Bible Sermons Online

Posts Tagged ‘Peter’

Not a single denominational church was built by Christ for he built his church, one and only, in the first century hundreds of years before any denominations came into existence.  The New Testament scriptures written after the gospels and Acts chapter 2 all refer to the church as a then existing organization.  Paul wrote to various churches.  Jesus in the book of Revelation instructs John to write to the 7 churches of Asia.  The real question men and women need to be seeking an answer to is not how do I get into this denomination or that one but how do I get into the church Christ built? 

One must understand that being in the church Christ built is an entirely different thing than being in a denomination.  One can readily be in a denomination and yet outside the church Jesus built.  If being in a denomination is the same as being in the church built by Jesus then the denomination has no reason for existence and should drop its denominational name and associations and just call itself what it would be under those circumstances – the church of God, the church of Christ, the church, or some other scriptural name or designation.  It would be “the church” and not “a denomination.”

In this article I am not concerned about how one gets into X,Y, or Z denomination but with how one gets into Christ’s church.  Certainly, there are steps to be taken as there are steps to be taken before one can enter any institution.  One must be made aware of the institution, what it does, and what purpose it serves before any desire can be created to join it.  So it is with the church Jesus built.

Many there are that say Jesus is all that matters, not the church.  Why do they say that?  Because they have a denominational concept of the church.  I am the first to agree that there is not a denominational church on earth that matters and everyone of them ought to cease their existence immediately.  But, that is a far cry from saying that the church Christ built does not matter.

The church built by Jesus matters so much that you cannot be saved outside of it, without becoming a member of it.  It is “the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 NKJV)  If you are outside that church it means you were never bought with the blood of Christ.  It means you are not a part of the body which he is saving.  “He is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)  What body?  “He is the head of the body, the church.” (Col. 1:18 NKJV)  The church is the spiritual body of Christ of which he is the Savior.

Christians are “members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. (Eph. 5:30 NKJV)  “You (Christians – DS) are the body of Christ, and members individually.” (1 Cor. 12:27 NKJV)  One is either in that body or he is not, you are either inside or outside, and where you are makes all the difference for salvation.  Yes, the church matters.  It is not Jesus yes and the church no. 

The church is what Jesus gave himself for on the cross.  “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. 5:25-27 NKJV)

Salvation is in Christ which is the same as to say in his body, the church.  “Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV)  In Christ one is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), a Christian, outside Christ he is not.  In Christ are found all spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3), outside him none are found.   “In Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been made near by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:13 NKJV)  That is in Christ and not out of him.  The list could go on and on but the point is that to be “in Christ” is absolutely essential to salvation but to be in Christ is to be in his body, the church.  The church is thus essential.           

One cannot join the church Christ built.  God adds the man or woman to it under certain conditions.  “And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47 NKJV).  Who were added to the church?  Those who were being saved.  Who then is in the church?  The saved.  Who is outside the church?  The unsaved.

Does God just add whoever he pleases to the church unconditionally?  If so it would not be a man’s fault if he failed to obtain salvation.  There would be nothing he could do about it as it would be entirely in God’s hands.  It does not work that way.  At the close of the first gospel sermon ever preached Peter exhorted the crowd saying, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” (Acts 2:40 KJV)  Other more modern translations use the words “be saved” but the thought is the same.  It is up to the individual.  The individual has something to do.  Salvation is not unconditional and God does not save men adding them to the church unconditionally.

Does this mean that all who are in the church are saved?  No, for some go astray and live in sin and hypocrisy, in indifference and unconcern, without a deep abiding faith and love, who have fallen away.  It does mean, however, that you must be in the church to be saved for that is where those who will be saved are placed by God.

Upon hearing the gospel before one can be added to the church, before God will do the adding, one must believe what he has heard.  Paul defines the gospel by which we are saved if we believe in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received:  that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures.” (NKJV)  This correlates with Peter’s confession of Christ in Matt. 16 when Christ asked, “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15 NKJV)  Peter’s reply was, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matt. 16:16 NKJV)  Jesus then says, “on this rock I will build my church.” (Matt. 16:18 NKJV)  It was by the resurrection that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:4 NKJV)  Thus one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Jesus Christ as the Son of God is the foundation upon which the church was built “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 3:11 NKJV)  He is the “chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20 NKJV) of the church (cornerstone being the rock upon which the church is built).  So a man must believe these things about Christ to be saved.  Faith then is essential.  We are “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) being built up as “a spiritual house” (church – DS) (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) upon the foundation that has been laid – on Christ Jesus.

