MMLJBC Revisited

By Bob Myhan

The letters in the above title should be read “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Before the Cross.” They represent the doctrine that, except for their accounts of the resurrection and ascension, these four books are part of the Old Testament rather than New Testament.

It is thought that, since the New Testament age began on Pentecost as recorded by Luke in Acts two, neither the first chapter of Acts nor any part of the four gospels could be part of the New Testament. But, since the Old Testament was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:13-14), it is alleged that the last chapter of Matthew, the last chapter of Mark, the last chapter of Luke, the last two chapters of John and the first chapter of Acts — being in neither the Old or New Testament — are inter-testamental [i.e., between the testaments].

This is pure sophistry — clever but unsound reasoning; the indisputable and undisputed fact that the events up to and including the death of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, occurred during the Old Testament age, does not make those books "Old Testament" literature any more than the indisputable fact that the events rehearsed by Stephen as recorded in Acts 7 occurred during the Patriarchal and Old Testament ages makes that chapter part "Pre-Old Testament" and part "Old Testament" literature.

Furthermore, all four gospels — in their entirety — were written after Pentecost by men who were “ministers of the new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6).

The main promoter of this idea has said that “there are four different gospels mentioned in the Scriptures." He says this in an attempt to explain away the opening statement of Mark’s account.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1).

The "gospel" God preached to Abraham is the same gospel the apostles preached in the book of Acts. There has never been but one gospel—that which was first proclaimed when God said to the serpent,

"...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" (Gen. 3:15).

God has revealed His will in just such a way that will best facilitate our understanding it. If the Son of God had come into the world immediately after the first sin, there is no way that anyone could have appreciated the love of God. So God introduced the principle of sacrifice and developed it incrementally [see Mark 4:28], until such time that His love — as fully demonstrated through the sacrifice of His Son — could be fully appreciated and reciprocated by man. Hundreds of years after proclaiming the gospel to the serpent, He preached it to Abraham (Gal. 3:8). He later preached it to Israel through Moses (Deut. 18:15-19), the OT prophets (Acts 3:19-26), John the immerser (Matt. 3:1,2) Jesus (Matt. 4:17), the apostles (Matt. 10:7) and the seventy (Luke 10:8-10).

This was the same gospel preached by Peter on the first Day of Pentecost following the Lord's ascension to heaven. There is only a difference in tense. Before Pentecost they preached what God was going to do. After Pentecost they proclaimed what God had done. But there was certainly no difference between "what God was going to do" before He did it and "what God had done" after He did it.

Regarding the opening statement of the gospel of Mark, the main advocate of this doctrinal error said that Mark was writing about the beginning of "the 'fulfillment' of all the teaching and prophecies which was the 'purpose' and 'mission' of John and Jesus to Israel (Matt. 5:17-18; Lk. 24:44)." This is certainly true but the "good news" has always been about the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose. Prior to the cross, it would be accomplished; after the cross it had been accomplished.

Paul referred to himself as “a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1:1-2). So the gospel Paul preached was simply the realization of that which had been promised before. &

The Fourfold Will of God #1

By Bob Myhan

Can one know the will of God? Can the will of God be defeated? Are tragic accidents, natural disasters and birth defects the will of God? How one answers these questions depends on what is meant by the phrase, "will of God." One might, for example, mean (1) that which God desires man to do, (2) that which God purposes to do or, simply, (3) that which God is willing to occur without purposing or desiring it.

There are actually four aspects to the will of God. First, there is the ideal will of God. This is what God desires man to be and/or do as the ideal. He desires that all men believe in, love and obey Him always. It is implied, therefore, that God desires that no human being ever sin, even one time. In the first of his three epistles, John wrote,

¹ My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. (1 John 2:1a)

²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).

To deny that this is the ideal will of God is to denigrate the holiness of God.

When God created man, He expressed, in a command, His ideal will that the man not eat of a certain tree in the garden.

¹⁵ Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. ¹⁶ And the Lord God com­manded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:15-17)

Man, of all physical creatures, is unique, in that he alone was created “in the image of God.”

²⁷ So God created man in His own im­age; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ²⁸ Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ²⁹ And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. ³⁰ Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. ³¹ Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:27-30)

Thus, man is the only physical creature with the ability to willingly obey God. He was made “upright” but has “sought out many inventions.” (Eccl. 7:29) “Man’s all” is to “fear God and keep His commandments.” (Eccl. 12:13) But man can—and does—defeat the ideal will of God. God’s sovereignty remains intact, however, because of other aspects of His will.” &

The Attire of a Christian

By Bob Myhan

In view of the fact that we cannot help but have a certain amount of influence on others, and in view of the fact that God expects us to have a positive influence, how should we dress as we go about our day-to-day lives? Should we blindly follow the fashions of the world or is there a higher standard by which we should determine what to wear? 

The way some people — even some Christians — dress, you would think that the only purpose for clothing is protection from the cold. Because the warmer the outside temperature, the less they wear, especially when engaged in recreation.

Consider, however, what one atheistic sociologist had to say.

“If clothing were simply a matter of comfort and protection, then there are many occasions when we could all abandon our costumes, thanks to modern technology. We have air-conditioning, central heating and soft furnishings in our homes and could easily wine, dine, entertain and relax in the nude without any protective problems arising. The fact that we do not do so leads on to the second basic function of clothing, that of modesty. In this role, clothing acts as a concealment device. Garments are worn to switch off certain body signals. Ever since man went upright and walked on his hind legs he has been unable to approach another member of his species without giving a sexual display.”

“The human body is a mass of gender signals, and every curve of flesh, each bulge and contour, transmits its basic signals to the eyes of interested onlookers. The female breasts, the buttocks, the hips, the thighs, the waist, the slender neck, the rounded limbs, and the male chest, the body hair, the broad shoulders, the muscles of the arms and legs, all these visual elements are potentially arousing to the opposite sex. If their messages are to be reduced, then they too must be hidden by enveloping garments” (Desmond Morris: Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior, pages 215,216).

Christians are to be “in the world” without being “of the world” (John 17:6-18; Romans 12:1-2). The world hates those who are not of it (John 15:18-19). And Christians are not to love the world (1 John 2:15-17; 2 Tim. 4:9-10) because friends of the world are enemies of God (James 4:4).

Man and woman were initially unclothed and unashamed. (Gen. 2:25) but sin led to sexual awareness and shame. (Gen. 3:6-7) Their attempt to cover their nakedness was unsuccessful even in their own judgment. (Gen. 3:8-10) The word for what they made is variously translated “aprons,” “girdles,” “loin coverings” and “loincloths.”

It is worthy of note that Eve apparently made no attempt to cover the upper portion of her body. Many men, today — even some Christians — will go outside without covering their chests. But it is doubtful that they would want their wives or daughters to do so. If a woman with the upper part of her body exposed is naked, so is a man. Why would this not be the case?

The clothing that God provided was far more ample (Gen. 3:21). According to some sources, it covered the body from shoulder to ankle.

Clothing makes a statement about its wearer (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:1-6). What does yours say about you? &