Review of “The Eternal Kingdom”

By Matt Watson

At the beginning of the month, I was determined to read the Bible in it’s entirety before the end of summer, but I have only gotten through the five books of Moses, partly because I was sidetracked by a book someone let me borrow, and mainly because I’m lazy. Right now I want to talk about that book, which is “The Eternal Kingdom: A History of the Church” by F.W. Mattox. My thoughts on the five books of Moses are forthcoming.

Many of you may know I am a member of the church of Christ, which is a profoundly misunderstood group of people. Folks accusingly tell us we believe we are the only ones who are right. But I would ask, Why is this somehow bad? What else do you suppose? How can the church of Christ not be the only ones who are right?

Of course, I am trying to make a profound point, and my point of view, which is the same as that of many others, is explained very thoroughly in “The Eternal Kingdom.” The book is not a ranting about personal religious views. It is encyclopedic and chronicles the history of the church under the leadership and influence of the apostles, the apostolic and early church fathers, the heretics, what became the Roman Catholic system of church organization and it’s theological results, the reformers of the 1300s on, and finally the nineteenth century scholars and church leaders predominant in America who saw themselves as restorers of the “New Testament church.” The book is used as a textbook in some Christian colleges. It was important for me because it was really my first attempt to seriously study Christian history outside of New Testament times and events.

Basically, after the apostles and period of written revelation, Christians had many options before them and many hardships. It was the church in it’s infancy and had not yet grasped a significant understanding of church organization and leadership, much less doctrine and theology. Soon, churches began to develop the first aspects of what would later become a full-blown hierarchy, largely to combat false teaching. I’ll spare you the details, but it is clear that the hierarchical system that we now see in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches was a merely human and at times political development that experienced many different phases and was not championed or even recognized by all early Christians and churches.

But the result of changes in organization also produced major theological consequences – such as a priesthood unique to bishops and ministers.

After Constantine I, the Roman emperor in the fourth century, adopted Christianity and tampered with it largely for political gain, Christianity became a religion of councils and creeds, and it was through these councils and creeds that Christians became crystallized in their party affiliations, swearing allegiance to councils of men instead of to God. When the reformers of later centuries challenged the predominant party (the Roman Catholics), they merely created new parties, crystallized by new creeds, synods and special names, with each party competing against the other. The purpose of the “restorers” of the nineteenth century was simply to be Christians and do away with various products of men. Among these people, councils and creeds were done away with as “terms of communion” between Christians, with only the canonical scriptures replacing them. What objection could somebody possibly have against this practice?

One of the things that restoration achieves is unity. It is unity based upon scripture.

For anyone still reading, let me explain further.

It can hardly be said that the denominationalism that came out of the Reformation is the way Christ wanted his church to be upon his death, which was “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). This is something most of us now can agree on, and there have been developed different ways of unifying Christians. F.W. Mattox outlines three different methods of unification among Christians that have been advanced: authoritarianism, inter-denominationalism, and undenominationalism. Mattox subscribes to undenominationalism.

Authoritarianism is the belief held by the Roman Catholic Church, which is that all believers in Christ should swear allegiance to its hierarchy of bishops, which is headed by the pope. Roman Catholics believe its hierarchy was appointed by the apostles and that it constitutes the church of Christ that has been from the beginning. Historically, this just isn’t true.

Inter-denominationalism is the belief held by many Protestants of our day, which is that all denominations should be in communion with one another. Church organization and doctrine shouldn’t get in the way of Christian unity. This argument falls on its face, because the question arises, What would be the purpose of different denominations and methods of organization? Why not just compromise and join together, which would only make sense because the argument presumes that there is no one right way to pattern the church?

Undenominationalism is the belief held by the church of Christ, which is that all believers in Christ should use the scripture as its only term of communion and leave man-made devises and parties by using the Bible as their only creed. We must be Christians in terms of Christ’s word, not the words of men and the interpolations of their various creeds. This argument holds that the church must be organized and run according to the New Testament pattern, which is complete and full. This argument therefore holds that the Bible is all-sufficient for the church (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the only true “sola scriptura” doctrine.

