Q&A – Page 100 – Church of the Eternal God

Should only ordained ministers of the Church of God baptize, or is it sufficient to get baptized through unordained members?

December 10, 2004

In our booklet, “Baptism–A Requirement for Salvation,” we address and answer this question, as follows, beginning on page 27, under “Who Should Baptize?”

“Once a person is truly ready for baptism, a true minister of Christ should perform the baptism, though it may sometimes require a waiting period by virtue of the fact that a minister of Christ is not immediately available. We need to understand, though, that God is in charge and that when He calls someone and leads them to baptism, He will also work out the necessary details to send one of His ministers to perform the baptism. For instance, God sent Peter to Cornelius, and He sent Philip to the eunuch so that they could be baptized.

“The biblical record indicates that only ordained ministers of God should perform baptisms. The reason is that the baptism is done for the purpose of receiving the Holy Spirit. We need to remember that following baptism by immersing under water, the minister is to pray over the person and to lay his hands on their head so that the person can receive the Holy Spirit. The Bible shows that without the laying on of hands, a person normally does not receive the Holy Spirit.

Can we conclude from Ezekiel, chapter 20, verse 25 (Authorized Version), that God gave Israel laws which were not good?

December 3, 2004

When we review from God’s Word what He tells us about His laws – we can know this statement in verse 25 of Ezekiel 20 cannot be complete as presented.

In Psalm 19:7-10 we read: “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.” Romans 7:12 tells us “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

What then, could this verse in Ezekiel be revealing to us? Much can be learned by reading the preceding 24 verses of this 20th chapter of Ezekiel. Israel, of course, had been in captivity under the rule of the Egyptians for some 400 years, and had totally lost any knowledge of God and of His Ways. God had determined to reveal Himself once again to these descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel).

Hebrews 5:8 tells us that Christ "learned obedience by the things which He suffered." Didn't Christ live a sinless life? Wasn't He therefore always obedient? If so, how did Jesus Christ LEARN obedience by the things which He suffered?

November 26, 2004

Jesus Christ, when He was here on earth as a human being, lived indeed a sinless life. He never sinned by breaking any of God’s Commandments (compare 1 John 3:4, Authorized Version). Rather, He kept perfectly all of God’s Laws. He said in John 15:10: “I have kept My Father’s commandments.”

The Biblical record is conclusive that Christ never sinned. Hebrews 4:15 tells us that Christ “was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.” He was “separate from sinners” (Hebrews 7:26); and even when He suffered, He “committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:21-22). Christ challenged His listeners to convict Him of sin (John 8:46), knowing that they would be unable to do so. He also testified of Himself that “no unrighteousness” was in Him (John 7:18).

Before Christ became a man, He had lived for all eternity as a glorified God being, in the Spirit, together with the Father (John 17:5). But when He became human, having laid aside His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-7), He experienced for the first time what it was like to live with human nature — in this “sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). He had to learn IN THE FLESH how to overcome sin and stay obedient to God; how to fight victoriously against the temptations of the flesh; and how to stay obedient in suffering, “to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8).

You teach that only ministers are to appoint members to the ministry. However, doesn't Acts 14:23 show that the entire congregation ordained ministers?

November 19, 2004

Actually, Acts 14:23 teaches the exact opposite. Looking at the context, we find that the ones who “appointed elders in every church” (verse 23) were “the apostles Barnabas and Paul” (verse 14; compare, too, Acts 15:2).

As we have pointed out before, for instance, in the Q&A of Update #147 (June 11, 2004), God used ordained ministers to appoint others to the ministry (Titus 1:5). Titus was a minister. He is also referred to as a brother. After all, a true minister is a servant and a spiritual brother. This is why Paul could call Titus a brother, but this does not mean that Titus was not also ordained to the ministry. The Bible shows that ministers or elders are ordained or appointed by other ministers or elders. The laying on of hands through the ministry is very important in this regard (1 Timothy 5:22).

You teach that Daniel 11:40-45 does not require a future "king of the South," although you say that the emergence of one is possible. Being familiar with the teachings of the Worldwide Church of God under Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, didn't Mr. Armstrong teach that there must be another king of the South?

November 12, 2004

First of all, it is important to realize that we must receive our teachings from the Bible; so even IF Mr. Armstrong HAD taught that there would still have to be a future king of the South, we still would have to be able to back up such a teaching with Scripture. We have published several articles in previous Updates (Q&A in Update 154; Comments from our Readers in Update #156), and we have also placed a StandingWatch program regarding the king of the South on our Web, showing that Scripture does NOT DEMAND a future king of the South. In addition, we are also pleased to state that Mr. Armstrong did NOT teach something contrary to this fact, several false claims of some notwithstanding.

Hours of research have established that Mr. Armstrong has never written that the final fulfillment of the prophecies about the coming king of the South are certainly yet to come. In fact, Mr. Armstrong wrote an Editorial in 1967, which was published in the Plain Truth, pointing out that the prophecy of Daniel 11:40 WAS fulfilled. There is no further mention of a king of the South after Daniel 11:40. It is clear that Mr. Armstrong, since 1967, never taught that there would definitely be a future king of the South, “attacking” or “pushing at” the future king of the North or Europe.

In your new book, "Jesus Christ — A Great Mystery," you state on page 91 that Jesus Christ became sin and a curse for us, when He died on the cross. I understand that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, thereby taking away the curse for breaking the law, but how could He have BECOME sin or a curse?

