hermeneutics – La Vista Church of Christ

The Individual Member Versus the Church

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 16 Jul 2025 18:54:15 +0000

by Charles Spence
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 4, 31 December 1991

As those who obey the gospel are added to the Lord’s church, they have a responsibility to join with disciples in their area. After his conversion, Paul sought to join the disciples who were assembling in Jerusalem. "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). Saul saw the need to be with disciples, as should any child of God. Yet, what often happens in the process is that the individual loses his identity. Some brethren fail to distinguish between what an individual Christian can do and what the church can do. The Bible, however, makes the distinction very clear.

Bad Hermeneutics

Some of our brethren reason that whatever the individual Christian is commanded to do, the church can also do. Some have even said, for the sake of consistency, one may suppose that when the individual Christian is acting upon the commands of Christ, the church is active. Such reasoning is flawed and lacks a biblical foundation. There is no exegetical exercise from which one can glean such misconceptions. The rule that states "Whatever the individual is commanded to do, the church can do" has evolved in the minds of men, at best. Thus, this logic did not originate with scripture.

Consider Paul’s command to the individual Christian in Ephesians 4:28. "Let him who stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth." Applying the rule that some brethren had made for themselves, if the individual Christian is commanded to work with his hands (engage in industry), then the church can produce goods and services for profit or pay. According to the same logic, the church can have a member’s spouse. Paul said in I Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Of course, what is being suggested is both facetious and faulty. But sometimes one needs to "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit" (Proverbs 26:5). Understandably, anything that proves too much proves nothing.

The Biblical Distinction

There is a distinction between what an individual believer can do and what the church can do. This distinction is highlighted in Matthew 18:15-17. Here, Jesus gives instructions on how His subjects should behave in His Kingdom. When a brother was offended by another brother, the offended brother was to go and tell the brother who had offended him his fault (Matthew 18:15). If he would not hear, the offended brother was to bring one or two more witnesses, as Matthew 18:16 states. Up to now, there isn’t anything Jesus said that indicates or suggests church action. The action prescribed was individual.

In Matthew 18:17, Jesus says, "And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church." It is here that Jesus outlines the role of the church. According to the logic of some brethren, church action was initiated when the brother who was offended went to the one who offended him. But Jesus made the distinction. Even when a few brethren were employed to go to the offender, it still did not constitute church action. It was when they were not heard that the church got involved, but not until then.

Another distinction is found in I Timothy 5:16. "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed." Can the church be held responsible for the care of widows who have able relatives within the congregation? No! Yet, the way some brethren reason, it can. "Whatever the individual believer is commanded to do, the church can do." This is a fallacious logic, of which I Timothy 5:16 is offered as proof.

When correct hermeneutical principles are applied, many of the innovative ideas will be nipped in the bud. When the proper distinction is made between the individual member and the church, much confusion will be avoided. With proper study, all interested parties will be able to cast down the lines of division, striving toward the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3)

Values and Roles

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:33:22 +0000

by Steve Higginbotham

Unfortunately, churches have always struggled against being influenced by the values of the cultures that surround them. For instance, the city of Corinth was known for its immorality, and it’s no surprise that immorality had also crept into the church there (I Corinthians 5). Today, our culture highly values the equality of men and women, and thus the message of "male spiritual leadership" in the church is being challenged and jettisoned in many congregations.

One of the most frequently used proof texts to expunge gender-based role distinctions from the church is Galatians 3:28, which states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Some suggest that since there is no male or female in Christ, there should be no gender-based role distinctions within the church. Presently, we are witnessing congregations inviting women to lead prayers in the assembly, preach, teach, and even serve as elders.

However, the hermeneutical mistake being made concerning Galatians 3:28 is a failure to distinguish between “value” and “role.” It’s the same hermeneutical mistake made by Korah many years ago (Numbers 16:1-10). Korah and his companions argued that Moses and Aaron were lording over them and had too much authority. They reasoned this way: “Since all of God’s people are holy, we all ought to be allowed to do what you do” (Numbers 16:3).