But, is this faith enough by itself?  No and all know it who will be honest.  Why do I say that?  Because on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when Peter preached Jesus to the Jews he did not once command them to have faith in Jesus.  Why not?  He did not need to for their faith became evident when they cried out “to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37 NKJV)  Make no mistake about it these Jews believed everything Peter preached that day in preaching Jesus.

Here is my point – why not dismiss the crowd and go home at that point in time?  If we are saved by faith alone there is no need for any further instructions as to how to become a child of God, a Christian.  No need for further instruction on what is necessary to be saved.  When the men ask “what shall we do” why not tell them to go home now and just continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and Savior of the world?

The answer is simple enough to an honest man.  Faith was not all that was necessary.  Peter tells them to, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  There are many who will say that yes they believe in order to be saved one must also in addition to having faith repent of his sins.  However, that is where they want to stop.  They want to separate repentance from baptism in the passage and gladly ignore the fact there is a coordinating conjunction there, the word “and,” that joins the two words making one just as essential as another.  (They do the same thing with the word “and” in Mark 16:16 and in John 3:5.)  It simply will not work.  Peter said they must do both.  If repentance is essential for the remission of sins the same passage that teaches that (this one) teaches also that baptism is.  Both are required. 

I grant you that denominations do not practice this nor do they believe it and you can get into a denomination without it (without baptism for the remission of sins).  But, remember this article is not about how to get into a denomination.  It is how to get into Christ which is the same thing as getting into his body, the church.  None of us should care how you go about getting into a denomination.  Who needs one?  It is the church Christ built into which one must enter for salvation.

The only man prepared to enter into Christ where salvation is found, to enter his body which is the church, is a penitent believer.  In the Great Commission the apostles were instructed to baptize only one group of people – those who were made “disciples.” (Matt. 28:19 NKJV)  One can only know whether or not a person who presents himself for baptism is a believer by asking him.

This brings us to another element essential for salvation – the confession of Christ.  “With the mouth confession is made to salvation.” (Rom. 10:10)  Timothy was said to “have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” (1 Tim. 6:12 NKJV)  It is the good confession Christ witnessed before Pontius Pilate (1 Tim. 6:13) which was that he was “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (Mark 14:61-62).  See also Acts 8:36-38.

Thus the steps into Christ are, in order, faith, repentance, confession of Christ, and finally baptism into Christ.  How does one get into the body of Christ the church?  “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)  “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus ….” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)  There is no such thing as a Christian in the New Testament that was not baptized for the remission of sins.  Why do I say that?

(1) Baptism was for the remission of sins.  (2) It was into Christ.  (3) Christ commanded it (Mark 16:16, Matt. 28:18-20, John 3:3-5) (4) Peter commanded “every one of you” to do it.  No exceptions on the Day of Pentecost.  Paul said to the Corinthians “we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV), no exceptions.  (5) The churches of Judea were “in Christ” (Gal. 1:22, 1 Thess. 2:14).  A church can only be in Christ as the membership is in Christ and that comes by way of baptism.

The individual who complies with the conditions that God gave will be added by God to the church for the same process that makes one a Christian adds him to the church when done from the heart.  Only God can know whether or not one truly believes in Jesus from his heart.  Only God can know if a man has repented from the heart of his sins.  These things being true a man can by all appearances go through the steps essential to salvation but God only knows the sincerity of the heart.  I cannot add you to the church even if you by all appearances seem to meet God’s qualifications.  Since I cannot know or judge your heart I have to assume your sincerity and honesty and accept you as a child of God, a living stone in God’s church.  I would want the same treatment from you.  A faithful Christian will never deny such a one the right hand of fellowship.

I would remind the reader in closing that to be in Christ is the same as being in his body, in his church, and that is where salvation is found, in the body of Christ.  “He is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 23 NKJV)  How does one get into the church Christ built?  The Bible gives the answer, not the local denomination.       

Late-date-for-the-Gospel Theory

Jesus was a historical figure. Modern historians and scholars agree. That tells us something, but not a whole lot. Davy Crockett was a real man too. But books, movies, and television shows turned the real man into a legend. How about the story of Jesus? Did the Gospel writers take the real man, Jesus of Nazareth, and embellish him with such things as a virgin birth, miracles, sinless life, voluntary martyr’s death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven?

Many will tell you today that is exactly what happened. Doesn’t that appear to be the most reasonable explanation? Those “added features” seem unnatural; they seem out of place. They certainly aren’t the rock-hard reality you and I encounter everyday.

