Truth Magazine

By Raymond E. Harris

During the past couple years we have heard a great out pouring of pros and cons concerning the “Bus Ministries.” It seems to be a subject most church members feel rather strongly about. They are either strongly in favour or utterly against the church bussing programs. ‘This has caused no little stir within churches all across the country.

However, until now we were uncertain as to public reaction. Now we are beginning to learn that the general public is not nearly as excited about church bussing programs as the bus promoters would have us believe.

Recently negative reaction caught on in Bloomington, Indiana, where a number of letters came in to the newspaper editor. That was followed by newspaper articles revealing various problems with “candy giving bus drivers.” In an article entitled “Evangelists Sour Tulip Tree Parents on Sweet Religion,” Alan Kinney of the Bloomington Herald Telephone, reports the following:

Parents for years have instructed their children never to accept a ride or candy from strangers. But some parents at the Tulip Tree Apartments (I.U. married housing) complain they have a harder job because of the methods some area churches employ to get children to ride their buses on Sunday mornings.

“Just last Saturday morning I heard a man tell one of the kids to he sure to come to church tomorrow and check out an the free gum and candy. I’m trying to teach my daughter not to take anything from strangers, but they’re not malting my job easier,” said a mother at Tulip Tree.

Another mother said that she had seen a bus parked in the circle drive at Tulip Tree every Saturday morning all summer.

“They waited for children to walk past the bus, and then one of the men jumped out of the bus, shook hands with all of the kids, and gave them candy and gum. My kids are cavity prone, and this man isn’t helping my husband or myself with the dentist bills. Why should he be allowed to give my children candy in the first place?”

The Reverend Oliver Rogers, minister of the North Central Church of Christ, 2121 N. Dunn, said his church has an active bus program at the Tulip Tree Apartments. He said he saw nothing wrong with giving the children “little gifts as a reward for coming to church.” This practice was never meant to entice the children to ride the bus, he said.

“We place brochures under the doors at the Tulip Tree Apartments inviting children to come to the free puppet show in our bus,” Rogers said, “When the show is over, we always try to have a little gift for the children.”

“We are having a contest on our buses where the bus director, Joe Bernhardt, is offering the child that brings the most visitors a small radio. This is merely for incentive purposes, the same incentive a business man would receive to do a better job,” Rogers said.

“I took my children to the puppet show that had Bruce and the Cookie Monster from Sesame Street. We were notified of this by a note under the door and the note said nothing to the effect that this was church-oriented. I think it is deceitful to use something a child loves to push religion down their throats,” another mother said.

The Reverend Herbert Buff, minister of the First Assembly of God, 801 Mattock Road, said area churches compete for children, but the children also compete to ride on certain buses.

“We have what we call a McDonalds Sunday, where we take the children to McDonalds for a treat after church. Many times we’ve heard of children riding our bus rather than a different bus because we were going to McDonalds, and the other churches were only giving out bubble gum,” he said.

From the foregoing interviews it is obvious that many of the parents up and down church bus routes resent the bus ministries intrusion into their family affairs. Little children are gullible enough to want to accept candy and gum anywhere they can get it. However, older children and adults are perceptive enough to spot the religious con of reward motivation. It would be interesting to know the average age of the bus riders, how many are baptized and what percentage stick. If all those facts could be viewed 10 years from now in the light of bussing costs for 10 years, it would be interesting to know how many will still call bussing an “Expedient.”

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 6
June 10, 1976

By Cecil Willis

In Eph. 4:3-6 we find Paul saying there is one body, one hope, one faith, one baptism. But in this same passage Paul says there is one God, one Lord, and one Spirit. There are those who deny the truth of this passage. They want to maintain the separateness of the ..one body, one hope, one faith, one baptism.” They recognize these refer to different things. But when they come to the one Lord, one Spirit and one God, they say these refer to one and the same person. God and Christ partake of the same nature, of the same image, and hence, in comparison to others, they both have a name that is above all things, both in heaven and on earth, but they are not one person.

Beginning with the presupposition that there is but one person in the Godhead, and that this person is Jesus, some of our denominational friends maintain that baptism may be scripturally administered only when the formula “in the name of Jesus” is spoken over the candidate. If you were baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they will tell you your baptism is unscriptural.