The unification of Christians must be achieved through practicing that faith which was once for all delivered to us by Jesus and his apostles (Jude 1:3) and comes down to us through the Bible. Unifying doesn’t mean accepting all doctrines and churches as equally Christian, which is impossible. Not all who say, “Lord, Lord” are part of his kingdom. Even the most avid believer of inter-denominationalism has to admit this. Unifying means coming together to let the Word dwell in us richly (Colossians 3:16).

If you have read this far, you may be interested in reading this book, which can be bought on Amazon.com, although you can buy it for cheaper if you go through the publishing company’s Web site, which is gospellightbooks.com.

Reflections on Genesis

By Matt Watson

I have re-begun my read through the Bible and will finish before the end of summer, God willing. I realize there’s no way I can stay up on my reading during the school semester so as to finish the Bible by the end of the year, so I’ve decided to do some power reading everyday while I’m not at school. Many of my coming posts will be my reflections from daily readings. Read along with me if you want, although I’m going by no particular formula.

I read Genesis earlier this week, and when I was finished, it appeared to me that there are more things in that book, and perhaps the rest of the books of the Old Testament, that point to Christ than I had thought.

Of course, there is the promise to the serpent in chapter 3 that the seed of woman “shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” There is Abraham offering Isaac, his only son, as a sacrifice. There are three mysterious men called Jehovah visiting Abraham in chapter 18 to give Sarah the promise of her son and to tell Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, after Abraham had already saved Sodom once. And there are probably several others I could go on about, but there are others that are slightly more subtle and that, to me at least, show the Patriarchal Age wasn’t simply a time of jealousy and slaughter, as it has seemed to me in the past.

The stories of Jacob and his son Joseph are stories of forgiveness and reconciliation, something we associate with Jesus and the Christian Age.

Jacob tricked his father Isaac into blessing him instead of Esau, his older brother who sold his birthright to Jacob for food. Part of Jacob’s blessing was to “let peoples serve thee, And nations bow down to thee: Be lord over thy brethren, And let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee” (Genesis 27:29). However, Jacob, like Jesus, did not use his authority to punish others. When he finally reunited with his brother in chapter 33, he, like Jesus, put himself in the place of a servant:

And Esau ran to meet [Jacob], and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are these with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant. (vv. 4-5)

Jacob then proceeded to give Esau his present of various animals, which he had prepared the previous day under the impression that Esau was out to kill him. Instead of meeting his brother with violence, he solved the conflict through love.

The story of Jacob’s son Joseph also reminds me of Christ and should let us know that the Old Testament emphasizes love and forgiveness too. When Joseph, as the second most important man in Egypt, revealed himself to his brothers who had sold him into slavery, he told them “be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves” (Genesis 45:5). But the brothers began to worry once again when their father died, thinking that perhaps Joseph would then decide to take vengeance on them. When they bowed to Joseph as servants, Joseph, every bit the picture of Jesus’ washing Peter’s feet, told them he did not want them to serve him:

And they sent a message unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died, saying, So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the transgression of thy brethren, and their sin, for that they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him. And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we be thy servants. And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? (Genesis 50:16-19)

And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. (Acts 10:25-26)

Watch and Pray

By Matt Watson

Take time to be holy,
speak oft with thy Lord;
abide in him always,
and feed on his word.
Make friends of God’s children,
help those who are weak,
forgetting in nothing
his blessing to seek.

Take time to be holy,
the world rushes on;
spend much time in secret
with Jesus alone.
By looking to Jesus,
like him thou shalt be;
thy friends in thy conduct
his likeness shall see.

Take time to be holy,
let him be thy guide,
and run not before him,
whatever betide.
In joy or in sorrow,
still follow the Lord,
and, looking to Jesus,
still trust in his word.

Take time to be holy,
be calm in thy soul,
each thought and each motive
beneath his control.
Thus led by his spirit
to fountains of love,
thou soon shalt be fitted
for service above.