At least on the surface, it sounds like these four writers created a myth, a legend, The other side says, “No.” Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not myths; they are not legends; they are factual accounts of what actually took place. As you can see, the issue here revolves around one very important question, namely: How reliable are the Gospel reports on this historical figure?

For the past three hundred years, the best and brightest scholars have mulled over that very question. As they see it, Jesus is an enigma. On one hand, they admire the depth and sanity of Jesus’ moral teachings. The Jewish carpenter taught moral truths in their simplest and purest form. No one before or since has expressed them so well or with so much authority.

His teachings do not come across as sloppy idealism. Just the opposite. His words have the unmistakable ring of wisdom and shrewdness. Such insights into life and human nature must have come from an exceptionally sound and intelligent mind.

There is wide spread agreement on that score. But then again, what do we do with those grandiose claims of Jesus? He said he is the Son of God! Could a man with a sound mind say that about himself? And we keep running into miracles, including raising the dead; and he himself was reported as resurrected from the grave. And of course there is also the virgin birth. Does not the inclusion of supernatural elements make the entire story questionable?

Those who sought a rational explanation thought over the possibilities and concluded Jesus the Moral teacher was the real thing. His words rang true, so that much of the gospel story they accepted. However, no written account of the life of Jesus existed for a hundred years or so after his death. Word was passed down orally from one generation to the next during those formative years, and exaggerations seeped in.

You know how it is when stories are passed around. A little enhancement here, a little tinkering with the details there, and before long you’ve got a story all out of proportion to that of the original. By the time Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were put on paper, tall tales were well established parts of the story.

Consequently, what we call the New Testament is nothing more than a mixture of truth and error – a bit of first century reality intermingled with generous portions of second or even third century nonsense.

However, we now realize the Late-date-for-the-Gospel theory was flawed from the beginning. The case for it was not based on evidence. It was mere speculation, speculation to allow sufficient time for the legend surrounding Christ to develop. The facts involved tell us a different story. What evidence we can muster tends to confirm early dates for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Papias and Irenaeus Discredit Late Gospel Theory

In A.D. 130, Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, quoted The Elder (the apostle John) as saying that Mark accurately recorded Peter’s statements regarding Jesus’ actions and words. Since Mark had not personally witnessed the events, however, they were not written in chronological order. On the other hand, Mark was scrupulously faithful to Peter’s teachings. Nothing added, nothing omitted.

As you can see, Papias strongly endorses the book of Mark. The sequence may be wrong, but, he assures us, these are the very words of Peter.

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lugdunum (what is now Lyons) in A.D. 177. He was a student of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who was burned at the stake in A.D. 156. Polycarp in turn was a disciple of the apostle John.

Irenaeus informs us that, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their deaths (Paul somewhere between A.D. 62 and 68 and Peter about A.D. 64), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke, follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord himself, produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asia.”

Papias agreed saying, “Matthew recorded the ‘oracles’ in the Hebrew tongue.” All the early church leaders say the same thing, namely, Matthew was the first written Gospel. When was it written? Irenaeus indicates it was probably produced in the early A.D. 60s. Mark’s Gospel followed Matthew, Luke wrote third, and John composed his narrative some time later.

Notice the real significance of Irenaeus’ comments. None of the Gospels ever went through a series of oral hand-me-downs. He assures us the apostle Matthew wrote his own account of what he had seen and heard. Likewise, the apostle John produced a manuscript of what he himself had witnessed. The apostle Peter preached. Mark wrote down his words, and wrote them down accurately too, according to Papias. By the same token, Luke recorded what he heard directly from Paul.

Irenaeus was only the second generation from the apostle John. In time and in acquaintances, he was very close to the facts. He said the only oral tradition in Mark is what Peter told Mark; the only oral tradition in Luke is what Paul told Luke. In Matthew and John, the oral tradition was not a factor at all.

Oral Tradition

But what about the oral tradition anyway? The first century was an oral society. Yes, they did have writing, but it was primarily a spoken word tradition instead of a paper based society like our own. We do not depend on our memories as much as they did in the first century. We write it down and refer to it later, or we look it up on the computer. It’s easier that way.

But before the age of the printing press, books or scrolls were too expensive for the average man to own. Whatever one needed or wanted to know, he had to carry around in his head. That required a good memory.

A Jewish rabbi of the period remarked, “A good disciple is like a well-built cistern: he does not let a drop of water fall from his master’s teachings.” Jesus’ disciples were no doubt equally diligent in preserving the words and deeds of their master — all the more so because they had good reason to believe he was the Messiah, the Holy One from God.

