7:20). Every man without exceptions is guilty before God of sin.

Sin has but one solution: the blood of Christ. Scripture teaches that the blood of Christ alone can cleanse a man from sin (1 John 1:7; Heb. 9:22). Neither religion nor psychology can purge any sinner from his sin. There is nothing any sinner can do to save himself from the consequences of his sin, which is death (Rom. 6:23). Christ and Christ alone is the Savior of sinners. If there had been a good work, a religious ceremony, or a law by which men could cleanse themselves from sin, then Jesus Christ would not have had to die. But He did die, and His death and shed blood are the only remedy for sin. The song of the saints in heaven has one theme: the shed blood of Christ by which they were redeemed (Rev. 5:9). Therefore, to look for cleansing from sin from any other source is vain. Christ’s blood alone actually cleanses the sinner from his sin.

Greed and Dishonesty

Recent problems among several of our financial institutions have revealed greed and dishonesty on the part of those responsible for managing money belonging to others. The Scripture says, “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:2). Clearly, the mismanagement of funds committed to their trust is a serious breach of moral ethics. These unjust stewards are deserving of public scorn and prosecution for putting those institutions at risk.

But there is another class of stewards who are to be blamed for this fiasco more than the CEO’s of these lending institutions: the elected officials and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. These paragons of integrity pass laws and establish regulations for everyone else but have proven incapable of managing themselves. Several elected officials have been shown to have had their hands in all the tills they were supposed to be overseeing for the public good. Having politicians regulating financial institutions is like having the fox guarding the hen house. 

It has been said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The power to enrich oneself at the public trough is too great a temptation for most people. “For the love of money is the root of all evil. . .” wrote the Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 6:10). The dispensing of some money among the electorate further procures these elected representatives power to be elected again to do more of the same. Thus, greed and dishonesty rule in our land. This public crisis will not be solved until the private problem of men’s hearts is resolved by a national repentance for these and other sins. If greedy and dishonest representatives of the people continue to be elected, it will be because the majority of the electorate prefers such. No one can expect a change in society until he is willing to make a change in himself.

Absolutism vs. Relativism

The law of God is stated in absolute terms. The phrases thou shalt and thou shalt not are not ambiguous. They clearly define what one should do and what he should not do. But such absolutes are not popular with many who desire to do what they should not and have little inclination to do what they should. To them, what is right for one person may be wrong for another or vice versa; moral issues are not really black and white; they are varying shades of gray. Consequently, one should never be so naïve as to take anything absolutely but rather consider all the nuances others might see in the issue before passing judgment on it.

The scribes and the Pharisees were relativists who found varying shades of meaning in God’s law. The fifth commandment required children to honor their father and mother (Ex. 20:12), but the scribes and Pharisees had somehow discovered this commandment really did not mean children had to honor their parents in all cases. Our Lord addressed this whole issue when He said, “For Moses said, Honour thy father and they mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death; But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free (Mark 7:10, 11). This nuance in the interpretation of the law permitted them to avoid all responsibility to their parents and made the Word of God null and void in this matter (Mark 7:12, 13).

Men will go to any length to nullify absolutes in moral issues. Their relative approach permits them to justify any evil in their own minds, but one wonders how well such nuances will work when they stand before God to give account of both their words and their deeds. In that day God’s judgments will be rendered according to absolute standards, not the nuances of relativism (Rev. 20:11-15).

Faith and the New Birth

Our Lord said to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The oft-debated question among Christian denominations is, “How is one born of God?” Many believe that they are born of God by their faith. They are told to believe in Jesus Christ that they might be born again, thus making their faith the cause of their new birth. But didn’t Jesus compare the new or spiritual birth to the old or physical birth? Read John 3:4-8. Whoever heard of anyone being the cause of his own birth? We are not born of faith, repentance, baptism, or any such act; we are born of the Spirit (John 3:8).

Faith, therefore, is not the cause of the new birth but the fruit of new birth. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” wrote John in 1 John 5:1. The present tense “believeth” is the result of the perfect tense “is born.” The new birth enables one who is a sinner to believe in Jesus. John 1:12, 13 confirms this interpretation. We were not born “of the will of the flesh.” If our faith caused our new birth, then we would have been born of the will of the flesh, and not of God, because there could be no new man until we were born again, thus making the new birth the result of the will of the flesh. But John 1:13 clearly states we are born of God, not of the will of the flesh.

Believing that the flesh does something to cause the new birth has led to the false teachings of decisional salvation and baptismal regeneration. Both of these erroneous doctrines make the flesh the cause of the new birth. The truth is we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and identify with Him in baptism because we have been born of God. Faith, repentance, and obedience are the fruit of regeneration, not its cause. Persevering in the faith is the evidence of new birth, not its source. We owe our new birth, not to any decision or act of ours, but to the free and sovereign grace of our gracious God and Father.

What is Truth?

This question was asked of our Lord by Pilate (John 18:38), and it is being asked over and over again by a generation steeped in relativism which admits no absolutes except the absolute that everything is relative. The answer to this question is clear and absolute. All truth comes from God. Moses declared of God that He is “a God of truth. . .” (Deut. 32:4). He cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). What He says, then, is truth. The Lord Jesus affirmed this fact when He said to God, His Father, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).

God’s Word is called by Daniel “the scripture of truth” (Dan. 10:21). We are told by the Apostle Paul that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:17). That is to say, the Holy Scriptures, or what we call the Bible, has the very breath of God on its words. The very words themselves are inspired of God. Therefore, the entire Bible which is God’s Word can be believed because it is truth. There are no false statements in it. It is not partly true; it is true

How do we know we have God’s Word in the Bible? Jesus Christ affirmed we have God’s Word in the Scriptures. He appealed to the Scriptures as the final authority in all of His controversies with His adversaries (Matt. 21:42; 22:29). If He was a great man and teacher, as even the most ardent denier of His Deity is willing to admit, what He says about the Scriptures must be considered credible. Great men and teachers are to be believed about such matters. Since the Bible is God’s Word, then it follows that we must believe its teachings. Do you?

