Truth Magazine

By Weldon Warnock

Time and time again we hear denominational preachers say something like this: “You out there in radio land, if you are lost, and don t know the Lord, just fall down on your knees and call upon the name of the Lord, and he will save your soul.” Obviously, these preachers have no idea what calling on the name of the Lord entails.

On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter quoted Joel, who said, among other things, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). This quotation “call on the name of the Lord” denotes what is to be done, not what is to be said. To call on the name of the Lord is to appeal to his authority. The word “call” in Acts 2:21 does not mean “pray.” Rather, it suggests the idea of an appeal. The phrase “call on” is a translation of the Greek word epikaleo. This is the Greek word Paul uses in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to or called upon Caesar. Here Paul was appealing to the authority of Caesar to adjudicate his case. In like manner, when we call upon the name of the Lord, we appeal to his authority and power as he is the only one who can save. Peter said there is none other name whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

If calling on the name of the Lord means to pray in order to be saved, such as in the front of your radio, TV, at an old fashion mourner’s bench, driving along in your car, in a hospital room, etc., why did Peter tell those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)? In verse 21 Peter said, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” but a few verses later, in response to the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do”?, he told this same audience to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Why did he not tell them to pray, if to call (v. 21) is to pray? What Peter commands in verse 38 is what is involved in the calling in verse 21. Their turning to the authority of the Lord in their obedience to the gospel was the calling.

Paul shows that no one can call who does not believe, and one cannot believe unless he hears, and how shall he hear without a preacher (Rom. 10:13-14)? This is the process of calling. Somebody says, “Baptism is not mentioned here.” Well, neither is repentance. Are you ready to omit repentance? This passage does not state specifically all that the Bible says on the conditions of salvation.

Ananias told Saul of Tarsus in the process of his conversion, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16)! Is this the way you called on the name of the Lord? Paul’s calling was what he did, not what he said.

Friends, there are preachers who will lie (1 Tim. 4:2). Others are misguided, ignorant of what the Bible teaches. John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). When a preacher tells you that an alien sinner can be saved by prayer, he is preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8).

87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164

By Walton Weaver

There are three definite cases of household baptisms recorded in the New Testament, and there is a strong inference that a fourth case included the entire household. The case where household baptism is strongly implied is that of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14). The three definite cases of household baptisms are those of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:33-34), and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16).

Whether any of these households had infants in them, and, if so, whether they were baptized, has been a debated issue for centuries. Some years ago, Grover Gunn, writing in the Herald of the Covenant, a voice of the Presbyterian Church in America, and published in Water Valley, Mississippi, wrote a response to the question, “What theology of children does one find in Paul’s sermon to the Philippian jailer?” It is strange that such a question should be asked in view of the fact that in three of the four cases of household baptisms named in the New Testament there is positive proof that there was not an infant in these households, including that of the Philippian jailer.

Cornelius

Cornelius and his house needed words whereby he and his house could be saved (Acts 11:14). But there could not have been an infants in the household of Cornelius because, according to Acts 10:46, those who were commanded to be baptized in v. 47 were the ones who had spoken with tongues and magnified God. Such responses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit would not have been produced in infants who could neither speak (much less in foreign languages) nor magnify God by speaking. Since Peter directed the command to be baptized to those who had spoken in tongues and magnified God, we know that no infants were baptized. How can commands be directed to infants who are not yet capable of comprehending words? Infants cannot speak words, and they cannot understand words directed to them. This being the case, how could Peter have been directing the command to be baptized to infants? 

The Philippian Jailer

The same may be said for the household of the Philippian jailer. The divine record says not only that Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the entire house (Acts 16:32), but that the jailer rejoiced and believed with his house (Acts 16:34). The cause of the rejoicing was the fact that they had believed in God. Infants are not capable of rejoicing over such favorable responses to the preaching of the gospel, and they are even more incapable of having believed in God. J.A. Alexander, a paedobaptist, admits in his commentary on Acts that “thou and thy house” in verse 31 does not mean that personal faith is not required on the part of the jailer’s household, as though the others could be saved on the basis of the jailer’s faith. He says: “Thou and thy house (or household, see above on v. 15) does not mean that they were to be saved by his faith, but by faith in the same Saviour.” Albert Barnes, another paedobaptist, agrees: “Salvation is offered to his family as well as himself; implying that if they believed they should also be saved.” The simple fact is that Paul could have delivered no discourse to infant children, nor could infants have believed at the preaching of such a sermon, or rejoiced over something they were not capable of doing (believing in God).

