Preaching on Pentecost

2Cor 11:3 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.” (asv)

Ephesians 5:25-29 NKJV

25 . . . just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. . . . 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.

Few Scriptures have been quoted, preached about, and written about, as much as those initiated by Jesus, recorded in Matthew 16:13-19,

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

For purposes of our study on “The Simplicity In Christ,” Peter’s declaration is paramount! Jesus was, is, and will always be, the Christ and Son of God. Being Christ he is the anointed one to be Savior, King, High Priest and eventual Judge of all humanity. Being Son of God he has all authority given him by the Almighty God, the Heavenly Father, with the life that is inherent only in God. (Study John 5:26, 27; 14:6; 1Joh 5:11, 12; etc.)

With the major exception of the Roman Catholic Church, most religious entities accept the “rock”to be Christ. (Some teach that it is the confession, or fact, that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God.) Volumes have been written on this subject, available to anyone who is interested.

Our interest is focused on the entity

that Jesus stated He was going to build. The term “will build” is in the future tense. Whatever Jesus meant, it had not happened at that time. It was not built during the ministry of John the Baptist (as some claim), nor during the 50 days between Jesus’ resurrection and Pentecost. The record of its beginning must be traced to Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter two, where the word ekklesia (church) is first used in the New Covenant dispensation (Act 2:47). Jesus had told his apostles to tell no man (Mat 16:20) that he was the Christ when Peter made his good confession. They were not ready to “go into all the world” – either doctrinally, spiritually or devotionally – and the Gospel of the New Covenant was not yet to be preached.

Jesus stated that “the gates of hell would not prevail against it.” This expression is more often translated “gates of Hades,” and the RSV chooses “powers of death,” which by my judgment is more understandable and equally correct. The death of Jesus did not prevent his building, and physical death to a saint today will not prevent him from entering into eternal life where Jesus resides.

Concerning the countless (literally countless, it seems) misuses of the word “church,” correction by the rank and file of the world is probably impossible, but this does not mean that sincere Scripture teachers should “just go along” and not use correct language. Alexander Campbell, a recognized scholar in his day, began to use “congregation” instead of “church” because of the widespread misuse and misunderstanding of “church.” In more modern times, Hugo McCord, in his translation of the New Testament (Matthew -- Revelation), also uses “congregation.”

(A separate article will discuss this further.)

Probably the statement “the kingdom is the church and the church is the kingdom,” because of the association in these passages, has been stated as fact (literally hundreds of times in this writer’s presence, often by those who would be considered Bible scholars) until we just accept it as fact without attempting to understand the variations and applications depending upon context. (A later lesson addresses the Kingdom, its King, and the moral character of all its citizens.)

The world famous Dale Carnegie Course in effective speech teaches that there are four basic purposes for any successful verbal communication between men. These are: (1) To inform (give facts, share data, report on, etc.), (2) To convince (assure, overcome with argument, win over), (3) To get action (cause achievement of appropriate aim, goal or objective), and (4) To entertain (provide with amusement or enjoyment). (Although many of we preachers and teachers have been accused of entertaining the audience, and many in some audiences seem to enjoy being entertained, this was not Peter’s purpose on this great day. It does seem that he accomplished the three other purposes.)

1. Did Peter inform those present as to their status before God? “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words” (2:14). He continued by quoting Joel, and then tells them what they had done to Jesus:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know – Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it” (vs.22-24).

2. He continued with convincing proof of the inspiration of Jesus, his predicted death and his resurrection. He concluded his evidence by stating: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (v.36).

3. Did he adequately convince them of their sin? “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (v.37).

4. Did he call for adequate action to overcome their sins? “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v38).

Peter’s sermon in this marvelous Record is worthy of use by those of us who call ourselves “Gospel Preachers.” He gave the facts, he did convince, and he certainly did get action. An aged modern-day saint (possibly R. L. Whiteside) once stated that “any offering called a Gospel sermon that does not show sinners that they are lost, and instruct them to be saved, is not a Gospel sermon.”

Probably every assembly should end with an “invitation” that might apply to any needy soul present.