The Law and Grace

What is the purpose of law? Is it to make people righteous? No; rather, the Scripture says law is what makes men know they are sinners. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Sin was in the world from the time of Adam’s fall until the Mosaic Law was given, but sin was not known to be sin as such until the law was given (Rom. 5:12-14). “Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. . .” (Rom. 5:20). Paul further writes, “. . .I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet” (Rom. 7:7).

Today men despise law. Old laws are being erased from the statute books of states and municipalities. These laws were based primarily on God’s eternal moral law as recorded in His Word. Man, wanting to practice what God’s law forbids, wants these laws repealed so that he will not be a lawbreaker in men’s eyes. But no matter how many laws men erase from their books, they cannot nullify the law of God. The very law they despise will one day judge them.

The downside to abandoning God’s law is that men are left without a conception of God’s grace. One cannot know grace until he understands law. Romans 5:20 states in the latter part of the verse, “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Where the law is not taught, there will be little grace experienced. Is that not what is happening in our land today? A new generation has risen among us, that has not experienced God’s grace because they have not been taught the laws of God as they are revealed in His Word. Not knowing sin, they see no need of grace or the salvation it alone gives (Eph. 2:8).

God's Word alone Defines Sin

There seems to be a concerted effort in society to redefine sin. As a result, sin has been downgraded to the extent that the most vicious and vile acts are no longer considered to be sin among many of this generation. Adultery, fornication, sodomy, stealing, and even murder (abortion) are no longer believed to be sins against a thrice Holy God. Beware of anyone who claims these acts are not sin. Every transgression of God’s law is sin in His sight (1 John 3:4). Anything which comes short of the glory of God is sin (Rom. 3:23).

The eternal and sovereign God of the Bible defined sin long ago. The first sin was eating of the forbidden tree (Gen. 2:17; 3:11). Who among this generation would classify such disobedience as sin? God’s Word further declares “The thought of foolishness is sin” (Prov.. 24:9); “whatsoever is not of faith is sin”(Rom. 14:23); and “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin”(Jas. 4:17).

When sin is downgraded, so is salvation. Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), but if no one is a sinner, then the Savior is not needed. Many are being deceived into thinking they do not need to be saved from sin, but they do. So says God in His Word, and who are we to argue with God?

Baptist Missions and Mission Boards

Acts 13:1-4; 14:26, 27

Introduction: True missionary work is initiated by God and is undertaken by God-called men with the assistance of the church. If it is initiated by either the church or God-called men, then the mission work is of men, not of God, Cf. Jeremiah 23:21.

1. God the Father first sent men to preach, Cf. Jeremiah 25:4. In the greatest missionary work ever God sent His Son into the world, Cf. John 3:17.

2. God the Son then sent men to preach, Cf. Luke 9:1, 2; 10; 10:1-9. He sent men to preach through the Great Commission, Cf. Mark 16:15.

Note: Baptists have differed over whether the commission was given to the church or to the Apostles and in preachers as their successors called to preach the gospel. On page 238 of the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association, “. . .the words of the commission were addressed to the apostles, and their successors in the ministry, to the end of the world. . .” These differing views are relevant to Baptist missionary methodology and mission boards.

3. God the Holy Spirit sent men to preach, Cf. Acts 2:4, 11; 8:4, 29. He initiated the missionary work of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch, Cf. Acts 13:1-4.

(1) He called them to a specific work, v. 2. That work evidently was preaching the gospel, v. 5. He also chose the place they were to preach and forbade them to preach in certain areas, Cf. Acts 16:6-10.
(2) He instructed the church through its prophets and teachers to separate Barnabas and Saul to that work, v. 2. That it was the church rather than the named prophets and teachers who sent them forth is confirmed in their gathering the church together to hear their report, Cf. Acts 14:26, 27.
(2) He sent them forth, v. 5. The involvement of the church and its leaders was secondary to that of the Holy Spirit.

Note: The history of Baptist missionary work and that of mission boards must be understood and judged in light of these principles. Fidelity to God’s Word, not so-called success, is the only criterion for evaluating this matter.

PROPOSITION: BAPTISTS WERE DOING MISSIONARY WORK LONG BEFORE MISSION BOARDS WERE EVER CONCEIVED IN MEN’S MINDS.

I. BAPTIST MISSIONARY WORK.

Note: From A.D. 33 to 1792 the gospel was preached throughout the world by God-called men both with and without the help of the church because churches were often scattered. The church is because the saints are, not vice-versa. Churches are constituted with baptized believers. We cannot say the saints are because the church is. This concept is from Romanism.

1. Missionary work Biblically defined: the sending forth of God-called men to preach the gospel, baptize believers, establish churches, and teach new believers to observe all that Christ commanded (Matthew 28:18-20) and the support of such by prayer and financial assistance by both the sending church and cooperating churches, Cf. Philippians 4:14-16.

2. Missionary work historically considered: do we find churches in ancient times sending and supporting missionaries as did the churches of the New Testament and historic Baptist churches today do?

Note: We can but surmise that the early churches followed the apostolic missionary pattern. Persecuted and driven from place to place, they evidently proclaimed the gospel while supporting themselves however they could.

Note: Those who went forth preaching were always linked with a church. Their objective was to form new churches out of those who became believers in Christ.

(1) The Waldenses sent out missionaries two by two. Each pastor also did missionary work, Israel of the Alps, Muston, Vol. 1, p. 19.
(2) The Philadelphia Association formed in 1707 was composed of churches that evidently did mission work because the Baptists grew rapidly and many associations were formed out of this association. In the Minutes of the Philadelphia Association edited by Gillette we learn:

• Money raised in 1762 for a Baptist Academy, p. 84
• Money requested in 1764 for a Baptist college in Rhode Island, p.109.
• Money collected in 1766 to support ministers traveling the interest of the churches, p. 97.
• Money sought for the college in Rhode Island in 1769, p. 109
• Money sent to suffering brethren in New England in 1774, p. 141.
• Sermon preached on Mark 16:15 in 1775 but nothing said or done about sending our missionaries, p. 148.
• Money raised for preaching the gospel in destitute places in 1778, p. 159.
• Money requested to send three preachers to preach in destitute places for three months in 1792, p. 283.
• Agreed to advise churches to make collections for missionaries to East Indies in 1795, p. 307.
• A query on the propriety of forming a plan for establishing a missionary society in 1800, p. 350.
• A committee appointed to form a plan for a missionary society in 1802, p. 370.
• Letters read from William Carey and Andrew Fuller about the work in India in 1805, p. 412.
• Recommended that collections be made or subscriptions increased for the used of the missionary society in 1805, p. 413.
• Query read in 1806: Can an orthodox Baptist Church receive a person baptized by Tunker Universalist without baptizing him again? Answer: Yes, p. 424. Then follows the first Circular Letter on Foreign Missions and Baptist Missionary Societies, pp. 426-433.
• Recommendation to collect money for domestic missions in 1807, p. 438.

