Challenging Bible Verses: Psalm 137:8-9 Video 5 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/challenging-bible-verses-psalm-1378-9/?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=Online%20Video%20Challenging%20Verses%20from%20Atheists%20and%20Skeptics&utm_medium=email 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Creation: Made or Remade? | Time, Evolution, and the Bible Video 7 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/creation-made-or-remade-or-time-evolution-and-the-bible-5894/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

How Can You Say That Baptism Is Essential For Salvation When The Bible Says We Are God's Children "By Faith" In Such Passages As Galatians 3:26 And Romans 5:1?

 How Can You Say That Baptism Is Essential For Salvation When The Bible Says We Are God's Children "By Faith" In Such Passages As Galatians 3:26 And Romans 5:1?

Garland M. Robinson
        Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). No one can be a child of God and not have faith! However, "faith alone" does not make one a child of God. If so, the Pharisees (John 12:42-43) and even the devil would be saved (James 2:19).
        When one "obeys the gospel" (which you cannot go to heaven without; 2 Thessalonians 2:8), you are simply doing the "work" God would have you to do. When one performs or works the works of God, he has not earned his salvation. Jesus said, "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). If one claims that "baptism" is a work of man, then he must also of necessity accept that "faith" is a work of man. The truth is, neither of them are the works of man. They both are the works of God! On one occasion Jesus was asked, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" His answer was, "...this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" (John 6:28-29). Even "believing" is a work, but it is not man's work, it is God's work. It is the work God has commanded we do! The same is true of water baptism. It is all a part of the plan of God's salvation which has been preached from the time Peter uttered it (Acts 2:38) until today and will continue to the end of the world (Matthew 28:19-20).
        It is odd that many fight so hard against God's Word when it is so plain. Jesus himself gave the command for all time what people must do to be saved, but so few believe it. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). What would he have had to say to make people believe baptism is essential to salvation? This is precisely what Saul was told in Acts 22:16. "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins." There's no forgiveness without the blood of Christ and one only contacts the blood in water baptism (Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 1:5; Rom. 6:3-6,17-18).
        Galatians 3:27 tells HOW we are children of God by faith, "FOR as many of you as were BAPTIZED...." Baptism is the point at which faith justifies, not before (James 2:17-26). The plan of God fits so perfectly together! Won't you believe?

Weighing Textual Variants (Part 1) | Has the Bible Been Corrupted? Video 37 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/weighing-textual-variants-part-1-or-has-the-bible-been-corrupted-5810/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Is It True That All One Has To Do To Be Saved Is "Believe And Be Baptized Into Christ?"

 Is It True That All One Has To Do To Be Saved Is "Believe And Be Baptized Into Christ?"

Garland M. Robinson
        No, it is not true. Though salvation does not and cannot come without obedience to these two essential commands, it must be understood that obedience to these two commands alone does not secure salvation. There is more that one must do to be saved.
        Jesus did indeed say, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:16). Denominational preachers preach anything and everything but the commands of this verse! Jesus here speaks of at least two things that are essential to be saved: belief in him and water baptism. However, there are other things Jesus commanded one must do in order to be saved that are not stated in this verse.
        The Lord made repentance of sins an essential element for salvation. In Luke 13:3 he said, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Repentance means to change the mind, to think differently. Such a change in mind leads to a change in action or manner of living. A liar no longer lies. A thief no longer steals. An adulterer no longer commits adultery. Without repentance, no one will or can be saved (Acts 17:30; 2:38)!
        The Lord made confession of faith in him a requirement for salvation. In Matthew 10:32-33 he said, "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." No one will be saved that does not confess that Jesus is the Christ the divine Son of God. It was necessary that the man from Ethiopia make this confession. When he asked if he could be baptized "Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (Acts 8:37).
        Living faithful to the Lord's commands after faith, repentance, confession and baptism is also essential to salvation. "...Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Revelation 2:10). Without continuing to live according to the Lord's Word, no one will be saved regardless of how much they believe or how many times they are baptized.
        Belief and baptism are essential to salvation but certainly not ALL one must do to be saved. Obey all, not just a part!
        It is not only misleading, but also incorrect to so teach.