While it was true that the people of God were holy, it was not true that they should all be allowed to do the same thing. God confirmed their reasoning was flawed when he defended Moses and destroyed them (Numbers 16:31-33).

Brethren, what we hear today about women preachers and overseers in the Lord’s church is the same fallacious hermeneutic employed by Korah long ago. The fact that all of God’s people are holy and valued equally by God does not mean that men and women have been authorized to function in the same role.

Give care not to make the same ancient hermeneutical mistake made by Korah and his companions. Equal value? “Yes,” equal roles? “No.”

Women, the Bible, and Necessary Inference

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 22 Feb 2025 22:35:34 +0000

by Perry Hall

When it comes to religion, people throw out common sense. That is one of my observations regarding hermeneutics, the way we interpret Scripture.

For example, women use necessary inference as one of their main methods of communication. And yet, when interpreting the Bible - and someone mentions necessary inference - a common retort is "Necessary to who?" The affront implies (hmmm), that if they don't see the necessary inference then it must not exist. Isn't the real answer to "Necessary to who?" that the one who made the inference (technically, implication) expected it to be understood? Therefore, it is necessary to the original speaker or writer.

How do women, especially wives, do this regularly, and how does everyone accept it? My wife emptied the dishwasher and put dirty dishes in it. Then she said, "The dishwasher has dirty dishes in it."

Now, what am I supposed to infer from that statement?

Don't put clean dishes in the dishwasher? While true and a given, that is not the point.
Don't leave my dirty dishes downstairs? Again, this is true, but such would be true even if the dishwasher were filled with cleaned dishes.
That I should have emptied the dishwasher? While again true, that isn't the point here. For that to be the necessary inference, my wife should have said, "Someone finally emptied the dishwasher!" Can you hear the tone in that?

Everyone already knows what my wife meant and what she inferred. That is, "Don't put your dirty dishes in the sink. Put them in the dishwasher."

Now, that was easy, wasn't it? That's just plain common sense.

And yet, we know a common counterargument to the above: "Why don't women just say what they mean?"

Here's the problem with that approach:

She did say what she meant, as the above experiment showed. Everyone understood what she meant.
What right do I have to impose on her how to communicate? Just because someone doesn't say something how I would, does that make it less true?
Women often communicate in this submissive way because they want to be responded to by our desire to please and willingness to think instead of appearing pushed and obligated.

Shouldn't we husbands appreciate this approach?

Can you see how this again applies to interpreting the Bible? Consider Jesus:

Jesus often taught in parables, which the apostles wished He didn't.
Jesus had the right to communicate however He chose.
Jesus even said the parables were for those with ears to hear.

As you can hopefully see, when it comes to religion, the Holy Spirit communicates God's word in a way filled with common sense communication. So common, in fact, we see necessary inference used in everyday life. So, put the dirty dishes in the dishwasher and put some effort into interpreting the Bible by asking, "I know this inference is necessary to God, so what is God communicating to me?"

Knowledge Without Wisdom

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 16 Nov 2024 19:09:37 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

In Colossians 1, we find Paul writing to a group that heard “the word of the truth of the gospel” (Colossians 1:5), and it produced faith, hope, and love (Colossians 1:4-5) in them. Paul was thankful, but he went on to pray that they would be “filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding” (Colossians 1:9). So, being born again with new faith, hope, and love is wonderful. Still, more is needed, or else the babe in Christ can be lured into dangerous things that might entangle them and destroy them. A little basic knowledge will get you moving in a better direction, but more complete knowledge is even better. Knowledge of facts alone is not good enough if you do not have wisdom and discernment about how to use that knowledge. Wisdom is the principal thing, said the Proverb writer. It sharpens the discernment skills of how to use the facts you know.

We have heard of brethren downplaying necessary inference, yet all that is the wisdom and discernment of how to use the facts gathered. What do those facts imply? Knowledge without wisdom in using and applying that knowledge is stale and useless. Knowing that David wrote Psalms 110 is very different from the wisdom of seeing what it implies. Did you read it and understand that it meant a change in the law was coming? See Hebrews 7:10-14. Wisdom is the perception of how a factual statement can imply things it doesn’t directly state. Suppose you demand only directly stated truths but refuse to acknowledge those implied truths. In that case, you will get easily drawn into false knowledge, thinking that unless something is directly stated, we do not need to address it.

