Question:
Were the apostles baptized in water?
Response:
There is no scripture which specifically states that the apostles (the twelve,
not Paul) were baptized in water. Many
have concluded (based on the teaching of the apostles in regards to water
baptism) that such had to take place in order for the apostles to be placed into
the church. Perhaps, prior to
baptizing the three thousand on the day of Pentecost the apostles first baptized
each other. This is a reasonable
conclusion, but it is not the only possible answer to this challenging
question.
Another
view would state that the apostles were not baptized in water, but were placed
into the kingdom by Jesus. This
view is supported by such passages as:
And
God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various
kinds of tongues.
1
Corinthians 12:28
The word “appointed” in that verse means literally, set in place; to put in place.
Notice that it was the apostles who were first
set in the church.
Through the apostles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit (passed on through
the laying on of hands by the apostles) came prophets, teachers, miracles, etc.
Paul in his letter to the Ephesians wrote:
So
then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with
the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Ephesians
2:19,20
The
church of Jesus Christ was built upon the rock… Jesus as Christ (Matt. 16:18);
and upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
If the apostles were set in place
(by God) as the foundation upon which the church was to be built, would there be
a need for them to be baptized? Jesus
told the apostles prior to His death, burial, and resurrection:
“You
are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.”
John
15:3
What does Jesus mean, “You are already clean”?
In context, the idea is that the apostles did not need any pruning.
Jesus had prepared them for the work which was set before them.
Did this pruning mean there was no need for the apostles to be baptized?
Did the fact that the apostles were set into the church and established
as its foundation remove the need for water baptism in their lives?
Such is hard to say. As we
mentioned earlier, there is no scripture which clearly states that the apostles
were baptized in water; but, then again, there is no verse which clearly states
that they were not. The bottom
line… this is one of those secret things that belongs to the Lord (cf. Deut.
29:29).
John
Buttrey II
back to top
Question:
When Paul said he did not know which to choose, life or death, was he saying he
would be justified in committing suicide?
Response: Though
the answer to this question might seem obvious for us as Christians, it is an
important question to consider in view of our society’s current trend.
With the wide-spread acceptance of abortion over the last twenty years,
human life has been devalued to the point where many are now seeking the right
to end life prematurely. So called
“mercy killings” make the evening news on a fairly regular basis. Physician assisted suicide is on the rise in popularity, and
is now legal in one state. As more
and more health care plans struggle for low-cost premiums they will encourage
doctors to spend less and less money (and time) on their patients.
As person writes:
“Escalating
health care costs coupled with a growing elderly and disabled population set
the stage for an American culture eager to embrace alternatives to expensive,
long-term medical care. The so-called “right to die” may soon become the
“duty to die” as our senior, disabled or depressed family members are
pressured or coerced into ending their lives. The move toward managed care
also threatens to promote euthanasia as more and more doctors are offered
financial incentives to decrease the number of health care dollars spent per
patient.”
Without
a doubt, the elderly and severely ill will one day fall victim to the
legalization of euthanasia as a means of cutting health care costs.
With
that background, what are we to make of Paul’s statement in regards to
choosing life or death? Let’s
look at the text the question comes from and see what we can discover.
21 For to me, to live is Christ and
to die is gain.
22 But if I am to live on in the
flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose.
23 But I am hard-pressed from both
directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very
much better;
24 yet to remain on in the flesh is
more necessary for your sake.
Philippians
1:21-24
Paul clearly (and correctly) recognized that to depart this life and be
with Christ would be far greater than anything this world could offer.
However, he knew that the brethren still needed him—there was still
work for the Lord to be done. As
Paul puts it in verse 23, “I am hard-pressed from both directions.”
He could see the good in both… staying and departing. Though being with Christ would be gain… helping the
brethren would be gain for them. Which
would be better?
Was Paul indicating in these words his choosing to live or die by his own
hand? Was he contemplating suicide
so as to be with the Lord and end his current difficult situation?
Was he seeking what some today would call, “death with dignity”?
As Paul himself might say, “Certainly not!”
Paul knew killing (other then capital punishment) was against God’s
word (cf. Gen. 9:6; Ex. 20:13; 21:21; Lev. 24:17).
What
is he saying? Our English
translation of the Greek text makes it sound as if Paul was choosing to live or
die by his own hand. In reality,
all Paul was indicating is which would actually (in the overall scope of things)
be better—to depart and be with Christ, or to stay and work with the brethren.
Paul couldn’t decide.