In this controversy a distinction is made between a name and a title. To some of you good people who are unfamiliar with the doctrine we are studying, this subject may seem unimportant. But to others of you who have been confused by designing teachers, we hope it will be helpful and enlightening.

The terms, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are said to only be titles. Jesus is said to be the only name of God. We are told that is it not right to baptize in the name of a title, but that one’s baptism must be in the name of Jesus only. But in order that the position of our religious friends may be put in their own words, I quote now from a booklet sent to me by an individual supporting the teaching we are studying this week. I am quoting from “The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus’ Name” by John Paterson, published by the Pentecostal Publishing House. He says: “I would ask you to remember that the words, `Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’ are titles or terms of relationship; they are not the Sacred Name!” Of course this statement is made to show that one should not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. These are titles, not names, we are told, so we should not baptize in them.

But we are told that Jesus is the only name of God; and that all else are titles. But if Jesus is the only name of God, is not Christ a title? They argue that we should baptize in the name of Jesus only. Jesus is the only name. But if Christ is a title, then in Acts 2:38 we find baptism commanded in the name of Jesus Christ, and therefore baptism is administered in the name of a title. Christ. If Lord is only a title, since Jesus is the only name, then we find a title used in the baptismal formula of Acts 8:16. In Ex. 15:3 we read, “The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is his name.” It did not say “Lord” was His title. In Isa. 42:8, Isaiah says, “I am the Lord: that is my name.” The Scripture says that “Lord” is the name of God. But our friends tell us that Jesus is the only name of God. If then Lord is a title, and not the name of God, as we are informed, then this question: Why is one’s baptism valid if he is baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, remembering that Jesus in the only name, and therefore Lord is a title, but invalid if he is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which are said to be titles? Why is one’s baptism valid in the name of one title, but invalid if another title is used?

I mentioned before that advocates of the doctrine which we are studying say that one baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is unscripturally baptized. I am quoting again from the same pamphlet previously quoted to show you this is taught: “Once this question is faced squarely you will have to admit that baptism `into Jesus’ name’ is not merely a correct formula–it is the ONLY correct formula. You will have to admit that the Triadic formula commonly used today is NOT EQUAL to the one used in the Acts of the Apostles-it is wrong and is totally invalid” (Pg. 30).

Note these questions: Is Lord the name of God? Is Christ the name of God? Is Father the name of God? Is Son the name of God? Is Holy Spirit the name of God? We are given an emphatic “No!” in answer to all these questions. They are all titles, and Jesus is the only name. But I ask again, Why is it wrong to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (titles), but right to baptize in the name of Lord and Christ (Also titles)?

We are told that baptism is not valid unless the “ONLY correct formula” is spoken over one in his baptism. Will one of you fellows who makes this statement please tell me what the “ONLY correct formula” is? They are quick to reply that it is baptism “in the name of Jesus” only. But will one of you fellows show me a single instance in the New Testament in which anybody was ever baptized in the name of Jesus only. There is no such instance.

A “formula,” Webster says, is a “set form of words for use in any ceremony; as a formula of faith; a prescribed or set form; a fixed or conventional method.” Where is the set of words that must be spoken over a person in his baptism in order for his baptism to be valid?

We find four passages are cited as giving us the prescribed formula for one’s baptism. Let us look at each of them. In Acts 2:38, Peter commanded the Jews to “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, we find that those of Samaria had not received the Holy Spirit by the imposition of the apostle’s hands, “only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48 Peter commanded the Gentiles to “be baptized in the name of the Lord” (KJV); “in the name of Jesus Christ” (ASV) And in Acts 19:5, “They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” In these four passages we have three different prepositions; one meaning “upon,” another meaning “in” and two meaning “into.” In these four passages we have differences also in terminology with respect to the person. Once it is in the name of “Jesus Christ;” another time it is in the name of the “Lord Jesus;” and again in another, it is in the name of the “Lord.” The formula is supposed to be uniform, but in these passages which are supposed to tell us the formula for baptism, there are three different prepositions used, and three different terms for the persons. If there is only one formula to use, which one is the right one and which ones are the wrong ones?