Some think that because abortion is not directly addressed. That it is a political issue and not a moral and biblical issue. That is a false conclusion. Abortion is taking the life of another human being, which is murder. The Bible gives us a knowledge base to work from, but you have to have wisdom to see how to use that knowledge base correctly. When you see the Bible saying that “the babe” leaped in Elizabeth’s womb, you have a knowledge base that tells you that an unborn life is a “babe”, even before birth, and is not a mere blob of inhuman tissue. When you consider all the biblical evidence of God forming us in the womb (Psalm 139) and gather the facts, wisdom tells you how to use those facts. It tells you that God hates the taking of innocent life (Proverbs 6:16-19), which certainly includes the life He formed in the womb. A verse does not have to say straight out, “abortion is a sin,” as the stated principles imply. Wisdom sees it, while lack of wisdom does not!

We do not have to have a verse that says pedophilia or gambling is a sin. The knowledge base God gave us, combined with wisdom, helps us discern these matters. We need to exercise our minds “to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14) because the word of God does not directly state all that it implies.

The few verses in Genesis 14 regarding Melchizedek imply far more than is directly stated. Wisdom is how to handle what you know in such a way that you see what may be implied. When you combine it with Psalms 110, your knowledge base should let you see David’s Lord as a coming figure more significant than the Levitical priesthood that David knew in his day. Wisdom sees the implications, not just the directly stated facts.

If God had to state everything directly, we could not carry the book around as it would have to state every detail of future issues. Can we use AI for our studies in morality? That would have to be stated in such a book. God gave us the complete knowledge base in the word of truth, the Bible, and we need to exercise wisdom in how to use that knowledge. Wisdom enriches our faith because we know how to use the knowledge of Jesus in our tests and challenges. Wisdom cries out for discerning how to stand firm through the storms of life. That is why Paul was praying for the brethren to have and use more than just knowledge, but to use it in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. Wisdom is indeed the principle thing, for knowledge can be cold facts unless we discern the implications of that knowledge. Learning the ways of wisdom and discernment is very enriching and empowering.

Aids versus Additions

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:48:14 +0000

by Perry Hall

Years ago, it was common to hear arguments concerning the difference between aids and additions in worshiping God. This involved hermeneutics. Let's presume we all agree that adding to the word is unscriptural. How do we know when we are simply using an aid? Where does the Bible authorize aids? If additions are forbidden, how do we know if aids are allowed?

Aids Are Unavoidable

Some aids are unavoidable. If unavoidable, they must be a necessary inference in obeying the command (a method disdained by some but is "necessary").

To begin with, I will use Paul's example of carrying the contribution from Corinth to Judea (I Corinthians 16). Here, we find an aid necessarily built into the command. If Corinthians were commanded to contribute on Sundays for saints in Jerusalem, how else would it have been possible to get there if not by some courier? Aids can be a necessary inference.

Here is another argument, one we know but maybe don't know! It is also based upon necessary inference. Did you know it is impossible to obey any (or almost any) command of God without some man-made mode of obeying? For example, we are commanded to be baptized. We infer that any place with enough water for an immersion qualifies. The man-made modes are plentiful. Do I lay the person back as is commonly done? Does the one being baptized stand, kneel, or sit in the water? I use the easiest method or aid on the one being baptized. The method is a necessary aid in fulfilling the command. What we must beware of is when an aid or method becomes tradition and bound.

So far, we have seen how some aids are unavoidable, and additions are obviously avoidable. Next, we will tackle aids that are not necessary, are still scriptural, and yet are not additions.

When Are Aids Wrong?

Throughout God's word, He warns against going beyond (II John 9), adding and taking away (Deuteronomy 4:2), and turning to the right or left (Deuteronomy 17:11), which is another way of saying don't add or subtract. Obviously, additions are not approved by God.

While aids are scriptural and additions are not, when does an aid become unauthorized?