Gospel Authorship and Dating

Gospel of Matthew

The Gospels themselves contain a number of clues giving us a rough idea of when they were written. Matthew is a good example. The early church fathers were unanimous in attributing this work to Matthew, the tax collector who left his job to follow Jesus. His occupation required him to keep records, so it doesn’t surprise us that he had the ability to write.

We find his Gospel had a distinctive Jewish style and character. According to both Papias and Irenaeus, the first edition was written in the “Hebrew tongue.” It is a Jewish book written by a Jew for a Jewish audience.

The author starts by tracing Jesus’ ancestry back to Abraham, the patriarch. Throughout his narrative, Matthew is constantly pointing out how Jesus is fulfilling this or that Messianic prophecy. His goal is to convince Jews, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God based on documents they consider beyond reproach.

Matthew feels no need to explain Jewish customs, which is reasonable if he is addressing Jewish readers. Also he uses such Jewish euphemisms as “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Father in Heaven.” Jews were reluctant to even mention the name of God. Consequently, these terms were common substitutes in their vocabulary. And what could be more Jewish than to speak of Jesus as the “Son of David?”

The exclusive Jewish character of Matthew suggests the book was composed shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, a time when the Christian movement was almost entirely Jewish.

In his 1996 book Eyewitnesses to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels, Carsten Peter Thiede, A German papyrologist, analyzes three small scraps of Matthew chapter 26 from Magdalen College at Oxford University.

He found several ancient documents which were comparable in both style and technique: the Qumran leather scroll of Leviticus, dated to the middle of the first century; an Aristophanes papyrus copy of Equites (The Knights), dated late first century B.C. to early first century A.D.; and incredibly enough, an Egyptian document actually signed and dated by three civil servants July 24, 66.

Based on these close comparisons, Thiede concludes that the three tiny fragments of Matthew chapter 26, known collectively as the Magdalen papyrus, date no later than A.D. 70. As we have already noted, both Irenaeus and Papias claim the original Matthew manuscript was in Hebrew. Obviously, the Hebrew original must have predated this papyrus Greek translation.

Gospel of Luke

Perhaps the least controversial author of the Gospel writers is Luke. Most agree that the physician and sometimes traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel that bears his name, that is, the Gospel of Luke.

That book is a companion volume to the book of Acts. The language and structure of the two manuscripts indicate they were written by the same person. And they were addressed to the same individual — Theophilus. Luke’s authorship is supported by early Christian writings such as the Muratorian Canon A.D 170 and the works of Irenaeus in A.D. 180.

Luke appears to be a well-educated gentile. His writings show he is fluent in Greek. At times his style even approaches that of classic Greek. Both of his books are rich in historical and geographical detail. As others have observed, this physician writes like an historian.

Luke tells us that a number of people had already written about Jesus’ life. However, he would like to set the record straight and correct the errors he found in those early reports. To separate fact from fiction, Luke conducts a personal investigation interviewing eyewitnesses and verifying oral accounts with the apostles. In his own words, he investigated everything from the beginning to write an orderly report for Theophilus so that he could be certain of the things he had been taught. (Luke 1:3-4)

Indirect evidence suggests Luke wrote Acts in the early A.D. 60’s. Acts is a history of early Christianity which was centered in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem’s destruction which occurred in A.D. 70.

Likewise, nothing is mentioned of Nero’s persecution of Christians in A.D. 64, nor does it tell of the martyrdom of the three major characters in the book: James, brother of Jesus, A.D. 62; Peter A.D. 64; and Paul some time between A.D. 62 and 68.

On the other hand, Acts does inform us of the deaths of two less prominent figures: Stephen, the first known martyr, in A.D. 36, and the apostle James, son of Zebedee and brother of John, in A.D. 44. Based on this indirect evidence, there is reason to believe Acts was composed in A.D. 62 or earlier. Acts is an obvious continuation of the Gospel Luke. So if Acts were written by Luke no later than A.D. 62, the Gospel of Luke was most likely recorded before that time, presumably in the late 50’s.

Carsten Thiede speaks of a codex papyrus of Luke’s Gospel located at the Bibliotheque in Paris. After evaluating the original document, the papyrologist decided it was from the first century A.D., only slightly older than the Magdalen Papyrus.

Later Embellishment Theory

Before we leave Luke, there is another item which needs to be mentioned. Skeptics, you will recall, believe that all of those miraculous events were just fictitious inventions tacked on to the original writings hundreds of years later. Luke discredits their “later embellishment” theory.