But why is such a discussion as the one we are having this week imperative? It is because there is a passage in the Scriptures that some of our religious friends feel must be explained away. They take a long and drawn out way to try to accomplish this. They are teaching that baptism is invalid if any other name than Jesus’ is uttered as the act is being performed. But when Jesus gave the great commission, unfortunately for the doctrine we have been studying, his statement directly contradicted the doctrine we are studying.

In the great commission as recorded by Matthew, Jesus said: “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:18-20). Our denominational friends maintain that baptism must be in the name of Jesus only, and of course, when Jesus commanded the apostles to baptize into the name of the Father and of the. Son and of the Holy Spirit, it perplexes them to no end. It does not fit in with our doctrine, they say, so it just has to go. Certainly the Bible could not teach anything contrary to what they believe!

Therefore, they say that since the word “name” is singular in this passage, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit must all be one person. They tell us that a singular noun cannot refer to a plurality of objects. The word “name” cannot refer to the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So they conclude that the three just have one name, and that name is Jesus, and that all three are but one person.

Actually one finds several examples of a singular noun referring to a plurality of objects. In Matt. 18:16 Jesus commands that in disciplinary matters, we let every word be established in “the mouth (sing.) of two or three witnesses.” Now did the three witnesses just have one big mouth? Certainly not. In Matt. 17:6 we read that “the disciples fell on their face (sing.).” Did all the disciples just have one face? Surely not. In Jno. 10:39 we find that Jesus “escaped out of their (the Jew’s) hand (sing.)”. Did all the Jews just have one big hand? Such an idea is ridiculous. If in these instances we find that a singular noun is used to refer to a plurality of objects, what reason is there for concluding that the name (sing.) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit must refer to but one person? There is no valid reason.

In Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48 we find baptism is commanded “in the name of” the Lord Jesus Christ. What does it mean to be baptized “in the name of” Jesus? In the original language, the expression translated “in the name of” means “To do a thing in the name of someone, i.e., by one’s command and authority . . .” (Thayer). To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ means to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ. But how did Jesus say be baptized? He said for the disciples to go teaching the gospel, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20). Friends, to be baptized in the name of Jesus, or by the authority of Jesus, is to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Someone asks, “Show me, after Pentecost, where anyone was ever baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” I reply by stating that there is no instance, in the New Testament in which one is baptized in the name of Jesus only, without the addition of a “title,” such as Lord or Christ. Actually good friends, I do not find an instance of any specific uniform formula being spoken over a person as he is being baptized. The important thing is for the right subject to be immersed in water for the right reason. The instructed believing penitent must be immersed for the remission of sins.

Where do we find an example of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? We find Jesus’ commanding the disciples to so baptize in Matt. 28:19,20. Did the apostles do what Jesus told them to do? He told them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe they did. Some of my religious friends believe they did not.

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 3-5
June 10, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Indiana: “Must all who renounce errors of the Independent Christian Churches be re-baptized? Many of these congregations that I am familiar with do teach the credo on the gospel plan of salvation. Do you think to scriptural baptism depends upon the administrator?”

Reply:

These two questions are related. If they are not brothers, they are first cousins. Sectarian, denominational concepts of the design of the gospel and the nature of the church serve only to confuse the issues raised by these queries. The essential point is scriptural_ baptism. What constitutes true obedience to the gospel?

Whenever one is obedient to the faith, he is added to the church (Acts 2:47). Or, to say the same thing in a different manner, whenever one is baptized scripturally, he is baptized into one body, the church of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13, 20; Col. 1:18). This divine relationship is the sphere of salvation, the realm and room of the redeemed (Eph. 2:11-22; 5:23). The way one is saved is the way one becomes a member of the body of Christ (Acts 2:38, -47; 18:8; 1 Cor. 12:13). To be baptized into one body is to be baptized into Christ (Cal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:12; 1 Cor. 12:13; 6:11; Acts 2:38; 22:16). This is true because the church is the body of Christ (Col. 1:24). If a germ enters into me, he must come into my body. If one enters into Christ, he must come into His body, the church (Eph. 1:22, 23).