One obvious answer is when the aid becomes a substitute. An example is when David had the ark carried on a cart by oxen. This is the scene where Uzziah died (II Samuel 6).

Was using oxen to carry the ark easier? Yes.
Was using oxen to carry the ark smart? Yes, from a human perspective.
Was using oxen to carry the ark authorized? No, which was the problem.

"But, but, but...at least Uzzah and Ahio were Levites." Josephus distinctly says that Uzzah was of a Levitical family (Ant. 6:1 4).

When an aid substitutes for the real deal, it is unauthorized. David's bad example shows how an aid can add and subtract.

When churches allow outside forces to make decisions for them, whether a sponsoring church or official headquarters, local shepherds are substituted out and supplanted by something foreign to God's Word.

God is holy, and the Bible is God's revelation. Don't change by adding to or removing what is holy and replacing it with something that isn't—man's additions.

Are Meeting Places Authorized?

We established that aids are unavoidable when obeying commands. Every command of God involves some means or modes that are man-made. When it comes to commands (Hebrews 10:25) and examples (Acts 2:46) to meet together, obviously, it is unavoidable to meet without having a place to meet. Therefore, a "meeting place" fits the criteria for an aid as a necessary inference.

We discussed that aids become additions when they substitute the command. Obviously, having a place to meet is not a substitute for meeting since that is exactly what is being accomplished.

Therefore, a "meeting place" does change an aid into an addition. But more on this later.

However, there are other Biblical principles to consider.

Does the Word of God specify a specific place (Specific Authority)?

Considering that first-century congregations use various places, the answer is no. Whether homes (Romans 16:5), the temple (Acts 2:46), or a local school (Acts 19:9), various places are mentioned. History shows caves were employed, probably out of necessity in hiding. While not churches per se, Christians did attend meetings held by unbelievers in synagogues also, even up to three months (Act 19:8). I wonder if the Greek word employed in James 2:2, "synagogue," suggests synagogues became "church buildings." Archeology Magazine shows evidence of a "church building" as early as the first century in Caperneum.

Does the Word of God authorize church funds for spiritual activities?

Considering the many examples within the New Testament, we can see that the main contributions were raised for needy saints (I Corinthians 16:1-2) and supporting preachers (Philippians 4:14ff).

Is building up a congregation spiritually a work or function of a local meeting? Yes, Ephesians 4 shows such. Whatever is necessary to that accomplishment becomes authorized (here is where social activities become suspect as a "work of the church"). That would include a meeting place. However, there is more to consider.

Are church buildings wise?

In I Corinthians 10:23, Paul sets forth a principle that not everything that is lawful is expedient. Furthermore, in I Timothy 5, while discussing an authorized work — supporting needy widows, indeed — Paul sets forth another principle: don't let the church be burdened (I Timothy 5:16).

There is no doubt that local congregations can be too eager when small, to "get established," and church buildings can impede the financial freedom to help needy saints and support preachers and themselves evangelize.

I would also suggest that there is no doubt that local congregations can be too extravagant when large to "become mainstream." History shows how buildings have become far more ornate when groups become more socially accepted.

This is where wisdom is needed.

Is the church building unavoidable?

Sometimes, it depends upon the size of the local congregation. If one argues for several smaller "house churches," such freedom is acceptable, but one must beware of making rules God hasn't.

Is the church building expedient?

It depends upon the size and needs of the local congregation. If Bible classes for various ages are scriptural, then having spaces becomes fitting.

Is the church building a burden?

It depends upon the financial ability of the local congregation. My parents helped a local group by guiding them into a price range that they could afford to take over if necessary.

Is the church building authorized?

Depends upon the above criteria.

I like " invisible " buildings — neither extravagant nor an eyesore. Buildings can be aids, and if wrongly emphasized, they can become substitutes for real needs and proper functions.

If your congregation has a building, be thankful to God while remaining diligent and focused. The church building is not the church. It must always remain an aid and not become a substitute for the church's being a church.

Does God Give Us a Pattern to Follow?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 13:43:32 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

The total evidence of scripture is that God is a God of order and expects us to follow the pattern of sound words in everything we do (II Timothy 1:13; Colossians 3:17; ICorinthians 14:33ff).

God’s Patterns

Noah had a pattern to follow in building the ark (Genesis 6:22). He had to operate within what the pattern authorized. He was not free to make alterations according to his own will. If God gave no pattern, then Noah could do whatever he wanted. He could use whatever wood he wanted and build it as large or small as he wanted. He had to follow the pattern God gave him. He could not deviate from the pattern.

Moses had a pattern (Exodus 25:8-9,40; 26:30; 27:8; cf. Acts 7:41, 44; Leviticus 10:1-2; I Samuel 15) on building and furnishing the tabernacle. He had to build the tabernacle within the bounds of what the pattern authorized. He was not free to make alterations, changes, additions, or subtractions from the pattern. He had to do everything according to the pattern because the earthly structure and furnishings had to reflect or foreshadow the spiritual things to come properly. The spiritual things had a pattern that had to be precisely foreshadowed by that earthly tabernacle.

New Testament Patterns (II Timothy 1:13; 2:5; 3:16-17)

For gospel obedience

How do we come into Christ for salvation (Romans 6:17-18; I Timothy 1:16)?

If there is no pattern of properly coming to salvation in Christ, then you cannot demand belief, what to believe, repentance, confession, and you cannot bind baptism. We can expect people to comply only if there is a pattern of sound words on these matters.
If there is no pattern for proper gospel obedience, then you cannot forbid infant baptism, appealing to Mary, counting beads, or doing cartwheels for salvation.
If there is no proper order, then there is no disorder. Anything we want to do or believe would be acceptable to God. There is a pattern of sound words on how to come into Christ for salvation (Galatians 3:26-27).

For collective worship

(Colossians 3:16-17; I Corinthians 11:17ff; 14:1-34)

If there is no orderly pattern for how to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:21-24), you can make a meal out of the Lord’s Supper and have butterbeans and deviled eggs with tea and banana pudding in memorial to Jesus and call it the Lord’s Supper.
If there is no pattern to follow, we can have animal sacrifices, restore the Old Testament's Tabernacle and priesthood system with burning incense, a table of shewbread, and pray to Mary or Buddha.
If no order is given in the New Testament, then there can be no disorder. Everything goes, including Rock bands, strobe lights, and everyone speaking gibberish (pretending to speak in tongues simultaneously with no interpreter). There can be no disorder if no pattern shows proper order. But there is order in the New Testament's assembled worship, and therefore a pattern to follow.

For the organization of the church

(Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2)??

If there is no pattern on how the church should be organized, then we can have popes, cardinals, synods, clubs, district associations, and state and federal organizations that rule the smaller clubs or churches.
If there is no pattern of church organization seen in the New Testament, then we can accept the priestly caste of Catholics and the anti-priestly caste of the Protestants at the same time.
If there is no order, there is no disorder.

Is there a pattern for the above things? Can we see only disorder and everyone doing as they please in the New Testament? Can we find all the things of Catholicism and, at the same time, all the things of the Protestant churches all used and celebrated in the New Testament? Was Paul a Roman Catholic while Peter was a Lutheran, John a Methodist, and Andrew a Baptist? Or were they all doing the same things, teaching the same things in every church (I Corinthians 4:17; 1:10-13), or were they doing all the random things reflected in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism?

Suppose we see order in the New Testament, no Roman Catholicism, and no various Protestant denominations. In that case, we must go back to the pattern of sound words and be ordered according to the pattern of sound words so that none of these things not seen in the Bible are in play and are not supported and encouraged by us. If there is a pattern of sound words that shows what a church should teach and practice, then that is the will of God for us to teach and practice. No more and no less than what is presented to us in the scriptures that “completely furnish the man of God” (II Timothy 3:16-17). If the Scriptures “completely” furnish us but do not furnish us with how to be Roman Catholics or Protestant denominations and only how to be Christians, then that is the pattern of sound words to follow. We cannot be more or less than Christians following the pattern of sound words. They did that then, and it can and must be done now. There is a pattern of sound words in these matters, and we are not free to ignore or alter them.

