The Virgin Birth of our Lord:

Its Vital Importance and Defense

By Pastor Terry L. Reese, Center Church of Garrett

This Christmas I am offering some thoughts on the historic and seminal Christian dogma of the virgin birth of Christ. Some of the relevant issues that I wish to address are as follows:

 

1) Can the Virgin Birth be legitimately defended from Scripture?

2) Does it really even matter, theologically?
3) Can a man be recognized as an actual brother in the Lord—and yet deny the substance and truth of this doctrine? Can such a man hope to be saved from the wrath that is surely to come (Matt. 3:7)?  

 

This matter became a watershed debate in the modernist era betwixt orthodox Bible-believing conservatives and classical old-fashioned liberals, who, because of the bias derived from their pantheistic divine-immanence theories, were philosophically unable to receive the idea of the miraculous. It has often been observed with no small degree of justice that the God who somehow managed to work the seemingly greater miracle of creation ex nihlo should surely have had no great difficulty in also pulling-off such a seemingly lesser thing a thing (relatively speaking) as a virgin birth.

Luke 1:37: "For nothing will be impossible with God."

The virgin birth is both clearly and explicitly taught within both Testaments and by a variety of writers. If a man cannot confess it, it is simply a matter of faithlessness and unbelief in the veracity of the Bible. That even the faithless Muslim infidels are able to accept this general concept and explanation for Christ’s appearance in the world stands as a sad indictment of those mainline “Christian” clergymen who, by way of contrast, are unable or unwilling to do so. Failure to affirm the virgin birth flatly places one outside the sphere of any form of legitimate or recognizable Christianity, and stands as clear and solid testimony as to an individual’s unregenerate and unsaved character.

The nature of the Virgin Birth, or, if one prefers, Virgin Conception, and its results, are aptly described by the angel Gabriel:

 Luke 1:34-35: Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

The very first Messianic prophecy within the Bible, the Protevangelium of Gen. 3:15, alludes to the conflict between Satan and the Seed of the Woman—and thus, subtly points towards the Virgin Birth. This promise becomes dramatically explicit within the prophecy of Isaiah:

Isa. 7:14: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.  

Liberals, such as the translators of the left-leaning RSV (who render virgin as “a young woman”) and its successor, the NRSV (favored by the mainline denominations as the translation of choice), have claimed that bethulah, as opposed to almah, would have constituted a better word-choice had the prophet Isaiah intended the meaning “virgin.” However, in opposition to this viewpoint, are the following considerations:

1. Bethulah does not always refer to a virgin (Esth. 2:17, Ezek. 23:3, Joel 1:8), and thus, would not have been a more precise term to use than almah.
2. Almah, while it may not be a precisely technical term meaning “virgin,” is a word used in reference to young, marriageable women, who, it would be anticipated, would be characterized by their virginity, amongst other things. There is no place in the Scriptures where the term can be applied to a young woman who is not a virgin. We are mindful here of the bold challenge that the venerable Dr. Martin Luther issued centuries ago:

"If a Jew or Christian can prove to me that in any passage of Scripture 'almah' means 'a married woman' I will give him one hundred florins, although God alone knows where I will find them."

Dr. Luther kept his money!

 

3. The translators of the LXX—ancient Jewish men for whom biblical Hebrew was a living language, and who probably forgot more Hebrew than today’s liberal translators and critics will ever even learn—chose to render the term parthenos in Greek, which always means “virgin.”
4. The sign unto the House of David was to be a compelling one (Isa. 7:11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make {it} deep as Sheol or high as heaven."). What is miraculous about the RSV’s wimpy “a young woman shall conceive”? This is mere biology, not a sign miracle.
5. If Isa. 7:14 does not refer to a virgin, then there is no consistency of usage linking the Testaments. Matthew 1:23 explicitly refers to mother of Isa. 7:14 as a Virgin (parthenos). The RSV diminishes the full force of fulfilled prophecy.

The Virgin Birth is, of course, explicitly expounded by Matthew:

Matt. 1:18-23: Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

 

Likewise, the Synoptic Genealogies make certain that the point of supernatural origin is emphasized:

Matt. 1:16: Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23: When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…

Plainly, if Jesus was not virginally conceived, then the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is flatly overthrown.

