709 East 57th Street; Loveland, CO
80538
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (7:00
p.m. June through August)
Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks
Phone: (970) 667-9481
Vol. 7, No. 2
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Content:
New Testament Baptisms
Love and Hate of Our Neighbor (2)
Organ Donations
In this article, continuing our study
of the mode of baptism, we wish to look at the baptisms of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8)
and of Jesus (Matt. 3 and Mk. 1). These are
usually taken to be the clearest examples in Scripture of baptism by immersion.
The baptism of the Eunuch. It is usually assumed that the words down
into the water and up out of the water describe the actual baptism of
the Eunuch and therefore also the fact that he was immersed (Acts 8:38, 39). There are two problems with this.
(1) The prepositions used,
into (eis in Greek) and out of (ek) do not imply
immersion at all. Indeed, they do not
necessarily imply that anyone was even in the water!
The word translated into (eis)
is translated in the NT in many different ways including at (20 times),
in (131), into (571) to (282), toward
(32), unto (208) - this can be checked with a good concordance. The word translated out of (ek)
is also translated very differently: from (182), up from (2),
out of (131).
Substituting these different
translations in the two verses will immediately show what a difference that makes (we beg
our readers to do so). The point is, though,
that these words are not describing the baptism at all, but what took place just
before and after it.
(2) Further proof that these
prepositions are not describing the baptism is easily found in the text, since they are
applied both to the Eunuch and to Philip! If
they are describing an immersion baptism then Philip was also baptized by immersion. He also went down into and came
up out of. Either they describe the
baptism by immersion of both or they describe no baptism at all.
The baptism of Christ. Here again there are several considerations.
(1) The argument about the words used
applies here also. In Mark the same Greek
words are used as in Acts 8. In Matthew 3:16
a different preposition is used, the Greek word apo.
This word is translated from 372 times and out of only 27
times.
(2) There is a further consideration,
however, in the story of Jesus baptism. It
may not be overlooked that He was baptized at 30 years of age (Lk. 3:23), by a priest
(John was such - Lk. 1:5, 13), with water, and that he said at the time of His baptism,
thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15).
That He fulfilled all
righteousness by His baptism can only refer to the fact that He fulfilled the
demands of the law. What law? The law for the consecration of a priest. A priest was not consecrated until he was 30 years
old (Num. 4:3, 47). At that time he was
consecrated by another priest (Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13) and was consecrated by sprinkling
with water (Num. 8:6-7).
In fulfilling the law, therefore,
Christ could not have been baptized in any other way than by sprinkling. Else He would have been breaking it, not
fulfilling it. Christs baptism is not
proof that immersion is the proper mode of baptism but exactly the opposite. We plead with those who believe otherwise to
consider this carefully. At least they ought
to cease accusing us of following Romish superstition and not Scripture. Rev. Ron
Hanko
Love and Hate of Our
Neighbor (2)
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate
thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them my
enemies. Psalm 139: 21, 22.
In the last issue, we began our
discussion of an important question submitted by one of our readers. It reads as follows: "When asked what is the
greatest commandment, the Lord said, 'Love the Lord your God . . . ,' and 'Love your
neighbor as yourself.' This being the case,
and neighbor meaning anyone who is in need and crosses our path, how can David say what he
does in Psalm 139: 21, 22, and Jesus say that we are to hate even our family
members?"
In that issue I called the attention of
our readers to a quote by Herman Hoeksema in which he explains what Scripture means by
"love," and how we are to love our enemies.
It would be well if you would pick up the last issue and read again what he said.
I also called attention to how Psalm
139:21, 22 itself explains what it means by "hate," and how that idea is found
elsewhere in Scripture, notably James 4:4.
* * * *
One more aspect to this question must
be discussed for us to understand it well.
You will recall that Herman Hoeksema
called attention to the fact that in our love for our enemies, we are particularly
obligated to show them the way of salvation, call them to repentance and faith in Christ,
and seek the eternal welfare of their souls. That
is that love is really all about. We are to
feed them when they are hungry -- but always in the name of Christ. We are to cloth them when they are in rags -- but
in the name of Him Who loved us. And to
provide for their earthly needs in the name of Christ is to seek their eternal well-being. It is no love on our part to give a man something
to eat while refraining from calling him to belief in Christ in Whom alone is salvation.
* * * *
This necessary testimony which the
believer must make and by which he demonstrates his love for his neighbor is what we
sometimes call "witnessing." Love
for the neighbor comes to expression in the Christian witness of the believer.
God calls us to such witnessing. He calls us to speak to others of the salvation He
has given us in Christ and of the riches of His grace and mercy through faith in Christ.
