Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

A New Covenant With The House Of Israel, And With The House Of Judah


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This Jewish genealogy bit is pretty stupid in my opinion.Glad you said that!  It is a smokescreen to cover the tracks of bad theology designed to get people confused and OBsessed over genealogies that may or may not be proven. You are reaching a bit.

 

oh, wait...(here it comes folks!)

 

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and GENEALOGIES.... What about the foolish questions?

 

Why does Paul give us this instruction?  Because in the end it becomes a matter of speculation. Then why bother teaching the difference between Jew and Gentile as a Dispensationalist?

 

The Book of Hebrews

I never said that I had prOBlems understanding it, but then again, Genevan can't understand why Peter would say that Paul's letters were hard to understand....so apparently this is again a novice(unfair) who is oversimplifying things to the point that he has erased all of the "prOBlem passages." Why do you keep insisting there are these? That is discouraging to new believers and misleading. What about 'studying to show yourself approved'? There are no prOBlem passages to those who know the Author. And can read.

 

The doctrinal prOBlem passages contained in the book of Hebrews are well documented everywhere. By scholars? Hebrews 6:1-6 has been giving fundamentalist (I question this) "scholars" fits for decades.  That is just one example.  Sure - everybody has their own pet answer for all of these prOBlem passages, but the fact is that Hebrews presents more difficulties than any of the other Pauline epistles.  Anybody who has done intensive study of the NT knows that. Maybe one needs to study it without the so-called scholars!

 

But all of this is digression from the main point.  We somehow got derailed from the main topic by this smokescreen about Jewish ancestry.  You see, we are not discussing the text of Scripture anymore, just wasting time trying to determine who is a "real" Jew and who is not. Was not the question about the House of Israel and the House of Judah? These are not lands, or books, but people.

 

 

There that was kinda fun. :clapping:

 

By the way, sorry about being a novice. 

So how long and how much of the Bible does one need to know the Lord before he is not a novice according to you?

 

P.S. - Scholars have always been the prOBlem with Christianity.

They make men think they are not able to understand God's word without their knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Advanced Member

There is no way to broad brush how many Jews do or don't remember their heritage. During the Third Reich many Jews knew they were Jews yet there were also a number of "Germans" who were surprised to find out they were actually Jewish. This wasn't/isn't unique, as the same is true in many other countries. One of the things many find interesting about checking into their ancestry is finding out their heritage. It's fairly common to hear folks talk about how they didn't know they were Jewish, Germanic, Indian or whatever. Yes, some non-religious Jews still identify themselves as Jews. Others know they have Jewish ancestry but don't consider themselves to be Jews, and still others no longer even know of their Jewish ancestry.

The point I was making is that over 100,000 Jews became Christian in the first C.
_
60 generations have passed. Did they remember and treasure their Jewish ancestry? For how many generations ? Perhaps there are Palestinian Christians who know? It's 1900 years.

But there must be many millions descended from them.

Today's Jews know they are Jews, but how many who became Christian centuries ago?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church.  It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church).  In Christ,

sorry you consider the inspired Word to be a stumbling block to the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  

 

Another thing to say about 'understanding' the book of Hebrews...here's the 'sin' in all this.

When you say that scholars agree that Heb. 6:1-6 are very difficult to understand, you destroy the ability of a fellow Christian to 'say' what is meant in those verses.

Because every good Christian knows, "if'n a scholar can't figger it out, there ain't no way we common saved people cood".

 

So when I say I understand Heb. 6:1-6, you can just ignore me.

I don't know nuffin.

I's is jes a novice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Another thing to say about 'understanding' the book of Hebrews...here's the 'sin' in all this.When you say that scholars agree that are very difficult to understand, you destroy the ability of a fellow Christian to 'say' what is meant in those verses.Because every good Christian knows, "if'n a scholar can't figger it out, there ain't no way we common saved people cood". So when I say I understand , you can just ignore me.I don't know nuffin.I's is jes a novice.

The difficulty arises when they try to INTERPRET Scripture according to and imposed system, rather than seeking to understand it in context The whole disp system leads to wrong dividing, rather than right understaning
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

sorry you consider the inspired Word to be a stumbling block to the church.

There is a way to "rightly divide" scripture and Replacement Theology (or its bedfellows) will not get you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is a way to "rightly divide" scripture and Replacement Theology (or its bedfellows) will not get you there.

 

NOBody here teaches Replacement Theology. And what kind of term is 'bedfellows'? Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hebrews is anonomous for a very good reason - it was written by a woman.

Hebrews was written by Priscilla (of Priscilla and Aquila), a Heleinistic Jew 

and not a Palestinian Jew.  Priscilla and Aquila were well educated Jews

and accompanied Paul.  See Acts 18, Romans 16:3 and 1 Cor 16:19.

 

The identification of Paul as author is of 4th Century Catholic origin.

