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. 10
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
Discipling and Baptizing the Nations
”Chance”
Should Churches Marry Anyone?
In this last article on baptism we wish
to deal with Matthew 28:19, the so-called "Great Commission." This passage is the command of Christ authorizing
baptism in the NT church. It also establishes
baptism as a universal and not just a Jewish rite. There
are two things we wish to point out about this important verse.
Matthew 28:19, rather than being proof
against infant baptism, is just the opposite - very strong proof for it. Baptists argue that Jesus commands us first to
teach (disciple) the nations and then to baptize. Infants,
they say, are not old enough to be taught or discipled and therefore cannot be baptized. This, however, misses several important points.
First, as we already showed in
connection with Mark 16:16, the word "then" is not in the verse. Jesus does not say, "Teach all nations
and then baptize them." If He had
said that, there would be no question but that the Baptists are right.
Second, the passage speaks of nations,
not individuals. In the very nature of the
case, therefore, these two activities must be going on simultaneously. One cannot wait until the whole nation is taught
before starting to baptize! There would be no
baptism then.
The very grammar of the text indicates
this. The text must be understood literally
as saying, "Teach all nations when baptizing them," or, "Teach all
nations after baptizing them." It
cannot mean, "Teach all nations before baptizing them!" The passage, in fact, says nothing about
the order in which teaching and baptizing take place.
Not only that, but nations include
children. It is impossible to disciple and
baptize nations without also discipling and baptizing the children who belong to that
nation.
Also, it may not be forgotten that
Matthew 28:19 is a fulfillment of Isaiah 52:15; "So shall he sprinkle many
nations." In Matthew we must always look
for the OT prophecies that are fulfilled, for that is one of the great themes of Matthew's
gospel. Matthew always shows us Jesus as the
fulfillment of the OT (cf. chapters 1 and 2 especially).
The most obvious choice for prophecy fulfilled in this case is Isaiah 52:15.
This sprinkling of the nations, Isaiah
52:13, 14 teaches, follows upon Christ's work in suffering and dying for sin. In the way of having his visage "marred more
than any man, He sprinkles many nations. This
we see happening in the NT in obedience to the command of Christ in Matthew 28:19.
So, not only does Isaiah 52:14 identify
the baptizing of the nations with sprinkling, but throughout the book the prophet speaks
of these nations being gathered for this sprinkling with their children. When they come to Christ for salvation (that is
what the sprinkling represents) they bring their sons and daughters and even their nursing
children with them (Is. 49:22; 60:4).
That promised sprinkling of the
nations, fulfilled in the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ, is pictured and remembered
in baptism. Not in imitation of Rome or by
mere tradition, but in obedience to God's Word we practice family baptism.
Rev. Ronald Hanko
One reader asks, "What are your
views regarding the church ... marrying unconverted people?
I think the whole thing makes a mockery of true religion." We think it makes a mockery not only of true
religion but also of marriage!
There are several things that need to
be remembered here. First, marriage is not a
sacrament, but a civil ordinance. It does
not, as such, belong to the church, but to the civil powers. There is, therefore, no need that a marriage be
performed by a minister or in a church. A
marriage performed by the magistrate in the local registrar's office is a legal marriage
before God, all other things being equal.
That marriage is a civil ceremony is
clear from the fact that it traces back to the time before the fall (Gen. 2:21-25), and to
the various ordinances that God gave to all mankind prior to the fall. It does not have its origin in saving grace,
but in creation. Thus, the marriages of
unbelievers are real marriages in God's sight, and they are required to keep His
ordinances regarding marriage, even though they marry without Him.
The alternative to this is really the
view of Roman Catholicism that marriage belongs to the church and is a rite to be
administered by the church, in other words, a sacrament.
The only other alternative is that of anabaptism, which does not (historically)
recognize the authority of the civil magistrate.
That ministers are legally entitled to
marry people and that these marriages are performed in churches is the case only in order
that the marriage of Christians may be distinguished from the marriage of unbelievers, and
even that is possible only when the State gives ministers the legal right to marry men and
women.
When marriages are performed in
churches by ministers, there is the opportunity to exhort from Scripture both those who
are present and those who are marrying, to point out that Christian marriage is a picture
of the relationship between Christ and His church (Eph. 5:22-33), to give God's people
opportunity to witness this beautiful picture of the that great and blessed relationship,
and to bless the marriage in the Name of God and Christ.
That is good, and the only reason for ministers or churches to be involved in this
work.
Generally speaking, believers should not
wish to be married by ungodly civil authorities, who neither recognize the sanctity of
marriage, nor care that it is an ordinance of God, and who are, at best, only interested
in carrying out their civic responsibilities. It
is right and good that they be married, if possible, by and among those who love and
cherish marriage, who will assist them in the responsibilities of married life, and who
will remind them of the seriousness of marriage and of the blessings of Christian
marriage.