November 5, 2004

The Bible specifically states that Christ became both sin and a curse for us, when He died on the cross. Notice 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13, in the New King James Bible:

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’)” (Galatians 3:13).

These two passages are correctly translated from the original Greek. The Interlinear Literal Translations renders the two passages as follows:

“For him who knew not sin for us sin he made… Christ us ransomed from the curse of the law, having become for us a curse…”

Christ became sin for us, in that He carried our sins, as Isaiah 53:6 explains: “And the LORD has put on Him the iniquity of us all.” He was the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Likewise, He became a curse on our behalf, by paying for us the penalty or curse for our breaking of the law. As the Ryrie Study Bible explains, “Christ… was made a curse for us. The crucifixion brought Him under the curse of the law, as explained in the last half of the verse (quoted from Deut. 21:23).” The New Bible Commentary:Revised adds the following thought: “Sin’s penalty was borne in a substitutionary way. He bore our curse, the curse cited from Dt. 21:23, which is equivalent to the wrath of Rom. 1:18 and 2:8.”

Recently, another Church organization claimed in an article that circumcision, as given by God to Abraham and ancient Israel, is a health law that is still in force and effect today. Is this your understanding, too?

October 29, 2004

This is clearly not our understanding! In fact, such a teaching would totally misrepresent and ignore what God is saying about circumcision.

As we explain in our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…”, God gave man timeless physical and spiritual laws, including health laws, as well as temporary ritual laws, which had a passing and time-related purpose. For instance, God told man that certain animal food is good to eat, while other animals are not fit for consumption (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). These are health laws, given for the good of man, which are still in effect today. In fact, they will still be in effect at the time of Christ’s return (compare Isaiah 66:16-17).

The law of circumcision was clearly not a timeless health law, but a temporary ritual law. We should, first of all, consider why God commanded circumcision. God commanded the practice of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (Romans 4:11; Genesis 17:11), which God made with Abraham and his descendants, along with any who would want to come under the same covenant of promise. At the same time, circumcision constituted itself a covenant (Acts 7:8). But circumcision was not to be understood as a timeless health law. The reason is that the law of physical circumcision only came into effect long after the creation of man, and that it is no longer required today. If it were a health law, then it should have been in effect from the time of man’s creation, and God would still require it today, as He would not deprive man of something that is good for him.

What does the Bible say about cremation as opposed to burial? Is it proper for a Christian to practice the ritual of cremation?

October 22, 2004

Originally, the Church under Mr. Herbert Armstrong was not sympathetic towards cremation as a form of burial, as there doesn’t seem to be any Biblical examples, as will be explained herein, where holy people of God actually chose this method of burial. The Church later, under Mr. Armstrong, changed its stance on the matter, realizing that the form of burial today differs from the form used in Biblical times. Cremation was not known in Biblical times, as it is known today. In ancient times, one would have only had a funeral pyre which did not burn bone, but only tissue. The bones would still need to be buried much in the same way as the body, making the procedure rather pointless. Today, we only have the ashes in a small container which then can be “buried” in a vault or in the ground, if so desired. In addition, the Church rightly concluded that it is not a matter of salvation. In certain instances, cremation might be the only kind of burial which some families can afford. On the other hand, we must be careful that we do not unnecessarily offend family members and friends who might be conscientiously opposed to cremation.

How are we to treat our fruit trees during the first five years, and during the Sabbath year, at which time the land is to rest?

October 15, 2004

Leviticus 19:23-25 prescribes what we are to do with newly planted fruit trees. This law, which is still valid today, states:

“When you come into the land, and HAVE PLANTED all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as uncircumcised (or: unclean). Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you. It shall not be eaten. But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to the LORD. And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase: I am the LORD your God.”

These verses prohibit the consumption of fruit from a NEWLY PLANTED fruit tree for the first three years. The Ryrie Study Bible explains: “When they came to Canaan, they were not to eat fruit from the [newly planted] fruit trees [for a certain number of years].” To abstain from eating the fruit from the newly planted fruit trees for the first three years allows the trees to become established, and what little fruit may be produced during the first three years of a new tree, should be allowed to fall to the ground and to serve as manure or fertilizer. The passage refers to the AGE of the tree — not to the number of years it has borne fruit. We are to begin counting, when the tree is planted or rooted, or when it comes up.

In your new book, "Jesus Christ — A Mystery," as well as in your booklet, "Don't Keep Christmas," you state that Christ was not born on December 25th. Does the Bible give any indication as to when He was born?

September 24, 2004

When considering the relevant Scriptures and some external sources, we can, indeed, find out the approximate time of Christ’s birth, but it is impossible to find out the exact date.

King David had divided the priests into several “courses” or divisions — that is, each group or “course” of priests was to serve God for a specific period of time. David had established 24 of those priestly courses. Luke 1:5-9 shows that Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was of the course of Abijah (which courses are listed in 1 Chronicles 24) and that he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course or division. Each course lasted eight days — from Sabbath to Sabbath.

The account in Luke 1 records that Zacharias was serving God in the order of his division (verse 8); that he burnt incense (verse 9); and that his prayer was heard (verse 13). The angel Gabriel told him that his wife, Elizabeth, was to bear a son and his name was to be John (verse 13). Luke 1:23 clearly indicates that this event did not take place at the end of his course but sometime during his course or division, because it states that Zacharias, after he had received the vision, completed the days of his service, before he went home.