 

“Unless” One Is Born of Water?

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

DOCTRINAL MATTERSBAPTISM

Much of Christendom rejects the act of baptism as being of essential significance. Water baptism is typically viewed as a symbolic ritual that a person ought to engage in after accepting Jesus to become a Christian—but the act is not essential to salvation. Hence, water immersion is not generally considered to be a prerequisite to the forgiveness of sin. However, in Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus, His language suggests otherwise. He used an exceptive statement when He declared to Nicodemus: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Whereas older versions rendered the underlying Greek with the word “except” (e.g., ASV, KJV), newer translations generally use the word “unless.” The underlying Greek expression is e)aV n
mh\ (pronounced ay-on, may). A perusal of its use in the New Testament quickly reveals that the logical force of the expression is “if and only if.”

Logicians, philosophers, and mathematicians define “if and only if” as a “biconditional logical connective between statements” and, therefore, a statement of material equivalence.1 So an “if and only if” statement indicates a necessary and sufficient condition. The logical force of Jesus’ use of “unless” is that I will enter the kingdom if and only if I am born of water and the Spirit. As an example, the statement “Unless the fruit is a banana, I cannot eat it” is logically equivalent to “I can eat fruit if and only if the fruit is a banana,” which is also logically equivalent to saying, “I can eat the fruit if the fruit is a banana, and I can eat no other fruit.”

Observe that in an exceptive clause, when a single condition is specified, it constitutes the one and only means by which the stated goal may be achieved. Respected Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson gives examples of this construction under his discussion of four classes of the conditional sentence.2 Consider the following 10 instances:

1. Matthew 26:42—“Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, ‘O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.’”

Logical Force: The “cup” of crucifixion could be achieved if and only if Jesus “drank” it, i.e., endured it.

2. Mark 3:27—“No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.”

Logical Force: A strong man’s house can be entered and plundered if and only if the strong man is first bound.

3. Mark 4:22—“For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light.”

Logical Force: Things were kept secret if and only if they would later be divulged.

4. John 3:27—“John answered and said, ‘A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven.’”

Logical Force: A man can receive divine information from heaven if and only if God wills/allows it.

5. John 10:37—“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me.”

Logical Force: Believe Me if and only if I perform miraculous works of God.

6. John 15:6—“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.”

Logical Force: A person can avoid hell if and only if he abides in Christ.

7. John 16:7—“It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.”

Logical Force: The Helper would come to the apostles if and only if Jesus went away.

8. 1 Corinthians 9:16—“For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!”

Logical Force: Paul could avoid woe if and only if he preached the Gospel.

9. 2 Timothy 2:5—“And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”

Logical Force: An athlete is crowned if and only if he competes according to the rules.

10. Revelation 2:22—“Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.”

Logical Force: Jezebel could avoid a sickbed and tribulation if and only if she repented of her deeds.

Consider three additional biblical illustrations of this grammatical principle:3

Luke 10:6—“And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you.”

Logical Force: Your peace will return to you if and only if a son of peace is in the house.

Luke 13:9—“And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.”

Logical Force:Cut it down if and only if it does not bear fruit.

Revelation 2:5—“Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”

Logical Force: The Ephesian Christians could avoid the removal of their lampstand if and only if they repented.

Observe that in each of these cases, the logical force of the underlying Greek is “if and only if.” Only on the sole grounds of the stated condition may the action be accomplished or avoided. Whatever other stipulations/prerequisites are given that may be equally essential (e.g., believe), nevertheless, the use of e)aVn mh\ demands that the condition stipulated by the exceptive clause be met.

John 3:5

The application of this grammatical principle to John 3:5 lies in the words selected by Jesus to clarify for Nicodemus the only way to achieve the new birth: “Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” Jesus’ use of “unless” implies the following logically equivalent statements:

• All those born of water and Spirit may enter the kingdom.
• No persons not born of water and Spirit may enter the kingdom.
• All persons not born of water and Spirit are persons who may not enter the kingdom.
• No persons not born of water and Spirit may enter the kingdom.4

A person may enter the kingdom of God if and only if he is born of water and the spirit. There are no other/additional ways by which one might enter the kingdom. Jesus’ use of the word “water” is an unmistakable reference to water baptism.5 Hence, a person may enter into the kingdom of God if and only if he is baptized in water. Consider the graphic below.