After obeying the gospel, one may be espoused to a religious society, like the Christian Church, which is unknown to the New Testament. However, this does not detract from the fact that that one did purify his soul in obeying the truth. A Christian Church preacher could reason with a Jew from Isaiah 53 as Philip did with the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26ff.). He could show that Jesus is the Christ of Old Testament promise and prophecy. Ile could tell that Jew what Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16). That Jew, if obedient, would be saved, added to the church, as the treasurer was in Acts 8. If he goes and joins a Christian Church in Ethiopia and begins to worship with mechanical instruments of music, does that “undo” his obedience? No, his errors in these areas do not nullify his obedience.

Each case must be viewed or judged on its own merits. “Christian Church baptism” is not the issue. It is no more valid than is “Church of Christ baptism.” The core of the controversy is baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Not every one who says he was “baptized for the remission of sins in the Christian Church” has been scripturally baptized. A true and. scriptural baptism can only be determined by the Scriptures.

The Administrator

The answer to the inquiry relative to the one who performs the baptism is inferred above. An atheist, a Baptist, a drunkard, a Catholic priest, or a Christian could immerse one. What would their spiritual status have to do with the scripturalness of the baptism? Nothing at all, but if it does, how can one be sure that the Christian who baptizes him is not secretly a hypocrite? Perhaps the one who baptizes me is a true Christian, so I relax in that comforting knowledge, but what about the one who baptized the one who baptized the one who is baptizing me? If the one who is baptizing me was not baptized by a “”proper” administrator, then his baptizing me is worthless. What about the one who baptized the one who baptized the one who is baptizing me … ? You see the absurdity of making baptism depend upon the administrator.

A parallel situation may be found in the preaching of the gospel. “Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife . . . (and some) proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives” (Phil. 1:15-17–NASB). The hypocrisy of the preachers did not adversely affect the fruit of the gospel. Paul rejoiced that Christ was being preached, “whether in pretense or in truth.” ‘The preacher is parallel to the administrator of baptism. “Those converted and baptized by the contentious, insincere proclaimers were just as saved as though Paul himself had done the preaching and baptizing. If not, why did Paul say, “I rejoice?”

Truth Magazine, XX:24, p. 2
June 10, 1976

By Keith Sharp

The Blessedness of Righteousness

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence).

All people desire to be happy. Our forefathers bequethed us a legacy of freedom which includes each man’s liberty to pursue his own peculiar ideas about how to be happy. Americans, with material means that are stupefying to other peoples, have expended enormous efforts in seeking the elusive goal of happiness. If our wealthy but miserable society, America, is among the world leaders in suicide rates, proves anything, it is that wealth and pleasures are not the sources of true happiness (cf. Eccl. 2:1-2; 5:10). flow, then, can we be happy?

In Matthew 5:3-12 the Master described certain people as “blessed” nine different times. Once He exhorted these same people to “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad” and promised them a “great . . . reward” (v. 12).

The word “blessed” — from the Latin form of which we obtain the title for this passage, the “the Beatitudes” – is difficult to render fully and accurately into English. The Greek term is makarios. In classical Greek this was the word which especially described the gods — those who possessed consummate bliss.

“The Greeks always called Cyprus he makaria . . . , which means The-Happy-Isle, and they did so because they believed Cyprus was so lovely, so rich, and so fertile an island that a man would never need to go beyond its coastline to find the perfectly happy life. . . . Makarios then describes that joy which has its secret within itself, that joy which is serene and untouchable, and self-contained, that joy which is completely independent of all the chances and changes of life. 1

In the Beatitudes Jesus explained to us how to obtain true inward joy which outward circumstances cannot defeat. In these two terms — “inward” and “outward” – is found the key. True blessedness does not lie in outward things, whether it be wealth, a fine house, a favorable climate, a change of scenery, pleasures, learning, power or whatever. Real, lasting joy is found in inward character. The righteous character of disciples of Christ is their source of true joy. This is the blessedness of citizenship in the kingdom of heaven.

Each Beatitude has three parts: an ascription of blessedness, a description of those who are so blessed and a statement of the reason for their blessedness.

These eight “Pentecost Pointers” (to quote Foy E. Wallace, Jr.) teach us the character we must possess in order to receive the real joy that is found in being a Christian. The eight Beatitudes do not describe eight classes of people but are different facets of the character of all true disciples of Christ. They show not only the character of Christians but the spiritual nature of the kingdom of Christ as well.

The people of the world, and many supposed Christians, seek happiness, peace and joy in outward circumstances such as wealth, pleasure, learning and power. But real joy is an inward quality which springs from strength of character. True blessedness, eternal, unshakeable, unaffected by worldly misfortune, is the result of being in Christ and having Jesus within, for the Lord is “the same yesterday, and today, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8).

Poor in Spirit

How utterly different is the word of Christ from the thinking men! Whereas men exalt those who are proud, independent and wealthy, those who recognize no need for any help from any one, the so-called “self-made men,” Jesus announced, “Blessed are the poor in spirit . . .” (Mt. 5:3). In one simple, profound and sweeping statement He utterly destroyed the value systems of men to be replaced with that of His kingdom. Who are the “poor in spirit?”

There are two words in the Greek language for “poor.” One describes the man who serves his own needs with his own hands . . . the working man, the man who has nothing superfluous, the man who is not rich, but who is not destitute either.2

Usually, when people claim, “Oh, we’re just poor people,” this is what they mean. But this not the word employed by the Master. The word the Lord used is from a word meaning `to be thoroughly frightened, to cower down or hide one’s self in fear; hence … one who slinks and crouches, often involving the idea of roving about in wretchedness . . . . reduced to begarry, begging . . . destitute of wealth . . . lowly, afflicted…. 3

The blessedness Jesus pronounced was not upon a man who has just enough and no more, but was upon the man who has nothing at all, who is utterly destitute, a beggar!

Does this mean the Lord demands material poverty of us if we are to receive the blessings of the kingdom? Certainly there were patriarchs of old who were godly though wealthy (cf. Gen, 13:2-6; Job 1:1-3). We have not only the liberty, but the obligation to work for a living (Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:10-12; Tit. 3:14). While the Gospel warns against the danger of loving riches (1 Tim. 6:6-10), wealthy Christians of the First Century were not required to become impoverished (1 Tim. 6:17-19; 3 Jn. 2). Actually, it is good to be neither too poor nor too rich (Prov. 30:7-9).

This blessing of the Lord has no direct connection with outward circumstances. It is not just “Blessed are the poor,” but “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” The “spirit” is the inward part of man (Job 32:8,18), made in God’s image (Gen. 1:2,6; Eccl. 12:7; Jn. 4:24; Heb. 12:9). “In spirit” is indicative of our minds, our attitudes, our way of thinking (cf. Jn. 4:24; Rom. 12:11).

The word poor is usually descriptive of what a man has, or does not have, but the expression poor in spirit refers to what a man is.4

The “poor in spirit” are those who realize they are utterly helpless spiritually and entirely dependent upon God for spiritual guidance and help. Only the man who is so humbled will completely sacrifice his own will to God’s will, obey God from the heart and enter the kingdom.

This blessed quality of character is demonstrated innumerable times in the Scriptures. God dwells “with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit” (Isa. 57:15). He promises: ” . . . but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word” (Isa. 66:2). Jeremiah confessed: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). To enter the kingdom of Heaven, we must humble ourselves as little children (Mt. 18:1-4; 19:14). Children recognize their need of instruction, are eager to learn and are not offended when one points out their mistakes. Not the man who exults, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are,” but the man who prays, “God be merciful to me a sinner,” is justified (Lk. 18:9-14). God chose not to save by the wisdom, wealth or power of this world, but by what is in men’s eyes foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18-30). If any desires to be wise, “let him become a fool, that he may be wise” (1 Cor. 3:18). Until you realize you do not know, you will never turn to God’s word to find the answer.

Theirs Is the Kingdom of Heaven

Of all the fond and ardent desires of the heart of a faithful Jew, the one that thrilled him the most was the longing to see the kingdom of the Messiah come and to rejoice in the blessings of that rule. In pronouncing the highest joy imaginable, one Pharisee, announced, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 1’7:20), and the Master’s own disciples urgently inquired, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).