In Acts 2:22, he quotes Peter’s sermon to the Jews at Pentecost: “Men of Israel, hear me. Jesus of Nazareth was singled out by God and made known to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did among you through him.” Peter followed that up with: “. . . you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead . . . . God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact . . . . God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:23-24, 32, and 36)

Peter said in effect: You yourselves saw Jesus perform miracles. That wasn’t just a man you crucified. That was your Lord and Christ. What’s more, that Man did not stay dead. God brought him back to life. We know that for a fact. We have seen him with our own eyes; heard him with our own ears; why, we even ran our fingers over his crucifixion wounds. He’s alive. And he’s back!

The interesting point here is how the crowd reacts. If modern skeptics were right, that is, those incredible supernatural events never really happened, we would expect the crowd to say something to the effect: Who are you kidding? That man never performed any miracles! And he’s dead. We saw him die. Forget him, Peter. Go get a life of your own.

But they didn’t say that. Instead: “They were cut to the heart and said: ‘Brothers, what should we do?’” (Acts 2:37) They had seen Jesus’ “miracles, wonders, and signs” and Peter used that knowledge to convert those Jews to Christianity.

Something else. Notice that Peter doesn’t shy away from Jesus’ resurrection. In fact, it is the focal point of his speech. Remarkable isn’t it? Three thousand of those listening to Peter’s words accepted the apostle’s eye witnessed account. We read, “Those who accepted (Peter’s) message were baptized and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” (Acts 2:41)

Peter, John, and Paul all made good use of firsthand evidence in their writings. Peter said: We didn’t make up stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)

John reads: We tell you what we have seen and heard so you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3) John is talking about himself when he referred to the witness of Christ’s death: “We know this is true, because it was told by someone who saw it happen. Now you can have faith too.” (John 19:35 CEV)

Also Paul, in speaking to Festus and King Agrippa, tells them that Christ did exactly what Moses and the prophets said he would do, that is, he suffered, died, and was raised from the dead. Festus immediately questioned Paul’s sanity. But Paul responds: “What I am saying is reasonable and true. The king is familiar with these things and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.” (Acts 26:25-26)

Again, notice the reaction. The interesting thing here is what King Agrippa did not say. He didn’t say: That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard of Paul. It has been my experience that dead people tend to stay dead!

That’s exactly what we would expect Agrippa to say, unless, unless he knew something out of the ordinary had taken place. Paul made three startling claims here: First, Jesus was the long awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy. Second, Jesus was resurrected from the grave. And perhaps ever more extraordinary, Paul himself claims to have seen and heard the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Amazingly enough, King Agrippa doesn’t laugh at, ridicule, or get angry at Paul’s “outrageous” claims. Apparently, Agrippa didn’t find the remarks outrageous. He merely replies, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” (Acts 26:28)

Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark was very likely composed in A.D. 50’s or the early 60’s. According to early church tradition, Mark was written in Rome where Peter spent the last days of his life. Romans crucified Peter upside down in A.D. 64.

Mark seems to have been written for a gentile audience, possibly a Roman audience. Unlike Matthew, he explains Jewish customs and translates Aramaic words for his readers. Also Mark shows a special interest in persecution and martyrdom – subjects of crucial importance to Roman believers of his day.

Mark’s work was readily accepted, and it spread rapidly throughout Christianity. Some believe the reason it was distributed so quickly is because it originated in Rome.

A papyrus scroll fragment of Mark 6:52-53 called 7Q5 was excavated from Qumran Cave 7. “It must be dated before A.D. 68 and could easily be as early as A.D. 50,” claims Carsten Thiede.

Although the early church said Matthew was the first Gospel, many today think Mark wrote his account first. They base their judgment on the fact that Mark’s book is shorter and much of what he said can be found in the Gospel of Matthew.

Scholars are inclined to say it was more likely that Matthew would expand on Mark’s text rather that Mark would condense and leave out parts of what Matthew wrote. Besides, all of what Mark wrote supposably came directly from Peter.

The assumption is that one copied from the other, but independent origins are a distinct possibility. The question remains, why would an original apostle of Christ need to depend on anyone else to tell him what Jesus said and did?

Both writers probably used the same oral tradition for memorized accounts of Christ’s sayings and actions. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that these bits and pieces of information had already found their way into writing before Matthew and Mark composed their Gospels. The Gospel writers arranged and shaped those commonly known stories and sayings of Jesus into the more comprehensive narratives which bear their names.