God bless all who are determined to abide by the pattern of sound words.

Where does the Bible say the people of Babel defied God?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 19:26:32 +0000

Question:

Good day,

I'm slightly confused about Scripture and interpretation here.

The story of Babel is always propped up as a story of man's defiance of God's will, but nowhere do I see the Bible actually state that they defied God. Yes, they did go against God's command. God wanted people to disperse around the earth, but they didn't want to disperse. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the people deliberately went against God's will, Such as a verse saying something like "they said 'let us defy God.'" Now, obviously, I'm not expecting something so blunt. I'm not a biblical author nor guided by the Holy Spirit, so I don't know how it would have been written. My point is that the people in themselves didn't deliberately defy God. They were egotistical, yes, and they were vain, yes. I agree that they did defy God, just not outright by their own thoughts.

I could be wrong about this. If there is a verse somewhere that says that the people deliberately and decisively defied God, that is the basic message everyone gets from this passage in the Bible, but I don't see it. I see that they did defy God but not deliberately, so yes, they sinned and did wrong. I agree with that point.

Kind regards.

Answer:

While you don't intend this, you are stating that if the Bible doesn't express things explicitly, then it doesn't exist. You make no allowance for necessary inferences from the text. See Possible Inference Versus Necessary Inference. God does expect you to use the mind that He gave you.

God said, "As for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it" (Genesis 9:7). Instead, the people decided, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 11:4). God wanted them to scatter across the earth, but the people decided they didn't want to scatter.

"Defy" means to openly resist or refuse to obey. This is exactly what the people did. It doesn't require finding the exact word in the text; the word aptly describes the situation.

When God confused the languages, the result was that the people were forced to do as God had originally commanded. "So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 11:8-9).

Response:

Thank you so much for your response. I truly appreciate it.

God bless you.

Possible Inference Versus Necessary Inference

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 16:36:44 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

It is "of necessity" (necessary) "a change of the Law" for Jesus to be a priest since He was not a Levite (Hebrews 7:11f). In other words, the evidence of Psalms 110 and Jesus being that priest after the order of Melchizedek forces the necessary implication that the Law of Moses would see a change. That is not a "possible" inference. It is a necessary inference, and God expected us to draw from the evidence that necessary inference.

A "possible" inference would be that Philip could run fast to catch up to the Ethiopian chariot. This inference is unnecessary because the chariot could have been moving slowly, or the angle made it possible to catch up. It could be true that Philip was a fast runner, but that is not a necessary inference.

The Samaritan woman drew a necessary inference that Jesus was a prophet. She considered the evidence more thoroughly and wondered if Jesus was the Christ of prophecy. It was a necessary implication from all evidence available that Jesus is the Christ, but she had not yet considered all the evidence. When you consider only part of the evidence, you may see only possible implications, but you may later see more evidence that moves possible inference into necessary inference. Peter presented enough evidence on the day of Pentecost for people to "know assuredly" (a necessary inference) that "this Jesus you crucified is now both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). When we consider all the evidence, we draw the necessary inference that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. That is no longer a mere "possible" inference. It is a necessary inference when all evidence is fairly analyzed.

People who think Jesus was just a good and wise teacher like Moses or Confucious have not considered all the evidence. Jesus was far greater than Moses and Confucious. He is both Lord and Christ. The total evidence forces that conclusion. It is not a mere "possible inference." It is a necessary inference. There are such things as possible inferences, but there are also necessary inferences drawn from tested and total evidence.

You are a sinner, condemned before God, and in need of the salvation offered in Christ Jesus. That is not a possible inference. That is a necessary inference from the total evidence on that topic. There are such things as "possible inferences," but there are also "necessary inferences." Those who pretend otherwise are showing signs of unreasonableness, which is an inference from the evidence that sometimes mounts up to an inescapable conclusion. God expects us to look at the fruit on a tree and reach the necessary inference of what that fruit is displaying.

Does the type of water matter in baptism?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:11:25 +0000

Question:

Dear Minister,

Thank you for your website. It has a lot of good stuff. It is really awesome. Thanks. And thanks for being willing to answer questions by email.