Notice that the logical force of “unless” necessitates that water immersion is the one and only entrance into the kingdom of Christ. Other alleged entrances into the kingdom—whether “faith only,” “accept Jesus as your Savior,” “the sinner’s prayer,” “just believe,” or predestination—are ineffectual. While faith, repentance, and oral confession all precede salvation,6 the “doorway” or entrance point into the kingdom is water baptism. Water baptism constitutes the actual threshold that enables the unforgiven individual to pass into the kingdom of Christ. Baptism is the “dividing line” between the world and the kingdom. No wonder Jesus proclaimed: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). No wonder Ananias announced to Paul: “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16, NASB). No wonder Paul declared: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). And no wonder Peter declared: “baptism now saves you…through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21, NASB).7

Endnotes

1 See, for example, university math professor Bruce Ikenaga’s discussion at: https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/logical-connectives/logical-connectives.html; also  I.M. Copi, C. Cohen, D.E. Flage (2006). Essentials of Logic (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, second edition), p. 197; UHM university professor Tom Ramsey, “If and Only If,” https://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/Iff.html; Rudolf Carnap (1958), Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications (New York: Dover), p. 8; E. Mendelson (1997), Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 4th edition (London: Chapman & Hall), p. 14. See also Irving Copi (1972), Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan), p. 343—“exceptive propositions are most conveniently  regarded as quantified biconditionals.”

2 A.T. Robertson (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), pp. 1004ff.

3 F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert Funk (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), p. 254.

4 For further discussion of the logical import of exceptive statements, see Lionel Ruby (1950), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 208,270; Virginia Klenk (1983), Understanding Symbolic Logic (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), pp. 350-353; Robert Sharvy (1977), Logic: An Outline (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, & Co.), p. 38; Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks (1990), Come, Let Us Reason (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 126; Robert Baum (1975), Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston), p. 55.

5 Some have suggested that “water” is being used figuratively to refer to the Holy Spirit. At least three contextual indicators suggest otherwise: (1) The word “water” is used again in the same context (18 verses later) with an obvious literal import: “Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized” (John 3:23); (2) If “water” in John 3:5 refers to the Spirit, then the sentence becomes nonsensical: “unless one is born of the Spirit and the Spirit….” (3) John alludes to a remark of Jesus in 7:38 in which “water” is used figuratively for the Holy Spirit’s impending role once the New Testament Era commenced—a role which Jesus elaborated on in chapters 13-17 which would pertain to the apostolic role in the establishment and spread of the Kingdom. Observe, however, that John had to provide an explanatory remark in order to clarify the fact. The New Testament consistently represents water immersion—literal H2O—as integral to God’s plan of salvation: Matthew 3:11,16; Mark 1:8,10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26,31,33; Acts 8:36,38,39; 10:47; Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 3:20-21. No wonder when it became evident to those assembled that Gentiles had the right to be saved and become Christians, Peter issued a rhetorical question: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized…? And he commanded them to be baptized” (Acts 10:47-48).

6 e.g., Romans 10:17; Acts 2:38; Romans 10:9-10.

7 Of course, water has no saving power. Rather, the Bible teaches that God forgives a person based solely on the blood of Jesus. The question is not how God saves, but when. The New Testament plainly teaches that God forgives sin based on Christ’s blood when the penitent, confessing believer submits to water immersion. See Dave Miller (2019), Baptism & the Greek Made Simple (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press). Also Dave Miller (2021), “Does the Water Regenerate?” Reason & Revelation, 41[11]:131, November, https://apologeticspress.org/does-the-water-regenerate/. Some have argued that “water” in John 3:5 refers to Christ’s blood or to the amniotic fluid that accompanies the physical birth of a child. For a response to these claims, see Dave Miller (2005), “Baptism and the New Birth,” https://apologeticspress.org/baptism-and-the-new-birth-1516/. For further study, see Receiving the Gift of Salvation, https://apologeticspress.org/issue/receiving-the-gift-of-salvation/.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Intentional Errors | Has the Bible Been Corrupted? Part 3 Video 38 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/intentional-errors-or-has-the-bible-been-corrupted-5809/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

 

Three Rules of Human Conduct

WAYNE JACKSON, MA

CREATION VS. EVOLUTIONEXISTENCE OF GODSECULAR HUMANISM

[The gifted T.B. Larimore (1843-1929) once delivered a discourse titled: “The Iron, Silver, and Golden Rules” (see Srygley, 1949, 1:190-207). That presentation furnished the seed thoughts for this article.]