I
am not a big fan of the Amplified Bible, but notice how they render the passage.
For me to live is Christ [His life
in me], and to die is gain [the gain of the glory of eternity].
If, however, it is to be life in the flesh and I am to live on here, that
means fruitful service for me; so I can say nothing as to my personal preference
[I cannot choose],
Philippians 1:21-22
The Living Bible renders the verse
as follows:
For
to me, living means opportunities for Christ, and dying—well, that’s better
yet! But if living will give me
more opportunities to win people to Christ, then I really don’t know which is
better, to live or die!
Philippians 1:21-22
That says it well! Paul is
not contemplating suicide. He is
not choosing whether he will live or die by his own doing.
He is simply expressing the thought, that though he knew it would be
better to be with Christ… was that really what would be best for the brethren;
and Paul, at that time.
Paul says, “I do not know!” “I
cannot decide!”
Question:
According to 2 Peter 1:19, why is the prophetic word
made more sure?
Response: In answering this question most would say that the
prophetic word is made more sure by the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies.
While that is certainly true, a closer look at the context of the passage
reveals an even more powerful and encouraging answer. Let's take a look at the
verses leading up to and including the referenced passage.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we
made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
eyewitnesses of His majesty.
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an
utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My
beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-
18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with
Him on the holy mountain.
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay
attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the
morning star arises in your hearts.
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of
one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by
the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Peter 1:16-21
Notice in verse 19 that Peter says, "we have the
prophetic word…" The "we" in this particular case is not you
and I; although we do have the inspired word. The "we" relates back
to the "we" in verse 16, where Peter is speaking of his apostleship
and his preaching of the gospel. Peter says, "We (as apostles) did not
preach to you stories we made up… we did not preach to you fables."
Rather, Peter says, "We (as apostles) were eyewitnesses of His (Christ's)
majesty."
In reference to his eyewitness account Peter writes of the events that took
place when Jesus was transfigured (cf. Matt. 17:1-6; Mk. 9:2-8; Lk. 9:28-32).
On that occasion Peter, James, and John heard a voice from heaven saying,
"This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased." Hearing that
voice, seeing Jesus transfigured before their eyes, and seeing Moses and
Elijah standing there with Jesus made the prophetic word (for Peter, James,
and John… the "we" in view in this text) even more sure (firm,
steadfast, reliable).
You and I today do have the prophetic word. For us it is made more sure by
eyewitnesses like Peter and the other apostles. It is made more sure by the
fulfillment of prophecy as seen in scripture and in history. It is made more
sure by the evidences all around us that speak of the existence of God. God's
word is indeed something we do well to pay attention to.
John Buttrey II
back to top
Question: In Exodus 4:24 why did the Lord seek to put Moses to death?
Response: In a word, disobedience. To better understand the reason,
let's take a look at the surrounding verses.
22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord,
"Israel is My son, My firstborn.
23 "So I said to you, 'Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you
have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your
firstborn." ' "
24 Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the Lord met him
[Moses] and sought to put him to death.
25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at
Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to
me."
26 So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of
blood"-because of the circumcision.
Exodus 4:22-26 Additions in brackets mine
The Lord on this occasion had apparently struck Moses with a
life-threatening illness; but why? It seems that Moses during his years in
Midian as a shepherd, had not circumcised one his sons; perhaps at the request
of Zipporah, his wife. Most scholars believe the son in question was Eliezer;
Gershom was the name of the other (cf. Ex. 18:3, 4).
Moses and Zipporah recognized his illness was brought on by the Lord for
neglecting the circumcision; as is evident by the actions and words of
Zipporah.
Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at
Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to
me."
Exodus 4:25
Based on her actions, it is reasonable to deduce that the bloody practice
of circumcision was repugnant to Zipporah; and, because of this Moses had
delayed or neglected it with respect to his son. Seeing that it would cost her
the life of her bridegroom unless it was done, she performed it herself,
calling Moses "a bridegroom of blood." Upon her action we are told,
"The Lord let him alone" (vs. 26). In other words, the illness was
removed.
If Moses was going to be the leader of the people that God intended him to be,
he had to have his house in order and show respect to God's laws himself (cf.
1 Tim. 3:1-7).
This account once again demonstrates the respect God demands to His laws and
how we are to treat Him as being holy. When Aaron's sons were punished by
death because of disobedience, Moses could well respond to Aaron…
Then Moses said to Aaron, "It is what the Lord spoke, saying, 'By
those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I
will be honored.' " So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.
Leviticus 10:3
John Buttrey II
back to top