Is any water type (fresh, chlorinated, salt, a bit muddy, etc) acceptable before God for baptism? As far as I know, no one but me has a concern about this issue, but it is a genuine concern for me.

So, with something like music, they say there's no New Testament example of instruments; therefore, only a capella is acceptable to God. And this is similar or equivalent to offering strange fire like Nadab and Abihu. But with baptism, yes, surely there were freshwater baptisms in biblical examples, but what about baptisms in modern swimming pools (chlorinated) and the ocean (salt)?

I live where many baptisms have been in the ocean or chlorinated swimming pools, as this region has relatively few bodies of fresh water. I've no reason to say that's wrong, and I don't mean to be (or wish to be) divisive. However, I am confused if these water sources are acceptable before God as there are no definitive examples of them (that I can see) in the Bible.

Or rather than being similar or equivalent to offering strange fire, perhaps water (other than freshwater) for baptism is something that anyone is free to choose (i.e., God never put a limit on what water type/s can be used)? Are the options for water in baptism perhaps like the food at the marketplace, where there is no limit on what we can choose to eat (even meat sacrificed to idols if our conscience allows)?

But then if water type in baptism is a free choice like food is a free choice, then why is there not freedom to listen to instrumental worship music if one can still sing and make melody in their heart to God (and not offer the instrumental aspect to God). God did not say never to use musical instruments in the New Testament, but what about tapping your foot, clicking your fingers, or singing sounds that are not words? I'm mainly bringing up the instrumental music issue to understand acceptable water types in baptism.

If I understand it correctly, "water" can have the adjectives for fresh (sweet), bitter and salty applied to it in James 3:11-12, and the adjective "pure" applied to it in Hebrews 10:22. When it was said, "Who can forbid water" by Peter, or "Here is water" by the Ethiopian, or in any other baptism example, there was no defining adjective to specify any preference or otherwise for any given water type/s. I assume they chose the water body based on the nearest convenient one available that was deep enough for immersion; the water types never are mentioned as coming into their decision (though, by example, they possibly were all freshwater?).

Then there's Hebrews 10:22, which states, "having our bodies washed with pure water." I understand this relates to a Jewish Old Testament practice where the Levitical priests could approach God after ceremonial cleansing to encourage the Jewish New Testament Christians (who now have all become part of the non-Levitical royal priesthood) to approach God through Christ. Correct me if I'm wrong there. Also, is it in some way a reference to baptism, and if so, what is the water type for baptism?

Thanks for your timely response.

Answer:

The word "baptize" means to immerse. The medium into which believers are baptized is water. "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10:47). A specific type of water is not commanded, so to add such a requirement is to add restrictions where God has not. The argument would be equivalent to taking the command to sing and saying we can only sing songs that come from the book of Psalms. What is important is that there is sufficient water to immerse the person. "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized" (John 3:23).

If the source of water were important, then it would be required to show either a command where the source was restricted or examples where the source was important to the event.

In Acts 2, three thousand were baptized in Jerusalem. This city does not have streams or rivers flowing through it, but there were many pools that were likely used. People were baptized in Jordan, a muddy river (II Kings 5:12). There were Christians in Laodicea, but we know its water sources were high in mineral content (Laodicea Furred Pipes). Also, keep in mind that some sources of fresh water naturally contain some levels of chlorine. Given the variety of water sources available to Christians, if there were a restriction on the type of water being used, it would be expected to be mentioned. Instead, we find that baptism is commanded to be done in water. Adding additional restrictions based on unnecessary conclusions is subtracting from God's allowances.

In the case of instrumental music, the Old Testament contained commands to use instrumental music and to sing. In the New Testament, all the commands are to sing. The use of instruments is noticeably absent. In addition, playing instruments and singing are two different types of music. There are commands to sing but not to play an instrument. In other words, playing an instrument is not a type of singing. You can't fulfill the command to sing by playing an instrument.

However, I can fulfill the command to baptize in water in whatever kind of water is present -- clear, muddy, filtered, mineral water, flowing stream, ocean water, or pool. Each is still a baptism in water.