Jesus had been teaching in Galilee, the northern region of Palestine. Great throngs followed Him, and doubtless He was weary. Accordingly, He took His disciples and ascended a mountain in the vicinity of Capernaum—traditionally, Kurn Hattin, rising 1,200 feet just west of the shimmering Sea of Galilee. It was on this occasion that Christ taught that cluster of exalted truths that has come to be known as “the Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7).

Within that presentation is this memorable declaration: “All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do you also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). This saying has been given a metallic designation; it is called the “golden rule.” And that appellation has given rise to two other philosophical canons of human conduct known as the “silver rule” and the “iron rule.” Every rational individual, to a greater or lesser degree, will adopt one of these maxims as a guiding principle for his or her conduct. Let us reflect upon how these schools of thought relate to human activity.

THE IRON RULE

The iron rule is the rule of power and force. Its motto is: “Might makes right.” One can do what he is big enough to do. The principle is alluded to in the book of Habakkuk. God had promised that He would raise up the Chaldeans (Babylonians) to punish the southern kingdom of Judah for its grievous sins. This pagan force was a suitable tool in the providential arsenal of Jehovah to accomplish this mission because its disposition was: “My god is my might” (Habakkuk 1:11). But it is an egregious mistake to deify one’s physical prowess!

Advocates of the iron rule have been legion throughout history. Cain, who murdered Abel because his evil works were in stark contrast to his brother’s (1 John 3:12), and because he had the strength to do it, was the first practitioner of this nefarious rule.

Military leaders have found the iron rule quite convenient. Alexander the Great, known as the greatest military leader of all time, is a prime example. In the short span of twelve years, he conquered the antique world from Macedon to India. An example of his disposition may be seen in his capture of the city of Gaza in southwest Palestine. He took the governor, Betis, bored holes through his heels and, by chariot, dragged him around the city until he was dead (Abbott, 1876, p. 176). The military exploits of Julius Caesar are too well known to need elaboration. His inscription, given after the defeat of Pharnaces II in Pontus, says it all: Veni, vidi, vici—“I came, I saw, I conquered.”

Charles Darwin gave scientific respectability to the iron rule with the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). The full title was: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. “Natural selection” was Darwin’s tooth-and-claw law of the jungle. Species survive, thrive, and develop by destroying their weaker competitors. In a companion volume, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin vigorously argued the point:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man (1871, p. 130).

Adolf Hitler, in a political way, implemented Darwin’s iron-rule policies before and during World War II. In his ambitious scheme to develop a master race, the mad Fuehrer slaughtered millions of Jews, as well as those who were mentally and/or physically handicapped.

America adopted the iron rule as official policy in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme court, in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, determined that a woman has the right to destroy her unborn child in order to facilitate her own interests. Since that time, millions of innocent, defenseless children have been executed at abortion clinics and hospitals in this nation.

Each lock on every door and window throughout the world is testimony to the iron rule. The penal institutions of the various nations are monuments to the rule of force. Every corrupt political official who manipulates his power for personal advantage lives by this system. Bully husbands/fathers who abuse their families are iron-rule devotees. Even those within the church, like Diotrephes (3 John 9-10), who bludgeon others into submission, are apostles of this system of intimidation.

Few have the effrontery to openly advocate this brutish ideology; but there are legions who practice it—to one degree or another.