Verses 40, 41 state what happened after Peter’s instruction for those who had listened and been “pricked in their hearts,” and been told that they must “Repent, and be baptized . . .” Rarely do we hear much attention given to these statements. We read from Luke’s account, “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward (crooked, evil, perverse, corrupt) generation.” These are significant words.

Testify in this context probably meant “to confirm a thing by argument backed by evidence.” Not all claims need to be proven when presented, but they must be confirmed by evidence when challenged, to justify anyone expected to believe. Peter, and the other apostles, blessed with the Holy Spirit, could easily do this. Historians state that the Jews as a nation were at this time among the most wicked in all the world. Preachers today do not gave the gift of judging, but can read the signs of the times, and numbers of writers and commentators are writing and speaking about the moral wickedness of our day. We need not elaborate upon this at this point; it is obvious to all who keep up with the news. And what is the answer? Only One! The Gospel of Righteousness that has been left to Righteous evangelists.

Exhort is from “parakaleo,” and is translated, in addition to exhort, to beseech, comfort, desire, entreat, etc. I am reminded of Paul’s statement to the Romans,

“I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh . . .” (Rom 9:1-3 nkjv).

I’m also reminded of Paul’s “truth in love” comment to the Ephesians. (4:15). An honest, sincere and knowledgeable “Gospel” preacher will end every sermon, where forceful awareness of sin must be made known, with a happy ending. The fruit of obedience is Peace!

It would be easy to believe that Peter, as a fellow Jew, identified with the audience that day, and had a genuine hungering in his heart for their salvation. All Gospel preachers today should have, when given the opportunity to preach the Good News to anyone, anywhere, anytime, the same hungering for the souls of those yet alienated from the Father.

There is no record of exactly what this testifying and exhorting included, or how long it took. But one can imagine the emphasis Peter gave to the last phrase – “save yourselves from this wicked generation (time, age, society).” As was stated earlier, the morals of the Jews generally, and many of the leaders especially, being God’s chosen people for centuries, was not what it should have been, as John had enunciated and Jesus himself had charged in Matthew 23; etc. So, the condemnation was then just, and would be just today, and little doubt would be addressed more today if we had a Peter or a John the Baptist preaching. Do we need them today? Where are they?

We must keep in mind that Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luk 19:10). Only people who realize they are lost are receptive to a message of being found! The very word that Jesus used, “ekklesia,” has inherently the thought of being “called out.” The ekklesia of Christ is the “called out of the sinful world into a life of holiness ones.” (Consider Mat 5:8; Heb 12:14; etc.) The Gospel is then the message of calling out to sinners, and sinners being found; telling of the way back to God after being alienated because of sin? (Remember Adam and Eve?) The very word “saint” inherently means one separated from sin and the world, and now living a life of righteousness under the Lordship of King Jesus. We don’t use this word as much as we should, but that is what a saved soul is, a saint. (Contrary to the Roman Catholic doctrine that one has to be nominated and approved by the Church for good deeds before he can be a saint. Note the effort being conducted even now to make former Pope John Paul II. a saint, even before Catholic Church Doctrine authorizes such. A very false doctrine indeed!)

“Cheap grace” abounds in the religious world today. No spiritually minded Gospel preacher takes pleasure in anyone being lost. If God is not willing for any to be lost, no child of God could will otherwise. However, one of the biggest problems concerning the preaching of the Gospel today is the overemphasizing and misappropriating of God’s love and mercy, while minimizing the need for obedient subjection to Christ. One group of several thousands in Illinois has a “pastor” who preaches that all – yes, everyone – will be saved and will spend eternity with God in Heaven. And even in our brotherhood there are some who essentially preach the same.

When one does not come to know that he is a doomed sinner, he most likely will not feel the need for forgiveness. Satan has convinced many that it is not necessary to give up their pleasurable lifestyle. One very popular speaker today says, “God has provided all the good things for his children. Enjoy them.” Another has said, Yes, there is a Heaven, and there is a Hell. But you can enjoy your lifestyle now. There’s plenty of time for you to accept Christ.” One Gospel preacher has stated that he is having difficulty finding anyone who is willing to listen; no one to preach to. No one seems to feel any threat of being lost. But what was the problem that brought Jesus to this world? Is the problem still present?