 

Through the device of the Virgin Birth, we also see a variety of biblical imperatives satisfactorily dealt with:

 

1. A solution is found to dilemma of how the Messianic line of David could continue, while bypassing the accursed Jehoiachin and his issue (Jer. 22:30).
2. How better to explain the singular phenomenon of a sinless man? (2 Cor. 5:21, Heb 4:15, 1 Pet. 2:22, 1 John 3:5). This would seem to be the inference of Luke 1:35 and the idea alluded to in 1 Cor. 15:22, He was not “in Adam” with regard to having a sin nature like other men. As to whether or not God could have brought an untainted man, free from the effects of original sin, into the world through some other means, we might observe that such a hypothetical inquiry into such sublime and mysterious matters is a dangerous occupation at best. Further, in that this is THE manner in which God, in His infinite perfections, chose to execute His sovereign will, then this must surely have been the best—and therefore, only—available alternative.
3. How else does one explain the entrance of pre-existent Deity (John 1:1, Phil. 2:6) into this world in the form of genuine humanity as one Person? It would seem that other alternatives would either impugn upon His Deity (the true motives of most who would deny the doctrine) or else result in a Nestorian-style (i.e., two-Person) Christ.

In the end, it is clear that those who deny the Virgin Birth—even now, as back in the days of His humility—seek to dishonor the Person of our Lord. Note the apparent suggestion of illegitimacy in the “Samaritan” accusation of John 8:41b & 8:48-49:

John 8:41b: They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God."

John 8:48-49: The Jews answered and said to Him, "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?" Jesus answered, "I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me.

And what did our Lord and Savior teach, with regard to the precise fate of those who would dare impugn upon the precious truth of His full Deity?

John 8:24: “Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.”

A HOLY NATION:

The Doctrine of Holiness

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

1 Pet. 1:14-16: As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts {which were yours} in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all {your} behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."

 

The standard for the Christian is a lifestyle of Separation, or personal holiness. Like the Priests of the OT (2 Chron. 35:3, Ezra 8:28), and like anything that belongs to, is associated with, or dedicated  unto a holy God (Ex. 30:10; Lev. 27:14, 21, 28; 30, 32; Neh. 8:9), we are “Holy unto the Lord.” We have been cleansed by His blood (Heb. 9:22), are positionally holy, having been justified (2 Cor. 5:21), as well as set apart for His service.

 

1 Pet. 2:9 “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR {God's} OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light…”

 

Even as we are considered holy in this positional sense, we are, experientially, to live holy and separated lives, sanctified by the cleansing of the Word (Eph. 5:26) and in conformity with the moral law of the revealed standards of Scripture as exemplified by the life and witness of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:5-11, 1 Pet. 2:21). It is the ultimate will of God for us that we be “conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29),” even as we daily live by the Spirit, “putting to death the deeds of the body (Rom. 8:13)” and present our “bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God (Rom.12:1).”

 

1 Thess. 4:3: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification…”

 

Christians are not called unto a monastic-style withdrawal from outward interaction with the world (John 17:15), but they are called unto a life of moral purity, as well as a standard of ethical and philosophical nonconformity and spiritual separation from the world system, being instructed to “deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age (Titus 2:12).” Personal separation from the inverted values of “this present evil age (Gal. 1:4),” in fact, is held-up as objective evidence relating to our justification:

 

1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”

 

The Christian is to be separated in terms of his customs (Romans 12:2), with regard to all that we say (I Tim. 4:12) and do (1 Cor. 10:31). He is also to be separated in terms of his associations, not engaging in spiritual confederacies with un-believers (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). Furthermore, the world’s wisdom is not to be our wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18-31), and the pride and arrogance associated with world’s ethic (Matt. 19:30), manifesting itself in militant or evil practices (2 Tim. 3:1-6) are not to be our practices (Matt. 5:43-48, Rom. 12:9-21).

 

Matt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 

It should be observed that while a genuine and on-going progressive sanctification is to be regarded as both possible and normative for the believer as he or she cooperates with Divine grace, the Wesleyan concept of a perfected holiness, or a perfected love—within the confines of this present life—is an unscriptural view of sanctification that not only flies in the face of clear biblical revelation concerning the believer’s ongoing struggle with sin (cf. Paul’s account of his internal battles regarding the persistent nature of sin, despite his new identity in Christ; Rom. 7:14-25), but which also involves the believer in engaging in incredible and dishonest contortions of mind in order to escape the self-evident reality of our present failure to meet God’s perfect ethical and moral standards (1 John 1:8).