Whichever Gospel was first, there is general consensus that both Matthew and Mark appeared before Luke unveiled his Gospel. That puts the probable dates of both early compositions somewhere in the A.D. 50’s. The significant point here is that the period from Jesus’ death to the first three Gospels is too short for the introduction of myths and legends.

The virgin birth, miracles, and the resurrection were all there from the beginning. Those “incredible” supernatural events were an intricate part of the original story.

Many saw and remembered Jesus’ miracles, and over five hundred people saw the resurrected Jesus on one occasion. Early Christianity relied on this common knowledge for recruiting new members. The apostles pointed out that this resurrected miracle worker was both Lord and Christ. As Peter demonstrated at Pentecost, it was a very persuasive argument.

We have taken a brief look at each of the first three Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These books agree in language, much of the material they cover, and in a rough sort of way, the order of what Jesus said and did too. Because of this widespread general agreement, these narratives are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels.

Gospel of John

Someone with a lot more patience than I claims that 91 percent of the Gospel of Mark is found in Matthew, while 53 percent of Mark is seen in Luke. But what of the fourth Gospel – the Gospel According to John? What do we know about it?

The apostle John “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is the author. He refers to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” six times without naming the name. He was prominent in the early church, but his name is never mentioned in this Gospel. That is one of the little oddities of his book. “The disciple whom Jesus loved” would be a “natural” if somewhat coy way of referring to himself if John were the author. Otherwise, it is impossible to explain.

The Gospel of John has a number of personal eyewitness touches such as recalling the fragrance of Mary’s pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus’ feet in the house at Bethany. And then there is the episode of Jesus writing in the dust with his finger when they brought him the woman caught in adultery.

C.S. Lewis points out that the significance of this “dust writing” is the fact it has no significance. If it were a tale, it would be the mark of a realistic prose fiction which never actually existed prior to the eighteenth century. To quote Lewis: “Surely, the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened. The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”

Two early Christian writers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, both claim that John the apostle composed this Gospel and the internal evidence concurs. Traditionally, it has been dated around A.D. 85. More recently, some scholars have suggested an earlier date, even down to the 50’s and no later than the 70’s. One bit of internal evidence is John 5:2, where John uses the present tense “is” rather than “was” for a pool near the Sheep Gate. That implies a time before A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed.

In 1935 a small fragment of the Gospel of John was found and dated at A.D. 125. It is called the John Ryland Manuscript. One side quotes John 18:31-33, and the other sides shows verses 37-38. The importance of this find is hard to overstate, because it helps to confirm the traditional date of this Gospel in the first century. Before this discovery, there was a movement among scholars to place the original composition date around A.D. 170.

Textual Criticism

There is an academic discipline called “Textual Criticism.” When the original document is lost, textual critics compare all available copies to try to piece together what the original document probably said. In general the more manuscripts available and the closer they date to the original, the better. The New Testament scores well on both points.

New Testament books provide a wealth of material for the text critic scholars to evaluate: 5,147 ancient manuscripts, over 10,000 translated scripts into Latin Vulgate, and numerous other translations, plus a large assortment of early scripture quotations by the church fathers. Most of the differences in the copies are minor variations such as word order, spelling, grammar, or stylistic details. However, some variations make a difference. The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament lists 2,040 sets of word variations they think Bible translators should consider.

Does that sound like a lot of disagreement? Actually, it represents a very small portion of the New Testament scriptures. But the important point is this: The unanimous opinion among text scholars remains intact; none of the disputed words affect any doctrine of the Christian faith.

Realistically that is the best Christians could hope for. The same textual criticism which analyzes all ancient text confirms the substance of the New Testament text. The ancient text experts tell us the New Testament account we have today is essentially the same message that the authors recorded over nineteen centuries ago.

Values To Learn In Order To Build Ourselves Up To Last1. Values of Loyalty

Loyalty is the quality of being firm in your friendship or support for someone or something. If we believe that there is only one God in this world, we will align ourselves to this one God. The same applies in your place of work. There are many companies that you can work for but for you to stay on in the same place will be greatly influenced by the leader of the company. If the CEO of the company has great visions for the company, the employees will align themselves towards the same visions. The vision of the CEO will become the vision of the employees, too. No matter what may happen, the visions and the direction remain. This is loyalty, being firm no matter how great the storm is.2. Values of Commitment (Servanthood)

Commitment is a strong belief in an idea or system, especially when it is shown by your actions and behaviour. The value of commitment is to be committed to the authority you are aligned with. This commitment is demonstrated through what you do and say. It is important to teach commitment to the people of God or else nothing can be built. If you want to build a family that will last, you must be committed to making it work.3. Values of Respect (Submission to Authority)

The value of respect is proper submission to authority. There is a proper order of relationship. If you do not understand this, the relationship will be broken up. The things that you do not guard, you will loose. Adam is a good example. He did not guard the relationship he has with God. He watched and allowed Eve to fall into the deception. In the place where God places you with authority over you, you do not elevate yourself to the same level as the authority placed over you. This is wrong. If you do, you allow the seed of seduction to be planted and it is an act of rebellion.