THE SILVER RULE

The silver rule often has been described as “the golden rule in a negative form.” It is the golden rule without the gold. “What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.” In this mode, it has found expression in the literature of many different cultures. For example, among the Greeks, Isocrates and Epictetus taught the silver rule. The latter condemned slavery on the ground that one should not do to others what generates anger in himself. William Barclay, the famous scholar so long affiliated with the University of Glasgow, has chronicled a number of these cases in his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew (1958, 1:276-281).

The renowned Jewish rabbi Hillel said: “What is hateful to yourself, do to no other.” Some have described this concept as a reflection of selfish egoism that withholds injury for personal reasons (see Lenski, 1961, p. 295). In the apocryphal Book of Tobit there is a passage in which Tobias says to his son: “What you yourself hate, do to no man” (4:16). Confucius (551-479 B.C.), a Chinese philosopher, also taught the silver rule. Tuan-mu Tz’u inquired of him: “Is there one word that will keep us on the path to the end of our days?” The teacher replied: “Yes. Reciprocity! What you do not wish yourself, do not unto others” (Confucius, XV, 24).

The unifying feature of all these sayings is that they are negative in emphasis. They forbid much; they enjoin nothing. The silver rule would forbid you to steal your neighbor’s purse, because such is hateful to you. On the other hand, if one finds a purse containing $200 in the mall parking lot, the silver rule is mute. It, in effect, leaves you with the option—“finders' keepers, losers' weepers.”

In 1964, there was a case that shook this country at its very foundation. Catherine Genovese was returning from a night job to her apartment in the respectable Kew Gardens area of New York City. As she approached her home in the early hours of that April morning, she was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant. He stabbed her repeatedly, fleeing the bloody scene as she screamed for help, only to return—when no one responded to her cries—stabbing her again and again, until she died. Subsequent police investigation revealed that thirty-eight residents of the neighborhood admitted that they witnessed at least a part of the attack. No one went to her aid; not a soul telephoned the police—until after she was dead!

The nation was incensed. A United States senator from Georgia read the New York Times’ account of the incident into the Congressional Record. Everyone wanted to know, “How could this have happened?” The answer is not difficult to deduce. Many people live by the principle of the silver rule: “It’s not my problem”; “it’s no skin off my nose”; “mind your own business”; and “take care of ‘numero uno.’ ”

Following the Genovese tragedy, two professors from Harvard University wrote an article analyzing this episode. They alleged that their essay was not “intended to defend, certainly not to excuse” the conduct of the Kew Gardens neighbors. On the other hand, they argued: “We cannot justly condemn all the Kew Gardens residents in the light of a horrible outcome which only the most perspicacious could have foreseen” (Milgram & Hollander, 1964, pp. 602-604). With typical academic confusion, the professors reasoned: (a) Big cities are “organized on a different principle.” Friendships are not based upon “nearness”; those who might have helped the unfortunate woman were simply not nearby. (b) It must be borne in mind that these neighbors did not commit the crime; one must focus upon the murderer, not other people. (c) It is difficult to know what any of us would have done in a similar circumstance. (d) Hindsight is always better than foresight. (e) People hesitate to enter a violent situation alone; but organization takes time, and there wasn’t enough time that night. (f) No one knows “the quality” of the relationship that Miss Genovese had with the community. (g) A “collective paralysis” may have seized the neighbors. (h) People in the city are hardened to street life; the “street” is often symbolic of the vulgar. (i) Heroic efforts frequently backfire. A young man named Arnold Schuster, while riding the subway, recognized the notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton. He reported this to the police, and the criminal was arrested. Before a month passed, Sutton made arrangements to have Schuster killed. (j) There are “practical limitations” to initiating the “Samaritan impulse,” and if one acted upon every “altruistic impulse” he could scarcely keep his own affairs in order, etc.

We have detailed the foregoing list of rationalizations because they illustrate a sterling example of “silver-rule” logic!

THE GOLDEN RULE

Finally, there is the golden rule—so designated in the English-speaking world since the mid-sixteenth century. Though some argue that there is little, if any, significant difference between the silver rule and the golden rule, and that the contrast has been “exaggerated” (Hendriksen, 1973, p. 364), most scholars contend that the golden rule marks “a distinct advance upon the negative form” (Tasker, 1906, 1:654). D.A. Carson has noted that the positive form is “certainly more telling than its negative counterpart, for it speaks against sins of omission as well as sins of commission. The goats in [Matthew] 25:31-46 would be acquitted under the negative form of the rule, but not under the form attributed to Jesus” (1984, 3:187). F.F. Bruce commented: “The negative confines us to the region of justice; the positive takes us into the region of generosity or grace…” (1956, 1:132; emp. in orig.). Let us consider several elements of this famous principle.