Craig S. Keener makes an interesting observation about what was expected in Roman households: “Romans expected the whole household to follow the religion of its head; they also expected the head to lead his household to the worship of Roman gods. Here conversion is not automatic; the whole household must hear the word of God” (The IVP Biblical Background Commentary: New Testament 370). He also adds the following note about Roman soldiers and shows why the passage cannot be used in support of infant baptism: “In view of 16:20-21, the jailer risks getting in serious trouble here. If he is a retired soldier (which is not clear — v. 23), he may have young children (soldiers were not permitted to marry officially until retirement); but this is far from certain and therefore cannot be used to prove infant baptism (as some have attempted)” (370). Remember, too, that even if he had children, the fact that the whole household had to hear the word of God is enough to show (as pointed out earlier) that no infants were involved.

Stephanas

In the case of the house of Stephanas, those who were baptized later “set themselves to minister to the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). What “theology of children” does one find in this passage? If one finds infant baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:16 (if this is the “theology of children” found in this verse) because the passage says Paul “baptized . . . the household of Stephanas,” would not consistency demand that his “theology of children” from 1 Corinthians 16:15 be infant ministers in the church, because this passage says, “the house of Stephanas set themselves to minister to the saints . . .”?

Lydia

The only other case is that of Lydia, and the assumptions required in her case make it impossible to build a defensible argument for infant baptism from the baptism of her household. J.W. McGarvey cites several paedobaptist authors (those who believe in infant baptism) of earlier times who saw no argument for infant baptism in the baptism of Lydia’s household.

It may be that no inference of infant baptism is hence deducible (Henry Alford).

Evidently the passage in itself cannot be adduced as a proof either for or against baptism; there is in it no indication whether there were or were not infants in the household of Lydia (Paton J. Gloag)

 . . . no trace is to be found in the New Testament, speaking of the baptism of the children of Christians (H.A.W. Meyer)

This is to say that the references to household baptisms have nothing per se to say on the subject of infant baptism.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032

By Connie W. Adams

Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is often the subject of millennial or dispensational teachers. That the four parts of the image seen represent the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires is seldom disputed. It is also generally understood that God would “set up a kingdom” in the days of the Roman empire, and many of these teachers insist (while others admit it under pressure) that the Roman empire will be resurrected in order that the prophecy might find its fulfillment at the time of their imagined millennium. Their major contention hinges upon a misconception of the nature of God’s kingdom “consuming all these kingdoms” (v. 44) and the “smiting” of the image and “breaking” it to pieces (v. 34). The issue then, is whether the “smiting” and “consuming” are accomplished by martial force or spiritual compulsion; by physical impetus, or spiritual might.

The Kingdom: Material or Spiritual? 

The resolving of the problem involves a discussion of the nature of Christ’s kingdom. Is his kingdom in nature to be compared with the earthly empires of the past or present? Is his kingdom to be inaugurated by the gathering of an army to be led by a Christ armed in a coat of mail, with a gleaming sword of steel in his hand, and plunging his troops into violent conflict with the citadels of human empires? This is the impression some millennial teachers have. Robert Roberts, the biographer of Dr. John Thomas (a heretic from the faith and founder of the Christadelphians), said: 

His coming in the Spirit draws near: a people is in preparation, increasing in number, faith, zeal and service, to whom he be revealed with the thousands he shall bring forth from the dead by his power, and by means of whose recruited forces he will enter into conflict with the world, drive Gentile power from every throne, and establish his kingdom under the whole heaven. Christadelphian operations will then be transferred from the arena of debate to that of military coercion. 

Once, in debate with A.D. Norris, a Christadelphian from England, we were told that preaching had thus far failed to consume the nations, and that they would be consumed by “might.” R.H. Boll, in his book The Kingdom of God taught that this “smiting” and “consuming” would be “a violent impact” and he spoke against the idea of its being done by spiritual infiltration. To the Millennialist, the kingdom is material and its subduing of the nations is to be accomplished by martial force.
In order to better appreciate the full import of this “consuming” let us  consider (1) the consuming king, (2) the consuming sword, and (3) the consuming kingdom.

The Consuming King

That Christ is the consuming king is a point of general agreement. “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from hence­forth even forever” (Dan. 9:7). Daniel pictures him as he comes to “the Ancient of days” and is given a kingdom “which shall not be destroyed.” The wise men inquired about one “that is born King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2). The Angel announced that he would be given “the throne of his father, David,” and that “of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).