In 1973 the esteemed Karl Menninger, M.D. wrote a book entitled “Whatever Became Of Sin.” The gist of the book was that many have “adjusted” their concept of what sin is, and rewrote God’s Word to accommodate their adjusted standards.

Dr. Jay Adams, a Presbyterian scholar, has a book entitled “The Big Umbrella” that emphasizes the fact that we humankind have often coined a lot of words and phrases to cover up the simple fact that we have violated the Righteousness of God. Adams’ solution? He shows that numbers of the diseases – so called by psychiatrists and social scientists – can be solved only by repentance and forgiveness for breaking God’s laws. His remedy? Repent and find peace of mind! (An excellent book, and also another by Adams is “Competent To Counsel.”

Repent or perish, John told the sinful Jews. Jesus preached the same after John was killed. Repentance is one of those basic Bible subjects that has always been around, and without a doubt (by my judgment) is probably not taught nearly as much as it should be. When was the last time you heard a forceful sermon on the need for repentance?

I heard a humorous story about the preacher preaching his first sermon in a new work. “What did he preach on” someone asked. “Sin,” was the reply. “What did he say about it?” Answer: “He seemed to be a’gin it.”

Preaching against sin is not popular today, especially among the youth. Believe it or not, the secretary of a sizable congregation of brethren in a neighboring city told me that when their preacher preached a forceful lesson in the morning assembly against wrongdoing he would usually apologize for it in the evening, “if he offended anyone.” We hear countless times “I apologize if I have offended anyone,” but rarely “I did wrong, and I’m truly sorry for doing so.”

The true definition is “to express regret for something that one has done wrong,” not “if I have offended someone.” Did a preacher who preached the Truth about sin need to apologize for doing so? N. B. Hardeman, probably the most influential pulpit preacher among us in his lifetime, once stated that he never preached a sermon without offending someone.

Martin Luther is quoted as saying that “the test of the true church is its doctrine of forgiveness.” Alexander Campbell, in his essays on the “Christian System,” agreed. Analyze what is taught as to the forgiveness of sins, the justification of sinners, and you can know whether this is the Gospel, and those who confess their sins when helped to know them, and deal with them according to the Gospel, constitute the church that Jesus said he was going to build. Is this a fair and accurate statement?

In my half century of preaching the Gospel as best I knew how, I’ve had a score of people denigrate “the church” because there are “too many hypocrites in it.” That thought has always challenged me greatly. If the church that Jesus came to build, and is building, is populated by saved souls, can there also be among these saved souls hypocrites, liars, thieves, adulterers, etc.? I hardly think so! But are we not confusing the terms? At this point we are addressing the question, “What did Jesus build?” Note first of all, that Jesus is the builder of His ekklesia. It is He who will determine the rules of admittance, and the standards of continuance. We must not be confused about the multitudinous religious “churches” that have multitudinous rules of admittance and standards of continuance, or the men or women who built them. We will continue to press forward in our study of the “Simplicity And Purity That Is In Christ,” and try honestly and sincerely to “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” We invite all readers to join with us. (See Chapter 14 concerning local churches and congregations.)

The following article is by an esteemed fellow worker in the Lord, Jerry Thompson. I’ve had numerous teachers evaluate the truth it contains and I offer it as “my judgment also.” Read and consider it carefully.

Acts 2:47, KJV, includes the statement: "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

Many Christians have used the KJ Version exclusively in their own Bible study. Some of these have been embarrassed when they have sought to teach others certain ideas from this verse, i.e., "You can't 'join' the church, the Lord has to add you to his church." "When you are baptized for the remission of sins as taught in Acts 2:38, you are added to Christ's church." The embarrassment, and often temporary bafflement, has come when the student or non-Christian pointed out that his Bible did not read the way the teacher's did and wondered if the teacher was misleading him. Surely enough, the words "to the church" are missing from most translations of Acts 2:47 today.