Note: A change from concern for orthodoxy to methodology occurred at this point. What happened is akin to churches and preachers adopting “Church
Growth” methodology today. J. R. Graves wrote, “Work! Work! Work! Missions! Is shouted by the agents of missionary societies and by the religious press, while the faith and order of the gospel is thrown into the background, and those few brethren who seek to maintain them in their primitive purity are opposed and frowned upon, and the pre judices of the brethren excited against them as obstructionists to the spread of the gospel!” Church History by Hassell, p. 638.

II. BAPTIST MISSION BOARDS.

1. The rational for mission boards. They are thought to be a more effective way of doing mission work and combining the efforts of the churches, Cf. Acts 13:1-4.

Note: Concerning the mission work done in the Sandwich Islands, J. R. Graves wrote, “If the bottom facts were only known, it would be found these Islanders are only pseudo-Christianized heathens, and are to-day made tenfold harder to convert to Christianity than they were before a missionary ever touched the island. The work was done by Pedobaptists, unchecked by Baptist teachings or influence. The poor natives were taught exactly by the Confession that if they would mentally accept the forms of Christianity instead of idolaty, and be baptized for the remission of their sins, they would be Christians and saved.” The Tennessee Baptist, June 10, 1882 as quoted by Hassell, pp. 320,21.

2. The origin of mission boards. They replaced the original missionary societies among Baptists.

Note: The first missionary societies were formed by the Roman Catholics and were called Orders whom they sent as missionaries to get converts to Catholicism.
The first missionary societies in America were formed by the Congregationalists and Presbyterians in 1796 and 1798 according to Lambert in The Rise of the Anti-Mission Baptists, p. 5. The Baptist missionary societies were organized in 1815 and thereafter according to David Benedict, Fifty Years Among the Baptists, p. 116.

3. The objection to mission boards. They are unscriptural and unbaptistic.

Note: Lambert lists whose who led in the anti-missionary cause long before the Baptists split over the issue, The Rise of the Anti-Mission Baptists, pp. 25028.
• Elias Smith: he claimed missionary societies were designed to unite church and state.
• Elihu Palmer: he demanded the U. S. Government halt the work of missionary societies.
• Theophilius Ransom Gates: for fifteen years (1820-1835) his paper, The Reformer, carried page after page of fusillades against the missionary scheme.

III. BAPTIST CONFLICTS OVER MISSION BOARDS.

1. Missionary societies at first were tolerated. Finally, the pushing of the issue together with a change in doctrine made them intolerable.

Note: This query was introduced at the Kehukee Association in 1803: “Is not the Kehukee Association, with all her numerous and respectable friends, called on in Providence, is some way, to step forward in support of that missionary spirit which the great God is so wonderfully reviving amongst the different denominations if good men in various parts of the world.” This matter agitated the association until 1827.

2. Division over the matter existed for over thirty years. Finally the Kehukee Association agreed in 1827 to discard all missionary societies, Bible societies, and Theological Seminaries, Hassell, pp. 736, 37.

Note: The Black Rock Declaration followed in 1832. The opposition to all societies of men were stated clearly, and fellowship was withdrawn from those who were following the inventions of men.

Note: Following this division, the “new school” Baptists or Missionary Baptists departed so far from the historical Baptist faith that the Landmark Movement began in about twenty years to bring the Missionary Baptists back to the old Landmarks of the Faith. Many of the old-school or Primitive Baptists also departed from the historic faith. It is sad when preachers and churches depart from the faith and follow fads.

CONCLUSION: WE ARE MISSIONARY BAPTISTS, BUT NOT MISSION BOARD OR MISSIONARY SOCIETY BAPTISTS! We believe we undertake to preach the gospel in all the world according to Biblical principles. Let us as pastors also be missionaries and go into all areas of our world preaching the gospel!

Is Christ Risen?

More than five hundred eye-witnesses declare He is risen (1 Cor. 15:4-8). Among the eye-witness are Cephas (Peter), all of the twelve Apostles, James, the brother of our Lord, and Paul. Eye-witness testimony is compelling in a court of law. As the Apostle John indicates in 1 John 5:9, we receive the witness of men. Then certainly the witness of the named credible witnesses plus the additional testimony of above five hundred brethren who saw the resurrected Lord is enough to convince even the most incredulous skeptics.

But there is an even greater witness to the fact of Christ’s resurrection: God Himself. The Apostle John wrote, “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. . .” (1 John 5:9). God’s witness is that Christ is “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:4). The sacred Scriptures written by holy men of God (2 Pet. 1:21), which is God’s Word, foretold His resurrection. Thus, it is recorded, “And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:4).

The confirming witness that Christ is risen is that of His people in whose hearts He dwells (Col. 1:27; Eph. 3:17). This witness is confined to those who have received Christ as their Savior. Multiplied millions of believers through the ages have added their testimony to that of the above named eye-witnesses and the Word of God that Christ is risen!

Preterism

What is preterism? The Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines preterism as “a varient Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the Biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days (or End Times) refer to events which actually happened in the first century after Christ’s birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin, praeter, meaning ‘past.’” Advocates of preterism are known as preterists.

Preterism is an old heresy that has experienced a resurgence in recent years among all evangelical denominations including Sovereign Grace Baptists. That preterism is not considered an orthodox eschatological view is evident from its not even being mentioned in older Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. This writer searched in vain through many well-know books dealing with eschatology or Bible Prophecy for information on preterism. The sparcity of references to preterism in books written in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries suggests it is a novel concept to this generation.