Knowledge can puff up a person. If a person works hard and gets promoted, he unconsciously begins to think his promotion is due to his hard works and by his own efforts. He will begin to think that he knows better than his boss. However, he does not realize that his promotion was due to his boss giving him authority to do the work. He was delegated the job, otherwise there will be no chance for him to be recognised in his works and be promoted. We have to guard ourselves against pride for it breeds familiarity and contentious in the office and this is wrong.

Jesus is an example of humility. Philippians 2:5-11 tells us clearly of Jesus’ humility where He humbles Himself and obeys God to the point of death. He was different from Lucifer. Lucifer wanted to be equal with God. Lucifer was a created being but Jesus was not. It was clear in Philippians that Jesus is equal with God but He chooses to submit Himself to the authority of God. Without this submission to authority and humility of God, His death on the cross and God’s redemption plan will not happen.

Please visit Sermon Alive to read part 1,3,4,5, and 6.

Surely the most important question ever asked is: What must we do to inherit eternal life? And who is better qualified to answer that question than Jesus, Peter, and Paul? So let’s see what they have to say.

Peter’s Sermon at Pentecost

”When the people heard [Peter's sermon at Pentecost], they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)

The most important question asked in the first century is still the most important in the twenty-first century. And the answer is still the same!

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:38-47)

So how do the scriptures answer the critical question: What shall we do?

What Shall We Do?

Believe in Jesus Christ

Before baptism, faith in Jesus is necessary. The jailor asked Paul and Silas what should he do to be saved. They replied: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household.” (Acts 16:31) The jailor and his family were baptized.

Paul again stressed the importance of belief saying the gospel is salvation for everyone who believes. (Romans 1:15-17)

John informs us that all who believe that Jesus is the Christ are born of God. And those who believe Jesus is the Son of God overcome the world. (1 John 5:1-6)

But what of those who don’t believe? “Their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur,” warns Jesus. (Revelation 21:8)

Why do you suppose so much emphasis is placed on what we believe? Surely whatever we believe is nothing more than an opinion based on how we view the evidence. How could what we believe be considered a vice or virtue? The answer to that question comes from Jesus himself. “I am the way the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

Peter echoes Jesus’ words: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

We are not given a choice of who or what to believe. For eternal life we must have faith in Jesus, that he is who he claimed to be: the Christ, the Son of God, and our only hope for salvation. That much is essential.

Repent

Jesus concludes the parable of the lost coin with: “There is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke: 15:10)

Paul said that God commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30) And he repeats the theme of repentance twice more in the book of Acts. (Acts:20:21 and 26:20)

Peter too preached repentance saying that the Lord is patient, not wanting any to perish, but all to repent. (2 Peter 3:9)

What did Jesus, Paul, and Peter mean by repentance? Mere words and sentiment? No, the brand of repentance they had in mind is an abrupt change in our behavior. Think of a company of soldiers marching along. The command rings out, “To the rear, march!” In one stride they reverse course and march off in the opposite direction. Such is repentance. We discover we are in the wrong, and we completely change direction.

Confess Faith in Jesus

Confession is another requirement. Jesus said that whoever confesses him before men, he will confess before his Father in heaven. But those who deny him will be denied before his Father. (Matthew 10:32-33 NKJV)

Paul says very much the same in his letter to the Romans. “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

Baptism

Baptism is the fourth requirement. The resurrected Jesus instructed his disciples to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19) He also said, “No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born of the water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5)

The resurrected Jesus spoke to the eleven apostles: “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

Responding to the plea from the Jews on the day of Pentecost, “What must we do?”, Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38)

Baptism in the scriptures meant immersion, not pouring nor sprinkling. Clearly, Paul was speaking of immersion in the passage: “Don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:3-4)

Likewise, Philip taking the Ethiopian eunuch “down into the water” for baptism and coming “up out of the water” is a physical description of immersion. (Acts 8:37-39)

The first case for sprinkling for baptism was called “clinic baptism” because the subject was quite ill. Sprinkling for baptism was not fully accepted until the Council of Ravena in 1311 A.D. We have no reason to believe Christ ever approved of it.