The American Standard Version says, they were added "to them." The Revised Standard Version says, they were added "to their number." The New International Version and the New American Standard Version follow this same translation given by the RSV; this translation is suggested by scholars Arndt and Gingrich. The New English Bible, also, uses this translation. Today's English Version reads added "to the group." Why do these later translations not use the words "to the church" as the KJV does?

Between 1604-1611 King James was having his scholars to translate the New Testament from Greek into the English language. Since the New Testament books and letters were not available in the original handwriting of the Apostles and other New Testament writers, scholars compiled the New Testament into a single volume by gathering as many different copies of New Testament books in Greek as they could find. Then they would compare the text of these different Greek copies. Where some differed from the others, they could usually discover which was most accurate by comparing them with the whole group of copies. In this way, scholars arrived at and printed a single text of the Greek New Testament. King James' Translators had two separate editions of the Greek New Testament to work from. One of them was compiled by a Frenchman, Robert Estienne, who wore the name, Stephanus. Stephanus had fourteen Greek copies of parts of the New Testament in Greek to work with. He also had readings from an earlier effort to compile the Greek New Testament into a single volume. One of the Greek copies available to him is called codex Bezae. However, Stephanus' Greek New Testament closely follows the text put together by the Dutchman, Erasmus, and he did not seem to use his fourteen copies very effectively. This is unfortunate because Erasmus put his Greek New Testament together too quickly. For most of the text of Acts he relied heavily on one manuscript copied into Greek as late as the twelfth century. Where he could not find a copy of a certain Scripture in Greek, he took the reading from the Latin Vulgate and translated it from Latin to Greek. "In Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript..." Yet Stephanus' third edition of his Greek New Testament printed in 1550 was to be accepted by many people as the standard text of the Greek Testament. Later another man, Theodore Beza compiled a Greek New Testament which became very popular, but it differed little from Stephanus' Testament. It was Beza's Greek text of the New Testament that was used most heavily by the King James translators between 1604-1611.

Since the King James Version was printed in 1611, a number of copies of New Testament books written in Greek have been found. Many of these were copied in Greek much earlier than the copies used in the Greek New Testaments of Stephanus and Beza. Over 5,000 copies of parts of New Testament books in Greek have now been discovered and collected. Today scholars go through a very careful and tedious process in comparing copies in order to determine what the true text of the New Testament is. Where there is a question, they give the other possible readings.

In Acts 2:47, the copies from which Stephanus and Beza chose the reading for their texts, the words, added "to the church" were found. This, being all that was available to the translators of the King James Version, was accepted as the reading. However, the earlier copies do not support this

reading. At this point in the Greek text of earlier copies of Acts there is a peculiar phrase, epi to auto (English letters). In fact, the earliest Greek copy that contains the words, "to the church," also contains this peculiar phrase. This copy called, codex Bezae, was owned by and named after Theodore Beza and was available to Stephanus. Beza had found copies of Acts 2:47 in other languages, also, that included the peculiar phrase mentioned above. But without the discoveries of these earlier copies of Acts in Greek, Beza chose the reading translated "to the church."

Today the weight of the evidence indicates that the peculiar phrase accepted by translators is more likely to be the correct textual reading and that "to the church" was added by the copyist of codex Bezae, or another before him, to clarify or interpret what he understood the peculiar phrase to mean.

How then should this sentence in Acts 2:47 read? A literal translation of that part of the sentence that precedes the peculiar phrase is: "But daily the Lord was adding the ones being saved..." (The Greek translated "daily" might more literally be "according to a day.") But the question is: "To what were they being added?" The peculiar phrase literally translated is: "upon the it" or "upon the same." That is, "the ones being saved were added 'upon the same' or 'upon the it.' That's awkward, isn't it? But if you look carefully you might begin to get the idea being expressed. Scholars now believe this is an idiom, that is, a phrase that carried an idea to the reader that would not have been understood if readers had interpreted each word literally. It is like the phrase, "He's a chip off the old block," or "He's got a chip on his shoulder." The phrase means something different to the reader than the individual words mean. What then does this phrase mean?