As it is with other schools of thought in eschatology, preterists are not in full agreement among themselves. Some consider themselves partial or classical preterists; others call themselves full or consistent preterists. Partial preterists believe that prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, the antichrist, the great tribulation, and the day of the Lord were fulfilled in AD 70. They distinguish, however, between “the last days” and the “the last day.” Therefore, the last coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the final judgment are still considered future by partial preterists. The full preterists believe all these events are historical, having occurred in AD 70. 

Nearly all partial preterists are either amillennialists or post-millennialists. Obviously, preterists and futurists (those who believe these Biblical prophecies are yet future) differ on their interpretations of the Scriptures in which these prophecies appear. While this article will examine some of these passages, it will especially seed to expose the false premises or pre-suppositions on which this heresy is founded.

THE EARLY DATE OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION

In order to sustain their view that either most or all major prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70, the preterists are forced to presume the Book of Revelation was written before AD 70. The traditional date of the writing of the Book of Revelation by the Apostle John is AD 96. This late date is based on the testimony of Irenaeus who wrote about AD 180 of the Revelation: “For it was seen, not a long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” Clement of Alexandria confirmed the testimony of Irenaeus. In the Fourth Century Epiphanius wrote that John’s exile to the Isle of Patmos occurred between AD 41-53 in the reign of Claudius, but he strangely claimed John was 90 years of age at the time. Thus, Epiphanius seems to have been the first to advocate that Revelation was written before AD 96.

In modern times, such “stalwarts of truth” as Westcott and Hort have advocated the early date of the Revelation, suggesting it was written under Nero’s reign about AD 68 or 69. This writer puts very little credence in these corrupters of the Word of God, for it was Westcott and Hort who undermined the credibility of the Received Text with all their theories about the sacred text of the Greek New Testament.

The preterists must prove that Revelation was written before AD 70, else the first premise of the preterists falls. If this premise falls, it causes their whole system to collapse. That this system of eschatology is unstable is thus evident from the fact it is partially built upon the rotten foundation of a pre-supposition that is not well-founded in church history.

THE END OF THE MOSIAC COVENANT

Another of the weak premises on which preterism is built is the belief that the Mosiac Covenant did not cease until Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. This is indeed a strange view to this writer. What saith the Scriptures to this assertion? Jesus said, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Luke 16:16). The beginning of the end of the Mosiac Covenant started with John the Baptist. There was a transition period between the beginning of John’s ministry and its final fulfillment in the death of Christ. That it officially ended when Christ died is argued by the Apostle Paul, writing of Christ, said, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, naling it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (Col. 2:14-16). If the law were still in effect at this time (about AD 61), then men certainly could have judged what the Colossians ate and drank, what days they observed, and how they kept the sabbath days. But the law having been done away when Christ died, they were not to permit anyone to judge them in any of these matters.

The law was fulfilled when Christ died, not when divine judgment fell on Jerusalem in AD 70. Speaking of the cessation of the law in 2 Corinthians 3:6-11, Paul specifically declared “For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious” (2 Cor. 3:11). The Apostle thus maintained the law had been done away when he wrote the second letter to the Corinthians about AD 57. Therefore, if the law was done away when it was fulfilled in Christ’s death and was said to be done away when Paul wrote Second Corinthians, then the law was not in effect until Jerusalem fell in AD 70, when it finally ended according to preterists. Thus, another of the flimsy premises on which Preterism is built has given way to the clear teachings of Scripture and simple logic concerning those teachings.

THE USE OF THE TERM QUICKLY

Another premise on which preterism is founded is the term “quickly” used often by our Lord with reference to His Second coming (Rev. 22:7, 12, 22). The Greek word tachu, translated “quickly” in these passages is from the same stem as tachos which is translated “speedily” in Luke 18:8, and “shortly” in Romans 16:20; Revelation 1:1; 22:16. Both of these terms are relative, not absolute. Is coming in two years coming “quickly” or “speedily”? If Revelation were written in AD 68 and Christ came in AD 70, then He came “quickly” according to the Preterists. But to many people, two years would not be coming quickly. For this reason, we have to view these terms relatively, not absolutely.

The promise in Romans 16:20 asserts that “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Will the preterists argue that this promise has been fulfilled? If so, when was it fulfilled? How was it fulfilled? What did the destruction of Jerusalem have to do with Satan’s being bruised under the feet of the Roman saints? Surely any thinking person would not be so credulous as to believe that “shortly” in this case meant but a few years. Would any right-thinking person build an entire system of eschatology on a term that is obviously used relatively, not absolutely?

THE END OF THE AGE VERSUS THE END OF THE WORLD

Another of the faulty premises on which preterism is built is the substitution of the word age for the word world in the phrase the end of the world. Following the Westcott-Hort text and all modern translations which have replaced the end of the world with the end of the age in Matthew 24:3, the preterists argue that the age referenced in this passage is that of the law which ended in AD 70. 

If age is the correct translation in Matthew 24:3, then it must also be correct in Matthew 28:20. Indeed, all modern translations render the last part of this passage, “and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB, NKJV). Now the Sovereign Grace Baptist preterist has painted himself in a corner here: according to his belief that age refers to the period which ended in AD 70, the Lord would then have only promised to be with His churches until AD 70 in Matthew 28:20, for if aion means age in Matthew 24:3, then it also must mean age in Matthew 28:20. Another problem in Matthew 28:20 for the preterist is the term always. Why would the Lord have promised to be with His churches always when He would actually only be with them until AD 70? If quickly must be interpreted absolutely, then so must always. As a matter of fact, always is a much more absolute term than quickly.

There was a reason the translators of the King James Version translated aion as world rather than age. Aion speaks of the world under the aspect of time whereas kosmos which is also translated world views the world under the aspect of space, according to Trench in his Synonyms of the New Testament. The translation age fits the philosophy of spiritists and other new-age advocates. Accordingly, there is no world to come in Mark 10:30; it is only another age to come as the new-agers advocated in the hit song of the 1960’s entitled Age of Aquarius. If there are only ends of ages and no end of the world, then one would have to conclude that the world will last forever. Indeed, it seems preterism, especially full preterism, offers no clear teaching on how this world will ever end.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE RESURRECTION

Partial preterists and full preterists differ on this point, as has been mentioned. Full preterists deny the future bodily resurrection of the saints who have died since AD 70. They are in agreement with Hymenaeus and Philetus of whom Paul wrote saying,
”Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2 18). Modern preterism is overthrowing the faith of many today. The future bodily resurrection of the saints is one tenant of the faith which they are seeking to overthrow.