First, when all facts are considered, the golden rule represents, in a succinct and formalized fashion, a unique approach to human conduct. Jesus’ statement captured the very essence of “the law and the prophets.” While some contend that others (e.g., Confucius) came close to expressing the sentiment of the golden rule (see Legg, 1958, 6:239), most investigators argue that Jesus was the first to state it in its purest form. Barclay asserts: “This is something which had never been said before. It is new teaching, and a new view of life and of life’s obligations…. [T]here is no parallel to the positive form in which Jesus put it” (1958, 1:277,278; emp. in orig.). Professor Harold Kuhn suggested that Jesus’ words on this occasion “inaugurate a new era in person-to-person relationships” (1973, p. 267). Tasker conceded: “[T]here is little evidence of the existence of any pre-Christian parallel to the positive rule” (1906, 1:653). Votaw, in surveying the matter, observed that the negative form, as reflected in ancient Jewish, Greek, Roman, and Oriental writings, suggests the fact that a desire for goodness is innate to humanity; nevertheless, Jesus presented the rule in a positive form and “gave it new force and sphere” that is “peculiar to the Gospel” (1906, p. 42).

Second, the golden rule is grounded in divine revelation, and thus provides valid motivation for its implementation. Jesus said: “this is the law and the prophets.” His statement suggests that the golden rule is a summary of everything the Old Testament attempted to teach in terms of ethical conduct (cf. 22:36-40). Carson made this important observation: “The rule is not arbitrary, without rational support, as in radical humanism; in Jesus’ mind its rationale (‘for’) lies in its connection with revealed truth recorded in ‘the Law and the Prophets’ ” (1984, 3:188). In other words, it is founded on belief in God, and the intrinsic worth of man which issues from that premise (cf. Genesis 9:6). Just where is the logical/moral motivation for noble human conduct apart from evidence-supported divine revelation? It simply does not exist. I have argued this case extensively elsewhere (see Jackson, n.d., 2[3]:136ff.). Additionally, some see the conjunction oun (“therefore”) as connecting the golden rule to what had just been said. In particular, “we ought to imitate the Divine goodness, mentioned in ver. 11” (Bengel, 1877, 1:204).

Third, the golden rule is universal, applying to every segment of life. Jesus said: “All things, therefore, whatsoever….” If legislators enacted all laws premised upon the Lord’s instruction, society would be wonderfully altered. If homes operated on this principle, would there be marital infidelity, divorce, or child abuse? If our schools were allowed to teach the golden rule, with its theological base (which the modern judiciary has forbidden), would not the academic environment be enhanced remarkably?

Fourth, the golden rule requires action. It does not countenance passivity but says “do you unto them.”

Fifth, the golden rule commends itself to reason. It assumes that an honest person, properly informed concerning principles of truth and fairness, would have a reasonable idea of what is right for himself. Therefore, he should render the same to others (see Clarke, n.d., p. 96). Remember, Jesus is teaching disciples—not someone who has no sense of moral responsibility. The rule contains the presumption of some moral sensitivity.

Finally, we must not neglect to mention that the golden rule is very special in that it is consistent with the other components of Christ’s teaching as revealed in the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew 22:37-40). Moreover, the personal character of Jesus Himself was (and remains) a living commentary on the rule in action.

THE CRITICS

Some, like Dan Barker (a former Pentecostal preacher who converted to atheism), have suggested that the golden rule should be characterized as “bronze,” since it is vastly inferior to the silver rule. Barker argued that if one were a masochist, the golden rule would justify his beating up on someone else (1992, pp. 347-348). His argument assumes that it is rational to be a masochist! Others, not quite so much of the fringe element, have suggested that the golden rule might at least be improved: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” Such a view, however, is fatally flawed, and even someone who is as ethically confused as Joseph Fletcher (the famed situation ethicist) has acknowledged such (1966, p. 117). The weak may want you to supply them with drugs, or indulge them with illicit sex, etc., but such a response would not be the right thing to do. If I am thinking sensibly, I do not want others to accommodate my ignorance and weakness.

