ON
DOCTRINE INFORMATION
The GOOD NEWS
Messages Sent To On Doctrine
2008
All Messages Reproduced As Received Without Correction Or Alteration
Names and e-mail addresses removed in accord with the On Doctrine Privacy Policy
Messages are unverified as to content or accuracy
All responses labeled ON DOCTRINE NOTE are by Gary A. Hand unless stated differently
#1
Thanks so much for the wealth of information and links that you have.
God bless you
United States
[75-Vol 2]
#2
I would just like to thank you for that honest article that you wrote about TBN, and prosperity teachers.
My husband is a [name of church removed - ed.] minister, and has
preached against this doctrine for years. You did a wonderful job of exposing their unbiblical
teachings.
Thanks again,
United States
[82-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
SEE the articles:
"Paul Crouch and TBN"
"Paul Crouch and Giving and Receiving Doctrine"
#3
Hi,
Great website! I read the article on the Antichrist. Near the end of it you mention that there is
no annihilation of the wicked. I have attempted to find each of the Greek words that are translated
"hell." I found 4 (with one that translates from a similar word. I don't understand the Greek text and
how they refer to present or future times. Do any of the words translated "hell" refer to a present time
"hell"? the 4 I have looked up all seem to refer to a future burning ( I am guessing the fire of Rev 20
that comes down from God on the wicked).
The only conclusion I have so far is that I don't see an eternal burning. I find the words "forever and
ever" but I have found from commentaries in the Hebrew language that this can mean a person's life
time, as in Ex 21:6 or a shorter period of time as in Jonah 2:6.
And if there is a burning going on now and has been since the fall of the human race into sin, I am not
sure how this speaks to the fairness of god. I mean, Cain killed his brother thousands of year ago.
If a criminal kills a cashier at a 7-11 store today and the criminal gets killed by the police in a shootout
wouldn't he go to hell?
I guess my question is about the fairness of God at this point. Why would Cain have to suffer thousands
of years for the same crime as the criminal who dies today for killing a human? Is it fair of God to
punish
Cain for a longer period of time simply because he was born sooner than the criminal?
thank you,
United States
[85-Vol 2]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I think, in relation to your question about the fairness of God, you must consider that the
punishment is in relation to the nature and severity of the sin which also takes into consideration
the length of the penalty. Punishment for one person is not necessarily the same for another
person depending on the type of sin. If we believe that God is all-knowing, then it is not difficult
to consider that He would adjust the severity of punishment based on the time element.
There are several articles on the On Doctrine website that you can read. They are in .pdf format,
so you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed.
"Hell: Never, Forever, Or Just For Awhile?"
Richard L. Mayhue
www.ondoctrine.com/2may0003.pdf
"Jesus' View Of Eternal Punishment"
Robert L. Thomas
www.ondoctrine.com/2tho0003.pdf
"Paul's Concept Of Eternal Punishment"
James E. Rosscup
www.ondoctrine.com2ros0001.pdf
"Eternal Punishment In John's Revelation"
Trevor P. Craigen
www.ondoctrine.com/2cra0002.pdf
"A Kinder Gentler Theology Of Hell?"
Larry D. Petegrew
www.ondoctrine.com/2pet0002.pdf
I hope this helps.
#4
I am new to your writings which I stumbled upon while doing some research on some key speakers
who would be sharing this week at a church I was invited to attend.
THANK YOU for your dedication and commitment to speak out against those things that are not
truth!! I am Charismatic/Pentecostal in that I am born again and filled with His Holy Spirit but I am in
complete agreement with what you have shared concerning Rick Godwin's and Benny Hinn's ministries.
Emotionalism will NEVER replace being led of the Spirit!
In these perilous times, it's all the more urgent and important to discern the "truth" coming forth and
measure it against the Word. Reading your work is most refreshing and I would encourage you to
continue with what you are doing.
I am blessed to attend a church in [name and place removed-ed.]
whose pastor is balanced in the Word and measures all things against the weight of scripture! The
more I read in books and hear in CDs and DVDs, the more I realize what a drought there seems to be
of scriptural truth in the teachings coming forth into the Church. Very dangerous to flow in that
stream!
Blessings to you, sir.
United States
[96-Vol 2]
#5
Nobody, except Mr. Hand
What do you say Christ meant when he said Lazurus was sleeping!
United States
[111-Vol 3]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Luke explains what Jesus meant by "sleep" in John 11:11-12 and Jesus explains in John
11:13.
"Then His disciples said, 'Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.'
However Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in
sleep.
Then Jesus said to them plainly, 'Lazarus is dead'."
Sleep is a euphemism for death, which is something very different than the concept that sleep is a state
of being after death.
#6
My name is [name removed] and I just wanted to thank this site for the
truth of what the bible truly says. I know you have been under the gun because of your strong stand for
biblical truth and exposing the works of evil, but I just wanted to encourage your efforts. I too have
often been called a troublemaker when trying to expose certain wolves in sheeps clothing, but I know
that if we love souls and if we love the brethren we must also warn them of the dangers that these false
apostles teach. I stand behind you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and if I don't see you here I
will see you in the air. May God continue to bless you and your family along with this site.
United States
[136-Vol 3]
#7
Hello,
I have come across a claim online by a non-believer that the Messiah must be a biological descendant
of Solomon, rather than just David.
I know the genealogy Luke gives is of Mary, while the one in the Gospel of Matthew is of Joseph but,
this person whom I heard this from is saying that the Messiah has to be descended from King David via
Solomon for which he cites 2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:7-10, 28:4-6. He also claims
that there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. So, basically
he is saying is that because Mary, whose genealogy is listed in Luke, is not descended from Solomon
but from Nathan and that Joseph who was descended from Solomon but, not Christ's real father that
this is allegedly 'proof' that Jesus isn't the Messiah.