This is an egregious heresy. According to the Apostle Paul, if there is no bodily resurrection of the saints, then Christ is not raised (1 Cor. 15:12-44). Some preterists contend our Lord does not now have the physical body which He had following His resurrection. If that be the case, then how could the angels have declared to the disciples who watched the Lord ascend into heaven, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). While the saints will not be resurrected with their mortal bodies of flesh and blood, they will nevertheless have immortal bodies of flesh and bone like our Lord has, which bodies are sustained by spirit, not blood ( 1 Cor. 15:50-54). According to the Apostle John, “we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” ( 1 John 3:2).

THE PURPOSE OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance given to the Lord’s churches until He comes again (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Those who consider themselves full or consistent preterists have a real problem here. If Christ has already come, then there is no reason for the churches to observe the Lord’s Supper. According to the Apostle Paul, the Lord’s Supper is to be observed to show His death only until He comes. This writer knows of one church which has ceased to observe the Lord’s Supper since it has embraced the full preterist view of Biblical prophecy.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE OLIVET DISCOURSE

A major difference between preterists and futurists is their interpretations of the Olivet Discourse of our Lord as recorded in Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21. This discourse occurred in response to the disciples’ question to the Lord’s statement concerning the buildings of the temple being destroyed. They came to Him and said, “Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (Matt. 24:3).

Most futurists or pure Biblicists will acknowledge that much of this discourse was fulfilled in AD 70. Certainly the temple was destroyed as was the city of Jerusalem. But there are many events yet to occur, as a close examination of this discourse will reveal. Luke’s account of this discourse points out this fact. Luke 21:8-23 deal with the events leading up to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70. Luke 21:24 is the transitional verse, foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews among the nations until the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled, an event alluded to by Paul in Romans 11:25. Then Luke 21:25-28 describe those events which are yet future and will occur following the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles. Thus, Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse gives the chronological exposition of this important teaching. The accounts of Matthew and Mark must be interpreted in light of Luke’s chronology of prophesied events.

The more one studies preterism, the more he marvels that so many have believed its precepts. Preterism takes away the Blessed Hope of our Lord’s return. It denies we shall ever be bodily resurrected to stand before the Lord as even Job of old anticipated (Job 19:24-27). This system of eschatology has no answers for how this evil world will ever end. Consequently, preterism has nothing in it to commend itself to this writer or to edify his soul.

Is God finished with Israel?

IS GOD FINISHED WITH ISRAEL?

Acts 15:13-17; Romans 11:25-31

INTRODUCTION: Is God forever finished with Israel as a nation? Some say He is; others say He is not. Who is correct?

Note: Generally speaking, the amillennialist says He is. According to his view, God rejected Israel when Israel rejected Christ; Thus, He turned to the church. The church is now Israel, and the promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the church.

1. James declared God is not finished with Israel, Acts 15:13-17. These words are his interpretation of Amos 9:8-12.
(1) God will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob. Is the church ever called the “house of Jacob”?
(2) The tabernacle of David is said to be fallen down. Can it ever be said that the spiritual throne of Christ is fallen down?

2. Paul concurred God is not finished with Israel, Romans 11:25-31. His interpretation is in harmony with that of James.
(1) Israel was blinded for a time that the full number of God’s elect among the Gentiles might be brought in, Cf. Romans 11:10, 11. God is now taking out of the Gentiles a people for His name. This work will end when the full number is brought in; hence, the phrase “the fullness of the Gentiles” Cf. Luke 21:24, “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”
(2) All Israel then shall be saved. “And so ( houto, thus, in this manner)in V. 25 references the preceding statements in Vs. 12, 15, 23, 24.

Note: These inspired N. T. interpretations of the O.T. Scriptures show us God is not forever finished with Israel as a nation. These interpretations, then, must guide us in our interpretation of other O. T. prophecies.

PROPOSITION: GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL! FOUR REASONS WHY HE IS NOT FINISHED WITH THIS NATION:

I. GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL BECAUSE OF THE PROMISE HE MADE TO ABRAHAM.

1. The aspects of the promise, Cf. Genesis 12:1-3. Everything promised must be given.
(1) The land. Time and again God’s promise to Abraham linked with “the land.”
(2) The nation. Only one nation is ever in view in this promise; the church is not a nation in a literal sense, Cf. 1 Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 

(3) The blessings. Five blessings are enumerated here.

2. The specificity of the promise, Cf. Genesis 15:1-5, 18-21. The land is geographically identified.
(1) Israel has never possessed all this land. What Israel inherited under Joshua and what they have today is much smaller than what God promised.
(2) Israel must have all this land someday, or Moses will be proved a false prophet, Cf. Deuteronomy 18:22, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” The marvel of all true prophecy is the specificity of it. Cf. Ezekiel 26:3-5, “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.” The specific details of the prophecy concerning Tyre are similar to that concerning Israel and the land it is inherit. We must not minimize the details of prophecy.

Note: It is difficult to spiritualize the land. The land is physical.

II. GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS NEVER POSSESSED ALL THE LAND GOD PROMISED THEM.

1. The first land promised to Israel that of Canaan, Cf. Genesis 12:1, 4-7; 15:16; Exodus 3:8, “And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.” The twelve spies sent only to this land, Cf. Numbers 13:17, “And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain:” 

2. The land inhabited by Israel enlarged at the request of two and one-half tribes, Cf. Numbers 32:5, 33-42. Why did God give permission for this extension to the promised land? Was it not because this area was included in the all the land God had promised to Israel?

3. The Six Cities of Refuge limited to the land divided to Israel by Joshua, Cf. Numbers 35:9-15; Joshua 20:7-9. If Israel inherited land all the way to the Euphrates River, why were there no cities of refuge set aside in that area?