Suppose a man is apprehended in the act of robbing the local market. A citizen detains the thief and starts to telephone the police, at which point the lawbreaker says: “If you were in my place, you would want me to release you. Therefore, if you believe in the golden rule, you will let me go.” Is the thief’s logic valid? It is not. For if one’s thinking is consistent with principles of truth, he would realize that the best thing for him, ultimately, would be that he not be allowed to get away with his crime, that he not be granted a license to flaunt the laws of orderly society. The rule works—when properly applied by those who have some semblance of rational morality.

Even some of the enemies of Christianity have done obeisance to the value of the golden rule. John Stuart Mill wrote: “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” Thomas Paine declared: “The duty of man…is plain and simple, and consists of but two points: his duty to God, which every man must feel, and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by” (as quoted in Mead, 1965, pp. 192-193).

CONCLUSION

In his discourse on the three rules of human conduct, T.B. Larimore observed that Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan forcefully illustrates each of these philosophies of life (Luke 10:30ff.).

A certain Hebrew man was travelling the twenty-mile-long road that led through a barren region of crags and ravines from Jerusalem to Jericho. As he journeyed, he fell victim to robbers who tore off his clothes, beat him, and left him half-dead by the roadside. The bandits’ reasoning was: “We are several; you are one. We are strong; you are weak. You have possessions; we want them. Case closed.” Theirs was the clenched-fist rule of iron.

As the man lay wounded, unable to help himself, presently a Jewish priest came by, and then later, a Levite (one who served the priests in temple ceremonies). Both, likely horrified by the bloody scene, crossed to the opposite side of the road, and hastened their steps. Their respective thinking doubtless was: “This tragedy was not my fault. It’s none of my affair, etc.” They did not kick the afflicted Jew; they did not rifle his pockets. They simply passed on. They were silver-rule men.

Finally, a Samaritan (normally, a dedicated enemy of the Jews—see John 4:9) came by. He saw a fellow human in need and was moved with compassion. He tended the injured man’s wounds, set him on his own donkey, and conveyed him to a nearby inn where, amazingly, he paid for more than three weeks of lodging (Jeremias, 1972, p. 205)—and pledged even more! The Samaritan’s code of ethics was this: “But for the grace of God, I could be writhing in agony by the roadside. What would I desire on my behalf if our respective circumstances were reversed?” It did not take him long to find the answer, for his compassionate heart was bathed in the golden glow of divine love.

The golden rule is a thrilling challenge to contemplate. None of us observes it perfectly, but let us never criticize it. Rather, let us applaud it, and strive for its lofty heights.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Jacob (1876), History of Alexander the Great (New York: Harper & Brothers).

Barclay, William (1958), The Gospel of Matthew (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Bengel, John Albert (1877), Gnomon of The New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Bruce, A.B. (1956), The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Carson, D.A. (1984), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Clarke, Adam (n.d.), Clarke’s Commentary—Matthew-Revelation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).

Confucius, The Sayings of (1958), transl. James Ware (New York: Mentor).

Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man (Chicago, IL: Rand, McNally), second edition.

Fletcher, Joseph (1962), Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Hendriksen, William (1973), The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Jackson, Wayne (no date), “Jackson-Carroll Debate on Atheism & Ethics,” Thrust (Austin, TX: Southwest Church of Christ), 2[3]:98-154.

Jeremias, Joachim (1972), The Parables of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Kuhn, Harold B. (1973), Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, ed. Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Legg, J. (1958), Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Mead, Frank S. (1965), The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, NJ: Revell).

Milgram, Stanley and Paul Hollander (1964), “The Murder They Heard,” The Nation, June.

Srygley, F.D., ed. (1949), Letters and Sermons of T.B. Larimore (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Tasker, J.G. (1906), A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Votaw, C.W. (1906), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), extra volume.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed