Would you please explain the apparent inconsistency of Christ's sayings in Mark 9:40 and Luke 11:23?

Christ’s statements are not inconsistent, but they complement each other. Please understand that Christ was addressing two different sets of circumstances.

In the passage in Mark 9:40, we read the following, beginning with verse 38: “Now John answered Him, saying, ‘Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.’ (verse 39) But Jesus said, ‘Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. (verse 40) For he who is not against us is on our side.'” Compare, too, Luke 9:49-50.

On the other hand, in the passage in Luke 11:23, Christ responds to an accusation against Him to the effect that He was casting out demons by Satan the devil, the ruler of the demons. He states, beginning in verse 20: “But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you… (verse 23) He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” Compare, too, Matthew 12:30.

(1) “He Who Is Not Against Us Is For Us”

In Mark 9:38-40, Christ addressed a person who was not opposing Christ or His disciples; rather, he performed miracles IN THE NAME OF JESUS and OPPOSED their common enemy–SATAN THE DEVIL.

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible points out:

“Many copies read, ‘he that is not against you, is for you’; as this man; he was not against either Christ, or his disciples; he was doing the same work, promoting the same interest… he was opposing the same common enemy [Satan and his demons], and did nothing against them [Christ and His disciples], he ought to be reckoned as one for them, and on their side.”

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown adds:

“Two principles of immense importance are here laid down: ‘First, No one will readily speak evil of Me who has the faith to do a miracle in My name; and second, If such a person cannot be supposed to be against us, ye are to consider him for us.'”

The Nelson Study Bible adds the following timeless admonition that is very relevant for the churches of God today: “… this statement was meant to remind the disciples that God’s work was not necessarily restricted to their small group.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary includes further insightful remarks, when discussing Christ’s comments, as recorded in Luke 9:50:

“The disciples claim that the unnamed exorcist was not following with them (cf. Mark 9:38). That is to say, he was following Jesus but not as a part of their group. By casting out demons in the name of Jesus, he was exercising the prerogatives of discipleship without having what they considered to be valid credentials… The man whom the disciples had rebuked was ministering to broken lives in the name of Jesus… Jesus’ principle is contained in the words ‘he that is not against you is for you’… Through the centuries some Christian groups have turned this around to say: ‘He who is not following with us is against us.'”

Some Church of God organizations–or some members belonging to such organizations–claim today that only they comprise the true Church of God. They don’t seem to understand that the true Church of God is not limited to any human organization, but that it is a spiritual organism, consisting of all members in whom God’s Holy Spirit dwells. In their misguided zeal, they even go so far as to claim that unless someone belongs to their particular group, he will not enter the Kingdom of God–or, at the very least, God won’t protect him during times of trials, including the soon-coming Great Tribulation.

Those who believe, teach and proclaim such a false message–either by posting it on public or private websites, or by printing it in their literature or preaching it in their sermons–would be well advised to listen to Jesus Christ’s words in Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50!

(2) “He Who Is Not With Me Is Against Me”

As we have seen, in the previous passages, in Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50, Christ addressed those who wanted to be His followers. They were determined to live a Christian life–to do things in the name of Christ–that is, with His backing and approval.

On the other hand, Christ addressed quite a different situation in Luke 11:23. In that passage, self-righteous and envious enemies OPPOSED JESUS. They accused Him of casting out demons with the power of Satan; that is, He was accused of being a tool in Satan’s hands, a worshipper and follower of Satan himself.

Christ was not dealing here with people who wanted to follow Him; rather, He had to address people who opposed Him and who tried to convince others that He was a false prophet, a deceiving teacher, a son of Satan.

When it comes to deciding whether to follow Christ and His way of life, or to continue to follow Satan and the ways of this world, there can be no neutrality. We cannot follow God and the false prophet Balaam; we cannot serve the God of Israel and Baal; we cannot worship God and do things which bring us in contact with demons; we cannot walk in light and in darkness; we cannot serve God and mammon.

As the Nelson Study Bible states: “Jesus’ ministry forces everyone [who is being called to the Truth] to make a choice. Neutrality is not an option. Either Jesus comes from God or He does not. Not to align with Jesus [against Satan] is to be against Him.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary adds: “Jesus affirms that there can be no middle ground… Neutrality is as much an expression of unbelief as is open hostility.”

It states in its comments to the parallel passage of Matthew 12:30: “Before Jesus, man is called to decision. One may not remain neutral. One who is not positively with Jesus is against him. One who does not gather the flock… scatters it.”

In conclusion, Christ addressed two different situations in Mark 9:40 and in Luke 9:50. As long as members of God’s Church–the spiritual organism, the “Body of Christ”–are following and serving Christ, while OPPOSING SATAN and his ways, they are our friends and brethren–they are “on our side.” On the other hand, if someone OPPOSES the true JESUS CHRIST of the Bible and His followers, he is not “with Christ.” This would even include a person who is called to understand the Truth, but who prefers to stay “neutral”–neither supporting nor condemning Christ and His way of life. Such a person might not actively persecute Christ and His followers and speak evil of the Way of true Christianity. Still, he is not “with Christ”–he is not one of His disciples–when he fails to make a decision to leave and OPPOSE SATAN and fully and totally cleave to God.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Does Galatians 3 teach that the Law of the Ten Commandments is abolished?

Even though many professing Christians believe that the Ten Commandments are no longer binding on us today, and although some Biblical “scholars” quote, amongst other Scriptures, the book of Galatians as evidence for such assumptions, the Bible totally rejects and disproves such ideas.

In fact, if you are a truly converted Christian, you have received the Holy Spirit of God, dwelling in you, and through the Holy Spirit, you have received the love of God (Romans 5:5). The love of God is defined as keeping the commandments. 1 John 5:3 says: “For this IS the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” Paul tells us that “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10). Love does not do away with it; quite to the contrary, it FULFILLS or KEEPS it. Rather than thinking that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, God’s Holy Spirit in you reveals to you that they are still binding for you, and God’s love in you will motivate you to KEEP them.

One good way for a person to determine if he has really responded to his call to repentance and conversion, is to analyze and examine himself to find out whether he is willing to keep ALL of God’s Ten Commandments–including the Seventh-Day Sabbath. If a person believes that these laws are no longer required and that he is “free” to ignore or break them, then it is extremely unlikely that he is truly converted, and that God’s Holy Spirit dwells in him. If this applies to you, then you need to pray to God that He may open your understanding to the truth, REPENT of your errors and sins; ACCEPT and BELIEVE IN the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ; understand that Christ DIED for YOUR transgressions of His LAW; and become baptized to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. To help you, please read our free booklets, “And Lawlessness Will Abound” and “Baptism–A Requirement for Salvation.”

Some teach and believe that you will automatically do what is right, if you have God’s Holy Spirit living within you–and that you do not need “rules” to tell you what to do. First of all, this concept is a contradiction in terms. If God’s Holy Spirit “tells” you to do what is right and how to live a “holy” life, then it tells you to keep God’s Law of the Ten Commandments, as God’s Law is “holy, just and good” (Romans 7:12). For instance, Paul explains to us in Ephesians 6:1 that it is “right” that children obey their parents, continuing that such conduct is in conformity with the “first commandment with promise” (verse 2).

Secondly, you don’t know, by yourself, what is right. In fact, God chides those who live by their own standards, doing what is right “in their own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8; compare Judges 17:6; 21:25). You might think, if you “love” your neighbor, you won’t do him any harm, but that is a false assumption. With that rationale, people have killed others in war; they have aborted their unborn children; they have engaged in “alternate lifestyles”; and they have committed fornication and adultery (after all, isn’t it “love” to have an “affair” with a “misunderstood” or “unloved” woman?). Without God’s love in you, you don’t really love God, either. People may think they do, but, again, they are wrong–and so, they have created idols for themselves, believing they serve God thereby; they have created their own weekly “day of worship” and their annual religious holidays; and they have trampled God’s Sabbath under foot, thinking that God does not care whether we keep it or not. Man’s “love” is a misguided counterfeit of the true love of God, which, we repeat, is DEFINED as KEEPING the commandments of GOD!

The apostle James silenced those who claim that we today do not have to keep all of God’s Ten Commandments. We read in James 2:8–12: “If you really fulfill [that is, keep] the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep [or, fulfill] the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.”

James tells us that we sin if we break just one provision of the “whole” law. He makes it clear that the “law” he is talking about is, in fact, the Ten Commandments. He illustrates this point by selecting two of the Ten Commandments—the law against murder and the law against adultery. He explains to us that, if we violate even one of the Ten Commandments, we are still a “transgressor of the [entire] LAW.”

How, then, are we to understand Galatians 3?

In Galatians 3:17–19, 22, 24–25, Paul states the following: “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator… But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in [of] Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe… Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”

Does this passage teach us that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, as some claim? Does Paul even have the Ten Commandments in mind when he talks about the “law” that “was added because of transgressions”?

In order to understand this passage properly, we must recognize that the Bible sometimes uses the word “law” for just a portion of the entire law system. We must consider the context of the particular passage in order to ascertain whether the word “law” refers to the entirety of God’s law system, or just a portion, and if just a portion, which portion. We do the same today in human affairs. We might say, “the law requires you to do this or that,” and we may be speaking about a particular provision in the Civil Code, or the Criminal Code, or some administrative law.

We learned from Galatians 3:17 and 19 that “the law” was “added” “four hundred and thirty years” after God’s covenant with Abraham. This “law” was added “because of transgressions.” We also learned in verse 22 that the Scripture confined everybody “under sin.” Sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4, Authorized Version). The physical law referred to in Galatians 3 was added because people had sinned—because they had transgressed God’s spiritual Law (Romans 7:14) of the Ten Commandments.

Paul’s use of the word “law” in the third chapter of the book of Galatians then does not relate to the Ten Commandments at all, but to an altogether different set of rules–the sacrificial law SYSTEM which was added some time after Moses had brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt (compare Jeremiah 7:21-23).

Paul uses the same language in Romans 5. A careful analysis shows that he speaks there, again, about two sets of law–the Ten Commandments and the sacrificial system which was ADDED because of sin. In Romans 5:12-14, Paul says: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin [death came through sin, because death is the penalty for sin, compare Romans 6:23], and thus death spread to ALL men, because ALL SINNED–(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. NEVERTHELESS death REIGNED from Adam to Moses…).”

Notice carefully, and don’t be deceived by those who teach falsely that the Law of the Ten Commandments has been abolished. Paul says here that ALL sinned; that all incurred the DEATH penalty BECAUSE they had sinned; and that there is no penalty if there is no law. THEREFORE, SINCE there was a death penalty, there had to be a LAW. But then, Paul says that that situation already existed before the “law” was in the world. How clear–he is talking about TWO different sets of law! The law which came into the world had to be different from the law which already existed from the time of Adam.

Paul continued in verse 20: “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound.” What law entered? What law was added? NOT the Law of the Ten Commandments, which was in force and effect since Adam, but the sacrificial law system which “entered” or was “added” more than 430 years after Abraham’s covenant with God.

The Bible does not contradict itself. One Scripture does not “break” or “make of no effect” another Scripture (John 10:35). A law was added because of transgressions. This law cannot be the Ten Commandments. Rather, because people had transgressed the Law of the Ten Commandments, an additional law was given to the people. Paul’s statement that the law was added because of transgression (Galatians 3:19), and that a law “entered” the world AFTER sin and death were already in the world (Romans 5:12-14, 20), refers to that part of the physical law which has to do with sacrifices and other rituals. Because the people had sinned by transgressing the spiritual LAW of the Ten Commandments, as well as those statutes and judgments which embellish those righteous commandments, ANOTHER “law” was ADDED and came into the world — the temporary physical law dealing with sacrifices and other rituals.

Professing Christians are deceived, as is the rest of the world (Revelation 12:9). If you think you are free to break God’s Law, you ARE deceived–no matter what Christian group or denomination you may claim to be a member of. “Christian” commentaries of worldly scholars add to the deception, by concocting ridiculous “explanations” in their terrible desperate attempts to contradict the clear and timeless message of Jesus Christ, which is beyond debate for those who are willing to believe and OBEY their Master. Read for yourself Christ’s words in Matthew 19:17: “But if you want to enter into life, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS.”

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In a recent Q&A (Update #311), you said that the Bible requires the testimony of two eye witnesses to convict a person, but this seems to be incorrect. The Scriptures talk about witnesses who are testifying before the judge–not persons witnessing a crime with their eyes. Therefore, it seems that two witnesses could testify to scientific evidence or circumstances to establish a connection with a crime, including DNA, fingerprints, blood stain or similar evidence. What do you think?

To clarify, our stance against serving on a jury is based on many Biblical passages and principles, not just on the requirement of two witnesses. For an in-depth discussion on this issue, please read our Q&A in Update #289.

Regarding the requirement of two witnesses, we discussed this in several previous Q&A’s (compare Update #311 and #66). We pointed out that the Bible requires the “testimony” of at least two witnesses to establish the guilt of a person. The context makes it abundantly clear that these witnesses have to be “EYE witnesses” of the crime–circumstantial or “hearsay” evidence is simply not admissible or sufficient, according to the Bible, to convict a person.

Deuteronomy 17:6-7 reads that “whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” The Authorized Version says, “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death.” It is established, then, that witnesses had to speak or testify. In order to give relevant testimony, they had to testify about the alleged crime of the accused. As we will show, they had to be “EYE” or “EAR” witnesses–who had observed the crime–and who were asked to testify about what they themselves saw and heard, with sincerity, certainty and total honesty. It will also become clear that the term “witness” cannot be applied to someone not present at the scene of the crime. A “scientific expert” who testifies about “DNA evidence” simply does not fit the BIBLICAL definition of “witness.”

The Nelson Study Bible states: “The guilty was condemned to death only after guilt was established by two or three witnesses (compare Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).” In all the Scriptural examples quoted by the commentary, the reference is to EYE witnesses–not to persons who give “hearsay evidence” or testify about some “scientific CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.”

The New Bible Commentary: Revised adds that the witnesses had to be of “unquestioned veracity and unanimous opinion… and the severe penalty was to be imposed only on the basis of irrefutable evidence.” In fact, when more than two witnesses were available, they all had to come forward and testify, and all of their testimony had to be unanimous. If it was not, the accused could not be condemned. (This shows that “testimony” of “scientific experts” would not be admissible or conclusive, in any event, as the “experts” of the prosecution and the defense seldom, if ever, agree on anything.)

Notice the following comments by Soncino:

“Although his crime was brought to the notice of the judges both in secret and in public…, no sentence of death can be passed unless there are two witnesses to testify… Everyone who WITNESSES THE CRIME, even if the number be more than the two witnesses required, has to appear before the court to be questioned.”

The testimony or witness of one person was not sufficient. Neither was mere hearsay. Leviticus 5:1 does not allow for testimony of second-hand knowledge as being sufficient to convict a person. The passage reads: “If a person sins on hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter–if he does not tell it, he bears guilt.”

First, note, that a witness is someone who has HEARD the utterance of the oath–that is, he was PRESENT when it occurred. This is further confirmed by the fact that he has “SEEN” it. The additional expression, “or known of the matter,” is a misleading English rendering. The words, “of the matter” were added and are not found in the Original. The Hebrew word for “known” is used in a variety of senses, but it describes foremost the act of “ascertaining by SEEING” (see Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, No. 3045). It does not describe obtaining second-hand knowledge in some way from someone else.

It is also important to realize that the person addressed in Leviticus 5:1 is charged not to HIDE relevant facts, but to testify to them. However, his testimony alone would not be sufficient, as noted, to convict a person–at least one more witness had to corroborate his testimony. On the other hand, Proverbs 25:8 cautions us not to go to court too hastily, which includes the warning that we must be sure of our testimony, as the Bible provides harsh penalties for an untruthful witness.

The Bible does refer, in describing legal procedures, to documentary or other “scientific” evidence, but we must note the context. For instance, in Jeremiah 32:10, the prophet is signing a deed in the presence of witnesses–again showing that witnesses are those who are PRESENT so that they are able to testify later to the event. This procedure will again be followed in the Millennium, so that the veracity of a legal deed is established without doubt (compare Jeremiah 32:44).

In addition, “scientific evidence” was permitted to exculpate an accused–clearing him of wrongdoing–but never to convict him.

Exodus 22:10-13 provides: “If a man delivers to his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep, and it dies, is hurt, or driven away, NO ONE SEEING IT, then an oath of the LORD shall be between them both, that he has not put his hand into his neighbor’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept that, and he shall not make it good… If it is torn to pieces by a beast, then HE SHALL BRING IT AS EVIDENCE, and he shall not make good what was torn.”

Let us also note Deuteronomy 22:13-15. In that case, a newly-married woman is accused by her husband of having committed fornication prior to her marriage. She can establish her innocence by producing “the evidence of [her] virginity” (verse 15) by spreading the “cloth [with the evidence of the woman’s virginity] before the elders of the city” (verse 17). If, however, no such evidence can be produced, because the allegation is true, then the woman will be convicted (verses 20-21), “IF it had been proved by the evidence of two witnesses” (Soncino).

A similar situation is described in Numbers 5:12 ff. In that case, no witnesses are found to testify about the adultery of a wife, but the husband becomes suspicious. God designed a special supernatural procedure to establish innocence or guilt of the accused (compare Update #311).

In conclusion, the Biblical requirement of at least two witnesses for a conviction speaks clearly of EYE witnesses who are able to testify what they themselves have WITNESSED. To stretch this clear requirement and allow for “testimony” of “scientific experts” about what a particular piece of “scientific evidence” might or might not establish, goes far beyond the strict Biblical injunctions.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

What did Jesus mean in John 17, verses 14 and 16, when He spoke to the Father, saying that His disciples "'…are not of the world, just as I am not of the world'"?

This statement by Jesus Christ highlights a misunderstood truth that very few have comprehended, about the purpose and message of Jesus Christ, as well as the conduct of His followers–those who would claim to be Christians.

In an earlier account, Jesus pointedly contrasted His origin to that of the Jews who heard His preaching (Compare John 8:21-30). What He addressed were their actions, their lifestyle–their very way of living. He plainly said that they were “‘…OF this world'” (John 8:23); while, on the other hand, He emphatically stated that He was “‘…NOT OF this world'” (Same verse).

In verse 44 of this chapter, Jesus powerfully indicts those rejecting Him and His message: “‘You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.'”

Then, Jesus adds: “‘He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God'” (John 8:47).

Two ways of living are presented in these quotations, and they are polar opposites! God’s words are contrasted to the desires of Satan. Furthermore, Satan is revealed to be a liar and “the father of it.” Those who listened to Jesus but rejected His teaching are described as “of” the devil. Their actions were representative of the wishes of Satan.

It is important to understand that this present world–this age and civilization filled with violence, lies, hatred and every evil (Compare Galatians 1:4)–is ruled over by Satan the devil (Compare John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11)! He is described as “…the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4). After a lengthy meeting explaining to His disciples things they should know and do, following His death and resurrection, Jesus also explained how He had dealt with the society that had rejected Him: “‘These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world'” (John 16:33).

The reason His disciples would suffer persecution and difficult times is because they would not be living any longer according to the ways of the world–that is, they would not be “of” this world ruled over by Satan and his demonic forces.

Jesus reminded His disciples: “‘”…A servant is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also'” (John 15:20).

The disciples very quickly experienced exactly what Jesus had warned. Following the remarkable events on the Feast of Pentecost when God poured out the gift of His Holy Spirit on the disciples of Jesus, the religious leaders immediately rejected what the apostles were preaching: “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard'” (Acts 4:18-20).

Following this warning, the apostles were again confronted by the religious leadership:

“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying, ‘Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man’s blood on us!’ But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men'” (Acts 5:27-29). This time, they were beaten for what they said and what they did (Compare Acts 5:40).

These disciples were not “of” this world. They were not part of the government of Rome that ruled in the land of Judea. They were distinctly separate in doctrine and understanding from anyone else on the earth–all of whom were under Satan’s influence. Why? Because they were following the example of Jesus Christ! They were living their lives as Christians!

In his later life, Peter continued to teach the approach of Jesus Christ:

“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth’; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness–by whose stripes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:21-25).

Peter died because he was not “of” the world–the age and generation in which he lived. Jesus revealed to Peter even the manner of his death (Compare John 21:18-19). Another apostle of Jesus Christ, James, the brother of John, was killed by the political leader over the area of Judea, Herod the king (Compare Acts 12:1-4).

Paul, who had at one time persecuted Christians, later on was converted (Compare Acts 9). However, his conversion took him out of the social and religious relationships in which he had been living. Now he became an object of murderous plots, persecutions and constant trials–he no longer lived his life according to the way of the world (Compare 2 Corinthians 11:22-33).

For anyone called of God, the message is to come out of the world (Compare Revelation 18:4; 2 Corinthians 6:17). The special relationship of Christians is one that separates them from the world. Even in the matter of problems within the Church of God, Paul points to the higher standard of conduct for followers of Christ:

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner–not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person'” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

Christians are to continue to live in the world–just as Jesus Christ did! Yet, they must separate themselves from the ways of this world–again, just as our Savior did!

Living in the world brings on the difficulty Jesus warned us about, and that is because we are to live as ambassadors of God’s Kingdom and as representatives of Jesus Christ (Compare 2 Corinthians 5:20). Christianity is a “way” of life that stands in stark opposition to the pattern of living adopted by mankind through the influence of the devil. It is even called repeatedly the “Way” in the book of Acts (Compare Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).

When Jesus said that His disciples were not of the world in John 17, He also said: “‘I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one'” (Verse 15).

John reminds us of why we are now living a way of life that is different–that is not “of” this world:

“You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 John 4:4-6).

We must differentiate between truth and error; between righteousness and sin; and between God and Satan. That means that we also must “overcome the world” as Jesus did. He did not participate in this world’s governments, showing that His Kingdom was not of this world–this age and civilization–rather, it was future (Compare John 18:28-38). Jesus did not violate the rules and laws of this present age, as long as they did not contradict God’s Law (Compare Luke 20:20-26). His ministers taught that Christians are to be subject to authority (Compare Romans 13:1-7). Of course, that is provisional in terms of whether it is a question of obeying God or man–as we have already read in Acts. When man’s rules and laws are in conflict with God’s commandments–in the letter OR in the spirit–then we must obey God (Compare Daniel 3:16-18).

Finally, we have these words from John that dramatically point out that those who follow what Jesus Christ taught must stand separate from the age and the world in which we live:

“We know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD lies under the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:19-20).

Lead Writers: Dave Harris and Norbert Link

I understand that you teach that Christians, serving on a jury, can only convict an accused if at least two eye witnesses testify against him. But doesn't modern science, such as evidence based on DNA or fingerprints, render that ancient Biblical command obsolete, which was given at a time when people had no concepts of modern scientific advancements?

First of all, our stance against serving on a jury is based on many Biblical passages, not just on the requirement of two eye witnesses. Even if two honest eye witnesses were available to testify against an accused, a true Christian should still not participate in the jury system of this world. For a further in-depth discussion of this vital question, please read our Q&A’s in Updates #289 and #66.

In Update #66, we state, indeed, the following, after having discussed numerous additional principles prohibiting true Christians to serve on a jury:

“In following the biblical injunctions, one could not convict a person, in any event, unless the accusation is supported by the testimony of at least two witnesses (John 8:16; Deuteronomy 17:6-7). Since the witnesses would have to ‘cast the first stones,’ circumstantial evidence would not be sufficient, under God’s law, for the requirement of two witnesses.
“Since we may be required, as a juror, to apply man’s laws in conflict with the law of God, we could not take the oath as a juror, as we would, in principle, agree to obeying man rather than God (Acts 5:29; Acts 4:19).”

Far from being obsolete in this advanced scientific age, the Godly requirement of two eye witnesses is still very much applicable–as distinguished from witnesses giving “hearsay” testimony or just convicting someone based on circumstantial evidence. Let us note the exact Biblical instructions:

Deuteronomy 17:6-7 reads:

“Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall NOT be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be THE FIRST AGAINST HIM to put him to death; and afterward the hand of the people. So shall you put away the evil from among you.”

Numbers 35:30 confirms that one witness was not enough to convict a person. The requirement of two or three witnesses was not limited to capital criminal cases. Deuteronomy 19:15 says: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning ANY sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.”

This Old Testament law, which is based on a sound Godly principle, has been reconfirmed in many New Testament passages, including Matthew 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; and Hebrews 10:28.

The accusing witnesses had to cast the first stones on the convicted offender. This was for the purpose of protecting the innocent–so that a witness had to be very careful in his testimony, lest an innocent person be convicted. In addition, if the innocence of a person accused by false witnesses should come to light, the accusing witnesses had to be stoned themselves (Deuteronomy 19:16-21).

None of these safeguard provisions are in any way applicable to “scientific evidence.” We need to understand that the idea that a jury may reach a conviction based on “scientific evidence,” is a misconception. Rather, a jury may decide to convict someone based on the testimony of so-called scientific experts who explain to the judge and the jury how they evaluate and interpret the “scientific evidence.” But more often than not, the testimony of several scientific experts does not harmonize. Depending on whether the scientific experts have been provided and paid by the prosecution or the defense, their testimony may differ greatly.

In a much popularized case in San Diego, California, scientific experts for the prosecution and the defense were asked to testify about the time when the murder of a young child had taken place. Their testimony, based on scientific evidence, differed greatly. The expert paid for by the prosecution prevailed with his opinion–but who is to say that his opinion was correct, and that the evaluation of the defense’s scientific expert was incorrect? And what legal mechanism exists to hold the scientific expert liable and accountable in the unlikely event that it should ever be clearly established that his testimony was incorrect? Basically, none whatsoever.

For many years, fingerprints were considered the “non-plus-ultra” scientific evidence. But then it happened that an innocent attorney was accused of a crime, due to fingerprints allegedly identifying him as the perpetrator, until it was proven beyond any doubt that he could not have been involved. But the wrong evaluation of the evidence, based on the “scientific evidence” of “his” incriminating fingerprints, was never clarified or detracted.

Also, for many years, evidence is being derived at from the evaluation of guns and bullets, to ascertain, whether a particular bullet was fired from a particular gun. Again, this is being looked upon by many as iron-clad scientific evidence — but recently, serious doubts have been raised in the judicial and legal community about the fool-proof “accuracy” of such evidence.

Today, many think that DNA-evidence has replaced the need for eye witnesses! But has it? Who is to say? And who is to be held accountable for false scientific testimony of “scientific experts”? Several years ago, a prominent and well-known person was acquitted in a criminal case because the DNA evidence was allegedly not sufficient. Later, he was found liable in a civil wrongful death action, based on the same evidence, but based on different legal standards.

God knew, in His wisdom, why He required the testimony of two EYE WITNESSES to guarantee righteous judgments. We must also not forget that at the time of Old Testament Israel, the nation was a theocracy. It was ruled directly by God, and God saw to it that no injustice would be carried out. He even instituted certain procedures, involving accusations of adultery, that required His direct intervention to make manifest the innocence or guilt of a person (Numbers 5:11-31).

But when there was insufficient evidence, the accused had to be acquitted. When there were no witnesses, a person could not even be accused and brought before a judge. Today, it seems that many times, even if there is much doubt, the accused is still convicted and condemned–and if it is a case involving a celebrity, he is, quite often, “tried” and “convicted” and “condemned” in the court of public opinion, before he has ever seen an “impartial” jury.

This is not God’s world, which, far too often, condemns the innocent and acquits the guilty. We are ambassadors of a better world to come, when true justice, fairness and equity will prevail for all.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Would you please explain Matthew 7:6? Who, especially, is Christ addressing here, and how are we to apply this Scripture in our daily lives?

Matthew 7:6 reads as follows:

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”

We need to state, first of all, that the Bible compares the truth about the Kingdom of God with a precious pearl (Matthew 13:45-46). At the same time, “dogs” or “swine” describe debased and quarrelsome people, filled with anger and hostility toward God and His Law (Philippians 3:2; 2 Peter 2:22; Revelation 22:15).

Barnes has the following insightful comments regarding the meaning of this passage:

“Pearls… are used to denote the doctrines of the gospel. ‘Dogs’ signify people who spurn, oppose, and abuse that doctrine; people of special sourness and malignity of temper, who meet it like growling and quarrelsome curs… ‘Swine’ denote those who would trample the precepts underfoot; people of impurity of life; those who are corrupt, polluted, profane, obscene, and sensual; those who would not know the value of the gospel, and who would tread it down as swine would pearls… The meaning of this proverb, then, is, do not offer your doctrine to those violent and abusive people who would growl and curse you; nor to those especially debased and profligate who would not perceive its value, would trample it down, and would abuse you…”

We are asked to let our light shine, by doing good works (Matthew 5:16). A light makes no noise–if it does, then something is wrong with it. We cannot convert a person–only God can do this (Romans 2:4). It is true that we are told to be prepared to give a defense or an answer to those who ask us about the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15)–but this addresses people who are genuinely interested. This is not to say that we could not try to sow a seed by making a point in a conversation–but we must be extremely careful not to do this with people who are hostile toward “our religion.” Even insofar as non-hostile people are concerned, we generally are to wait for them to express their interest, by asking, rather than “volunteering” to forcefully try to persuade them of our beliefs. It takes discernment to determine whether people are genuinely interested, or whether they just raise an issue for the purpose of strife and contention. Proverbs 17:14 says: “The beginning of strife is like releasing water; Therefore stop contention before a quarrel starts.”

However, the Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown gives us the following appropriate caution:

“Religion is brought into contempt, and its professors insulted, when it is forced upon those who cannot value it and will not have it. But while the indiscriminately zealous have need of this caution, let us be on our guard against too readily setting our neighbors down as dogs and swine, and excusing ourselves from endeavoring to do them good on this poor plea.”

Christ’s point is: Don’t be too quick to judge and condemn (see the context of Matthew 7:6 with verses 1-5, cautioning against quick judgment of others, while at the same time ignoring our own shortcomings)–but don’t be naive and overlook blatant malicious attitudes and conduct, expressing hostility toward the Word and the LAW of God.

Gill has this to say in regard to the passage:

“Here the phrase is used in a metaphorical sense; and is generally understood of not delivering or communicating the holy word of God, and the truths of the Gospel, comparable to pearls, or the ordinances of it, to persons notoriously vile and sinful: to men, who being violent and furious persecutors, and impudent blasphemers, [who] are compared to ‘dogs’; or to such, who are scandalously vile, impure in their lives and conversations, and are therefore compared to swine… men should be cautious, and prudent, in rebuking and admonishing such persons for their sins, in whom there is no appearance or hope of success; yea, where there is danger of sustaining loss.”

The Bible warns us in Proverbs 9:7-8: “He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you…”

Compare, too, the following statements in the Nelson Study Bible:

“Dogs and swine refer to people who are enemies of the gospel, as opposed to those who are merely unbelievers. Such enemies are to be left alone (see [Matthew] 15:14; 2 [Corinthians] 6:14-18). One example of such a person was Herod Antipas, who heard John gladly (see Mark 6:20), but then he beheaded him (see [Matthew] 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-28; Luke 9:7-9). Later when Christ stood before Herod, He said nothing (see Luke 23:8, 9). In the context of this verse, Herod had become a ‘dog’ or a ‘pig.'”

Note these additional comments in the Life Application Bible:

“It is futile to try to teach holy concepts to people who don’t want to listen and will only tear apart what we say. We should not stop giving God’s Word to unbelievers, but we should be wise and discerning in what we teach to whom, so that we will not be wasting our time.”

The Broadman Bible Commentary agrees, pointing out:

“Jesus is… alluding… to any person who is… unwilling to distinguish between what is holy and what is not, or between pearls and what is valueless. This saying sounds harsh, but it must be heard. Jesus… recognized that there were times when there was no opening for the gospel or for his ministry… there are times when [a Christian] can only remain silent or try to bring about a better climate for a later sharing… Three dangers threaten the Christian witness or minister who does not discern when to speak and when to keep silence: he may further damage the one he tries to help; he may try to force himself or his values upon another; and he may unnecessarily imperil himself and others.”

Clarke adds another dimension to this verse, when he states:

“As a general meaning of this passage, we may just say: ‘The sacrament of the Lord’s supper [better: Passover], and other holy ordinances which are only instituted for the genuine followers of Christ, are not to be dispensed to those who are continually returning like the snarling ill-natured dog to their easily predominant sins of rash judgment, barking at and tearing the characters of others by evil speaking, back biting and slandering; nor to him who, like the swine, is frequently returning to wallow in the mud of sensual gratifications and impurities.'”

Even though John Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, disagrees with the idea that Christ, in Matthew 7:6, had the Passover in mind, he nevertheless concurs that the PRINCIPLE is well founded, stating:

“Some of the early fathers thought the reference was to the Lord’s Supper [better: Passover]… and argued from it that unbelieving, unbaptized people should not be admitted to Communion [partaking of the symbols of bread and wine during Passover]. [Footnote: For example, chapter IX of the Didache, probably an early second-century document, includes this instruction: ‘Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”‘] While they were no doubt right in this teaching, it is extremely doubtful whether Jesus had this question in mind at all…”

The Church of God has consistently taught that only properly baptized members are to partake of the Passover symbols (see our free booklet, “The Meaning of God’s Spring Holy Days.”)

To an extent, Christ’s statement in Matthew 7:6 can even refer to the public preaching of the gospel by His Church. It cannot be applied, of course, in the sense that His Church is NO longer obligated to preach the gospel in all the world as a witness–just the opposite is true (Matthew 24:14)–but as the following commentaries point out, the passage has relevance insofar as the REACTION of those is concerned who hear the proclamation of the gospel message.

Stott explains:

“We cannot possibly deduce… that Jesus was forbidding us to preach the gospel to unbelievers. To suppose this would stand the whole New Testament on its head and contradict the Great Commission (with which Matthew’s Gospel ends) to ‘go and make disciples of all nations.’ [compare Matthew 28:19-20]… so then the ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ with whom we are forbidden to share the gospel pearl are not just unbelievers. They must rather be those who have had ample opportunity to hear and receive the good news, but have decisively–even defiantly–rejected it… the fact is that to persist beyond a certain point in offering the gospel to such people is to invite its rejection with contempt and even blasphemy… If people have had plenty of opportunity to hear the truth but do not respond to it… we are not to go on and on with them, for then we cheapen God’s gospel of letting them trample it under foot.”

Therefore, Christ’s warning not to give what is holy to the dogs and swine, has a certain relevance in relationship to the REACTION of those to whom the gospel has been preached. In Matthew 10:14, Christ told His disciples whom He had sent out to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God (see verse 7), to leave the house of unworthy people who would not receive nor hear the message. We also find that Paul, AFTER he had preached the gospel to the Jews, turned away from them and turned to the Gentiles, when the Jews rejected the message (compare Acts 13:44-46; 18:5-6).

A good summary of the meaning of Matthew 7:6 can be found in Henry’s commentary, where we read:

“This [passage] may be considered, either, (1.) As a rule to the disciples in preaching the gospel; not that they must not preach it to any one who were wicked and profane (Christ himself preached to publicans and sinners), but the reference is to such as they found obstinate after the gospel was preached to them, such as blasphemed it, and persecuted the preachers of it; let them not spend much time among such, for it would be lost labour, but let them turn to others… Or, (2.) As a rule to all in giving reproof. Our zeal against sin must be guided by discretion, and we must not go about to give instructions, counsels, and rebukes, much less comforts, to hardened scorners, to whom it will certainly do no good, but who will be exasperated and enraged at us. Throw a pearl to a swine, and he will resent it… Good counsel and reproof are a holy thing… Yet we must be very cautious whom we condemn as dogs and swine, and not do it till after trial, and upon full evidence.”

It requires insight, discernment and prayer to be able to determine when to speak and when to be silent. However, people’s hostility to the words of God and especially the LAW of God is normally revealed very quickly. Somebody who HATES God’s commandments will express his malice in due course. In that case, it is best to cease discussing God’s truth with such a person, knowing that it will only lead to strife and contention (1 Timothy 6:3-5; Titus 3:9-10). A servant of God is told not to be engaged in such destructive conversation (1 Corinthians 11:16; 2 Timothy 2:23-24), lest he become affected by it too, giving in to the devouring hatred of his opponents and reacting in such a way as to allow his mouth to sin (Psalm 39:1).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Would you please explain Matthew 18:20. Is it correct, as some teach, that this verse permits members to cut themselves off from the Church of God; to stay at home; and to neglect or dispense with fellowshipping with the membership of the Church?

In Matthew 18:20, Christ said: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” It is important to note the context. Christ’s comments in verse 20 follow the description of the proper procedure for conflict resolution between brethren. At least two of our Updates address this issue, including the fact that Christ gave the final authority to the ministry, to disfellowship or excommunicate an unrepentant brother or sister –and not to the entire membership. Verse 20 must be read in this context–it does not address at all the question of Church attendance.

The Nelson Study Bible explains:

“The passage [in Matthew 18:19, 20] specifically refers to church DISCIPLINE. It is a promise for guidance for the two or three who confront, and a promise for the church to claim wisdom, and restoration for the erring brother.”

We explained the following in a Q&A on conflict resolution:

“We have always understood and taught, and the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate international affiliates uphold and teach this understanding, that the reference to ‘the church’ in Matthew 18:17 is the ‘ministry,’ not the entire Church congregation (Please see Q&A in Update #147). The Church congregation was, in a sense, already involved, in a representative capacity, in the persons of the witnesses. Matthew 18:17 continues: ‘… But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.’

“That is, the ministry will have to make the decision in such a case to temporarily suspend or even disfellowship the person until he shows real and sincere repentance. At that point, depending on the gravity of the situation and in a rare case, the local Church congregation or even the entire Church might have to be told.

“How can we be sure that the ministry will make the correct decision in such cases? By having seen to it, that the proper procedure has been followed, as discussed and set forth in Scripture, and by praying to God for wisdom to render the right decision.

“Matthew 18:18-20 tells us:

“‘Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you [the ministry, now called upon to render a decision] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you [in the ministry] agree on earth concerning anything that they ask [including wisdom to make right decisions], it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three [ministers] are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.’

“God, through His Holy Spirit, will give His ministers the discernment, if they are close to God and diligent in following the Biblical procedure for conflict resolution, to see what needs to be done in a given case (compare John 20:21-23). And if God should reveal to His ministry that the accusations against a member were false, then the ministry will have to deal with the accuser (compare Deuteronomy 19:15-21). Many times, accusations and problems develop because of misunderstandings. That is why two members need first to talk about those problems ALONE, IN PRIVATE and ONLY between themselves.”

We also wrote, in Update #147:

“The Bible does not teach that God’s Church be ruled by democracy. Rather, God’s government is that of a hierarchy — with God the Father above all. God’s Church is administered by His ministers, with love and mercy, but with the authority to rebuke and correct, if need be. Local ‘Church’ groups which have disassociated themselves from the ministry to ‘rule’ themselves and to independently administer their own affairs are in clear violation of God’s command that His Church be administered through His ministry. This is also true for those ‘Church’ groups that are being ‘administered’ by self-proclaimed or ‘elected’ ministers, not approved by God (compare 2 Timothy 4:3-5; 3 John 9-10).”

Although some commentaries and those who reject the concept of “organized religion” and who believe in “individual Christianity” claim that Matthew 18:20 declares fellowshipping with the Church of God and attending Church services as being obsolete, this is clearly not the Biblical teaching. Christ gave ministers to the Church to enable the membership to grow into the fullness of Christ (cp. Ephesians 4:11-16). Paul warns those who forsake assembling together, that they are risking to lose their very salvation (cp. Hebrews 10:24-31). Those who might be scattered still need to be a part of the true Church of God. Since Christ is the Head of the Church, His Body, and since His Body is organized (cp. 1 Corinthians 12:18, 24-25, 27-28), those who have cut themselves off from that Body will wither away (cp. John 15:1-6). Scattered brethren, for whom it is impossible to physically attend Church services, must still be a part of organized services, for instance, by listening to live Internet services–or, if this is not possible–by listening to sermons which are posted on the Internet, or which can be received on audio cassettes. They also must make every effort to study the written Church material provided to them, to strengthen them in the truth–avoiding dissident material from false “brethren” or self-proclaimed “ministers,” who are disseminating unbiblical concepts.

The Broadman Bible Commentary wrote this regarding Matthew 18:20:

“This paragraph provides the model for church DISCIPLINE, including motive, spirit, and basic procedure… this is to be understood as assurance of divine presence and help as Christ’s people undertake the difficult work of the care of one another, even to the extent of corrective and redemptive discipline for the erring… A rabbinical teaching… spoke of the Shekinah, the presence of God, as being with those occupied with the words of the Torah (Law)…”

The Forerunner Commentary explains the passage of Matthew 18:20 in a straight-forward way:

“Many stay-at-home members use this verse to justify not fellowshipping with a larger organization. On the surface, it seems to support their argument. However, we must look at it in context… The context of the entire chapter is interpersonal relations and offenses… If the offender will not listen…, the offense should be taken to… the church… The very context assumes the existence of a larger group… In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul shows how this works in practical application when a church member was unabashedly committing sexual sins. Notice that Paul had ministerial, hierarchical authority over the Gentile church in Corinth… Did he allow every group of two or three in the congregation to make a judgment? How would God have bound the conflicting judgments that surely would have arisen between the people of varying levels of understanding and maturity in Corinth? The church would have been divided… had Paul not exercised his authority… This misapplication and twisting of this one scripture automatically repudiates any authority God placed in an ordained ministry.”

One of our Q&A’s, explaining Acts 14:23, discusses the role of the ministry and includes many Biblical examples to prove that God has ordained the ministry for His Church–requiring both the existence of the Church of God–the Body of Christ–AND of the ministry. In addition, Q&A #213 addresses the question whether “independents” will be saved.

To use Matthew 18:20 as justification for staying at home, rather than attending Church services, if possible, and for cutting himself or herself off from the Church of God, is NOT in accordance with Biblical teaching. Sooner or later, scattered brethren and those whom God may call, if they are yielding to God’s lead, will be guided to spiritually connect with the Church of God.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

We understand that when we are sick, we can ask for an anointed cloth, in order to be healed. When, exactly, should we ask for a cloth, and when, exactly, does God perform the healing? Does God heal when we ask for the cloth, when the minister prepares the cloth, when he places the cloth into the mailbox, or when we receive and apply the cloth? Should we ask for a cloth for the same sickness more than once?

Let us, first of all, understand that the Bible clearly teaches that God HEALS our sicknesses and diseases. To quote from a prior Q&A:

“He tells us in Exodus 15:26, ‘If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the LORD who heals you.’

“We are also told how healing from sickness has been made possible. We are healed by the stripes of Jesus Christ who gave His life for us, and who was tortured and beaten so that we can obtain forgiveness of our sins and healing from our sicknesses and diseases (Psalm 103:1-3; Matthew 8:16-17; 1 Peter 2:21-25; Isaiah 53:5).

“Generally, God instructs us, when we are sick, to call for the elders of the Church of God — the body of Christ, a spiritual organism — to pray for us and to anoint us with oil (a symbol of the Holy Spirit) and to lay hands on us, so that we can be healed (James 5:14-15; Mark 16:18).

“Many times, a ministerial visit may not be possible, as the sick person might live in a remote area. If this is the case, then elders are permitted to pray over a cloth, anointing it with a drop of oil as the symbol of the Holy Spirit, and asking God to heal the sick person who will receive this cloth. This is based on numerous passages in the Bible, showing us that people were healed when they touched the garments of Christ (Mark 6:56) or the aprons or handkerchiefs from Paul’s body (Acts 19:12).

“We understand, of course, that there is no magical importance attached to an anointed cloth. It cannot and will not heal anyone. As mentioned, it is through the stripes of Christ that we are healed.

“When a person who is sick receives the anointed cloth, he is to place it on his head and pray to God (as the minister would already have done when anointing the cloth) that God would heal the sick person from the sickness. Since our faith must be in God, and not in any man or in the anointed cloth, the cloth should be destroyed immediately after it has been used.”

From this it follows that many times, God may begin to heal a sick person when he or she places the cloth on his or her head and prays to God for healing. On the other hand, we have seen over the years that God may heal a sick person, or begin to heal him or her, prior to the receipt of the cloth, or, for that matter, prior to the arrival of the elders to anoint the sick person with oil and pray over him or her.

This might be based on numerous circumstances, including the faith of the sick person asking for a ministerial visit or a cloth. God looks at the heart of a person, and since He knows all of our thoughts, He might decide to heal a person when he or she fulfils his or her responsibility in the process of healing–that is, to ask for anointing. Many times, God looks at the outcome of a matter as if it had already occurred. Romans 4:17 says that God “speaks of future events with as much certainty as though they were already past” (Living Bible). In fact, we are told that we ARE healed by the stripes of Jesus Christ (compare, again, Isaiah 53:5). It does not say that we WILL BE healed. In God’s eyes, physical healing of a faithful and believing person is a foregone conclusion–even though God does not always intervene immediately. He may wait with our healing for numerous reasons–including, to test our patience and unshakable faith in Him.

We find an interesting example in Scripture, in Matthew 8:5-13. A centurion came to Christ and asked Him to heal his servant who was at home, paralyzed and dreadfully tormented. When Christ was willing to go to the centurion’s house to heal the servant, the centurion replied that all that was necessary was a command from Christ. Based on the great faith of the centurion in God’s healing power, Christ told him that his servant would be healed, “as you have believed,” and even though Christ never touched the servant nor saw him, the servant was healed “that same hour,” when Christ spoke the word (verse 13).

This means, then, that our faith in God is not to be restricted to actually receiving an anointed cloth; rather, we should have faith that God can and will heal us whenever it pleases Him. But, we are still to follow through with His command to ask for anointing. It is then up to the elder to decide whether to personally visit the sick person for anointing, or whether to send him or her an anointed cloth. Having shown God that we are willing to obey Him in everything, we can and should have the faith that God will heal us, in accordance with His will, whenever He chooses. To repeat, there is nothing magical about the anointed cloth. IT does not heal anyone. We must be careful that we don’t place our faith and trust in the cloth, rather than in God.

In any case, even though a sick person who has asked for anointing already feels better, or has been completely healed, by the time of the arrival of the ministry or the cloth, the procedure of anointing and praying over the sick person, or of applying the cloth, should still be carried out and followed through, thereby showing God our diligence and our gratitude for His ongoing intervention.

When should we ask for a cloth or an anointing through God’s elders?

Basically, if we are too sick to go to school or to work or to attend Church services, we are “sick enough” to ask for anointing. Even though we might be suffering from a flu or a cold which might “cure itself” in time–if this means that we would be unable to attend Church services, we should immediately ask for anointing to be healed, in order to be able to follow God’s COMMAND to attend Church services (compare Hebrews 10:24-25). [At the same time, if we feel that we are too sick to attend Church services on the Sabbath, but are not too sick to attend a party in the evening, then we were NOT too sick to attend Church services, and God does not look lightly at such casual and indifferent conduct toward Church attendance on His holy Sabbath.]

Can or should we ask for a cloth more than once, if God does not heal us after the first anointing?

This is most certainly permitted in a more serious sickness. Mark 8:22-25 relates an account when Christ put His hands on a blind person twice, before he was healed of his blindness. Paul asked God three times to be healed from a “thorn in the flesh”–a serious sickness (2 Corinthians 12:7-8)–and based on all the Scriptural evidence, we conclude that he did so by asking three times to be anointed for that same sickness. In that case, due to God’s specific plan and purpose, Paul was not healed from his sickness (verse 9). However, this Scripture shows that it is not wrong to ask for anointing or a cloth more than once for the same sickness. On the other hand, as stated, we must never place our faith in elders who anoint us, or in an anointed cloth. Our faith must always be in God, our Healer. Therefore, if a repeated request for an anointed cloth for the same sickness would become tantamount to a misplaced faith in the cloth, then such a request would be inappropriate.

Please refer to our booklet, “Sickness And Healing–What The Bible Tells Us,” for a more in-depth study of the subject of God’s healing.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

What does the Bible mean when it says that we are to grow in the grace of God?

The Scriptural passage in question is found in 2 Peter 3:17-18, which reads:

“… beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Grace has been commonly understood as unmerited pardon–especially in connection with the forgiveness of sin. God forgives us our sins, not because we deserve to be forgiven, but because of Christ’s sacrifice. However, the Greek word for “grace” conveys a much broader concept than just the “unmerited pardoning of sins.”

Notice, in this context, Paul’s warning in Romans 6:1-2, 15: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? Certainly not… What then? Shall we sin because we are… under grace? Certainly not!”

We are not to “grow” in grace, by sinning, so that we can receive more and more forgiveness or unmerited pardon. Just the opposite is true. 1 Peter 4:1 tells us: “Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin.”

What, then, is meant with the statement: “Grow in the grace… of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”?

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown emphasizes that we are to “GROW” in His grace, stating, “Not only do not ‘fall from’ [verse 17], but grow onward: the true secret of not going backward. Eph. 4:15, ‘Grow up into Him, the Head, Christ.'”

The Greek word for “grace,” “charis,” is defined by Strong’s Concordance of the Bible (G 5485) as, “acceptable, benefit, favour, gift, grace (-ious), joy, liberality, pleasure, thank (-s, -worthy).”

According to Young’s Concordance to the Bible, the Greek word “charis” can also have the meaning of “graciousness,” and points out that the Authorized Version translates the Greek word “charis” also as “grace,” “benefit,” “favor,” liberality,” “pleasure,” and “thanks.” The Greek word “charisma” is derived from the word, “charis,” and means, “gift.”

As we have seen, one important definition of “charis,” or “grace,” then, is “favor.” We are to grow in the favor of God, by continually overcoming our own selves, the world and Satan. Even Jesus, when He was here on earth, increased or grew in favor — or grace — with God and men (compare Luke 2:52).

In addition, we read that Mary found “favor” or “grace” in the eyes of God (Luke 1:30; compare Luke 1:28); and so did David (Acts 7:45-46). We are told that the early apostles and disciples had “favor” or “grace” with all the people (Acts 2:47). Likewise, Joseph received “favor” or “grace” and “wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh” (Acts 7:10).

Barnes explains that “religion in general is often represented as ‘grace,’ since every part of it is the result of grace, or of unmerited favor; and to ‘grow in grace’ is to increase in that which constitutes true religion.”

Gill states that the meaning of growing in grace is growing in “the gifts of grace, which, under a divine blessing, may be increased by using them: gifts neglected decrease, but stirred up and used, are improved and increase.”

This explanation has merit, considering that it is through grace (“charis”), that gifts (“charisma”) are bestowed on us.