Note: What about Joshua 21:45? “There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” Does the all that came to pass refer to the land of Canaan or all the land promised in Genesis 15:18? The Book of Judges reveals Israel had not even occupied all of Canaan during the life of Joshua, Cf. Judges 1:19-36.

Note: What about 1 Kings 4:21? “And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.” Reigning temporarily over other nations is not the same as possessing the land as one’s own. Cf. Genesis 15:18, “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:” Deuteronomy 11:24, “Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.” Deuteronomy 11:31, “For ye shall pass over Jordan to go in to possess the land which the LORD your God giveth you, and ye shall possess it, and dwell therein.” Deuteronomy 12:10, “But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;” 

III. GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL BECAUSE OF THE COVENANT HE MADE WITH ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB, Cf. Ezekiel 16:60, “Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.” 

1. A confirmed covenant cannot be disannulled or made void, Cf. Galatians 3:15-17, “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” God cannot promise to do something He will not do.

2. A broken covenant would reflect against God. Therefore, He keeps His covenant with Israel for His name’s sake, Cf. Ezekiel 36:21, 22, “But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.” 

Note: Nothing Israel ever did in all their history disannulled God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This covenant typifies His everlasting covenant with His Son, Cf. Hebrews 13:20, “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,” If one of God’s covenants could be broken due to human sin, what would prevent another from being broken for the same reason? Cf. Jeremiah 33:20, 21, “Thus saith the Lord, If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.”

IV. GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL BECAUSE HE WILL YET REGATHER THEM INTO THEIR LAND.

1. He will gather them out of all countries, Cf. Deuteronomy30:4, 5, “If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.” Ezekiel 20:34, “And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.” Ezekiel 20:42, “And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country for the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers.” The re-gathering of the Jews into their land following the Babylonian exile was only from Babylon, Ezra 2:1, “Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city;” 

2. He will give them all the land promised to Abraham, Cf. Ezekiel 48:1-35. That land reaches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River.

Note: Israel will not be given all this land until God re-gathers them into it. Then the prophecy of Ezekiel 47:10 will be fulfilled. “And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.” 

Note: What has the church to do with land? This world is not the church’s home. The church has never been promised it would receive a certain piece of land.

CONCLUSION: GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH ISRAEL AS A NATION.

1. This fact clearly demonstrated from both O.T. and N.T. Scriptures. This truth takes nothing away from the church or Gentile believers.

2. This fact gives us great confidence for the future. The greatest revival ever known to man awaits both Jews and Gentiles, Cf. Romans 11:12, 15, 30-36.

Burial or Cremation

A BIBLICAL CASE FOR BURIAL AND AGAINST CREMATION

By

Royce Smith, MA, Th.M., Th.D.

INTRODUCTION: In Genesis 3:19 God declared to Adam, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.”(KJV) Exactly what did God mean by the statement: “For dust thou art, and unto dust shall thou return”? It means man’s body which is of the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7) is to return to the earth when he dies. These words have been historically taken by both Jewish believers of the Old Testament and both Jewish and Gentile believers of the New Testament to mean the body is to be buried.

But someone will surely say, “Doesn’t the Bible say, ‘dust to dust and ashes to ashes’?” No, it does not. This phrase is not found anywhere in Scripture. It is found in certain Pastors’ Manuals often used by ministers as they officiate at burials, but it can be found nowhere in the inspired Word of God.

The phrase ashes to ashes is often appealed to as a justification for cremation. Cremation, which was hardly heard of in middle America forty years ago, is increasingly being used for the final disposition of the body. This writer knew very little about such a practice until he moved to California in 1966. Shortly after moving to San Jose in 1968, he was asked on one occasion whether or not it was Biblical for Christians to cremate their bodies after death. Because he could not answer the question satisfactorily in his own mind, he asked for time to study and research this issue. After devoting considerable time to the study of this subject, he has come to the decided conclusion that burial, not cremation, is the only proper and Biblical practice for the final disposition of the body.

When one discovers that the origin of cremation is to be found in unbelief and paganism, he will abandon any notion of its being a viable alternative to burial which is everywhere in Scripture shown to be the proper disposition for the body after death. Cremation is a part of certain pagan and man-made religions. It is the choice of atheists, who do not believe in either God or resurrection, and all who would escape resurrection if they could, even though the cremation of a body will not and cannot prevent it from being resurrected.

I. CREMATION IS NOT THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE BODY.

It is an ancient pagan practice. Both the pagan Greeks and Romans practiced cremation, but are
Christians to follow the practices of pagans or the teachings of the inspired Scriptures? Following pagan practices instead of the Word of God have always brought dire results upon those who have done so. Remember what occurred when David sought to move the Ark of the Covenant the way the Philistines had moved it instead of the way God prescribed in His Word to move it (2 Samuel 6:1-11).

It is the practice of both Hinduism and Buddhism. Neither of these religions believes in resurrection, nor do those who practice these religions desire to be resurrected. Both of the ancient religions believe in achieving Nirvana in which the soul is released from its many reincarnations and absorbed into nothingness. What a goal? To become nothing! Cremation is therefore compatible with that belief, but it is not consistent with a belief in resurrection. In India, for example, Christians bury their dead to demonstrate the difference the hope of resurrection gives the Christian in contrast with what is taught by Hinduism. Thus, Christians in India consider cremation to be a heathen practice and burial to be a Christian practice.

It is the choice of the secular humanism. Between 1876 and 1884 there were only 28 recorded cremations in the U.S. During the 1960’s and 70’s many changes in our culture began to occur in a time of social instability fueled by the doctrines of secular humanism, the basic tenant of which is man is not accountable to any higher power or God. From this doctrine of human autonomy have come both the acceptance of abortion and the practice of cremation. The right to do both of these barbaric rituals is claimed on the basis of the false concept that one’s body belongs to himself and he can do with it whatsoever he pleases. Consequently, by 1977 7% of all human corpses were reduced to bone fragments and ashes by cremation in this country. By 1993 that percentage had increased to nearly 20%. That percentage will continue to increase as Americans reject Biblical Christianity and adopt the so-called New Age thinking which is nothing more than ancient and pagan Hinduism and Buddhism in new garb.