The Kenosis in Action: Matt. 17:24-27

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

The Doctrine of the Kenosis: Christ did not divest Himself of His Deity in the Incarnation; rather it involves a veiling of His Divine attributes. The Kenosis involves His setting aside His prerogatives to independently exercise His attributes of Deity. Paradoxically, it involves not a subtraction (His Deity), but an addition of a human nature.

 

Phil. 2:3-8: 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

 

A great Christological text—but one that exists within an appeal as to how we are to live out Christian lives…

 

Phil. 2:12-13:  So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

 

 

An Illustrative Text: Matt. 17:24-27

²⁴When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" ²⁵He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" ²⁶When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. ²⁷However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."

 

I. Intro: An introduction to the discourse on humility in Matt. 18, following a section

underscoring the glory of Christ.

 

II. The tax (24-25a).

²⁴When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" ²⁵He said, "Yes."

 

The "two-drachma tax:" a Jewish tax that every male Jew between 20 and 50 years of age had to pay toward the maintenance of the temple and its services.

 

Ex. 30:11-16:  The LORD said to Moses, "When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the LORD when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the LORD. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the LORD's offering. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the LORD's offering to make atonement for your lives. You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the LORD, so as to make atonement for your lives."

 

III. “Prevented” (KJV), or “anticipated.” (25a)

²⁵He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first…

 

Jesus knew what the issue was before Peter spoke—a token of His Divinity.

 

IV. The illustration (vv. 25-26).

²⁵He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" ²⁶When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt.

 

Jesus turns a tax collector’s inquiry into a teaching situation. In the illustration, He applies a principle from civil taxation to clarify His point with regard to this religious tax.

 

Jesus' point: as the sons of kings are exempt from the taxes their fathers impose, so He too was exempt from the taxes His Father imposed (the temple tax).

 

The temple really belonged to God (Mal. 3:1). Jesus was teaching Peter the implications of His Deity.

 

Mal. 3:1: "Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple…”

 

God had clearly declared Jesus His Son in the Transfiguration (v. 5), as well as at Jesus' baptism.

 

Matt 3:17: “…and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

 

Matt 17:5  He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

 

John 5:18: For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

 

V. The Self-emptying…

²⁷“However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."

 

Even though He was "exempt" (v. 26), Jesus would relinquish His rights and pay the tax, because He did not want to "offend" anyone needlessly or cause occasion for stumbling. Because Peter was one of Jesus' disciples and one of God's children through faith in Jesus, he also had no obligation to pay the temple tax.  

 

Note Paul’s later application,: 1 Cor. 8:13; 9:12.

1Cor. 8:13  Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

1Cor 9:12  If others have the right to expect this from you, don't we deserve even more? But we haven't used our rights. Instead, we would put up with anything in order not to hinder the Good News of Christ in any way.

 

This forgoing of personal rights out of love for God and others (Matt. 22:35-40) establishes a pattern for Jesus’ disciples regarding Christian Liberty.

 

“Even though He was free from the Law's demands, being God's Son, He submitted to them and miraculously provided for His disciples to do so. This demonstration of humility and power is even more impressive following as it does an announcement of Jesus' passion.”—Constable

 

Far from the feelings of pride, pretension, and self-assertion that the disciples manifested (Matt. 18:1) by discussing who would be the greatest in Christ's kingdom, Jesus Himself humbly paid a tax that He really did not owe. He did not owe it, in the sense that He was Lord over the whole system that this tax supported. He took no offense, however, at having to pay this tax, and He was careful to give no offense to those to whom it was due.

 

This story teaches the children of the kingdom not to murmur because the world does not recognize their status and dignity.

 

Involved in this Divine condescension is another miracle that greatness of the condescension—the catching of the fish, orchestrated by the One who walked on the water (ch. 14), controls the wind and waves (Luke 8), and provided the great catch of Luke 5.

 

This story sets the stage for Jesus’ continued teaching His disciples on the importance of following the examples that He provided for them in the next section (ch. 18; humility, faith, conflict resolution, forgiveness).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Terms of Redemption:

What's the Atonement really about?

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

The Atonement is vicarious—Christ died on our behalf. Vicarius is a Latin term meaning “one in place of another.”

 

It is a substitutionary atonement—He became our penal substitute, bearing the wrath rightly due sinners. Our guilt was imputed to Him in such a way that He representatively bore our punishment. It was a penal substitution; God’s law has been violated, requiring punitive action.

 

Propitiation refers to the fact that in the atonement, the wrath and righteous demands of Almighty God were fully satisfied or appeased in the substitutionary death of Christ.