Much of Catholicism is within Protestantism as Replacement Theology

and all its "bedfellows" were retained by the "Reformers" and contaminate

theology.

 

"a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" 

 

Prove it.

 

i am a bit fed up with you making statements about people who disagree with you coming from Catholic theology.  If you take time to study the history, which you won't, you will find that the whole of futurist teaching came from the Jesuits after the reformation to try and challenge the protestant teaching that the pope was the Antichrist. The first protestant, as far as I can trace who adopted the teaching was Mr Maitland, librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote a book on the subject in 1816.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Prove it.

 

i am a bit fed up with you making statements about people who disagree with you coming from Catholic theology.  If you take time to study the history, which you won't, you will find that the whole of futurist teaching came from the Jesuits after the reformation to try and challenge the protestant teaching that the pope was the Antichrist. The first protestant, as far as I can trace who adopted the teaching was Mr Maitland, librarian to the archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote a book on the subject in 1816.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,

lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part

is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from JacOB:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
60 AD  Romans 11:25-27
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,

lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part

is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

 
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from JacOB:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
60 AD  Romans 11:25-27

 

 

Mystery?

 

"That is, that God by revelation hath showed this mystery unto me

(as I wrote above in few words, whereby when ye read, ye may know mine 

understanding in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not opened

unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets

by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be inheritors also, and of the same body,

and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel"   (Ephesians 3:3-6.)

 

Solved!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist


For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part
is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out
of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from JacOB:

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
60 AD Romans 11:25-27


To be fair here - and I don't agree with Invicta on very much - he was asking you to prove your Hebrews authorship statement.

Your answer to my questioning of it was fine, but no more than speculation.

The point is that the book IS anonymous. There are indicators in the book, but no proof.

One thing is that it is highly unlikely that a Jewish woman would dare to instruct on Jewish issues. It is far more likely, for a variety of reasons that it was Aquila. To speculate that it was the wife ONLY because the author is not mentioned is a weak argument. The more likely scenario would be to credit the book to the husband to make it more acceptable.
Secondly, and this is speculation, if it was Aquila and Priscilla, then it is again more likely to be Aquila because he is noted as being Jewish. The first time they are mentioned is in Acts 18:2 which notes Aquila being a Jew, but come lately from Italy with his wife. Priscilla is a Latin name, not a Hebrew name. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she was Italian, not Jewish. For a non-Hebrew to have the kind of knowledge of Judaism that the writer of Hebrews has is highly unlikely.

Overall, the likelihood that Priscilla is the author is extremely low.

But again, the author is not named, therefore any conclusion involves an amount of speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 
The point is that the book IS anonymous. There are indicators in the book, but no proof.

One thing is that it is highly unlikely that a Jewish woman would dare to instruct on Jewish issues. It is far more likely, for a variety of reasons that it was Aquila. To speculate that it was the wife ONLY because the author is not mentioned is a weak argument. The more likely scenario would be to credit the book to the husband to make it more acceptable.
Secondly, and this is speculation, if it was Aquila and Priscilla, then it is again more likely to be Aquila because he is noted as being Jewish. The first time they are mentioned is in Acts 18:2 which notes Aquila being a Jew, but come lately from Italy with his wife. Priscilla is a Latin name, not a Hebrew name. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she was Italian, not Jewish. For a non-Hebrew to have the kind of knowledge of Judaism that the writer of Hebrews has is highly unlikely.

Overall, the likelihood that Priscilla is the author is extremely low.

But again, the author is not named, therefore any conclusion involves an amount of speculation.

Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:18) - note: Priscilla is mentioned before her husband's name.

Priscilla and Aquila and Apollos are all Greek names. 

Priscilla and Aquila discipled Apollos. (Acts 18:26)

The fact that Hebrews is "anonomous" should be a signal.

Internal evidence shows a high knowledge of Judiasm, but NOT intimate knowledge of Temple affairs. (Hellenist vs. Palestinian Jew).

This conclusion of authorship does not originate with me, it is due to meticulous scholarship by others.

Alternatively, the authorship of Hebrews very well could be the husband-wife (or wife-husband) team of Priscilla and Aquila.

 

It does not "fit" with Paul's role as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  And Apollos was "schooled" by Priscilla and Aquila.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
"For as much as diverse, both of the Greek writers and Latin’s witness, that 
the writer of this Epistle for just causes would not have his name known, it 
were curiosity of our part to labor much therein. For seeing the Spirit of God 
is the author thereof, it diminisheth nothing the authority, although we 
know not with what pen he wrote it. Whether it were Paul (as it is not like) 
or Luke, or Barnabas, or Clement, or some other, his chief purpose is to 
persuade unto the Hebrews (whereby he principally meaneth them that abode 
at Jerusalem, and under them all the rest of the Jews) that Christ Jesus was 
not only the redeemer, but also that at his coming all ceremonies must have 
an end; for as much as his doctrine was the conclusion of all the prophecies, 
and therefore not only Moses was inferior to him, but also the Angels; for 
they all were servants, and he the Lord, but so Lord, that he hath also taken 
our flesh, and is made our brother to assure us of our salvation through 
himself."
 