But -- and here is the important point
-- God uses that witnessing in the same way that He uses the preaching of the Word. Just as the gospel is a means of saving the elect,
but also hardening the wicked, so is Christian witnessing the power both to save and to
harden.
The result of the Christian's witness
is, therefore, of two kinds.
God is pleased, if the object of our
love is an elect, to use our witness to bring such a one into the church and to faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ. But God may also use
that same witness to harden the one who hears our witness and is the object of our love.
If the former is true, that is, if God
is pleased to save such a one, then our love becomes a bond of fellowship and is enjoyed
between us to the fullest. Love is then a
"two-way street": we love our fellow saint, and our fellow saints love us.
But the opposite can happen. Any child of God knows that it can happen and has
experienced it in his own life. He may
witness to someone, and call that person to repentance and faith. But if that object of our witness is not a child
of God, that person will reject our witness.
But, because our witness in fact hardens
the one to whom we witness, he will become increasingly hostile and hateful. The result will be that he will pour out his
hatred against God upon us and refuse not only to receive our witness any more, but also
refuse our help of material things. He will
say something like: "Keep your food, if all you are going to do is preach to me. I don't want to hear it any more" -- and
this probably accompanied by some curse words.
And so, loving our neighbor, as we are
called to do, becomes increasingly difficult and finally impossible. The wicked man himself will refuse to have
anything to do with us and will, if possible, persecute us.
He will mock our witness, refuse our help, curse our testimony concerning Christ,
and show his contempt for all that is holy.
And so we will be brought, in quite a
natural way, to the point where we must say with David what he said in Psalm 139. We will be grieved that the wicked rise up against
God. We will not only count them increasingly
our enemies, but the very nature of the effect of our witness will make them our enemies.
God wills it this way. God works to accomplish His purpose -- also
through the witness of the saints.
And it is well that we notice too that
our witness, the stronger and more faithful it is, will surely bring persecution. Prof. H. Hanko
Following on from the two articles in
recent issues regarding artificial life support, we have received two further questions
relating to organ donation.
One reader asks: "I would be
interested to know your views on blood transfusion (as the Bible has plenty to say about
blood) and organ donation. If our bodies are
the temple of the Holy Ghost, should we donate bits of them to other people? I believe scientists have even taken things a bit
further than this by successfully transferring parts of animals into human. This may enable us to save lives, but is it right
to do so?"
The other writes, "Perhaps another question you could deal with is whether there are any spiritual and biblical issues raised by organ donation and transplantation. Are there any fundamental objections?" He goes on to mention the fact that in some countries dead bodies belong to the state, so that the state "can help itself to whatever organs it needs, irrespective of the convictions of the deceased or the wishes of the family." He mentions, too, the trend toward using organs from living donors, rather than "cadaver donors" and after speaking of the risk of life in some cases to the donor, asks: "The giving of a kidney for one's child or spouse may be an act of selfless, sacrificial love, but does it not constitute abuse of our bodies, which for a believer is the temple of God (I Cor. 6)?"
These are exceedingly difficult and
complex questions to answer. For example, the
position that blood transfusions are wrong (as held by the Jehovah's Witnesses) can
involve one in legal difficulties when the life of a child is at stake and the parents
refuse blood transfusions that could save the life of the child.
Generally speaking, we would not forbid
either transfusions or organ donations, since we are reluctant to lay down rules of
conduct where Scripture does not, even though we have quite strong opinions on these
matters for ourselves. One reason we are
reluctant to lay down rules is that it forces us into the position of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. It seems clear, to us at least,
that there is no essential difference between blood transfusions and organ donations, so
that if organ donations are wrong then so are blood transfusions.
This, however, is not an answer from
principle and does not settle the question. The
important thing is that Scripture does not directly forbid such things. Even then, however, there are certain important
principles that every Christian should keep in mind when facing decisions on these
matters.
These principles are (1) we, with our
bodies, are uniquely created by God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7); (2) as a result, they belong to God
and not to us; (3) this is especially true for the Christian who also belongs to God, both
body and soul, by purchase, through the blood of Jesus (I Cor. 6:20); (4) closely related
to this, our bodies in particular are the temples of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19); and
(5) we expect that our bodies will also be raised in the last day, though they will be
changed and made like Christ's body (I Cor. 15:35-38).
While not willing to make rules about
organ transplants, especially for others, or to judge others in these matters, it is
difficult for us, in light of these principles, to see that we have the right to dispose
of parts of our bodies, either dead or living, as we see fit and as though they belong to
us. At very least, decisions about such
matters as these ought not be made by us without remembering and taking account of these
principles.
Rev. Ronald Hanko
(to be continued)
We will
gladly add to our mailing list. These
bulletins are sent out both by e-mail and by regular mail.
If you wish to add names of others, please send them to us.