 

Because God is holy and righteous He cannot overlook sin.  Through the work of Jesus Christ, God is fully satisfied that His righteous standard has been met. The death of Christ was fully sufficient to meet and placate this demand.

 -------------------------------

False or Incomplete Theories regarding the Atonement

 

1. Origen (AD 185-254), an ancient interpreter, claimed that…

…Christ’s death was a ransom payment made unto Satan, who held certain rights over the captives acquired by him in the conflict, in accordance with the traditional rights of war. a.k.a., The Ransom Theory (Mk 10:45, Col. 2:15)

 

2. The Gnostics (circa, 1^st to 4^th Cent. AD) proposed that…

…Jesus wasn’t really a man, but only appeared to be. Not being genuinely human, Jesus didn’t even really die!  a.k.a., Docetic Theory (IJn 4:1-3, 2Jn 1:7).

 

3. Mohammed (AD 570-632), in the Koran, also claimed…

…that Jesus didn’t actually die upon the cross; Allah only caused it to appear that way to His enemies. Authoritative Islamic tradition (i.e., the Hadith) further teaches that it was actually Judas who died upon the cross!

 

4. Anselm (AD 1033-1109), a medieval theologian, said that…

…human sin robbed God of His honor, which necessitated some sort of satisfaction. Through His death, Christ brought honor to God, thus achieving the reward of a supra-abundant treasury of merits, which can now be passed on to His People. This teaching has been employed to bolster Rome’s teaching on Penance. a.k.a., The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory.

 

5. Abelard (AD 1079-1142), a medieval philosopher, said that...

…Christ did not actually satisfy or make payment for our sin debt, but rather, revealed the love of God through His acts of suffering. This Divine love awakens within us a reciprocal love, born out of appreciation, which in turn produces a sanctifying, ethical change within us, according to which God accepts, pardons, and justifies us. a.k.a., The Moral Influence Theory (I Jn 3:16).

 

6. Socinus (AD 1539-1604), a rationalist heretic, said that…

…Christ, in His death, simply showed us an example of faith and obedience. He did not die for anyone’s sins. His power to save is purely exemplar in nature. a.k.a., The Example (or Martyr) Theory (cf. Mt. 16:24, 1 Pet. 2:21-23).

 

7. Grotius (AD 1583-1645), a leading Arminian, taught that…

…God, as Moral Governor of the Universe, required the death of Christ in order to demonstrate the extent of His displeasure with human sin. Christ did not actually suffer the penalty of Law’s demands for our sins, but His death was even so accepted as a token payment by God, who then set aside the Law’s demands. a.k.a., the Moral Government Theory (Rm 3:21-26).

 

8. Gustaf Aulen (AD 1879-1978), a modern theologian, said…

…that the importance in Christ’s death lies in the fact that He was victorious over the powers of sin and evil; it is a sort of “Passion Play,” or drama. a.k.a., the Dramatic Theory (cf. John 16:33, Col. 2:15, I Jn 3:8).

 

9. Albert Schweitzer (AD 1875-1965), modern radical theologian…

…believed that Christ’s death was a “mistake.” Obsessed with Jewish ideas concerning the End-of-the-World, Jesus attempted to force God’s hand in bringing about the Kingdom, and was thus crushed by His own delusion. a.k.a., the Accident Theory (cf. Matt. 26:54).  

My personal testimony of salvation

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

I was raised with a strong moral and ethical sense, emphasizing that there is right and wrong, and that God, Jesus, the Church, and the Bible were to be respected as holy things, even though we were not regular attendees of our local church.
 

Our local church was labelled the First Christian Church--as are many other Campbellite, or Restoration Movement churches. It professed to be a church of the Bible, but in fact, it was very legalistic, representing a sect that in many ways self-consciously stood aloof from the historic thought of the Reformation. It taught a hyper-free-willism, it denied justification by faith alone, and it affirmed its own particular version of baptismal regeneration (i.e., equating water baptism with the new birth and avowing that baptism is essential for salvation). One is saved through believing that Christ is the Son of God and obeying the ordinance of baptism (single immersion). One must then "keep faithful" to the Commandments of God unto death, or one would lose their salvation.
 

I obeyed the Ordinance of Baptism as instructed as a child, and felt a sensation of cleansing having performed the rite. That feeling, however, soon passes, and one is left with the hope that one is “good enough” to make the final cut when God analyzes our works and decides our eternal destiny accordingly. I felt I was basically a good person, not involved with many of the sins of my generation (e.g., drugs, sex, womanizing, etc.), and was trusting in this for redemption.
 