Fortunately, this phrase is used in other New Testament passages, even in Luke's writings. In Lk. 17:35, KJV, "Two women shall be grinding together." "Together" is the translation of our peculiar phrase in Acts 2:47. KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV all agree that the phrase should be translated "together" in Lk. 17:35. In Acts 1:15 the phrase is again translated "together" in KJV, ASV, RSV and the NIV understands it to mean a combining of several individual things or persons together. Acts 2:1 contains our peculiar phrase from Acts 2:47 and another Greek word right beside it; both can be translated "together." Translators faced the awkward phrasing, "They were all together together." The KJV resolved this problem by translating the first word as, "with one accord," and our phrase as, "in one place." The first "together" was probably correctly understood to mean they were "together in heart and mind." The second "together" was taken to mean "each of them was together" in one location. This second "together" is translated from our peculiar phrase. ASV, RSV, NIV translate the passage, "They were all together in one place." In Acts 2:44, KJV, reads: "All that believed were together." Here again, our peculiar phrase is translated, "together," by KJV, ASV, RSV, NIV. We can safely conclude that our peculiar phrase in Acts 2:47 carries the idea of "separate individuals being combined with each other in some way or by some means" and it might best be translated, "together." Though the more recent translations including ASV, RSV, NIV translate the phrase in various ways ("them" "their number," "the group," and etc.), most acknowledge in footnotes or margins that the Greek meaning is "together." Perhaps a decent translation of this last sentence in Acts 2:47 would be: "But daily the Lord was adding the ones being saved together." To use another figure, the Lord is adding each sheep being saved to the other sheep who are being saved. He is not adding them to a "sheep pen," he is adding them to the "flock." The "flock" is the total or sum of each sheep added to all the other sheep. If Acts 20:28 is properly interpreted, the "flock" is the "church" of our Lord. The "church" is the "flock"; the "church" is not the "sheep pen." When the Lord has added the sheep being saved together with the rest of the "flock," he has added them to His "church." The "church" like the "flock" is people who have been reconciled to God in Christ (II Cor. 5:17-21; I Cor. 12:12-14; Eph. 4:5; Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:38, 41, 47).

(Note: a copy of the above article by Jerry Thompson is available, with footnotes, upon request.)

If any reader at this point gets the idea that sin is over-emphasized in our study of “Simplicity in Christ,” we ask, “Why did Jesus have to come to this world of sin and sorrow in the first place?” Why did this precious person, who committed no sin, have to die as he did? What did the Almighty not do to make Adam and Eve happy and contented in the garden? What did He not do to give Israel everything they could possibly hope for in Canaan Land? And now for us today, what has our loving Father not done to provide for us total contentment, joy and peace of mind?

It is my conclusion that many (shall I say “of us,” including me, I’m sorry to say) have corrupted the simple free-from-sin collection of God’s children in Christ, the church, and created an organized system of religion, and called it “Christianity!” Maybe a more accurate term would be “Churchanity!” Was there anything wrong with the “system” of Moses’Law? Would this not be a reflection upon the love of God for his people? Is there anything wrong with the “system” of we “in Christ” and Christ “in us?” No, again this would be a reflection on the Almighty. It has been said thousands of times that “Christianity has not failed us, but we have failed Christianity!” Much of what we see today is not pure “Christianity,” any more than many Jews failed to practice the Law of Moses. Did not Jesus repeatedly accuse them of following their traditions instead of the commandments of God? (Mat 15; Mar 7) It would appear that even today many Jews are still claiming to be God’s special people, and reclaim the worldly glory of a defeated and failed system that had little “good news” in it!

I ask this question of any and all who might question God’s plan for redeeming sinful man: “If you were God, what would you have done differently with Adam and Eve? With the Israelites? And, what would you do now with this generation to save those who are willing to be saved? I am disturbed greatly by a number of brethren who have created a system of “grace,” so called, that permits man to tell God how He is expected to adjust his requirements to meet our desires and entitlements! What about just un-authenticating the Word? According to a recent poll there are declining numbers who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures! An esteemed preacher asked of a sizable audience at an ACU Lectureship, “Will God always bless America?” I ask, “Will God continue to bless those of us who will not persevere in faith and practice as enunciated in the New Covenant Scriptures?