There is, then, no good reason for
churches to marry unconverted people. Their
marriages are not pictures of Christ and His church.
They are not interested in hearing the Word of God concerning marriage, nor are
their marriages blessed by God. Indeed, when
the churches do this they "make a mockery of true religion" in that by their
presence and assistance they say that there is a blessing for those who do not
marry "in the Lord."
Ministers and churches should be
involved in marrying people only when there is good reason to do so, that is,
to bless and prosper Christian marriage. They
have nothing to do with the world's marrying and giving in marriage. There too, the Word of God applies, "let the
dead bury their dead" (Matt. 8:22). Rev.
Ronald Hanko
And by chance there came down a
certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Luke 10:31
The one who directs our attention to
this verse writes: "Does chance challenge God's omnipotence? I was reading Luke 10 and in particular the
parable of the good Samaritan, when verse 31 caused me to stop. 'And by chance there came down a certain priest
that way.' By chance!?! A. W. Pink reminds us (in his book 'The Attributes
of God' -- p. 14): 'God did not merely decree to make man, place him upon the earth and
then leave him to his own uncontrolled guidance: instead, he fixed all the circumstances
in the lot of individuals.' Perhaps you could
explain the Scriptures' use of 'by chance' in vs. 31."
Perhaps the explanation for the use of
the word "chance" in Luke 10:31 can be explained by the fact that it is included
in a parable. Jesus is telling a story of
something which did not actually happen in order to illustrate to a tricky lawyer what the
Bible means by loving our neighbor. Within
the story, it was a priest who "by chance" came upon the wounded traveler. After all, the priest was the office bearer in
Israel who held the office of mercy. He would
be the one expected, above all others, to show mercy.
Nevertheless, we are not so easily
released from the question, for the Scriptures use this or a similar expression in other
places where no made-up story is involved. I
have in mind, e.g., Ruth 2:3: "And [Ruth] went, and came, and gleaned in the field
after the reapers: and her hap was to light on a part of the field belonging unto Boaz,
who was of the kindred of Elimelech." In
this passage the words "her hap was" can also be translated, "by chance
she."
A. W. Pink is correct when he insists
that God fixes absolutely all the circumstances of the life of every individual. Although the attribute of God's omnipotence is
surely at stake, our insistence on this truth, along with Pink, rests also in the truth of
God's eternal counsel according to which He determines all things, and His absolute
sovereignty according to which He executes His decree.
His providential control of His creation includes not only His work of upholding
all creatures by His power, but also of directing and controlling all creatures so that
His counsel is carried out
When the Scriptures use the expression
"chance" or "by chance" (you can look up the passages with the help of
a good concordance), the Scriptures intend to describe what happened from our viewpoint.
Let me illustrate with the passage in
Ruth.
That the events which are described in
Ruth took place under the God's control is evident from the fact that, from God's point of
view, Ruth had to marry Boaz, because from that union Christ would be born. And so God directed Ruth's footsteps to the fields
of Boaz to glean so that Ruth could meet Boaz and, through an interesting series of
God-directed events, the two could marry and have a boy named Obed.
But from Ruth's point of view, it was
"chance" that brought her to the field. She
had no thoughts of marrying a Israelite. She
had gone to Israel from Moab only because she was an elect from a foreign country who
believed in the God of Israel and who was determined to worship Him alone: "Thy God
shall be my God . . . (vs. 16)."
Even if she had hoped, secretly, that
she might be able to marry again, she had no idea who such a one was. But God did know who her husband would be. She did not stop at the field of Boaz with a fixed
plan in mind. It happened to be the first
field she came to where harvesting was taking place; or it was a convenient field to use
to gain some support for herself and her mother-in-law.
But God knew it was the field of Boaz. She
surely had no thought that she would be a part of bringing forth Christ. But God knew that too. And God brought her to Israel for her God-assigned
role.
(Even today married couples wonder at
such a providence of God. They meet their
future spouses without any idea that they are in the presence of one with whom they will
spend the rest of their life. They meet under
strange circumstances and in strange ways. Their
paths take strange and unexpected twists and turns. And
before long they find themselves married. They
look back in wonder and awe and are humbled by the mysterious ways of God's providence. Part of the wonder of God's ways is that their
meeting was, from their point of view, "by chance." He [or she] happened to be there too. And we met. And....)
The Form for Marriage used in the
Protestant Reformed Churches describes how God brought Eve to Adam at the dawn of history. It then adds, in a remarkable statement: "So
does God still bring to every man his wife."
God
determines our path in all its details, with all its unexpected twists and turns, in all
its surprises, when suddenly something happens to alter forever the course of our life. What a wonderful truth it is to know that all our
life is in the hands of our heavenly Father. We
can sing with gusto: "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me
to glory" (Ps. 73:24).
Prof. H. Hanko