New Testament scriptures, Acts in particular, records many baptisms. All were old enough to believe, no one was baptized against his will, and no infant baptism is mentioned at all. The baptism of children may have begun around 200 A.D. Tertullian, (ca. 155-230) church leader and prolific author of early Christianity, speaks of this custom originating in his own time.

What Must We Do, Jesus?

Jesus answered the “What must we do?” question twice. The following conversation is usually titled “The Rich Young Man” or “The Rich Ruler.”

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

“Which ones?” the man inquired.

Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:16-21) (Also Mark 10:17-21 and Luke 18:18-22)

Luke relates the following exchange between Jesus and a lawyer:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28)

In summary, the scriptures detail what we must do to inherit eternal life: Believe in God and Jesus Christ, repent of your sins, confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins, love God, love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and mother, give to the poor, refrain from murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and Mark adds “do not defraud.” (Mark 10:19)

Believing, repenting, confessing, baptizing, and obeying are our marching orders as Christians. But there is more, a lot more.

“Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God because he said so. The other evidence about him has convinced them he was neither a lunatic nor a quack.” Christian Reflections C. S. [Clive Staples] Lewis (1898-1963)

Note: All Scripture References are taken from the New International Version unless otherwise stated.

NKJV – New King James Version

2 Peter 1:5-11; But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is short-sighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

When a businessman sets out to start a business, he does not plan to open shop for only 1 year and then closes it down. Neither does one enter into a marriage and plans to end it in 5 years’ time. No one in their right frame of mind will start a new venture in life or career with the plan to let it last for a short period of time and then calls it quit. When we plan, we plan to build. When we build, we build to last.

The bible says that if we take God’s words and put it into our lives, we will not fall or stumble easily. However, if our lives are not productive, then we need to access ourselves and ask whether we are focusing on the right thing. If the focus is wrong, it is important to take a step back and ask God what is really important in order to refocus ourselves back on the things that are productive, fruitful and crucial. Simply put, we need to focus on the right thing and we need to change.

The bible has lots to say about being focus. Matthew 6:33 tells us to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all the things (i.e. food, clothes) we need will be added unto what we already have. Jesus was teaching the disciples not to focus on what they should eat and wear but to seek first the things of God and His righteousness. This refers to the right kind of mindset and values we hold in our lives. As we seek the kingdom of God first and His righteousness, Christ’s mindset and His values will be part of our lives, too. Hence, it is critical we focus our mind on spiritual things for our lives to have a turnaround. For example, if you are a businessman, it is better to focus on giving your best to serving the customers rather than on the competitions, watch what they do and retaliate.

The bible illustrates an example of a rich young man who approached Jesus and asked Him what he needed to do in order to be saved – Matthew 19:16-22. He obeyed the Ten Commandments from his youth days but he knew not what else was missing for him to attain eternal life. When he was told to sell all he has, give to the poor and follow Jesus, the young man walked away sad. He was unable to give up his earthly possessions. For this rich young man, he focused on the commandments for the sake of obeying it. He did not understand the spirit behind the Ten Commandments. To him, the commandments were just a set of law to obey. He failed to understand that the spirit of the commandments is to love God and people. If the young ruler understands the spirit behind the commandments, he would have gladly given up everything to love the poor and follow Jesus. He focused on the need to obey the law of the commandments and not the spirit behind the commandments. This does not last for eternity. Instead, we are to focus on things that will last for eternity whether we are in business, working for others, studying, and etc.

What then should we do in order to ensure that everything we do, we build it to last for eternity? The disciples heard Jesus’ reply to the rich young man. Jesus knew their thoughts and their lack of understanding – Matthew 12:25. He said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. Desolation means brought to nothing. The devil is not afraid of many people going to church but he knows that he can break the church into fragments and divide the people of God up. When the church of God is divided and fighting among themselves, they cannot be united as one. They cannot build anything as one united force that will last for eternity. Neither can the church as an individual build anything to last for eternity if the heart is divided between things of God and things of the world.

Does this mean an end for the church of God? No. In the church, there must be something that bind all the families of God together and not be divided. It is the place of agreement. The place of agreement is the place of power. God knows the strategies of Satan and He has a plan in mind for the families of God. Through the bible, the word of God, we learn about values taught by God in the Ten Commandments (Old Testament, Exodus 20:1-17) and the two great commandments mentioned by Jesus (New Testament, Luke 22:35-40).

Please go to Sermon Alive to look at Part 2 to Part 6.