Just a little info from my Bible.   :godisgood:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have to agree with DaveW on this.

 

God's precedent was for "holy men of God" to be used in recording his word (2 Peter 1:21).

 

God's precedent was for only Jews to be used in recording his word (Romans 3:2)

 

Aquila is recorded as being a Jew (and a man), but Priscilla isn't (Acts 18:2).

 

Of the 5 times that Aquila and Priscilla are named, 3 of those times Aquila is named first...(Acts 18:2, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26, Romans 16:3, and 1 Corinthians 16:19). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have to agree with DaveW on this.

 

God's precedent was for "holy men of God" to be used in recording his word (2 Peter 1:21).

 

God's precedent was for only Jews to be used in recording his word (Romans 3:2)

 

Aquila is recorded as being a Jew (and a man), but Priscilla isn't (Acts 18:2).

 

Of the 5 times that Aquila and Priscilla are named, 3 of those times Aquila is named first...(Acts 18:2, Acts 18:18, Acts 18:26, Romans 16:3, and 1 Corinthians 16:19). 

Thanks for your comments.

Yes "holy men of God spoke" - past tense

We are in the New Covenant.

Women are greatly elevated in the New Covenant. 

Priscilla and Aquila taught (debated?) in synagogues, so their "expertise" was with the diaspora.

When they heard Apollos teaching (debating?) in the synagogue, they took him unto themselves to teach him "more perfectly".

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:18) - note: Priscilla is mentioned before her husband's name.

Priscilla and Aquila and Apollos are all Greek names. 

Priscilla and Aquila discipled Apollos. (Acts 18:26)

The fact that Hebrews is "anonomous" should be a signal.

Internal evidence shows a high knowledge of Judiasm, but NOT intimate knowledge of Temple affairs. (Hellenist vs. Palestinian Jew).

This conclusion of authorship does not originate with me, it is due to meticulous scholarship by others.

Alternatively, the authorship of Hebrews very well could be the husband-wife (or wife-husband) team of Priscilla and Aquila.

 

It does not "fit" with Paul's role as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  And Apollos was "schooled" by Priscilla and Aquila.

Twice of the five times their names are mentioned hers is first. Of the three times in Acts 18 only one of them has her first. It means nothing.

Aquila and Apollos are both nominated specifically as Jews - Priscilla is not specifically mentioned as such. She might be a jewess though - it doesn't say she isn't.

No argument - but in that verse Aquila is mentioned first - taking your premise that means that Aquila was the primary.

The fact that it is anonymous is a great signal - that we don't know for certain who wrote it.

I disagree with this being proof of "Hellenistic vs Palestinian".

The BIBLE passage does not say - I don't much care what scholars say - whilst I am not as hard core as some - I do read some other stuff from time to time - in my experience, scholars get a lot of stuff wrong.

I have no prOBlem with the suggestion that it is possible that they wrote it - it is a possible alternative. But you stated it as fact, and then gave no solid evidence to support that assertion. Possible: no prOBlems - definite: no way.

 

Paul's main calling may have been to the Gentiles, but he always went to the Synagogue first - this shows that Paul had regard to the Jewish people.

Further, Paul had a stated great concern and love for his brethren according to the flesh.

 

Rom 9:1  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 
Rom 9:2  That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 
Rom 9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 
Rom 9:4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 
Rom 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 
 
It would not be out of character for Paul to write such a letter.
 
I lean towards Paul being the Author, and often will just say "Paul wrote" when talking about Hebrews - which is not really correct - but I think there are some phrasings use of terms that are inconsistent with Paul. I still think that Paul is most likely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I consider "these last days" are the days when it was written - the Apostolic age that would end with the destruction, and continue as the Gospel age until Jesus comes again.

Literal reading does not allow a future"Jewish" age. It is therefore written for 1st C Jews who had seen, heard and rejected Jesus and the Apostles.

How much more enlightenment could God give them? When we understand that, understand the passages that suggest believers can be lost. They are not believers, but unbelieving Jews who, with full knowledge resisted the Holy Ghost.

Repent NOW or suffer the destruction prophesied is Hebrew's message.

Those last days have passed. That generation passed. We are in Gospel days with no specific information about the Lord's coming. We are to be faithful, serving, watching and praying until he comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Hebrews is a Pauline epistle.

Paul did pretty much tell us on how we can tell his writings from false ones or others.

 

2Thess 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

 

Hebrews is missing it for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Paul did pretty much tell us on how we can tell his writings from false ones or others.

2Thess 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

Hebrews is missing it for sure.


Hebrews 13
 25  Grace be with you all. Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Thumb's Up
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      First Post
    • StandInTheGap earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Mark C went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...