Clarke explains the passage, “to grow in the grace… of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” as follows:

“Increase in the image and favor of God; every grace and Divine influence which ye have received is a seed, a heavenly seed, which, if it be watered with the dew of heaven from above, will endlessly increase and multiply itself. He who continues to believe, love, and OBEY, will grow in grace, and continually increase in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, as his sacrifice, sanctifier, counsellor, preserver, and final Savior. The life of a Christian is a growth; he is at first [begotten] of God, and is a little child; becomes a young man, and a father in Christ. Every father was once an infant; and had he not grown, he would have never been a man. Those who content themselves with the grace they received when converted to God, are, at best, in a continual state of infancy: but we find, in the order of nature, that the infant that does not grow, and grow daily, too, is sickly and soon dies; so, in the order of grace, those who do not grow up into Jesus Christ are sickly, and will soon die, die to all sense and influence of heavenly things. There are many who boast of the grace of their conversion; persons who were never more than babes, and have long since lost even that grace, because they did not grow in it. Let him that readeth understand.”

Similar statements are made by William Barclay, in his commentary on 2 Peter. He writes:

“The Christian is a man with a developing life… The Christian must daily experience the wonder of grace, and daily grow in the gifts which grace can bring.”

A good explanation of the passage can also be found in the “Life Application Bible”:

“Peter concludes this brief letter as he began, by urging his readers to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ–to get to know him better and better. This is the most important step in refuting false teachers. No matter where we are in our spiritual journey, no matter how mature we are in our faith, the sinful world always will challenge our faith. We still have much room for growth. If every day we find some way to draw closer to Christ, we will be prepared to stand for truth in any and all circumstances.”

Only if we grow in the grace of Jesus, can we properly handle the knowledge that He imparts to us. That is why we must receive and grow in both His grace and His knowledge. We are to grow in graciousness and kindness, as well as in favor with God, and we must grow in the knowledge of Who He really is, what His character is like, and how He lives. Christ is described as the “only begotten of the Father, FULL of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

But we also read that we can share in His grace (John 1:16-17)–we can all become more gracious and loving persons, willing to sacrifice our time, effort or money for the benefit and well-being of others. As James explains: “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27; compare 2 Peter 3:11, 14).

We ARE to grow in the GRACE of Jesus Christ–in His FAVOR toward us, due to an obedient lifestyle which is pleasing to Him–as well as in the acquisition of His GRACIOUSNESS; of His willingness to bestow GIFTS on others; and of Christ’s desire–which is to become our desire–to help others in need. But we also need to grow in His KNOWLEDGE so that we can know how to live a Christian life of giving and sharing, and how and when to bestow gracious favors and gifts on others.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

Would you please explain the procedure for conflict resolution between brethren, as set forth in Matthew 18:15-20?

If there is one command by Christ which has been more often violated
in the Church than most others, it is perhaps the procedure for
conflict resolution between brethren, as set forth in Matthew 18. We
might think that in a given situation this procedure might not apply,
or that there are other ways to deal with a perceived or real problem.
However, experience has shown time and again that circumventing the
godly-inspired procedure for the purpose of resolving problems between
members has ALWAYS caused unnecessary harm.

Let us therefore
carefully and prayerfully review the procedure, and let us make every
effort to apply it, as instructed in God’s Word:

When a member
thinks that there is a real or perceived problem between him and
another person in the Church, which is either caused by the other
person or by the member himself, what should the member do?

Step #1:

Matthew
18:15 instructs the member: “Moreover if your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault between you and him ALONE.”

As we can
see, at this stage, there is no minister, close friend or even a mate
involved. If a member thinks that someone in the Church has sinned
against him, he is to go and talk to the person–with humility and
compassion and with the right attitude (Galatians 6:1)–and he is to do
so ALONE, in PRIVATE.

Matthew 18:15 continues: “If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”

This must be the motivation–not one of revenge for getting back at the person!

The
same principle applies if the member knows that his brother has
something against him. If a member knows that his brother has a real or
imagined problem with him, he–the member–is to go to his brother. He
is to go to him ALONE, in PRIVATE, without anyone else present, with
the goal of restoring the relationship between the two of them (compare
Matthew 5:21-26).

If the meeting has the desired result, but
subsequently, another similar or identical problem arises, what is the
member to do? Is this now the time to tell the ministry—because,
after all, the member might think, “I tried it once, and he just does
not listen?” The answer is: The member is NOT to tell the ministry at
that point in time. Luke 17:3-4 tells us: “Take heed to yourselves. If
your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive
him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times
in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

But
one might think: “That’s too difficult and unpleasant.” Or, “It’s not
practical. I went to him once–that is sufficient.” But God instructs
us to do EXACTLY as He tells us, as HE knows that this is the ONLY way
which MAY produce positive results. If we act differently than
instructed, we WILL have trouble.

(The forgoing does not apply,
however, when a brother is charged with illegal wrongdoing, including
sexual abuse. In that case, the ministry is to be told immediately, in
confidence! But even then, one has first to make sure that the facts
are true and correct, and not just mere speculation or suspicion
without evidence.)

If a meeting, in private, between the two
members has taken place, and the sinning brother refuses to repent or
to make amends, then what is the next Biblically-ordained step?

Step #2:

Matthew
18:16 continues: “But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two
more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be
established.”

The member who has a problem with a brother in the
church, and who has tried, unsuccessfully, to solve the problem with
the brother, is to return to the brother with one or two
witnesses–again in the effort to solve the problem and to reconcile
with the brother. The one or two witnesses must be carefully selected,
and they should not in any way already be involved in the situation.
Rather, they must be impartial and objective witnesses. After all, it
is now up to the impartial witnesses to see whether the brother accused
of sin is actually guilty of the same, and unwilling to repent and to
make amends.

What, if the brother refuses to hear the witnesses?

Step #3:

Matthew 18:17 continues: “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.”

We
have always understood and taught, and the Church of the Eternal God
and its corporate international affiliates uphold and teach this
understanding, that the reference to “the church” in Matthew 18:17 is
the “ministry,” not the entire Church congregation (Please see Q&A
in Update #147). The Church congregation was, in a sense, already
involved, in a representative capacity, in the persons of the witnesses.

Step #4:

Matthew 18:17 continues: “… But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

That
is, the ministry will have to make the decision in such a case to
temporarily suspend or even disfellowship the person until he shows
real and sincere repentance. At that point, depending on the gravity of
the situation and in a rare case, the local Church congregation or even
the entire Church might have to be told.

How can we be sure that
the ministry will make the correct decision in such cases – by having
seen to it, that the proper procedure has been followed, as discussed
and set forth in Scripture, and by praying to God for wisdom to render
the right decision.

Matthew 18:18-20 tells us:

“Assuredly,
I say to you, whatever you [the ministry, now called upon to render a
decision] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of
you [in the ministry] agree on earth concerning anything that they ask
[including wisdom to make right decisions], it will be done for them by
My Father in heaven. For where two or three [ministers] are
gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

God,
through His Holy Spirit, will give His ministers the discernment, if
they are close to God and diligent in following the Biblical procedure
for conflict resolution, to see what needs to be done in a given case
(compare John 20:21-23). And if God should reveal to His ministry that
the accusations against a member were false, then the ministry will
have to deal with the accuser (compare Deuteronomy 19:15-21). Many
times, accusations and problems develop because of misunderstandings.
That is why two members need first to talk about those problems ALONE,
IN PRIVATE and ONLY between themselves.

The Bible is very clear
as to how we are to attempt to solve problems amongst us. And if all of
us–the ministry and the members–have done all that they were required
to do, and if a problem just cannot be solved, then God WILL see to it
that a godly and correct decision will be rendered.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

©2024 Church of the Eternal God