He made a battle declaration when he said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). When questioned by Pilate regarding his kingship, he said, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born” (John 18:37). In Acts 2 Peter announced his coronation and showed that it was the fulfilling of the prophecies concerning David’s throne. It was pointed out that he had been exalted to God’s right hand, and that as the first official act as reigning king he had “shed forth this which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Paul declared him to be “the King of kings, and Lord of lords” in 1 Timothy 6:15. “A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Heb. 1:8). There can be no doubt but that Jesus Christ is the king who was to “consume these kingdoms.”

The Consuming Sword 

Here the issue centers. Around this pivotal point the whole question turns. What kind of sword does the king use in “smiting” and “consuming” these kingdoms? We shall notice only a small part of the abundance of Scripture available on this matter. “And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked” (Isa. 11:4). “Out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,” said John in Revelation 1:16. He is further described by John as “he that hath the sharp sword with two edges” (Rev. 2:12). He “sends a sword” into a family when one in it obeys the gospel and the other does not (Matt. 10:34-38). The “sword of the Spirit is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). It is “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). This is the sword that “brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

Peter wielded the “sword of the Spirit” on the day of Pentecost. Fifteen nations were represented by the Jews present that day. With the drawn sword Peter “smote” them and they were cut to the heart. About three thousand of them fell before its withering power and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Later, at the house of Cornelius, Peter again joined battle with the same sword and “smote” the hearts of the Gentiles present with the result that they obeyed the gospel of Christ. They were “consumed” by the “sword of the Spirit.” On and on throughout Acts we observe the smiting and consuming of the nations. Men are consumed by Christ when they hear, learn, and come unto him (John 6:44-45). In the statement to Pilate, Jesus connected his kingly mission with instruction of his word. “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:37).

Any remark to the effect that this sword is ineffective, that it has not and is not succeeding, is not only a denial of “the power of God unto salvation,” but is, as well, a reflection upon him who molded that sword in the eternal counsel of his own mind. If the kingdoms are not falling under its power quickly enough to suit us, then the fault is not with the sword. It is perfect (Jas. 1:25). It was “once delivered” and needs no improvement. If the consuming is too slow, then the fault is either with those who wield the sword, or the condition of hearts that are assaulted by it. But don’t blame the sword!

The Consuming Kingdom

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). It is certainly “in” the world, but not “of” it. It is not in nature as the kingdoms of men, inaugurated and perpetuated with carnal conflict and conquest. This kingdom “cometh not with observa­tion” but is “within you” (Luke 17:20-21). Since the nature of this kingdom differs from earthly kingdoms, the manner of its growth must also differ. If the kingdom is spiritual, then so must be its conquest. “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened” (Matt. 13:33).

Christians are the soldiers of this kingdom and they fight by teaching. Paul charged Timothy to “commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” the things he had been taught. In the next two verses he called him a soldier and spoke of his warfare (2 Tim. 2:2-4). As these soldiers wield the sword in every nation and souls fall before its power in obedience, the “stone that smote the image” becomes “a great mountain and fills the whole earth.” The early Christians who were scattered abroad “went   everywhere preaching the word” and were “consuming” in the sense of Daniel 2:44. As every Christian now recognizes the individuality of the Great Commission and goes into his own world to teach the gospel, he is even as leaven and thus is “consuming.” The responsibilities are therefore weighty which are imposed upon this kingdom. The consuming is to be done to the end of time for Jesus said, “Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world.” Let us analyze our own hearts and activities and deter­mine whether or not we are working as leaven in the world. It is only through proper love for and devotion to the King we serve that we may be “more than conquerors through him that loved us.”

Summary

The fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy that the kingdom would be established in the days of the Roman empire has certainly occurred. Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:14-15). The prophecy concerned not only the establishment of the kingdom, but the spreading of it as well. It has been established; it is consuming the kingdoms and filling the earth. Its king has all authority and his sword is perfectly adapted to the task assigned to it. Any weakness within the kingdom is not in the King, or his sword, but results from the failures of citizens who stumble in the discharge of their duties as soldiers.

P.O. Box 91346, Louisville, Kentucky 40291

By Marc W. Gibson

It is said that fact is stranger than fiction. History has proven this to be true numerous times. In the Bible we encounter some very interesting and strange people. Most people have heard of Herod the Great, but few realize how many people that impacted New Testament history came from his family. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, wrote a great deal about Herod and his family and their twisted story puts modern-day soap operas to shame. It can be helpful to take a closer look at the individual members of the Herod family tree in order to appreciate the background of some of the events of Jesus’ life and the early church.