In my early 20’s, I chanced to watch Billy Graham on television and heard him affirm that salvation is by grace a free gift, and that we cannot earn our salvation before a holy God. We must place our trust in Christ and in His substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. I wasn’t sure I correctly understood him the first time, so I listened a second night in the series of programs, and he repeated the same message.  For the first time, I understood that Christ did something for me—He died for my sins—and that I couldn’t earn heaven through my good works or stand righteous before God on that basis. That night, alone in my bedroom, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, repenting of my sin,  despairing of self, and acknowledging before the Lord that I trusted solely in His work on the Cross on my behalf for my redemption.
 

Satan: his Decline and Fall

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

Though enormously successful in certain respects, it must be finally observed that Satan’s career, since the inception of his initial rebellion, has long been on a progressive downward spiral, leading to ultimate devastation and total ruin. The distinct and formal stages of this downfall can be enumerated as follows:

 

1.    His initial fall from his original, exalted position, when iniquity and pride self-generated from within his heart (Ezek. 28:15-19, Isa. 14:12-14).

 

2.    His ultimate downfall through the work of Christ was proclaimed in Eden, subsequent to the Fall of Man, in the Protevangelium (Gen. 3:15; cf. Rom. 16:20).

 

3.    Through the Cross, Christ broke the power of Death which Satan wielded over people (Heb. 2:14), rendering him defenseless with regard to the believer’s destiny.

 

4.    During the middle of Tribulation Week, he will be cast down to Earth by Michael and the heavenly hosts, barring his access to the Heavenlies (Rev. 12:7-12).

 

5.    Following the glorious Second Coming of our Lord to take possession of His Millennial Kingdom, Satan will be bound and confined to the Abyss for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:1-3).

 

6.    Following his brief release, in which he will follow his familiar pattern of causing men to form a fellowship of evil, thereby inciting the nations unto the great global rebellion of Rev. 20:7-9, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire, where he will be tormented forever and ever and ever (Rev. 20:10), meeting his final and utterly appalling destiny.

Is the Anointing of the sick with oil (James 5:14-16) to be taken literally?

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

“Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.”

  

The Anointing of the sick with oil is a practice or form which the Lord has given us with regard to the physical healing and comfort of the seriously ill Christian Believer.

 

Ignored or spiritualized away by much of Christendom, and distorted by both Romish circles (into the sacrament of Extreme Unction; a spiritual preparation for death), as well as Charismatic “faith-healers” (who hold to the modern continuance of the Apostolic sign-gift of miraculous healing), the correct (though strangely, minority) view, taught by the historic Brethren Church, should be quite readily apparent and self-authenticating from a plain, simple, and direct reading of the text.

 

With this latter presumption in mind, in analyzing the above verses in question, allow us to make a series of observations concerning the practice:

 

1.    The passage directly speaks of physical healing, and cannot simply be relegated to the realm of the spiritual—although vv. 15-16 certainly addresses the spiritual condition of the distressed party with regard to the confession of sin (without inferring, of course, that every illness is necessarily the result of personal sin).

2.    The practice is designed exclusively for Christians (“Is anyone among you sick?”). James is clearly writing unto those whom he regards as regenerate fellow-believers (James 1:18: “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures”), and “Brethren” (1:2, 16, 19; 2:1).

3.    Healing, if God so wills it, comes from Him in response to the prayers of the faithful—not because of any inherent graces or magic within the oil itself, or within the formula of the rite. Nor does healing arise from a modern day expression or revival of the ancient Apostolic sign-gift of healing, which was uniquely bestowed upon the early Apostolic Community in order to validate its foundational role (Eph. 2:20, II Cor. 12:12), and which ceased with the completion of the NT Canon (I Cor. 13:10).

4.    The nature of the illness that is to be reserved for the practice of the rite is to be deemed serious, as opposed to trivial. “Afflicted” in v. 13 (kakopatheō) refers to a condition of suffering, whilst “sick” in v. 14 (astheneō) carries with it the connotations of weakness and powerlessness. The “sick” of v. 15 (kamnō--the faint, the sickened, the wearied) require the need of being raised up (egeirō). Thus, the modern-style “healings” associated with modern faith healers—often imaginary ailments in nature, involving tightly screened candidates—will be eliminated from consideration. When real healing takes place, something which will be recognized as the Lord’s work will occur, involving a real illness.

