Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Nigeria: “Are Christians ambassadors of Christ today:”

REPLY:

What is an ambassador? Hodge says, “An ambassador is at once a messenger and a representative. He does not speak in his own name. He does not act on his own authority. What he communicates is not his own opinions or demands, but simply what he has been told or commissioned to say. His message derives no part of its importance or trustworthiness from him. At the same time he is more than a mere messenger. He represents his sovereign. He speaks with authority, as accredited to him in the name of his master” (Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 146).

Apostolic Ambassadors

Macknight says, “Christ was God’s chief ambassador and the apostles being commissioned by Christ were his substitutes (ambassadors–LRH). The same obedience, therefore, was due to them in matters of religion, as to Christ himself.” Paul identified himself as “an ambassador” of the gospel (Eph. 6:20). The apostles were, as Macknight correctly comments, the ambassadors of Christ. There are none like unto them today. Why is this so? First, to hear an apostle of the Lord is to hear the word of the Lord (Lk. 10:16; 1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Thess. 2:13). Second, to speak contrary to the apostles is to be accursed, cut off (Gal. 1:8, 9; Cf. Acts 3:22, 23). One who will not hear the apostles is simply “not of God” (1 Jn. 4:6). Can anyone say the same about his teaching today as to its source?

The apostles were special messengers and ministers. They were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:13). They were the ones who preached the gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven (Acts 2:4; 1 Pet. 1:12). The apostles were clothed with power from on high. They were Christ’s witnesses (Lk. 24:46-49; Acts 1:8; 10:39-42). In a very real sense, the apostles were in a class by themselves as witnesses or ambassadors of Christ (Jn. 15:26, 27; Acts 1:21, 22). The apostles were “ministers of the new testament” (2 Cor. 3:6). Paul speaks of “this ministry,” or “our gospel” (2 Cor. 4:1, 3). It was theirs in that it had been committed unto them. Therefore, Paul could say, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor. 4:5) It seems impossible to apply such language unto one other than an apostle. As the glorious Old Testament law was given, the countenance of Moses shone. So, God shined in the hearts of the apostles to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).

After describing the apostolic function as being in Christ’s stead (2 Cor. 5:20), Paul says, “We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1). Note the separation of Paul and the workers with God from the Corinthians. The Corinthians had received the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1, 2). This is equivalent to the grace of God (2 Cor. 6:1). As the gospel was committed to the apostles, they were ministers, witnesses, ambassadors. For one to be what they were, the gospel the grace of God, must be similarly committed. Will any say that he speaks with the voice, the authority, of an apostle? If not, then he is not the same as they were. In short, he is not an ambassador as they were.

Truth Magazine XX: 49, p. 770
December 9, 1976

By J. David Powlas

Have you ever wondered what would happen if the apostle Paul were to send a letter to a congregation of our “progressive” brethren asking them for support? After giving this matter much thought, I have written what I believe would be their reply to his request:

Dear Brother Paul,

We appreciate your interest in preaching, as was shown by your letter to us. However, we regret that we are unable to provide support for you at this time. To avoid any misunderstanding about this, we are listing the reasons for our decision.

(1) It has been brought to our attention that you wrote a letter to brother Timothy. This, in itself, is certainly not wrong. However, our source informs us that you stated in this letter that you were against helping widows. Brother Paul, aren’t you being a little narrow-minded?

(2) We have heard reports that all of your support is sent directly to you. This sounds very much like the common practice of those backward ‘antis’ who are constantly dividing faithful congregations. You aren’t one of them, are you, Brother Paul?

(3) Word has come to us of your speech at Mars Hill in Athens. We admire your wanting to straighten out those Greeks, but, we think you went about it in the wrong way. Really, brother Paul! Don’t you realize the harm you could have done by calling their worship ‘ignorant’? After all, we don’t want to hurt their feelings. They may be as honest and sincere as we are.

(4) We have read a letter from Brother Peter in which he mentions you. This is very suspicious! Isn’t he the fanatic who came up with that ‘speaking-as-the-oracles-of-God’ garbage? How ridiculous! Why, we don’t even have authority for our church building!

(5) The Corinthian brethren have told us about your opinion of ‘fellowship’ meals. They said that you designated ‘houses’ as the places for ‘eating and drinking’. Now, isn’t that going a bit too far? If it is wrong to eat in the church building, how else can we edify one another?

(6) In your letter, you said something about preaching ‘Jesus and Him crucified.’ That type of preaching is suitable for other churches, but not for us. We want a preacher who will keep us informed about all of the current social developments. In this day and age, preaching Jesus just isn’t practical. Surely, you know how people get tired of hearing the same thing over and over.

These are the reasons why we can’t help you at the present time. But, don’t be discouraged! When you have studied these matters and have changed your mind, we will consider sending some money to your congregation.

As we have previously stated, we would like to help you, but we can’t at this time. After all, we do have an image to keep up in our community. Besides, if we support you, we will have to delay paving the church parking lot. Now, you wouldn’t want to hinder the Lord’s work here, would you?

Yours in Christ, The Elders

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 765-766
December 2, 1976

By Irvin Himmel

“Astrology and The Bible” is the title of an article in which John R. Hawkins, a member of the American Federation of Astrologers, undertakes to find evidence that the Bible supports astrology.

The following is an excerpt from his essay:

“One of the most interesting events of all was the birth of Christ: (Matt. 2:1) wise men came from the east to Jerusalem to visit King Herod and to see who was born King of the Jews. Notice in verse 2 they say, ‘for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him.’ (Num. 24:17) The new translations have this correctly rendered, stating astrologers rather than wise men. Astrology was a well-known science in the East and astrologers were the ones to study the stars in heaven. In verse 7, Herod privately called the astrologers and made a special note as to what time the star appeared. This was very important to Herod’s plans. He knew the astrologers came from the East, taking a long time . . . perhaps a few months to 21/2 years . . .