(A hymn by William D. Longstaff and George C. Stebbins)

Christopher Hitchens, a notorious atheist, once suggested on a television program that America is not as religious as people make it out to be, no more so than Europe. That’s why Americans stay home and sleep on Sundays or practice some other activity since they don’t have to go to work. Americans get wasted on the weekend (or even Christmas) and try to sober up for work or possibly, if they’re lucky, church.

Even in the Bible Belt, you sometimes get the feeling it is all just a front for some political or other vain gain. Or maybe it’s just something from the past that we in our wealth and overconsumption can’t take seriously anymore, though we still observe it formally, a for-the-record kind of thing. We may even feel the presence of God here or there, but we don’t practice religion.

But what does it really mean to practice religion? It means, as I’ve gotten at before, to be a servant to others and to stick strictly to what is good and righteous, to repent of sins and to be keenly aware of God. I’m sure we could go on defining all day long, but what I think many Southerners lack is a good prayer life. If you’re anything like me, you might find yourself reading a lot of religious material, always trying to find an answer to something, yet at the end of the day, you failed to take out serious time to pray, to commune with God. Prayer should be a central form of worship for every Christian. Jesus reconciled us back to God, so why wouldn’t we be reconciled through prayer?

So many faiths around the world practice prayer religiously, whether they are Muslims, Catholics or charismatics. If we just observe, we could learn a little from them. And I wouldn’t normally be the one to tell someone they aren’t “religious enough,” but it seems we could all agree beyond a shadow of a doubt that many Americans, even Southern Protestants, don’t pray enough. We also don’t read the Bible, fast, sweat blood drops or meditate in the night watches either. We go to work in polished offices, take sleeping pills in the evening and dream about sunshine and lollipops at night.

Why is this? Why aren’t we “religious”? Well, for one, it is my observation that we are too uptight. A reading of the Psalms should totally obliterate the conception that there are hard-set rules, methods and words we must use while praying. I have heard many complaints from people on the way other people pray. It is possible, God forbid, that someone fails to say, “In Jesus’ name,” at the end of a prayer. Or someone may say the Our Father and be accused of using “vain repetitions.” How can Jesus’ own words be vain repetitions? And what matters if someone doesn’t say, “In Jesus’ name”? Haven’t they already been baptized into Jesus as it is?

Complaints are meant to be contentious and are probably most often launched by people who don’t pray every day.

Recently, I heard a preacher on the Internet complain about people who use the word “just” too much in their prayers, as in “Lord we just ask you to forgive us our sins.” The preacher said that “just” means only, and unless forgiveness is the only thing we ask for in a prayer, we shouldn’t say “just.” These kinds of complaints hinder people from praying as they should.

So, how should we pray? Since there are no hard-set rules, we sometimes tend to slack off. However, Jesus’ gives us a great deal of advice on prayer. By his words and his example, we see that it’s good to pray alone, in our bedrooms, in a desert, in a mountain or in some other lonely place, where our Father which seeth in secret shall recompense us. It is good to pray all morning and all throughout the night. It is good to pray for food, for the kingdom, for our enemies and for God to lead us away from temptation. It is good to pray anywhere, anytime, anyhow, in any language, in any mood, for any reason. In short, it is good to “pray without ceasing.”

Hear my cry, O God;
Attend to my prayer.
From the end of the earth I will cry to You,
When my heart is overwhelmed;
Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.

For You have been a shelter for me,
A strong tower from the enemy.
I will abide in Your tabernacle forever;
I will trust in the shelter of Your wings. Selah

For You, O God, have heard my vows;
You have given me the heritage of those who fear Your name.
You will prolong the king’s life,
His years as many generations.
He shall abide before God forever.
Oh, prepare mercy and truth, which may preserve him!

So I will sing praise to Your name forever,
That I may daily perform my vows.

(Psalm 61)

Suffering: A Central Mark of Christians

By Matt Watson

I would like to take a few moments to give my thoughts on an issue I encountered during a recent conversation. Tuesday, I conversed with a “street preacher” who believes in the current miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit and that this miraculous operation means all we have to do is pray to God when we are sick and avoid taking medicine. People are sick, he explained, when they have sin in their lives and are bound for hell. When they stop sinning, God will heal them and they will live a healthy life.

I have spoken before on “Holy Spirit baptism,” which I do not now completely deny. I simply deny that the Holy Spirit operates in our daily lives in a miraculous way. It would be absurd for me to say miracles have ended. If they had, there would be no resurrection (cf. Romans 8:11). My only claim is that the apostles are no longer here to lay hands on us (cf. Acts 8:14-18), and a church is no longer here that doesn’t have a sacred canon. With these things in mind, I will let you judge the veracity of modern faith healers.

Nevertheless, it is incorrect — and I would say dangerous — to preach that we shouldn’t take medicine since sin is what keeps us in bed with pneumonia. It is incorrect to say that when one follows God, he will necessarily be blessed with good health. That is more of a prosperity gospel than good doctrine. Although many religious leaders teach this gospel, it flatly contradicts the foundation of Christianity, which is the exemplary suffering of Christ.

If we go back to the book of Job, one of the earliest books of the Bible, we see that Job “was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil” (1:1). The narrative of Job’s tragic story begins by making the point that Job had no sin in his life to warrant the calamity brought on him by Satan. This reality was contrary to what Job’s three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar) taught, which was that “they that plow iniquity, and sow trouble, reap the same” (4:8). However, God condemns them for their counsel in the last chapter, because, while it is true that God has brought punishment on many a evildoer, it is not a rule that suffering is always the result of sin, or that God is always the one who brings on suffering. There are many reasons we suffer, and the message of the book of Job is that humans do not fully understand these reasons (38:4).

But we do know that through suffering, Job’s faith was evidenced and he was made a stronger person because of it. Although he did not deserve it, he came to know more the sovereignty of God and the lowliness of himself (42:3).

The concept of righteous people suffering sickness and death is further illustrated by Jesus’ life and teachings. Not only did Jesus and his followers suffer, but they also healed people who were sick — not always because those people repented of sins, but primarily because their illnesses allowed Jesus and his followers to demonstrably confirm their message (Mark 16:20). In John 9, Jesus’ disciples assumed that a certain individual was born blind due to either his own sin or the sin of his parents. Jesus did not affirm their preconceptions with a prosperity gospel, but told them, “Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

Further New Testament passages illustrate not only that the righteous will suffer, but also that the wicked often have temporary success. This is spelled out in James 5:5-7:

Ye [rich] have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; ye have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned, ye have killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you. Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain.

The righteous are servants, not revelers in material wealth. They are to be patient and wait for the precious fruit of the coming of the Lord. Jesus did not come to bring earthly blessings no matter how much our material-oriented culture would have had him do so (Matthew 10:39). Since we Westerners often do not know what suffering is, we shun it, searching for what is comfortable instead of noble.

This does not mean we can’t find happiness, or see the silver lining so to speak, while we suffer. We rejoice in our suffering, acquiring patience and living in hope of the resurrection of the just (Romans 5:3-5; Luke 14:13-14).

Indeed, “through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).

A Defense of Jesus’ Sonship

By Matt Watson

One of my favorite pastimes is the study of other religions and faiths. Among these other religions, perhaps the one I have given most attention to lately is Islam. I have read a lot about Islam and could talk a lot about it, but in this post I only wish to concentrate on an issue that often baffles me: Muslim interpretations of the Bible, specifically what the Bible teaches concerning Jesus.

After reading many articles and one or two books by Muslims on this subject, I have come to at least one conclusion: Muslim scholars are not agreed on how to interpret the Bible, although most try to use it as proof of their own beliefs, one of which is that Jesus was not God. And after reading article after article, I feel compelled to respond (in some small way, at least) to the general Muslim view that “neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament mentions that Jesus was the son of Allah” (Sayed Al-Qazwini in “Discovering Islam” page 28), in the sense of Jesus being divine.

The above quote is quite easy to refute, as Jesus, in John 10:36, said, “I am the Son of God.” And John 20:31 says that the Gospel was written “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” But the divinity of Jesus goes a little deeper than this. Being a son of God isn’t good enough, but as Jesus proclaims here and as we will see in the following paragraphs of this article, Jesus was unmistakably the Son of God, and by him we are all made sons of God and “heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:7).

I would like to mention that Christians often take Jesus’ divinity for granted, as many “Christians” have gone through great pains to reject Jesus as God — for instance, Marcion in the second century and more recently, a man by the name of Edward Elwall, who declared in 1726, “Now he that was a Prophet, could not be God himself.”

The prevailing view I see in Muslim literature is that the four Gospels do not teach that Jesus is equal with God, but that he “was a human prophet and divinely inspired” (Al-Qazwini, page 28 ) and that the apostle Paul created our current myths of Jesus in order to appeal to pagan Gentiles who worshiped various God-men. Christians, they believe, need to return to the true monotheism of Abraham.

But the true monotheism of our father Abraham contained the concept that the Messiah would be God-incarnate. The prophets very strongly testify to this, and the Gospels confirm it. Isaiah prophesied that the child conceived of the virgin would be called Immanuel, or “God with us.” This is affirmed in the Gospel of Matthew, 1:23. The prophet Isaiah also called this child “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” (9:6). He taught that the Messiah, known as the “King of Israel” and Israel’s “Redeemer,” was also “Jehovah,” a name given only to almighty God in the Hebrew scriptures (44:6). This Redeemer is said to be the first and the last, a teaching we see mirrored exactly in the Revelation of the apostle John, where Christ is said to be “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last” (22:13).

According to the prophets, the Christ was to be a righteous governor over his people, a Savior to them, not merely a prophet.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, The LORD is our righteousness. Jeremiah 23:5-6

Here, “the LORD” is simply a common way to translate the Hebrew word “Jehovah.” So, the Branch of David is the eternal God, “whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” and who was to come forth at the fulfilled time to be king over his people and judge them. Jesus affirms this, saying, “For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent him” (John 5:22-23). This doesn’t sound like just any prophet to me. The Messiah’s role within the divine plan for mankind was not one of prophethood only, but of a Savior, Ruler, and Judge. No wonder the writer of Hebrews (presumably the apostle Paul) contrasted the servanthood of Moses with the sonship of Jesus Christ, who is the actual builder of the kingdom of God (Hebrews 3:5-6).

So why is Jesus so important? If Jesus is only a human prophet, as Muslims teach, then why is Jesus given power over God’s children to rule them and to keep them? Why does he claim to have the same honor as God? I do not know of any other prophet of God who claimed to be entitled to the same honor as God. Even the prophet of Islam did not claim as much authority as Jesus. Why does Jesus unabashedly accept the worship of men (Matthew 28:17), claiming, after his conquering of the grave, “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18)?

The answer to these questions can be found in John 10:27-30:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, which hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.

At this point, those who say that the four Gospels do not teach Jesus’ divinity must step back and take a long look at the picture the Bible has given us. Jesus claims to be that Messiah who is capable of saving his people by giving them eternal life, the Messiah who is called “God” by name in Isaiah. John the Baptist was the one crying in the wilderness, the one spoken of by Isaiah, the one who would prepare the way of Jehovah, the Hebrew name of God. Jesus was stoned and ultimately crucified because he made himself equal with God. That is the story of the Bible. That is the story of the four Gospels, and we have hardly looked at the writings of the apostle Paul, who was even accepted as an apostle and sound teacher by the rest of the apostles (Acts 9:28-29; 2 Peter 3:15-16).

The Christ was not like any other prophet, because he was much more than a prophet. As Starkville church of Christ minister Andy Miller pointed out in a sermon, Jesus did not simply claim to be a messenger but was the message himself:

He did not come merely to preach a Gospel; He Himself is the Gospel. He did not come merely to give bread; He said: “I am the bread.” He did not come merely to shed light; He said: “I am the light.” He did not come merely to show the door; He said: “I am the door.” He did not come merely to name a shepherd; He said: “I am the shepherd.” He did not come merely to point the way; He said: “I am the way, the truth, the life.” He did not come merely to plant a vine; He said: “I am the vine.”