5.    The sick one shall ultimately call for the elders of his/her own initiative (“…Then he must call for the elders…”). Likewise, a plurality of elders is spoken of. Both of these principles are inconsistent with the practices of modern “faith-healers,” and thus ensure that God—not man—will receive the proper credit for any healing that may take place.

6.    These elders are not traveling Elmer Gantrys or snake-oil salesmen, but rather, they are presumably respected local elders who are, in all probability, known unto the sick one and the community, and who meet the Scriptural qualifications of I Tim. 3:1-8 and Titus 1:5-9. Of course, as local elders, it naturally follows that they are men—in opposition to the practice of many modern day “healers” (e.g., Katherine Kuhlman).

7.    Following the aforesaid confession of sin, the individual is to be anointed with oil, which, Scripturally, is emblematic of the Holy Spirit (Lev. 8:10-12, Matt. 25:3, 8), the one who indwells the body (John 14:16-20, James 4:5) and who convicts the world of sin (John 16:8-11). The Holy Spirit is also the believer’s Comforter (John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7), and it is He who performs uniquely Divine labors, as Creator (Gen. 1:2), Redeemer (e.g., His regenerative work; John 3:5-8), and Sustainer (Ps. 104:30). The oil is but a symbol, pointing to the Spirit. It should by no means regarded as the causative agent of an individual’s healing. The emphasis which follows is upon the prayer, offered in faith, as opposed to the oil.

8.    The prayer of faith follows, wrought by the Spirit Himself (Phil. 2:13) and offered by the elders in faith and trust (1 John 5:14) in the goodness and wisdom of God, and in the true spirit of worship and devotion, in acceptance of the sovereign will of God.

9.    It is not always the will of the Lord to heal, as II Cor. 12:7-10 makes clear. Through sufferings, saints are both refined (I Peter 2:20-21) and chastened as sons (Heb. 12:8). Eventually, of course, as Phil. 1:23 observes, for every man it comes time to “depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better…”

10. The Lord is the ultimate and final source of all healing, and if it is indeed in accordance with His sovereign will to heal, He is free to employ whatever means He sees fit—including the ordinary medical arts. God can heal directly, instantly, and supernaturally if He so chooses, or, if it pleases Him, may heal over a certain period of time, using any providential means which are in harmony with His particular desires.

Why we believe the Christian Church began at Pentecost

By Pastor Terry L. Reese, Center Church

 

There are those who believe that the Church began during the Old Testament era, or perhaps during the days of John the Baptist. Others believe that the Church began during the days of our Lord's humility, during the period of the Four Gospels. Still others (Ulradispensationalists) believe that the Church began sometime after Pentecost (Acts 13? Acts 28). We reject these views, and hold to the classical Dispensationalist view, which affirms that the Church began on the Day of Pentecost.

 

 

1.  In Matthew 16:18 Jesus states “I will build my church,” indicating that the building of the church was future event.

 

2. Spirit Baptism is what joins us to the universal Body (1 Cor. 12:13) and makes us one (Eph. 4:4-6). This coming work of the Holy Spirit was prophesied by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11) as something Jesus would do in the future. The promise of the Savior (John 7:37-39, Acts 1:8) to accomplish this was fulfilled in Acts 2:1-4 at the Day of Pentecost—what Peter calls the beginning (Acts 11:15-17).

 

3. Without Jesus’ inaugural death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, there could be no Christian Church (Eph. 1:19-23). He purchased the Church by His death (Acts 20:28), He is the living Head of the Church (Col. 1:18) and its Foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), and He gave the Church both is Commission and its Ordinances (Matt. 28:19-20; John 13:14-15; 1 Cor. 11:23-26).

 

4. The Church is called a NT “mystery” (i.e., a Divine truth that was previously hidden and unknowable, but which is now clearly seen through the channel of Divine revelation). While the salvation of Gentile nations was foreseen in the OT, the joining of Jew and Gentile in one spiritual Body was not (cf., Eph. 3:1-6).

 

5. The Apostles and NT-era prophets are described as Foundational men (Eph. 2:20).

 

6.  The Church is always distinguished from national Israel (1 Cor. 10:32); it is not a continuation of it.

 

7.  The Gifts of the Spirit through which the Church necessarily functions came only with the Ascension of Christ (Eph. 4:7-12).

 

8.  The living Body is now God’s earthly Temple (Eph. 2:21-22).