I did some research on the claims of this guy and apparently he got them from this article written by a
Rabbi Shraga Simmons here:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/whyyoushouldnotbelieveinjesus.html
Does the Bible say the Messiah has to be just from David? Would someone from the line of Nathan be
just as legitimate for the title as someone from the line of Solomon? Or is this guy correct that the Bible
says that the Messiah has to be biologically descended from Solomon?
I would really appreciate it if you could help me out with this or direct me to someone who could, as I
am extremely confused by this.
Thanks in advance,
[139-Vol 3]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Welcome to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.
I have seen this question with identical wording circulating in a number of places on the Internet. If you
have been asking the question, you are very diligent in your efforts. The subject is very interesting and
has many ramifications in relation to Christian doctrine. Here is a brief answer to the issue.
Joseph was a descendant of David through Solomon and Mary was a descendant of David through
Nathan. The substance of the argument is that the lineage through Joseph, which is direct from
Solomon, does not apply to Jesus since Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, therefore the
benefits of an inheritance could not be passed on to Jesus. That is simply rank error, since a man who
was childless could adopt and pass on the inheritance by that means. Of course, Joseph and Mary did
have biological children, but the right of the adopted first-born would take precedence over the rights of
any future biological children, especially if that was the desire of the father.
There is biblical precedent for a man passing on his descent through adoption, because of the provision
made by Moses and ratified by God in Numbers 27:1-11. Verses 7-11 are very specific regarding the
provision. cf. Numbers 36.
Even Abraham had adopted Eliezer of Damascus as his heir who was not even of the same ethnic origin
as Abraham, Genesis 15.
The Bible says that the Messiah was from the lineage of David, so the possibility that He could have
come from any other lineage is moot:
- "He will be called great and will be called he Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give
Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom
will have no end,"
Luke 1:32-33 (NAS).
Joseph, the husband of Mary, carried the royal privilege by means of his descent from Solomon. Also
in the royal lineage was Jeconiah, Matthew 1:12, whose sin God judged by denying the throne to any of
his future descendants, Jeremiah 22:30. Had Jesus Christ been a blood descendant of Joseph, He
would have been denied the divine right to rule on the throne of David through Solomon by direct
command of God, although his legal right to rule which was conveyed through his step-father, Joseph,
was preserved. However, as a blood descendant of David through Nathan and his mother, Mary, Jesus
Christ had the human right to rule.
The curse against Jeconiah would have prevented Jesus Christ from asserting His kingship,
however, as a consequence of his adoption by Joseph, Jesus Christ fulfilled the requirement of being a
descendant of Solomon, although there was no direct blood relationship. As a result of the blood
relationship of his mother to David, Jesus Christ fulfilled the requirement of being a literal descendant of
David with the right to rule. The prohibition against future blood descendants of Jeconiah was
circumvented by the adoption of Jesus Christ by Joseph and His royal privilege was preserved in
addition to the fact that He was a descendant of David, both by adoption and by blood descent.
Had Joseph been the biological father of Jesus, then Jesus would have been disqualified from inheriting
the kingdom as a result of the curse against Jeconiah, even though he had a descent from David through
His mother. However, Jesus Christ was of the Holy Spirit by a creative act, so Joseph was a
step-father with no biological relationship, which required that Jesus be a son by adoption, because
Joseph was a direct biological descendant of Solomon. But, Joseph had planned to break the
engagement with Mary by writing a bill of divorcement, which probably meant that Jesus Christ would
never have had a step-father with a lineal descent from Solomon. The situation required the direct
intervention by God through a visit to Joseph by an angel, and as a consequence he went ahead with
the marriage to Mary.
The fragile nature of the situation is revealed in the unusual statement made by the angel Gabriel to
Mary when he told her about the impending birth:
- "He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the
throne of His father David,"
Luke 1:32 (NKJV).
The statement indicates that it was God who was in control of the situation and had the power to grant
or withhold the kingdom at His will and controlled the circumstances that brought about the result. God
made the same statement to David in relation to the future reign of Solomon:
- "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will sent up your seed after you,
who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name,
and I will establish the throme of His kingdom forever,"
2 Samuel 7:12-13 (NKJV).
Another aspect of the issue is the fact that God had promised David that his descendant (Solomon)
would build the temple and that he would have a throne forever, 2 Samuel 7:13. The curse against
Jeconiah effectively cut off the kingly line of Solomon with no possibility that it could be restored, so it
would appear that God's promise was voided and that He had made a tragic mistake. The adoption of
Jesus Christ by Joseph restored the kingly line of Solomon and the reality that Jesus Christ lives forever
fulfills the promise that the kingdom of David through Solomon would exist forever and that the
kingdom of David would be preserved through two lines of descent, both culminating in the kingship of
Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ was a son of David by biological descent through the lineage of Mary, but He was a son of
David and Solomon and a king by adoption and appointment by God. The parallel to Christians is
striking because we have our inheritance as sinners by direct biological descent from Adam, but we are
children (sons) of God by adoption, Galatians 4:1-7, we are appointed to a kingdom through Jesus
Christ, Revelation 1:6, and all has been controlled by God, Ephesians 1:3-7.
#8
I wish to comment on the article written by Gary Hand re: Mathew 18:15-19. I went back to Mathew
Henry's Commentaries and he went into it deeper than what Mr. Hand did. The overview was
similar, however, MH did say:-
[2.] They are hereby directed to gather together in Christ's name. In the exercise of church discipline,
they must come together in the name of Christ, 1 Co. 5:4. That name gives to what they do an authority
on earth, and an acceptableness in heaven. In meeting or worship, we must have an eye to Christ; must
come together by virtue of his warrant and appointment, in token of our relation to him, professing faith
in him, and in communion with all that in every place call upon him. When we come together, to
worship God in a dependence upon the Spirit and grace of Christ as Mediator for assistance, and upon
his merit and righteousness as Mediator for acceptance, having an actual regard to him as our Way to
the Father, and our Advocate with the Father, then we are met together in his name.