Jesus promised this grandest of all blessings, possession of the heavenly kingdom, to “the poor in spirit.” How do they possess the kingdom of Heaven? To answer this, we must know what the kingdom of Heaven is. ‘The term “kingdom” means primarily ” . . . royal power, kingship, dominion, .rule. . . .” 5 Thus, the word

. . . is primarily an abstract noun, denoting sovereignty, royal power, dominion. . . ; then, by metonymy, a concrete noun, denoting the territory or people over whom a king rules…. 6

This word “kingdom” is used in the New Testament to denote the nations of the earth (Lk. 21:10), the rule or sovereignty of God (Lk. 17:21), the “everlasting kingdom,” Heaven itself, as the abode of the saved (Acts 14:22; 2 Pet. 1:11) and the kingdom promised and prophesied. in the Old Testament (Lk. 1:33; cf. Isa. 9:67). It was this kingdom before promised that the Jews anxiously awaited and about which Jesus preached (Mk. 1:14-15; Mt. 4:17,23).

What is the kingdom of Old Testament promise and prophecy? Several terms are used interchangeably to describe different aspects of the same divine institution. The words “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” refer to the same thing (cf. Mt. 13:11; Mk. 4:11; Lk. 8:10). Furthermore, the “kingdom of Christ” is identical to the “kingdom of God” (Eph. 5:5), since all who belong to Christ are possessed also of God (Jn. 17:10). This means that the kingdom of Heaven can also be called the kingdom of Christ. Finally, the kingdom of Heaven and the church of Christ are one and the selfsame divine institution (Mt. 16:18-19; Acts 20:28; cf. Rev. 5:9-10; Heb. 12:22-2.3, 28). The kingdom prophesied of old is the church of the Lord.

The appellation “kingdom” describes the Lord’s church from the standpoint of its rule. It is the “kingdom of heaven” in that its nature is of Heaven, not as the nations of this earth (Jn. 18:36). The church is described as “the kingdom of God” because He has all ultimate authority over His people (1 Cor. 15:24-28). It is called “the kingdom of Christ” in that Jesus Christ is its King (1 Tim. 6:14-16), having been given from God all authority to rule His people (Mt. 28:18).

What is the nature of this kingdom? It is within the hearts of those who obey the Lord, and thus has no physical territorial limits as do the nations of this earth (Lk. 17:20-21), It, being so radically different from the governments of men, is not defended or extended by the power of armed might (Jn. 18:36). The benefits of this kingdom consist, not in material goods, but in spiritual blessings (Rom. 14:17). The kingdom. of Heaven is spiritual in its nature.

This kingdom was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of the Lord from the dead (cf. Dan. 2:31-45; Lk. ,3:1-2; Mt. 3:1-2; Mk. 1:14-15; 9:1; Acts 1:6-8; 2:1-4,47; 1 Thess. 2:12; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9). On that day the rule of Christ began, and His law became effective.

One becomes a citizen of the kingdom of Heaven by being born again (Jn. 3:3), by allowing the Spirit, through faith in the word He revealed, to lead him to be baptized in water into Christ (Jn. 3:5; Tit. 3:5; Rom. 8:14; 1 Pet. 1:22-23; Gal. 3:26-27).

The poor in spirit are willing to, in submission to their King, be born again that they might enter His kingdom. “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven” in that they received the blessings of citizenship therein, i.e., “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

Conclusion

The “poor in spirit” are those who humble themselves as little children, recognizing their own need for divine guidance. They are the ones who receive the kingdom because they are the ones whose attitude is such that they will heed the commands of the Father, which are the conditions upon which one enters the kingdom. You can never enjoy the blessings of citizenship in the kingdom of Heaven until you realize your own utter unworthiness, helplessness and need for divine guidance and turn to God for the help that He alone can give through His inspired word. Are you “poor in spirit”?

FOOTNOTES

1. William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia, 1956).1, 84.

2. Ibid., p. 85

3. J. H. Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1889), p. 557.

4. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State (Nashville, 1967), p. 12.

5. Thayer. p. 96

6. W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1940), II, 294.

Truth Magazine, XX:23, p. 12-14
June 3, 1976