“Here we find astrologers taking a very prominent position at Christ’s birth and later protecting the Great King by not informing Herod as to His whereabouts.”

This line of reasoning is designed to leave the impression that the world owes a great debt to astrology. To read this section of Mr. Hawkins’ article without turning to Matt. 2 and carefully studying the Biblical record, one might think that astrology prevented King Herod from murdering the Messiah in infancy.

I hasten to point out that we cannot be absolutely certain that the “wise men” who visited the baby Jesus were astrologers. The Greek word magoi is rendered “astrologers” by some translators but such a rendition is not , unanimous. Moffatt translates it “magicians.” J. W. McGarvey says the word “designates an order of priests and philosophers.” Macknight says the wise men were “heathen philosophers.” The Greek word magos is translated “sorcerer” in Acts 13:8 and applied to a false prophet.

Even if we grant that the “wise men” were astrologers, the Bible does not indicate that astrology enabled them to locate Jesus, and it certainly was not astrology that prompted them to go home without notifying the wicked Herod of the location of the child who was born King of the Jews.

The star which the wise men saw was no ordinary star. It guided them in the direction of Jerusalem and .,hen seems to have disappeared. When they left Jerusalem for Bethlehem, “lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy” (Matt. 2:9,10). This could not have been a star in the sense of a natural luminous body, for such a star would not move before men then stand over a given house so as to clearly distinguish it from other houses in the same village. McGarvey stresses this point: “A child, looking at a star near the horizon, may imagine that it hangs over a certain house; but when it walks up to that house it finds that the star is as far off as before and is hanging over another house. The star of the magi stood over the house where the child was until they came up and entered the house, thus preventing them from entering the wrong house and finding the wrong child.” Everything in the text points to a miraculous star-a supernatural light designed to guide the wise men to the supernaturally-born Jesus.

“Evidently we have here another of the many Bible miracles which modern science is unable to explain. Undoubtedly this miraculous appearance, which is called a star, aroused the curiosity of the wise men to such an extent that they followed it for many miles until finally it pointed out the exact place where they wished to go” (Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 81).

Granting for argument’s sake that the wise men were astrologers, how could they know through astrology that this star signified the birth of the King of the Jews rather than some other important person? If they could learn through the socalled science of astrology that this particular star signified the birth of the King of the Jews, why could they not also learn through the same science that Bethlehem was the place of that birth? Why did they have to ask Herod, “Where is he that is born king of the Jews?”

It definitely was not astrology that caused them to go home another way. “And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way” (Matt. 2:12). That was special revelation from God! The fact ‘hat God spoke to these men in a dream is not necessarily an endorsement of their character or their pursuits that gave them recognition as “wise men.” Note a similar case in Gen. 20:3.

“It is most in harmony with all of the known facts of ,he history to suppose that when the star appeared a direct revelation was made to the magi which led to all of their subsequent movements. The child was in this revealed to the shepherds of Bethlehem, to Simeon and to Anna; and in this way the magi were instructed not to return to Herod, but to go home by another route” (McGarvey). I must not overlook the cleverly placed reference to Num. 24:17 by Mr. Hawkins. He throws in the reference as if there is no question that the prophecy of Balaam about the “Star out of Jacob” applies to the star which the wise men saw in the east. The Star to arise out of Jacob was Jesus who was the seed of Jacob, not the miraculous star that led the wise men to Jesus. In Rev. 22:16 Jesus spoke of Himself as “the bright and morning star.” This is a figurative use of the word “star” and has nothing whatever to do with astrological predictions.

Whether the wise men who visited the child Jesus were astrologers, or magicians, or philosophers, or kings, there is nothing in Matt. 2 to suggest that we should study the stars to learn about what God expects of us, or that we should begin the day by reading our horoscope in the newspaper to see what is in store. It was God, not the pseudo-science called astrology, that prevented the murder of the Messiah in infancy.

Astrologers want us to think we can know our personal future if we will only consult someone who is in a position to give professional advice. (And the palm readers and fortune tellers say about the same thing.) But the Bible says, “ye know not what shall be on the morrow” (James 4:14).

Truth Magazine XX: 48, pp. 764-765
December 2, 1976

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our title is a question that you can probably answer very quickly, but will you answer it correctly? As a member of a religious institution or at least as one who believes in God, you may have concluded that you are a Christian. However, the Bible teaches that being a Christian is more than being “religious.” The Lord showed this to be true in Matt. 7:21-23, when he said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not prophesied in diy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” These individuals regarded ,hemselves as pious and zealous servants of Christ. The Lord said, “I never knew you.” Could this be your condition?

In the New Testament there were no Christians who were also known as “Baptists,” “Methodists,” “Lli,herallS,” “Pentecostals,” “Presbyterians,” or “Catholics.” The gospel that the First Century believers obeyed did not constitute them members of any of the prominent denominations that we find so prevalent in our society. Have you, then, obeyed the same gospel which they received?

Do not regard this matter lightly. Perhaps you think it is not necessary to read or to consider this matter further because you are convinced that you are a Chfis,ian. Are you sure that you are not relying upon your own “experience” or “personal testimony” rather than the word of God?

In order to be a Christian, a child of God, you must:

1) Believe-“He that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

2) Repent-“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

3) Confess-“With the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10).

4) Be Baptized-“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Again, we ask you, are you a Christian?

Truth Magazine XX: 48, p. 764
December 2, 1976