[3.] They are hereby encouraged with an assurance of the presence of Christ; There am I in the midst
of them. By his common presence he is in all places, as God; but this is a promise of his special
presence. Where his saints are, his sanctuary is, and there he will dwell; it is his rest (Ps. 132:14), it is
his walk (Rev. 2:1); he is in the midst of them, to quicken and strengthen them, to refresh and comfort
them, as the sun in the midst of the universe. He is in the midst of them, that is, in their hearts; it is a
spiritual presence, the presence of Christ's Spirit with their spirits, that is here intended. There am I, not
only I will be there, but I am there; as if he came first, is ready before them, they shall find him there; he
repeated this promise at parting (ch. 28:20), Lo, I am with you always. Note, The presence of Christ in
the assemblies of Christians is promised, and may in faith be prayed for and depended on; There am I.
This is equivalent to the Shechinah, or special presence of God in the ta [part
of comment lost in transmission] . . .
Though but two or three are met together, Christ is among them; this is an encouragement to the
meeting of a few, when it is either, First, of choice. Besides the secret worship performed by particular
persons, and the public services of the whole congregation, there may be occasion sometimes for two
or three to come together, either for mutual assistance in conference or joint assistance in prayer, not in
contempt of public worship, but in concurrence with it; there Christ will be present. Or, Secondly, By
constraint; when there are not more than two or three to come together, or, if there be, they dare not,
for fear of the Jews, yet Christ will be in the midst of them, for it is not the multitude, but the faith and
sincere devotion, of the worshippers, that invites the presence of Christ; and though there be but two or
three, the smallest number that can be, yet, it Christ make one among them, who is the principal one,
their meeting is as honourable and comfortable as if they were two or three thousand.
The fact that Mathew 18:15-19 is being misrespresented one way does not negate what Jesus did
say. I feel that Mr. Hand should explain it a little better than leaving the reader to "throw
out the baby with the bath water".
Sincerely
United States
[158-Vol 4]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I always find Matthew Henry to be very interesting and I enjoy reading his comments, however, like
many commentators, he has a tendency to place certain elements into passages that are not actually in
the text. I don't think it is correct to read into the narrative elements that are not specifically present, but
Matthew Henry has done that in this case.
The major issue that must be considered is the fact that the incident being described Jesus never
actually happened, because it is a story created by Jesus Christ as an illustration, so it cannot be
claimed that the individuals did anything apart from what Jesus Christ presented in the narrative. The
illustration is simply an instruction or a blueprint presented by Jesus Christ in relation to how the issues
of personal offense and habitually sinning believers should be approached and resolved within the
church. Matthew Henry approaches the narrative as if it had been an actual real-world occurrence and
then speculates and indicates that there were certain actions performed by the participants but are just
not stated in the text. Since the incident was not a real occurrence, that is not a viable position to take.
1. There are a number of particulars that the participants are commanded to do, but the narrative does
not specifically state that they were to gather in the name of Jesus Christ.
"They are hereby directed to gather together in Christ's name. In the exercise of church discipline,
they must come together in the name of Christ, 1 Cor [5] v. 4."
--- Matthew Henry's Commentary, vol. 5, p. 261.
What Jesus Christ said was, "When two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the
midst of them.," vs. 20. It is presumed that they would gather in His name, but it is not specifically stated
or commanded.
Is it to be presumed that if two or three true believers gather for some other reason, that Jesus Christ
would not be present? That would be the converse to the claim. That cannot be true, since Jesus Christ
said that He would be present even if there is only one believer, Matthew 28:20. However, there is a
unique manner in which Jesus Christ is present in relation to Matthew 18:20, and that presence is in
relation to the nature of the gathering. In certain gatherings for certain specific purposes, Jesus Christ is
present in a unique relationship to the participants. His presence is connected to the statement in verse
19, "it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven." Just as Jesus Christ is the
Mediator of salvation between man and God, He is also the Facilitator between the church and the
decision made in the manner of the discipline of the sinning believer that assures its acceptability to God
even in the heavenly sphere. The acceptability to God is confirmed when the individuals follow the
pattern set by Jesus Christ and make their decisions within the parameters that He stated and they have
met with the specific purpose to impose the substance of those parameters. Matthew Henry seems to
agree:
"That name gives to what they do an authority on earth, and an acceptableness in heaven."
--- Matthew Henry Commentary, vol. 5, p. 261.
Gathering together in the name of Jesus Christ for a specific reason, is very different from a gathering of
Christians who might simply be together, such as a recreational activity. Truly Jesus Christ is present
even in those circumstances, but not granting the same authority and solemnity as a meeting under the
auspices of the name of Jesus Christ in order to accomplish the substance of a direct teaching by Him.
2. Matthew Henry also goes farther in his in his application of the narrative.
"Every believer has the presence of Christ with him; but the promise here refers to the meetings
where two or three are gathered in his name, not only for discipline, but for religious worship, or any act
of Christian communion. Assemblies of Christians for holy purposes are hereby appointed, directed,
and encouraged."
--- Matthew Henry Commentary, vol. 5, p. 261.
I would not dispute the fact that "Assemblies of Christians for holy purposes are hereby
appointed, directed, and encouraged," but those professions are found in other portions of the
Scripture, but not in verse 20, which is specifically confined to the issue of discipline. Worship and
communion are not subjects that were introduced or discussed in the narrative, so it is not proper to
infer of claim that they have a place there or are being referred to by Jesus Christ.