II. BURIAL IS THE METHOD OF DISPOSITION PRACTICED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

God commanded Israel to bury their dead. Deuteronomy 21:23, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.” (KJV) The final disposition of the body is not a matter of indifference, notwithstanding the claims of even some ministers who say it really doesn’t make any difference what is done to the body after it is dead. It mattered to God. He commanded the body to be buried, and the command to bury renders cremation totally unacceptable in His sight.

Abraham buried Sarah, and he himself was buried by her side. Genesis 23:19, “And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same [is] Hebron in the land of Canaan.” (KJV) Genesis 25:9, “And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which [is] before Mamre.” (KJV) It is most significant that an entire chapter of the first book of the Bible is devoted to making burial arrangements. If God devoted this much of His Word to this subject, how can any Bible-believer treat the final disposition of the body with indifference? As one reads further in Genesis, he notes that Jacob buried Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse who was but a slave (Genesis 35:8) and his beloved wife Rachel (Genesis 35:19). Both Esau and Jacob lovingly buried Isaac (Genesis 35:29). Before he died Jacob gave explicit instructions to his twelve sons to bury him (Genesis 49:29-31). Likewise, Joseph gave a similar command to the Children of Israel before he died (Genesis 50:24-26) which command was duly obeyed when Israel had conquered the land of Canaan (Josuha 24:32).

God buried Moses Deuteronomy 34:5-6, “So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.” (KJV) God could have burned his body as easily as He buried it (2Kings 1:10), but He did not; He buried it in keeping with His own commands and the principle of resurrection which coincides with burial. If the method of the final disposition of the body is a matter of indifference, why did God Himself bury Moses’ body?

Elisha the prophet was buried. 2 Kings 13:20, “And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year.” (KJV) Even in a time of spiritual decline in Israel, burial was still practiced (2 Kings 13:21). For one not to have a burial was considered a sign of extreme disgrace—something reserved only for the most worthless of men. Jeremiah 16:4, “They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; [but] they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.” (KJV) Jeremiah 22:19, “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.”(KJV)

Job expected to be buried. Job 19:26, “And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God.” (KJV) The patriarch obviously has his burial in view because there are no skin worms where cremation has occurred.

III. CREMATION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING.

God forbade the burning of children is sacrifice to Molech. Leviticus 18:21,”And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.” (KJV) While human sacrifice is primarily in view in this prohibition, cremation is indirectly forbidden in this command. Deuteronomy 12:31, “Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.” (KJV) The Law of God provided for the stoning to death of rebellious children, but never did it permit their bodies to be burned (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

God punished the king of Moab for burning the bones of the king of Edom. Amos 2:1, “Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.”(KJV) If cremation is a matter of indifference, then why did God pronounce this punishment upon the king of Moab? It was because the burning of his bones erroneously declared the King of Edom was accursed. The symbolism for a curse was the cremation of the body. Joshua 7:15, “And it shall be, [that] he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.” (KJV) Does this fact not explain why the Church of Rome burnt heretics at the stake? Believing they were accursed from God, the harlot of Rome reduced the saints whom they hated to ashes to show their abhorrence for their doctrines, for the burning of something to destroy it remains a sign of the greatest abhorrence. Deuteronomy 7:25, “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the LORD thy God.” (KJV)

Because of burning being a sign of the greatest abomination, certain offenses were punishable by burning instead of stoning. Such was the offense of whoredom on the part of a priest’s daughter. Leviticus 21:9, “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” (KJV) The same kind of abhorrence was to be shown toward any man who married a woman and her mother. Leviticus 20:14, “And if a man take a wife and her mother, it [is] wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.” (KJV) Sins which were extremely flagrant and repugnant were to be punished by burning, not stoning. It is this truth which makes the burning of all things abominable more significant. Deuteronomy 7:25, “The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the LORD thy God.” (KJV)

Achan and his family were burned with fire because they became accursed when Achan took that which was accompanied with a curse, thus placing himself under the pronounced curse. Joshua 6:17, “And the city shall be accursed, [even] it, and all that [are] therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that [are] with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.” (KJV) Thus, the punishment for him and his family was not mere stoning but burning of their bodies as a sign of their being cursed. Joshua 7:25, “And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.” (KJV)

The association with a curse accounts for the burning of the bodies of Saul and his sons. 1 Samuel 31:10, “And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth: and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.” (KJV) Since Saul’s body remained fastened to a wall after dark, he was considered to be accursed. Deuteronomy 21:23, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.” (KJV) Thus, the men of Jabesh burned the bodies as a further sign of this curse (1 Samuel 31:12) but buried their bones as a sign of their faith (1 Samuel 31:13).

The burning of the bones of the priests of Bethel on the altar of their idolatry signified the curse which God had pronounced on the altar and the priests who served there. 1 Kings 13:1-2, “And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.” (KJV) Godly King Josiah fulfilled this prophecy exactly. 2 Kings 23:16, “And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that [were] there in the mount, and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned [them] upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words.” (KJV)

Thus, cremation is not an acceptable means of final disposition for Christians. It is a barbaric practice and totally unsuited for the disposing of the physical remains of a loved one. If people were to take the time to learn about the hideous process of cremation, they would abandon any idea of ever having their own bodies cremated or cremating the bodies of a deceased loved one. The entire process is grotesque. As the fires engulf the body, it begins to jerk and twitch as if alive. Even though the crematory is heated between 1500 and 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, some three to four hours are required to burn the body to a crisp. Even then the skeletal remains must be broken with a sledge hammer and then pulverized into bones chips before they and what ashes can be removed from the crematory are placed in a small box or urn. Because ashes from different bodies become commingled in cremation, funeral homes publish a disclaimer in reference to this fact. In addition, this writer has seen the boxes of unclaimed ashes that are left at funeral homes by whose too callous even to pick up what little remains of a loved one.

IV. BURIAL IS THE ONLY METHOD OF DISPOSITION ADVOCATED BY THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Burial is taught by example. Biblical example is a strong argument in setting forth the ways of God, and it should never be dismissed as insignificant. Thus, New Testament example records the burial of Lazarus (John 11:31, 38), the burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-60), the burial of Stephen (Acts 8:2), and the burials of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:6, 10) among others. In accord with these examples, Christians in every age have buried their dead. The Christians in Rome buried their dead among the Catacombs, and every church cemetery is a testimony to this universal practice among professing believers in Jesus Christ.

Burial is required by typology. Symbols teach truth which is lost when the symbols are corrupted. As those who profess faith in Christ abandon burial in favor of cremation, one can be sure the truth of the resurrection will soon be lost among them because the most obvious symbol of its certainty will have disappeared as a reminder of it.

Burial is taught in type by the planting of seed. 1 Corinthians 15:36-38, “[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.” (KJV) Why is seed planted? Is it not because it is to come forth from the ground? Who would ever think of burning a seed? Seed is buried for the purpose of coming forth in new form from the ground in which it has been buried or planted.

In exactly the same way, the body is to be buried because it is like a seed. 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, “So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (KJV) Why, then, would anyone who believes in the resurrection of the body ever cremate the body of a believing loved one or request that his loved ones cremate his body after he is dead? The very burying of the body is a testimony is one’s explicit faith in the resurrection. Conversely, the cremation of the body is the denial of one’s belief in resurrection however adamantly he may profess that faith.

Burial is set forth in type by baptism, for baptism is a vivid picture of burial. Romans 6:3-5, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection.” (KJV) Colossians 2:12, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (KJV) Nothing can be a greater contradiction than the cremation of the body of one who has been baptized on the profession of his faith. When this writer pressed this argument against the cremation a professing Christian was considering, he responded that cremation would not contradict his baptism. The problem was he had not been baptized; he had only been sprinkled, and he could see that no burial had been typified. However, one who has been properly baptized by immersion would contradict that testimony, were he to have his body cremated. 

If baptism does in fact picture Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection together with the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection in union with Him, and even the impending death of the believer’s body, its burial, and future resurrection, then every believer ought to be sure that his body is properly buried as an abiding testimony to this truth. This writer wants to bear witness to the fact of resurrection even when he is dead. To that end, his burial is prearranged.

Burial is constrained by principle. When one is born again and the Holy Spirit indwells his body, his body is at once a member of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 6:15, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make [them] the members of an harlot? God forbid.”(KJV) Realizing our bodies are the members of Christ makes a great difference now in the way we use those bodies. Should it not also make a difference in the way we dispose of those bodies after death? Have we any right to do with those bodies otherwise than what He has clearly prescribed in His Word? Hear the compelling argument of the Apostle Paul: 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” (KJV) Not belonging to us but to God, our bodies are to be used and finally disposed in strict accordance with His commands. They are His by creation and design. This fact demands we treat them with dignity, even to the final disposition of them. Deuteronomy 14:1-2, “Ye [are] the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. 2 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that [are] upon the earth.” (KJV) Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.” (KJV) This principle is applicable in both life and death. Romans 14:8, “For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.” (KJV) Cremation shows no respect for God’s way or the dignity of the body.

V. THE WORLD PROMOTES CREMATION AND OFFERS SPURIOUS REASONS FOR FAVORING IT OVER BURIAL.

They say there is no space for cemeteries. This is a false claim. A few years ago it was reported that the entire world’s population could stand within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida. The only places where space is restricted is in large, compacted cities, but there remains plenty of space in the world for burials.

They say cremation is cleaner. This is another false claim. Ask any funeral director who has operated a crematory. The dust from the crematory is pervasive, to say nothing of the smoke which comes from it.

They maintain it is less expensive. Here is the real reason many in America are choosing cremation. They are afraid of spending the necessary money to give their loved ones a descent burial. Does not this objection to burial indicate that such love their money more than they loved their departed loved one? Where there is a deep affection for one who has departed this world, the final disposition of that body will never be made on the basis of the cheapest way to do it. Talk about cheap!

A Debtor Nation

To Israel through Moses, God said, “. . . thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt now borrow.  And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail . . .” (Deut. 28:12, 13).  God’s promise to Israel was made in a covenant conditioned on their obedience (Deut. 28:1-14). If they broke this covenant, then He warned them that “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.  He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail” (Deut. 28:43, 44).

This timeless principle applies equally to the USA.  When this nation acknowledged the one and only true God, it was a lending nation, not a debtor nation.  With the advent of creeping socialism—whose rise coincided with a departure from God and His Word—America began to incur debt.  It now has a debt of several trillion dollars, and our elected officials refuse to solve the problem.  Instead, they choose to raise the debt limit so they can borrow even more money to fund socialistic programs.

In the recent crisis, leader after leader predicted dire consequences if our nation defaulted on its debt.  To solve the problem, they chose to push it down the road a little farther.  But how far can they keep pushing it before it becomes unsolvable?  At some point, America will default on its debt, and its citizens will be enslaved to its creditors. The inspired Proverb state, “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7).  Too many of our elected officials have their heads in the sand.

A Daysman Is Needed

Job lamented, “Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both” (Job 9:33) in reference to the issues between himself and his God.  A daysman was an umpire, arbitrator, or mediator.  Not fond of courts and lawyers that were costly and wasted time in lawsuits, the ancients wisely took their issues to the daysmen who would settle the issue in one day by judging the guilty and acquitting the  innocent. Both parties having agreed beforehand to accept his verdict, his decision was final.  Hence, this arbitrator was called a daysman.

What a blessing to the innocent today such a daysman would be!  Many people have their lives placed on hold while they are being traumatized by a legal system that cannot convict them but refuses to acquit them.  They are therefore required to wait months and years and spend thousands of dollars on legal fees while their case remains unadjudicated in the courts. Such no doubt can identify with Job’s lament that there was no daysman.

The sinner does have a Daysman to settle the enmity between God and himself and reconcile the two.  “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).  God’s justice cannot be compromised, and man has nothing to offer for his sins except his excuses.  This Daysman first satisfied Divine justice by bearing in His own body the guilt and penalty of the sinner (1 Pet. 3:18).  The full payment for his sins having been accepted by God (1 John 2:2), and him-self reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-21), the sinner is then satisfied.