In regards to Hebrews 10:19-22:

A new and living way before God was consecrated by Jesus through his sacrifice on the cross (John 14:6). It is new because Jesus’ sacrifice was not like the sacrifices under the Old Testament and the way into the kingdom is not like the way under the Old Testament. It is living because Jesus did not remain dead, as did the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament. It is also living because Jesus’ sacrifice is ever-giving, much like Jesus’ comments about “living water” in John 4:10-14.

The writer then explains what that way is:

Faith: Drawing near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:22). When we come to God to worship, we must do so sincerely (John 4:23-24) without doubt. There is no need for doubt, given Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf.
Repentance: Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (Hebrews 10:22). The sacrifices of the Old Testament could not make the conscience perfect (Hebrews 9:9), but Jesus’ sacrifice does purify us. There is no more guilt because we know we have been forgiven.
Baptism: Having our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22). Under the Old Law, the priest had to wash before coming before God (Leviticus 16:24). Christians, too, wash before serving God (I Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-7; Ephesians 5:25-27). But purity does not refer to a physical cleansing. "... baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21). While we are baptized in water, it symbolizes being baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27). Thus, the purity is a reference to Jesus.
Confession: We hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering (Hebrews 10:23). Our confession of Jesus is not a one-time event but a manner of life (Romans 10:8-11). Because God keeps His promises faithfully, we must remain loyal to Him (I Thessalonians 5:23-24; II Thessalonians 3:3). Here, the writer returns to the same topic mentioned in Hebrews 6:9-19.
Obedience - Provoking one another unto love and good works (Hebrews 10:24). Again, the writer brings up the topic he mentioned in Hebrews 6:9-11. God has shown His love toward us, so we must stir up the same love and desire to obey in each other (I Thessalonians 4:9; I Peter 1:22; I John 3:16-18).
Fellowship: We should not forsake our own assembling together (Hebrews 10:25). It is in the times we gather together to worship that we can encourage each other to greater service. This becomes increasingly urgent as we see Judgment Day approaching. Jesus’ death is proof that Judgment is coming (Acts 17:31).

Jesus is our High Priest who oversees those traveling that way (Hebrews 10:21; 3:6; I Timothy 3:15).

Response:

Wow, thank you. I get that. I've wondered about water types in baptism for maybe 20 years or more and have never understood it before, and wondered if I ever would, but I get what you have said! Many thanks. And thanks for your extremely efficient response, too.

Kind regards.

What If I Want to Eat the Cake I Have?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 07 Mar 2024 14:47:13 +0000

by Perry Hall

"You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Well, you can't eat your cake unless you have it in the first place, so duh!
Then again, to "have" can mean to "eat" as a synonym.
Why would one have a cake if they didn't want to eat it?
This would all make more sense if we changed it to, "You can't have your Kate and your Edith, too."

This has been an exercise in Bible interpretation.

ERROR #1 ‐ The Bible, like all religions, says things that are already known to be common sense, such as murder is wrong. Religion is unnecessary.
ERROR #2 - The Bible is nonsense because you can "have" (eat) your cake and eat it too." Just redefine everything into a contradiction.
ERROR #3 - The Bible (i.e., God) just wants to control us. There is nothing immoral about eating cake. My cake, my choice.
ERROR #4 - The Bible is filled with errors.

Or, we can do the hard work and strive to understand it. For example, flip the sentence order (i.e., use a different translation) and it makes sense - "You can't eat your cake and (still) have it too". It has the same words, one added for clarification, but now we see how we had imposed upon the reading our misunderstanding. Once you eat the cake, you no longer have it. So, the proverb means you can't possess something for the future if you use it now. You can't have $5 and spend it too. Having seen that, even the original word order makes sense: You can't have your cake (i.e., continually possess into the future) and eat it too (i.e., use it now).

Yes, this was a silly exercise in some ways, but people presumed the meaning of "You can't have your cake and eat it too" that was never intended by the original author. People do that with God's word. Plus, isn't it presumptuous to think my way of saying something is the only way?