Herod the Great was born a Roman, Edomite, Idumaean Jew. The dynasty of his ruling house would impact history from 63 B.C. to A.D. 70. He was the son of Antipater II and Cypros. Antipater II was a friend of Julius Caesar and was procurator of Idumaea and Judea. Herod befriended Mark Antony and Octavius (Augus- tus), and was given the rule of Palestine where he was crowned king of the Jews in 37 B.C. The secret to the success of Herod and his ruling family was their favor with the men who were the emperors in their day, and the loyalty of a majority of their subjects. They were master politicians and ruthless to those who threatened their power. Herod the Great established these principles from the beginning.

Herod built the town of Caesarea with its great harbor on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. He built numerous fortresses but is best known for beginning the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem in 20 B.C. Herod is mentioned in the New Testament as murdering the innocent children of Bethlehem in his vain attempt to kill Jesus (Matt. 2:1-20). His immediate family consisted of ten wives and numerous children. He died in 4 B.C.

Of Herod the Great’s children, four are mentioned in the New Testament: (1) Philip — tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis (Luke 3:1), (2) Archelaus — ruler of Judea upon the death of his father (Matt. 2:22), (3) Herod Philip (Mark 6:17), and (4) Herod Antipas — tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Luke 3:1).

Herod Antipas, who ruled Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39, was the ruler who had John the Baptist beheaded. John had told him that it was unlawful for him to be married to Herodias, his brother Herod Philip’s wife. Herodias was the granddaughter of Herod the Great through his son Aristobulus. She married her uncle (her father’s half-brother) Herod Philip, and had a daughter, Salome, by this marriage. Herodias then fell in love with another uncle, Herod Antipas. She left Herod Philip and married Antipas. Herod Antipas had earlier married a Nabatean princess, the daughter of king Aretas IV (2 Cor. 11:32). When he and Herodias fell in love, the princess escaped to her father who started a war with Antipas and won. Herodias hated John for his denunciation of her unlawful marriage with Antipas, so when her daughter Salome danced before Antipas causing him to make a rash oath to give her whatever she asked, Herodias had her ask for the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29). Salome later married her great uncle, Philip the tetrarch, making her both aunt and sister-in-law to her own mother. This was a complex and tangled mess of marriages, intermarriages, and adulterous relationships.

Jesus called Herod Antipas a “fox” (Luke 13:32), and Antipas thought Jesus might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (Matt. 14:1-2). Jesus stood on trial before Antipas who hoped to see a miracle, which did not happen (Luke 23:6-12). He was later banished to Gaul by the emperor Caligula in A.D. 39 where he lived out his last days with Herodias.

Herodias’ father was Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, who had married his cousin, Bernice, the daughter of Herod the Great’s sister, Salome. Along with Herodias, they also had a son Herod Agrippa I. He was a friend of emperor Caligula and made ruler in A.D. 37, he became a persecutor of the early church, killing the apostle James, and imprisoning Peter (Acts 12:1-19). He died in A.D. 44, struck fatally by an angel of the Lord and eaten of worms (Acts 12:20-23).

Three children of Herod Agrippa I are mentioned in the New Testament: Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and Drusilla. Drusilla married the king of Emesa, but left him to marry Felix, governor of Judea. The apostle Paul spoke before Felix in Caesarea (Acts 24:24-26). Bernice was married to her uncle and second husband, Herod king of Chalcis, when she left him to live with her brother, Herod Agrippa II. When rumors of incest arose, she married Polemo of Cilicia, but soon returned to live with her brother again. The incestuous relationship became the chatter in Rome. Paul spoke before Herod Agrippa II and Bernice in Caesarea (Acts 25:13-26:32). Herod admitted that he was almost persuaded to become a Christian (v. 28). Bernice later became a mistress of the emperor Titus. Herod Agrippa II lived until about A.D. 100.

Without a doubt these facts are stranger than fiction, for who could have ever dreamed up this jumbled and confused family of ungodly people? They obviously had no regard for the law of God or standards of righteousness. Selfish and paranoid in protecting his human power, Herod the Great tried to kill the Savior of the world. Herod Antipas was a coward who had the blood of the murder of John the Baptist on his hands. Herodias was a vindictive adulteress who allowed her daughter to dance seductively for the lustful eyes of leering men. Her brother, Herod Agrippa I, was a persecutor of the church and had the blood of the apostle James on his hands. Herod Agrippa II cavorted with his own sister in ways that caused chatter and rumors of incest. Yet, many today would find all this acceptable and humorous. But not God. He struck Herod Agrippa I dead and will judge each member of this sordid family in the last day. They were all close to someone who would have taught, or did teach, them the way of righteousness, but to no avail. Only one almost became a Christian. We must learn from their sad examples and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world (Tit. 2:11-12).

From Leader, Lakeland Hills Church of Christ, Lakeland, Florida