3. There is no prayer commanded or mentioned in the example given by Jesus Christ, so it is not an
example of a special pleading to God or of taking requests to Him by means of individual or corporate
prayer. Since the narrative is an example created and presented by Jesus Christ, it is improper to insert
into His teaching an action that He did not include or command as an example. Yet, Matthew Henry
presumes that the issue to which is agreed upon is then asked of God by means of a prayer. Although
he does not go as far as those persons today who see verse 19 as a "prayer of agreement"
in relation to virtually every possible subject of agreement that God must honor, he does see the
agreement and the request being a prayer to God for His blessing, which, again is not what Jesus Christ
said.
"Many promises we have in scriptures of a gracious answer to the prayers of faith, but this gives
a particular encouragement to joint-prayer; 'the requests which two of you agree in, much more which
many agree in'. . . . Note, Christ has been pleased to put an honour upon, and to allow a special
efficacy in, the joint-prayers of the faithful, and the common supplications they make to God. If they
join in the same prayer, if they meet by appointment to come together to the throne of grace on some
special errand, or, though at a distance, agree in some particular matter of prayer, they shall speed well.
Besides the general regard God has to the prayers of the saints, he is particularly pleased with their
union and communion in those prayer. . . . In particular, to those requests that are put up to God about
binding and loosing; to which this promise seems more especially to refer. . . . Prayer must evermore go
along with church discipline. Pass no sentence, which you cannot in faith ask God to confirm. The
binding and loosing spoken of (ch. xvi. 19) was done by preaching, this by praying. Thus the whole
power of gospel ministers is resolved into the word and prayer, to which they must wholly give
themselves. He doth not say, 'If you shall agree to sentence and decree a thing, it shall be done' (as if
ministers were judges and lords); but, 'If you agree to ask it of God, from him you shall obtain it'."
--- Matthew Henry Commentary, vol. 5, p. 261.
His statements would presume that God would have to answer either audibly or by a sign in order to
confirm the request, or else the actions resulting in the pray would have been pointless exercises in
futility. However, that is not what Jesus Christ said. It is very good that prayer should be offered to God
in the manner of requesting guidance, speaking to and understanding properly the issues and granting a
proper attitude toward the situation. However, prayers go amiss when they are given in relation to
actions that God has already decreed in relation to their outcome and need no further confirmation by
Him. Such is the case in the passage, because Jesus Christ gave the specific teaching regarding the
process and the resulting decisions that were to be made at each step, based on the response of the
individual.
The passage goes far beyond any idea that it is teaching about prayer or the authority of the church or
any group of believers who claim to be gathered in the name of Jesus Christ in the manner of
congregational worship or other Christian purposes. The issue of church discipline was of preeminent
concern to Jesus Christ, such that He gave the instruction regarding its implementation. His teaching is
complete within itself, so the attempt to make the elements of that teaching apply to other situations
demeans its importance.
#9
Thanks for your web site. I love it.
I just got the book "The way of the Master" and this web site was in it at the end of one of the chapters.
I love the book, it has changed my life so much.
For the first time I am being persecuted for my faith and I've been saved for almost 20 years now.
Anyways, Thanks for your site I will be coming back to it alot.
United States
[168-Vol 4]
#10
I just found you and your remarks on Kenneth Copeland on your website. I also read the article by
the outraged disciple of Copeland. These people have allowed Satan to place a veil over their
eyes. They cannot recognize the truth when it is placed in front of them.
Thank you for standing up for the Scriptures. These types of preachers are doing enormous damage to
the church. No wonder we don't see revival in the land. People go to a good church, hear the sermon
of a good, sound preacher and go home and write a check to these people. God cannot bless a
mess. We need a real house cleaning in the House of God.
#11
I just found you and your remarks on Kenneth Copeland on your website. I also read the article by the
outraged disciple of Copeland. These people have allowed Satan to place a veil over their eyes. They
cannot recognize the truth when it is placed in front of them.
Thank you for standing up for the Scriptures. These types of preachers are doing enormous damage to
the church. No wonder we don't see revival in the land. People go to a good church,
hear the sermon of a good, sound preacher and go home and write a check to these people. God
cannot bless a mess. We need a real house cleaning in the House of God.
United States
[241-Vol 5]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.
I am sorry to be late with my reply. I have been away from the website and am now trying to get caught
up on my mail.
I appreciate your comments. There is probably no other high visibility television preacher who teachers
more heretical doctrines than Kenneth Copeland. There is hardly an Orthodox doctrine that he has not
changed to fit his theology, and his followers cannot tell the difference. It is quite amazing.
There are a couple of articles on the website that refer to Kenneth Copeland:
Un-quotable Quotes
www.ondoctrine.com/unquotes/copekenn.htm
Kenneth Copeland: What Did He Say?
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3word001.htm
Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Mark 11:12-23 and False Prophecies
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3word004.htm
Kenneth Copeland: Touching God's Anointed?
www.ondoctrine.com/conversa/3word006.htm
#12
Please explain Matthew chapter 25:vs 24,25 and 26. Speaking of Jesus as a hard man and reaping
where you have not sown. thank you.
United States
[254-Vol 6]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Welcome to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.
Matthew 25:14-30 is known as the Parable of the Talents, and is the last of 11 parables in the Book of
Matthew that refer to the "kingdom of heaven," and are introduced by the phrase,
"The kingdom of heaven is like . . ." Although this parable does not contain that phrase, it is
introduced as a continuation from the parable of the 10 Virgins, 25:1-13, and is prefaced by,
"For it is just like a man traveling . . ."
The "like" is the comparative term in relation to the "kingdom of heaven" in
verse 1. The parables are pictures designed to illustrate what Jesus was teaching at the time. These
kingdom parables were presented to illustrate the reality that Jesus was coming back again and that a
person should be ready, because there would be a judgment of those who do not believe and accept
the gospel, and rewards given to believers who are ready.
