12.23.07
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 5:22 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority over the Sabbath (continued)
Through the Controversy Over Grain (Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)
Well…Jesus was so good at answering the accusations of the Jews (that He was guilty of blasphemy) that the charge was not pursued. Those that opposed Him must be vigilant for other opportunities to catch and accuse. They didn’t need to wait long!
Observation – Jesus and His disciples were passing through a grain field on one Sabbath day. Because the disciples were hungry, they took some of the heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands (to get rid of what they didn’t want to eat) and then gobbled them up. The law allowed this – a hungry man could pick grain along a pathway to satisfy his hunger. But the Pharisees didn’t see this as acceptable because it violated their tradition about the Sabbath.
Edersheim notes: … according to Rabbinic statues, at least two sins. According to the Talmud, what was really one labor, would, if made up of several acts, each of them forbidden, amount to several acts of labor, each involving sin, punishment, and a sin-offering. This so called ‘division’ of labor applied only to infringement of the Sabbath-rest – not of that of feast-days. Now in this case there were at least two such acts involved: that of plucking the ears of corn, ranged under the sin of reaping, and that of rubbing them, which might be ranged under sifting in a sieve, threshing, sifting out fruit, grinding or fanning. … One instance will suffice to show the externalism of all these ordinances. If a man wished to move a sheaf of his field, which implied labor, he had only to lay upon it a spoon that was in his common use, when, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! And yet, it was forbidden to stop with a little wax the hole in a cask my which fluid was running out, or to wipe a wound! With views like these, the Pharisees who witnessed this conduct considered this as a gross desecration of the Sabbath.
As on the previous occasion of being accused of blasphemy, Christ defended Himself. He offered a number of proofs that He was not guilty of a Sabbath violation. The first proof was based on their own ignorance of the Scriptures. Christ referred to a time when David and his companions were hungry. David went into the house of God and at the bread that was only to be eaten by the priests.
1 Samuel 21:1-6 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”
2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, “The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. 3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.”
4 But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here — provided the men have kept themselves from women.”
5 David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men’s things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.
So the question here needs to be asked – why was David blameless in this instance? The Sabbath law as not only a law for rest, it was one for rest and of worship. The object was the service of the Lord. The priests worked on the Sabbath because this service was the object of the Sabbath. David was allowed to eat the shew-bread, not because there was a danger to life of starvation, but because he pleaded that he was in the service of the Lord and needed provisions. The same with the disciples – they were looking at a higher reason; service to the Lord. The service of God superseded the Sabbath law.
Want more arguments?
- the law itself permitted men to work when they were involved in worship and service (see page 166)
- after appealing to the law, Christ appealed to the prophets and argued based on an interpretation of Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
- and in Mark we see Christ appeal to the original purpose of the Sabbath (see page 166) where men were not to be bent to the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was to conform to the needs of men
- also in Mark (vs. 28) we see an argument based on the authority of the Messiah Himself. All things are subject to this authority
During His ministry Jesus defended Himself only when His deity was attacked and His authority questioned. Since Israel’s salvation depended on faith in His person as the Son of God, it was only on these occasions that He sought to defend Himself against those that were His adversaries.
So – when do we feel the need to address those that question us? Every time anyone asks? Or only on those hills where the flag should be planted? When others question our actions or beliefs, can we go to the source (the Word of God) and answer? If not, why not? And if not, what are our beliefs based on – personal ‘experience’ or the word of someone else other than God (even if it’s a pastor)?
Permalink
12.20.07
Posted in Tom Gilson at 2:19 pm by Tom Gilson
It’s just about Christmas, time to celebrate the miracle of the Incarnation–God becoming man, born of a virgin. It’s an obvious opportunity to consider whether the Christian claims of miracles are still credible in light of modern science. Christianity without the Virgin Birth is about as meaningful as Christianity without the Resurrection; both miracles were necessary for God to have conquered sin and death as a man. But what about scientific objections to miracles?
Christians have to face these objections squarely. Some of us have a nagging concern of our own, from things we’ve read or things we were taught in school, making us wonder if science has really displaced the Biblical message of Christmas. Others of us hear it from people we talk with. In fact there are good answers to these kinds of questions.
The objections fall into three main versions:
1. Miracles can’t happen
2. Miracles shouldn’t happen
3. Miracles never have happened
The second of these will make more sense as we proceed. We’ll start with the first, though.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
12.16.07
Posted in Audio & Podcasts (Sermons) 2007, Media at 9:30 am by Bryan Dunn
December 30, 2007 - Dr. Richard Harrell
December 24, 2007 - Community Christmas Service - Rev. David Spratley
December 23, 2007 - How Jesus Changes Lives - Dr. Richard Harrell
December 16, 2007 - How Serious Is Your Belief In The Christ Child - Dr. Richard Harrell
December 9, 2007 - I Want To Be The One In Charge - Dr. Richard Harrell
December 2, 2007 - The Church as Community - Dr. Richard Harrell
Permalink
12.11.07
Posted in Uncategorized at 11:35 am by Gene Cornett
Fellow Members of Seaford Baptist Church,
I have heard that question asked many times since I walked through the doors of our beautiful church.
In an effort to answer that question and to let you know that the deacons are poised to support the staff and you, please review the information provided to identify your assigned deacon.
The organization is similar to the phone book – look for where your last name falls and then determine your assigned deacon.
Also, the deacon teams are in the process of contacting you personally to ascertain if there is an area of service where we can provide support.
As a team, we are currently supporting the following ministries/capacities:
- the Widow Ministry
- the Wee Care Ministry
- the preparation & serving of the Lord’s Supper
- staff augmentation
- daily prayer for the membership
- specific duties as needed
Please fee free to approach or contact any man listed with your concerns, comments, prayer requests, and praises.
Team #1 – “Stephen” Tom Anderson, Buck Smith, and David Jones
> Ahrens thru Buccellato
Team #2 – “Philip” Randy Vaught and Marshall Riordan
> Buckingham thru William & Sandra Dye
Team #3 – “Procurus” Mike Holloway, Scott Morelen, and Dewey Engle
> Juanita Dye thru Henry
Team #4 – “Nicanor” Mike Berry and Tommy Ragans
> Herber thru McCarty
Team #5 – “Timon” Buddy Poe, Steve Faust, and Bill Zins
> McClenney thru Duane & Renate Ragans
Team #6 – “Parmenas” Darrel Heaton, Garrett Fisher, and Woody Woodfin
> Tommy & Robin Ragans thru Stone
Team #7 – “Nicholas” Kenny Roberts and Mark Robinson
> Strack thru Zins
Please let me know if you have any questions: I can be reached 24/7
Thank you and God Bless You.
Garrett
Permalink
12.09.07
Posted in Bible Study, Bryan Dunn at 4:09 pm by Bryan Dunn
Christ’s Authority Over the Sabbath
Through the Healing of the Paralytic (John 5:1-47)
It is thought that this was near or at the end of the first year of ministry of Christ. During this time His fame grew, as did the jealousy of the Pharisees. The second year of His ministry, which Christ was now entering, was to be a year of great public favor. Nearly all this year was spent in Galilee, but there was a feast, presumably the Feast of the Passover in Jerusalem, which He attended before going ahead into Galilee. There is a difference of opinion as to which this unnamed feast was, but the circumstances of His ministry as a whole seems to favor this being the Passover.
The Pharisees had often revealed their antagonism to Jesus during His previous ministry in Galilee. This antagonism had been veiled because of the popularity of Jesus due to His teaching and miracles. Now that Christ had come to Jerusalem, that popularity would no long be an advantage Jesus could count on, and the disdain for Jesus came out in the open. What was the occasion where we see it rear its ugly head? Over the question of the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was divinely instituted as a sign of the covenant between God and His people Israel
Exodus 31:13-17 “Say to the Israelites, ‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14 “‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’” Observing the Sabbath marked Israel as a set-apart people and reminded them of this as well.
There was no institution among the Jews that was held with more care and compassion than this. It came from God to Moses – and carried from generation to generation. No working, just rest. Lengthy rules were formulated about what kinds of knots one could tie on the Sabbath, if you could make a fire, what you could or could not carry. The Sabbath had become a burden by the thousands of restrictions and rules that are truly too numerous to mention. Even thought the Mosaic law was sufficiently stringent as given by God, the Pharisees deemed it too lax and amplified and defined it more – in an attempt to capture every ‘what if’ that could be. (page 159-160 address this at length).
Jesus walked by a pool near the Sheep Gate. The pool is said to have had five covered porticoes. Hodges notes:
The rediscovery of the Pool of Bethesda has, of course, confirmed John’s knowledge of the topography of ancient Jerusalem. The reference to the somewhat strange number of ‘five colonnades’ (or ‘five porches’) is now explainable due to the fact that the pool was a double pool surrounded by Herodian colonnades on all four sides, while the fifth colonnade stood on the dividing wall that separated the northern and southern pools.
What did Christ see? A man who had been an invalid for 38 years. Looking on to verse 14, we would conclude that the man’s infirmity was the result of divine discipline due to sin. For 38 years this man had hoped for healing from the waters of the pool…but this hope had never been realized.
Of note – observe that divine discipline can NEVER be removed until the sin that brought the discipline is acknowledged and the person asks God to forgive that sin. It seems that the God who had imposed the discipline on the man had prevented him from finding a cure in the waters of the pool.
Jesus asked if he wanted to get well. Showing his despondency and loss of hope, the man let Jesus know that there was no one to assist him. Christ responded to this by commanding him to get up and to pick up his mat and walk. This command demanded obedience, which was impossible apart from faith in the One who had given the command. And the man picked up his mat and walked.
Now, what happened next did not jibe with Pharisaic tradition – one could not carry any burden on the Sabbath day. This man was publicly seen to be violating, not the law of Moses, but the traditions of the Pharisees. The Pharisees, who were jealous for their traditions, immediately challenged the man. What was his defense? Look at verse 11. The One who has the power to heal has the right to be obeyed. So who was this person? The man didn’t know.
In verse 14 we see the man in the temple. Perhaps he had gone there to offer thanks and sacrifices to God. While there, Jesus approaches him. The man went away and now became a witness to the power of Christ. He informs the Jews of who healed him, now that he knew it was Jesus. The result? In verse 16 we see it is persecution of Jesus by the Jews because He did these things on the Sabbath. What was Christ’s response to this persecution? Verse 17. Christ’s statement was very strong and clear. He referred to God as His very own Father. Now the Jews had another reason to persecute Him! This was blasphemy. Since Jesus Christ claimed God as His Father, they saw Him as guilty of blasphemy. And in verse 19 we see the authority that had been given to Him was proof of His person. To this, the Jews had a problem with arguing. They acknowledged God as the Creator, as the One that would give life to the righteous in the resurrection, and that God had the power to judge all men. Christ claimed that the authority vested by the Father in the Son proved the equality of the Son with the Father.
Christ affirmed that He would exercise His authority when the time was right. Look at verse 25 and 27. If He claimed to have authority but never used or exercised it, then we may have a reason to question what Jesus claimed. Also in those verses, Jesus refers to Himself as Son of God and Son of Man. Son of Man is the title that is Jesus’ favorite and in every instance – when used as a title – refers to Christ alone (the only exception is in Acts 7 in the speech of Stephen). It expresses dignity, dominion and authority. Son of God was less common on the lips of Christ, but was frequently used by the apostles, and it expresses an essential filial relation to God (for a detailed look at these 2 phrases, go to pages 161-163 in the book).
In anticipation of the objections of His opponents that would say He was bearing witness of Himself, He presents 5 other witnesses to His person.
- the witness of John the Baptist (vs. 33-35)
- the testimony of His works (vs. 36)
- the witness of the Father (vs. 37) – baptism, this is my Son…
- the witness of the Scriptures (vs. 39) – OT
- the testimony of Moses (vs. 45-47) – study of the types
There was abundant evidence to believe Jesus’ claims that He was the Son of God, the Son of Man, co-equal with His Father, and the One on whom the Father’s authority had been conferred.
How much evidence is needed to convince us of the reality of Christ’s claims?
Permalink
12.03.07
Posted in Tom Gilson at 3:08 pm by Tom Gilson
(Originally written for non-believers as part of a series on reasons to believe in Christ, this article is presented here in hopes that it will also encourage believers.)
Every Christian I’ve asked about this has said the same thing: there’s power, life, beauty in the Word of God. I wrote recently about the beauty of the life of Jesus Christ, and reflecting on it since then, I would add that it’s a certain kind of beauty: not the delicate grace of an orchid, but more like the strong, awesome grandeur of a river rushing down a steep forested mountain. (Though when tenderness was called for, Christ had that as well. An amazing, remarkable person.)
The Word of God has a mixed kind of beauty: in some places it’s fresh, airy, purely encouraging and refreshing. In other places it’s far rougher.
In fact there are many places in the Bible that bother me. The Old Testament wars are bloody; the teaching on hell is very uncomfortable. This is not Emily Dickinson. Scripture doesn’t beckon like a light treat; it calls to the deepest part of the soul, and challenges it. But hell and wars are not actually the parts that bother me most, to be honest. The most difficult places are those that call me to love my enemy, to show compassion on strangers, to care for the poor, to give up my life that God may give it back to me. In short, the hardest parts are the ones that call me to be different and better than I am.
The book of James calls the Bible a mirror: we can see in it how we really are, by comparison with what God meant us to be. The book of Hebrews calls it a two-edged sword, piercing to the very division of soul and spirit. There’s a hint there that it is talking both about the written Word and the Incarnate Word of God, who is Jesus Christ (John 1:1). Christ was the bodily revelation, Scripture is the permanent record available to us now.
I grew up reading the Bible occasionally. I knew it was supposed to make some kind of difference in my life, but it really didn’t–not until I made a life commitment, by faith, to follow Jesus Christ. After that, I was astonished, quite literally, at the life and power the Scripture suddenly had for me. Many, many other Christians have said the same thing. When one makes that faith commitment to Christ, one thing that happens is that the Author of Scripture “moves in;” a new, intimate connection with God the Holy Spirit begins, such a close connection that the Bible calls it “filling” or “indwelling.” It became the words of an intimate friend and Father to me.
My own dad has written an autobiography; my mom’s father did too. I’m quite sure that those biographies mean a lot more to me than they would to you. That’s part of the reason for the change. The Bible also says God provides an inner light of revelation to enliven believers’ understanding, which is another reason it all changed. Now, obviously this was not evidence for Christ before I became a Christian, and I’m not expecting any nonbeliever to take it as such, unless you are willing to accept the quite uniform testimony of many, many believers. For as I said, every one that I have asked about it, has said that they find this kind of life in it. For us it certainly is a powerful confirmation of our beliefs.
I’ve read through the entire Bible systematically four or five times, and besides that I’ve studied large portions of it in depth. There’s always something new there, and it’s amazingly relevant to the 21st Century. Not that all of it is intended still to apply today. Much of the Old Testament law was intended to apply only up until the time of Christ; it was a pointer to him, and once fulfilled, it was finished. You’ll find that clearly stated in the words of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and throughout the book of Hebrews. So when the challenge is given, “Do you mean we can’t wear garments of mixed fabric like it says in Leviticus,” we are quite free to say, “No, we don’t mean that. Not any more.” The Old Testament predicted a time would come when a “new covenant” would partially supplant it. The New Testament explains quite adequately what parts of the Old Testament teachings still apply and which do not.
(Oh, and frankly I don’t understand why that law for garments was important at the time. Not every word of the Bible speaks to me with equal relevance and power. The Bible is quite unabashedly situated in history, and therefore its presentation is culturally conditioned. It needs some cultural translation, across time and across societies. Nevertheless the teachings and principles, with that translation respectfully applied, are timeless and cross-cultural.)
Not only is there always something new, there’s something refreshingly strong in each prayerful reading. Again, I echo the common voice of Christians in this. The Bible calls us to change, and those who submit to its guidance, by the power of the Holy Spirit, do change. Relationships are healed, love is renewed, bad habits are released, and the perhaps-hackneyed yet still true words joy and peace really do enter in. I’ve seen it in many hundreds of people. I’ve yet to see one arrive at a fully Christlike life, least of all myself; but that doesn’t negate at all the good work that is done by God through his Word.
So now I’ve talked about the power of the word, some of its challenges; have I spoken yet of its real beauty? I’m not sure I know how to do that. My last post was about the beauty of Christ–that’s something we see in his Word, that lends beauty to the narrative. There is moving and elegant poetry all around the Old Testament. Have you read the Psalms? They’re incredibly honest–no whitewashed feel-good spirituality there, but a genuine wrestling with difficulties, doubts, and pain, yet always with a note of praise to God in spite of it. God understands it’s not easy, and he made sure we had the witness to that in his Word. No one could count the number of hurting believers who have found comfort there.
The New Testament letters, on the other hand, are often doctrinally-oriented, yet always grounded in real situations. They were, after all, real letters to real churches (or individuals) addressing real situations. There is bracing intellectual challenge in a book like Romans–yet even that ended with line after line of personal greetings to Paul’s friends.
I think I’ve written an appreciation of God’s Word. I don’t think I’ve approached a proper rendition of its beauty. You can find it for yourself, though, if you’ll spend a few hours in it. For a great combination of the story of Christ and excellent literary language, I recommend the Gospel of John or Luke. I like the English Standard Version and the New King James Version best. You can find either online at Bible Gateway. But hey, it’s a book, and there’s nothing quite like holding the real thing in your hand.
Permalink