The parables do not have exact counterparts in the kingdom of heaven that correspond to every detail
in the parables themselves. They are general statements designed to give an overall understanding of the
nature of what Jesus was trying to convey.
The parables contain the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," but other passages in the Scripture
refer to the "kingdom of God." The terms are synonymous with each other and refer to the
realm of God's rule through Jesus Christ. That realm can refer to the body of the church which are the
true believers, or it can also refer to Christendom in general, where there are true believers and those
who claim to be believers but are actually not genuine. The parable of the 10 Virgins and this parable of
the Talents refer to that second definition in which there are true and false believers in the
narrative.
As a general rule, the kingdom parables are a comparison and contrast of the true and the false
believers in relation to how they are either prepared or not prepared for the coming of Jesus Christ and
the judgment that will follow. In other words, whether they have salvation or are still lost. It is the nature
of their preparation which determines the outcome of their profession of faith, and that is true in this
Parable of the Talents.
The man who went on the long journey is obviously Jesus Christ, and the length of the journey indicates
that He planned to be gone for a considerable period of time. He called His three servants together and
entrusted the management of His affairs to them. They were his slaves and represent the sphere of his
authority and realm of His possessions. The fact that they were His, refers to the fact that they represent
the outward organization of the church, or the general constituents who claim to be a part of the church
and believe the message that is being presented. It does not necessarily mean that they were His as true
believers. Jesus referred to the 12 as His disciples, but Judas was a traitor and not a true believer or
disciple, yet he did receive certain gifts such as those given to the 12 in Matthew 10:1-15, and so it will
be in this parable also.
To the servants, the master gave a sum of money or value. To the first he gave five talents, to the
second two talents and to the third one talent. Each was given an amount that corresponded to his
ability and they were charged to manage the amount in the absence of the landowner. A talent was a
measure of weight, so it is unknown if it was a talent of silver or gold or some other valuable
commodity. It is not important what the commodity actually was, but only the comparison between
what the three were given in relation to what they could do with what they were given. Each talent was
the same weight, but the numbers given to each were different.The key to the comparison of the slaves
is the standard used by the master, "each according to his own ability."
The talents represent the range of the gifts granted to the church and the responsibility of those who
possess them and the extent of their responsibility, from those who have the greatest to those who have
the least. As such, the slaves represent the entire range of professing Christian believers, from those
who have responded the greatest to the gospel message and have taken advantage of and used their
spiritual gifts to the highest level, to those who have abandoned any pretext of being a true believer or
faithful servant.
The test began when the master left, and ended with his return, corresponding to the time between the
ascension and second coming of Jesus Christ. At his return, the master called his slaves for an
accounting of the responsibility that had been given to them.
The first two slaves, who had received five and two talents respectively, had gone out and successfully
traded them over the period of time that the landowner was gone and had doubled the amount that they
had been given. They both gave the master a compliment as an acknowledgement of thanks that he had
"entrusted to me" the talents. For them the man was a master who granted opportunities for
service and rewarded success. The master responded with commendations to both, "Well done,
good and faithful slave."
The response of the third slave, who had been given one talent, was quite different. His response was in
keeping with his action in relation to the one talent. He did nothing with that which was entrusted to him,
but instead, buried it in the ground and then went about his everyday business with no concern for that
which he was responsible and did nothing to effect a return as an investment so that the master would
receive some benefit from his assignment of trust. He did not even deposit the money in the bank so that
it would earn interest due to the efforts of others.
The slave's response to the master was to present an excuse, blaming the master for the slave's own
failure. So, he attempted to opt out of responsibility for his own unfaithfulness, preferring to blame
someone else for what he did not do by his own choice, "Master, I knew you to be a hard man,
reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and
went away and hid your talent in the ground; see, you have what is yours." The other two slaves,
who had been given twice as much and five times as much responsibility made no such charge against
the mastern, but had been faithful to their responsibility.
The two faithful slaves viewed the master and their responsibility to him in a much different light than the
third slave, who represents the person who professes to be a Christian but does not really know God,
and sees Him as an unjust tyrant who demands a standard of performance that is impossible to meet.
The slave judged the master by his own personal standard of unbelief, and charged him with deviant
characteristics that were designed only to justify his own faithlessness and lack of responsibility.
The master's reply was in keeping with the character of the slave, by which he answered with a dripping
hypocritical response. If the slave really believed that the master reaped where he did not sow and
gathered where he scattered no seed, then he should have been motivated to the extreme in order to
assure that the master would have a return on the money that had been entrusted to him, so the master
revealed to the slave the ridiculous and unacceptable nature of his reply. The master charged the slave
with an attitude and conduct that was descriptive of his true character, "You wicked, lazy slave . .
. Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my
money back with interest." The master's judgment was perfectly valid, because the slave was
primarily lazy, not even taking the time and effort to deposit the money in the bank and showed no
concern for the responsibility which he had been entrusted. He was wicked, because he slandered the
character and integrity of the master, actually accusing him of being a thief, without a foundation to do
so, in order to cover his own corrupt conduct.
The final act is the judgment by the master in his role as Jesus Christ as the judge of the righteous and
the unrighteous. The slave was an unbeliever, and the key to that understanding is in the reason stated
for the judgment, "For to everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance;
but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. And cast
out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth. Jesus Christ made an almost identical statement previously, "To everyone who has shall
more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but the one who does not have, even what he
does have shall be taken away," Matthew 13:12.
What the slave did not have was salvation, but what he did have and had been given by the master
himself, was enlightenment and the possibility of obtaining salvation, represented by the talent, which he
buried and ignored, and then provided his own judgment against the master who he did not even know,
by his own choice.
The same lesson is found in the parable of the 10 Virgins, 5 had oil for their lamps and 5 had lamps but
had not brought any oil. The bridegroom came when they were sleeping, and the 5 without oil for their
lamps were prevented from entering to attend the wedding feast. Again, the 5 foolish virgins had
enlightenment, because they were waiting for the bridegroom and were planning to attend the wedding
feast, but they did not have true salvation, represented by the oil, so they missed the opportunity that
was presented to them, just as the slave missed the opportunity given to him.
The sadness in both parables is the fact that the foolish virgins and the wicked slave represent the
tragedy of lost opportunity that can never be recovered and never be extended to them again. They
were extended knowledge and the ability to obtain salvation that was lost, and the appearance of the
bridegroom and the master, who both represent Jesus Christ, was at the final judgment when the time
for salvation had was past and they had to accept the judgment against them for unbelief. For all the
parties, the judgment was rejection by Jesus Christ. The foolish virgins were told, "Truly I say to
you, I do not know you," and the judgment against the slave was, "Throw out the worthless
slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Far from being a hard man and a reaper of that which He did not sow, the master was a benevolent
man who had offered the opportunity for salvation that was ignored and rejected, resulting in a
judgment that was deserved because it had been earned by the hardness of the hearts of those who
deliberately chose not to accept the gifts and knowledge that had been given.
In the verse posted on the home page of the On Doctrine website, Jesus Christ explains the true nature
of His character and the nature of the burden that He places on individuals, and it is evident that the
slave did not know Him or the nature of the gospel message that had been granted to him.
"Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will
find rest for your souls."
Matthew 11:29
Verse 30 continues, "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
I hope this helps.
#13
Mr. Hand:
I found your website while researching the web for information about certain
evangelistic TV preachers whose teachings/activities I had misgivings about. I wanted to know
more, because even though I felt something was not "right", I couldn't pinpoint why. Thank you for
your website. You are a very intelligent man, detailing your arguments and opinions for understanding
and backing them with scripture, which is the end-all and be-all for me. Your writings make
sense and I no longer feel guilty when I get a bad taste in my mouth after listening to Benny Hinn,
Marilyn Hickey, Paul Crouch, and a few others.
I do have a question for you. You state that the "healer" evangelists only
heal unseen conditions which cannot be proven; they never mend retardation, missing limbs, etc.
I agree, but in the Bible, I am not aware of a reference where Jesus healed this type of condition,
either. No doubt, there were hundreds of healings not anecdoted in scripture during Christ's
ministry, but does that omission prove he couldn't heal them? Would you respond, please,
because Benny Hinn could make the claim that even Jesus didn't heal these afflictions so why should he
be criticized for the same thing!
United States
[263-Vol 6]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
Welcome to On Doctrine.
Your question is very interesting, because I have not heard it asked in that manner before. Most of the
healers avoid any comparison of their claims to the performance of Jesus Christ and the apostles,
because they cannot accomplish healings on any level of comparison. Most of them prefer to place the
blame for failure on the person who requires the healing, generally claiming that it is a lack of faith that
prevents God from acting on their behalf. So, not only is the person sick or disabled, it is also their own
fault, which is a cruel assertion on the part of the healer, but reveals their true inner character.
Given a situation in which the healer would be forced to defend their performance, I think most of them
would adopt any excuse possible, and that certainly could include a claim that Jesus Christ didn't really
heal every disease or condition.
The New Testament is not a comprehensive history book and the portion devoted specifically to the life
and ministry of Jesus is only a small fraction of the three and one-half years in which He performed
miracles, John 21:25. The miracles that were selected for inclusion in the narrative were placed there to
illustrate specific points that the authors were presenting and not as representative of every type of
healing that He accomplished. However, the miracles do represent the full range of power that was
possessed by Jesus Christ.
1. Power over Nature
Water turned to wine, John 2:1-11
The storm stilled, Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25.
2. Power over the actions of human beings
The powerless condition of the soldiers and Jewish leaders who came to arrest Jesus, John
18:6.
3. Power over the supernatural
The demons in the two Gadarene men, Matthew 8:28-34.
4. Power over disease
Ten lepers, Luke 17:11-19.
5. Power over death and life
Raising of Lazarus from the dead, John 11:1-44.
Jesus did heal in a number of instances that I would include in the list of missing appendages and mental
conditions.
1. At his arrest, when Peter cut off the ear of Malchus, Jesus touched the ear and it was healed, Luke
22:49-51. It might be true that He used the same ear to effect a restoration rather than creating a new
ear, but the difference between those two alternatives is not very significant. I am reminded of the
healing of the paralytic, Matthew 9:2-8, when Jesus said to the scribes, "Which is easier to say, 'Your
sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'?" The same could be said in relation to Malchus' ear,
Which is easier, to make a new one or re-attach the old one?
2. Jesus healed a young man who was considered to be a lunatic, having the signs of mental illness,
Matthew 17:14-20. The symptoms were the result of the demon, nevertheless they were
indistinguishable from other symptoms of mental illness.
Although there are no specific incidents described, the Scripture is not silent on the extent of the
healings that were accomplished by Jesus:
"The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those
suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them."
Matthew 4:24 (NAS)
"While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to
Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them."
Luke 4:40 (NAS)
"And large crowds came to Him, bringing with them those who were lame, crippled, blind, mute, and
many others, and they laid them down at His feet; and He healed them. So the crowd marveled as they
saw the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they
glorified the God of Israel."
Matthew 15:30-31 (NAS)
"Wherever He entered villages, or cities, or countryside, they were laying the sick in the market places,
and imploring Him that they might just touch the fringe of his cloak; and as many as touched it were
being cured."
Mark 6:56 (NAS)
"Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a large crowd of His disciples,
and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon,
who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with
unclean spirits were being cured. An all the people were trying to touch Him, for power was coming
from him and healing them all."
Luke 6:17-19 (NAS)
When all of the specific descriptive miracles of Jesus are combined with the general lists, the magnitude
of His healing ministry is staggering. From morning until night, wherever He went, there were throngs of
people pressing in upon Him, pleading for their own healing or the healing of a relative or friend, and He
healed them all without an exception. I have to assume that all means every single one and that would
include every conceivable infirmity.
The miracles of Jesus were part of the credentials that He presented that certified His claim as being the
Messiah, and I don't think we can believe that He could be taken at His word if He were frustrated by
an inability to repair the beings that He had originally created.
I hope this helps.
#14A
I hope that this gets to a person that can answer my question, it is very important to me. I was raised
Baptist and [name removed] was raised Lutheran. [comment removed] but our different denominations
are posing a problem. Specifically in the area of communion, in the use of wine and/or juice. I was
raised with juice, and I see no scriptural reason why not to use it. I see it as symbolic and the overall
message and meaning as being more important than the element itself. [name removed] firmly believes in
the use of wine and only wine, claiming it to be Biblically accurate. I do agree with it being accurate, but
I disagree on it being the only way. Then theres the whole issue of open or closed communion.....God
has called me to be a pastor, [comment removed]. I was reading through the site (which I have learned
alot from by the way) and I saw that you hold the same beliefs as me. I was wondering if you could
explain it,
United States
[305-Vol 7]
ON DOCTRINE NOTE:
I am glad that you have found the information on the website to be helpful. I hope I can provide some
perspective on the Communion sacrament, that might shed a little broader light on the subject. I am not
attempting to be an expert or set a standard of doctrine, but simply bringing some issues to light that
might not have been considered and could be helpful.
My mother is in a Lutheran nursing home, and I attend Sunday services once in a while with her. Once
a month Communion is served by the Lutheran chaplain, who is a very fine Christian man. A
commercially prepared round, thin unleavened wafer is used that is dipped in wine contained in a single
cup and then placed in the partakers mouth by the chaplain. I do not know how Communion is served
in [name removed] your friend's church, but I would guess that they also use a commercially prepared
wafer and it is either dipped in the wine and served by the pastor or passed through the congregation
and the wine done the same way.
My early background was Baptist, so my experience was probably similar to yours. A plate of very
small, unleavened crackers was passed through the congregation by the deacons, and then a tray of tiny
glass or plastic cups was passed, containing grape juice. I attend a non-denominational church now,
and the Communion service is virtually identical.
The interesting aspect of both the Lutheran and Baptist Communion services is that neither one
conforms to the exact manner or the use of the exact representative elements that are described in the
Scripture.
The Last Supper is recounted in Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20 and
1 Corinthians 11:23-25 and was actually a celebration of the Passover, to which Jesus Christ added the
sacrament of Communion at the very end which became the new substitute for the old Passover, as He
was to become the fulfillment of the Passover:
"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us . . ,"
I Corinthians 5:7.
During the meal, bread was served, but not the fluffy loaves that we enjoy today. The bread was an
unleavened product of whole grain, baked in large round, crispy loaves similar in thickness to a pita or
middle eastern bread or a pizza crust. Since it was like a large thick cracker, the bread would have
broken easily into pieces and then have been given to the disciples.
The nature of the bread does not conform to any of the bread served in the Communion services today.
The commercial wafers or the tiny crackers are not made of the same material or in the same manner.
Most of those products are not whole grain like that served by Jesus, but are bleached flour and formed
by machines for individual consumption, and some of the wafers are even imprinted with various
designs such as crosses. The bread is not served in the same manner, because it is not broken by the
minister, but the pre-made wafers or crackers are placed on a plate and set before the congregation,
usually by a member of the laity.
The point is, if a person is to assert that there is a certain standard that must be applied to the wine, as
being actual fermented, alcoholic wine, then the same standard must also be applied to the bread, as
conforming to the original product served by Jesus Christ. And the reality is, that the bread should be
made of the same material, prepared and baked in the same manner and broken and served in the same
manner as did Jesus Christ.
The second issue is in relation to the wine itself. If a person asserts that wine is the only correct
beverage, then there must be a standard applied to that wine, just as the bread. There were various
types of wine served during the period. Some wine was straight or undiluted (strong drink), sort of like
wine today, and some was diluted with water. The diluted wine was part of the every-day drink,
because the alcohol content helped to make the water drinkable by acting a disinfectant, since most
public water was contaminated by human or animal waste products unless it came directly from a well,
but even then contamination could still be a problem. The wine served at Passover was very likely
diluted, so if the standard is said to be that type of wine, then that is what must be served today. If that
is the case and a standard is being asserted that wine must be used, then the standard must be the same
as used by Jesus Christ and not some other type of wine. It must be made in the same manner, diluted
with water to the same strength as that served by Jesus Christ and also served in the same manner. That
is a very tall order to fulfill, because there is no record of just how that particular serving of wine was
prepared and the percentage of water used.
Jesus used the every-day bread that was served during the meal, broke it into pieces and passed it to
His disciples. He did not use a pre-prepared minuscule cracker or a wafer that was served on a special
plate covered with a doily. He used a single drinking cup which had not been used during the meal,
poured the wine used during the meal into it, passed the cup to his disciples, and they each took a drink
from the same vessel. There have been many churches that have followed the practice of a single
communal cup, but I don't think it has much favor today, since the hygienic problem would be a big
issue in today's society. Nevertheless, that is how it was done. The bread was consumed before the
wine was passed, so the act of dipping a wafer into the cup is not correct in relation to how it was
actually done.
There is no special significance to the use of wine as opposed to grape juice, because wine does not
have any magical spiritual quality that sets it apart. The alcoholic content of the wine has no significance
at all. Both wine and grape juice have the same origin. Wine is actually a corruption of the original grape
juice, so it is difficult to make a case that it represents something more significant or pure. Wine was the
beverage of choice for reasons or practicality and reasons of health. Wine could be stored or
transported without fear of spoilage or contamination. Water could be stored and transported, but it
was easily contaminated and the alcohol in the wine helped to lessen the effects. The beverage choices
were severely limited, unless a person had access to absolutely fresh fruit juices, grape juice or milk.
Milk spoiled quickly and fruit and grape juice fermented quickly into a poor grade of wine. Wine was
probably the best example, used for a good effect by Jesus, because it was very likely red wine and
conformed to the color of blood, however, grape juice can be just as good an example.
Unless we adhere to the exacting measure of the minutia, then there can be no replication of the biblical
record that is an exact match to the Last Supper. But, if we are attempting to do that, then there is a
problem that must be addressed, because that becomes a matter of ritual, and eventually separates the
act itself from the reason for the act. If the concern becomes how it is done rather than why it is done,
then the act becomes meaningless.
I am sure that [name removed] has grown up in the Lutheran church, and the elements of the
communion that [they] know are familiar and comfortable . . . That is understandable, just as your
experience and mine are also comfortable. However, those experiences and manners of celebrating the
Lord's Supper are not the non-negotiable elements of the gospel that are unchangeable. They are based
on certain traditions that are part of the structure of the historical origin of Lutheran and Baptist
differences. Neither one is exactly right if it is said that the biblical record must be followed to the letter,
but neither can they be criticized for not adhering to an absolute standard that is not actually stated in
the Scripture. It is a question of heritage and how well-entrenched we wish to remain in our comfort
zone of familiarity, but also in relation to understanding the difference between the ritual and the reality
of why Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament in the first place.
I don't have any difficulty with the use of wine in the Communion service, but I also don't have any
difficulty with the use of grape juice either or any other beverage, because that is not the point of the
Communion act. My preference is for grape juice, since I don't like the taste of wine, even the "good
stuff" so that may color my opinion somewhat. If there had been an absolute right or wrong aspect of
which elements to use that actually made a difference, then I think the Scripture would have been very
specific in mandating what should be used and the actual composition, but that is not the case. The
Communion service is not a point of legalism, so I don't think that aspect should be applied to the
elements used in the observance. The context and nature of the communion service is not in relation to
the elements that are consumed, but in relation to the reason the Communion act was instituted. which is
infinitely more important than a concern over whether the right elements have been employed. I think it
would be helpful to consider the fact that throughout history, there have probably been many Christians
who have been forced to celebrate the Communion without any of the proper elements, because they
may have been poor or part of an underground church and did not have wine and possibly not even
bread. The reality is, that the Communion service can be celebrated with whatever elements might be
available. I see no problem with using water and a potato if those were the only elements available. The
issue is not the elements, but what the elements represent as obedience to remember the body and
blood of Jesus Christ given for us on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins.
There are some real issues in relation to how the Lutheran church views the act of Communion and its
relationship to the actual body and blood of Jesus. Lutherans hold to the belief in the "Real Presence"
which is a form of consubstantiation. Actually it is consubstantiation, only under another name. Luther,
although he had removed himself from the Catholic church and was a very key person in the
Reformation, did not always get everything right just like all of us, and this is one case where I think that
he was very wrong. Although he rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, he tried to
"reform" it and adopted the idea of consubstantiation. Although he finally recognized that the Catholic
church could not be reformed, he did not realize that the doctrine of transubstantiation could not be
reformed either but should have been rejected in total including any corollary derived from it. This is
actually a fairly deep theological issue of which I don't think most Lutherans are aware. I don't know if
[name removed] is aware of the doctrine, but it would make for an interesting discussion. This is
actually a much more serious issue than the wine and is one of the major differences between Baptists
and Lutherans. You can read a short reply that I wrote to a Lutheran who disagreed with me when I
stated that Lutherans hold to a belief in consubstantiation. The note is at:
www.ondoctrine.om/mailcall/00mail03.htm#realpresence
I remember as a child, that my parents and I would go on vacation, and wherever we happened to be
on a Sunday we had to attend church. A few times we attended church on Communion Sunday and the
churches happened to practice closed communion. I didn't quite understand why they had that
particular rule, because it seemed so silly. My dad was a deacon, church moderator, Sunday school
teacher and sang in the choir, and my mother was a deaconess and Sunday school teacher, but they
were not allowed to take communion. Apparently the leadership took the position that everyone who
was a member of their particular church was saved, but they weren't quite sure about anyone else.
However, church membership does not necessarily equate to salvation, since there are many people
who are in churches as members but are not saved. There was usually an explanation and apology in
which it was stated that the Communion was restricted only to members and I am sure that the
leadership thought they were trying to protect the sanctity of the act of Communion from the profane,
but they were actually expressing an inhospitable attitude toward fellow believers that put a negative
take on the communion service itself. I don't remember much else about those particular churches, but
those negative memories have remained with me all my life. I don't think it is the duty of the church to
police who happens to participate in the communion service. What those churches should have been
doing was explaining what Communion represents in relation to the gospel message, and allowed the
participant and the Holy Spirit to deal with any inequities in the life of the individual.
Bless you as you pursue your goal of ministry.
I hope this helps
#14B
Thank you so much for your prompt and insightful reply. You raised some good points that I hadn't
given much thought too and I will study up on them before I present anything to [name removed]. We
are trying to do this in love, I really don't think it is something to fight about, it doesn't affect salvation or
the message of the Gospel, so I try not to make it an issue of strife and anger. Thank you for your
insight.
United States
[311-Vol 7]
|
|
|
COPYRIGHT © 2001, 2002 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved