Posted in Debates, Reviews

Two Mints In One

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

At the recently concluded Deaver-Vick Debate in Indianapolis (October 2011, archived here), Mac Deaver affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that when a person becomes a Christian he is baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit.” Deaver made the case for a single baptism, consisting of two elements, in harmony with Jesus’ statement in John 3:5 that kingdom entry is on the basis of being “born of water and the Spirit.”

Listeners to the debate repeatedly heard Ben Vick belittle Deaver’s position with an appeal to an old slogan for Certs breath mints: “Two, two, two mints in one!” One might think that a discussion centering on the Holy Spirit—a person of the Godhead—might be treated with more dignity than afforded by a Certs commercial. But brother Vick thought it appropriate. In fact, on the final evening, he even began his first negative speech by trying to play a video clip of a real Certs commercial. To some, the embarrassment of his effort was compounded by his technical problems in getting the clip to play before the audience (Vick even called for his time to be held while his helper tried to get the situation sorted on his computer). Finally, the audience got to see the clip play and hear the Certs catchphrase: “Two mints in one!”

What was the point? Well, brother Vick’s accusation was that Deaver was trying to do the impossible by taking immersion in water and immersion in Spirit and combining them into a single baptism. So, Vick made a joke out of it by repeating the Certs expression. This, in spite of the fact Deaver proved that Scripture speaks of two bodies becoming one body (1 Cor. 6:16), and of two spirits becoming one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). Therefore, there is biblical precedent, with inspired language indicating that a plurality can form a singularity. And, if God talks about it that way, who are we to contradict him? A baptism in the physical element of water and the metaphysical element of Holy Spirit can be called “one baptism” in Ephesians 4:5, resulting in a person’s being “born of water and Spirit.” But Deaver’s point (along with many others) seemed completely lost on Vick, who continued to make light of the concept that two could really be one.

Which leads to this interesting question. What if the Certs commercial were turned back on brother Vick, and he were asked this question: “True or False: An individual Cert is a single mint.” What would Vick say? He could not answer “false” without showing himself ridiculous. But, he could not answer “true” without seeming to admit the very premise he fought so hard against (i.e. that two elements could be combined in one event). How thick the irony, that brother Vick’s slogan, designed to disparage Deaver’s position, should, in reality, go to demonstrate the very point Deaver was making.

Two mints in one? Absolutely.

Posted in Debates, Reviews

Impressions from the Deaver-Vick Debate

Posted on by Ron Thomas

By Ron Thomas

The remarks below are simply impressions, nothing more. I am sure that others have an entirely different impression of the debate. Below, I have three primary paragraphs: 1. Style, 2. Substance, 3. A final word. I was present for two nights (Monday and Thursday). For the Tuesday and Wednesday presentations, I watched it online (now archived here).

With regard to style, it must be said that “style” gains no points of substance in a discussion like these two men were engaged in. However, it does convey (to me anyhow) the comfort one has going in with (1) the occasion, (2) material. I thought both men carried themselves reasonably well. Of the two, Mac Deaver was more polished, but that is not to say that Ben Vick was bad. In fact, as I interpreted their mannerisms, both looked relaxed, engaged, and capable of presenting their position and countering the other’s. I was especially struck by Mac’s disposition and methodology throughout. Ben was erratic, but don’t let this word give you the sense that he did not know what he was doing, or even how. It’s just that there were more “starts and stops” with him than with Mac, who appeared much more fluid.

With regard to substance, Ben seemed to speak a bit about Mac’s insistence at his (Ben’s) lack of offering a logical argument for his position (the first two nights). Ben denied that he had failed to do so, and when he did ultimately offer one, Mac negated one of the premises of Ben’s argument by stating that Ben did not prove the premise correct, but only asserted it; thus it was an unsound argument (though valid in form). When Mac was in the affirmative, he quickly set out his arguments (Wednesday) and took time to prove each one of his premises which warranted the conclusion Mac presented to the debate audience. Ben did not address a single one, though he made an attempt on the last night of the debate (though it was not much).

One final word, I noticed throughout the debate what I thought were some unfortunate remarks by Ben. Though he complained that Mac was condescending (something I did not detect at all), it was actually Ben who made a few remarks that I thought were a bit disparaging. Those things happen, and I would have dismissed it if it would not have been for Ben’s last speech Thursday evening. There is only one word that I would use – pitiful! It was condescending, belittling, and entirely useless for the occasion. It appeared to me that Ben wanted to go out as a “dragon-slayer,” and he wanted to be in the negative for exactly this reason. Moreover, it also appeared to me, that Ben wanted his “faithful brethren” to know (with this last speech) that he stood with the “truth” and opposed a “false teacher.” Yes, it appeared that Ben wanted to “throw his chest out” and warn others about teaching something contrary to what is believed to be sacred.

Though, I have never been asked, I would recommend that if one wanted to debate brother Vick, that person think very seriously about allowing him the opportunity to speak last. If this is his manner, you might regret giving him an audience.

Posted in Announcements, Debates

Preview: Deaver-Vick Debate, Indianapolis

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

A public, four night debate will take place October 24-27, 2011 in Indianapolis, Indiana between Mac Deaver and Ben F. Vick, Jr., beginning at 7:00 p.m. (Eastern) each evening. The debate is set to occur at the building of the Shelbyville Road church of Christ (4915 Shelbyville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46237).

Ben Vick is a graduate of Georgia Christian School (1970), Harding College (1974), and the Memphis School of Preaching (1976). He has worked with churches in Arkansas and Indiana, and also taught at the Jefferson Christian Academy in Birmingham, Alabama. Since 1980, he has preached for the Shelbyville Road church of Christ in Indianapolis, where he also serves as an elder.

Mac Deaver graduated from Fort Worth Christian Academy in 1965, going on to receive an A.A. degree in Bible from Fort Worth Christian College; a diploma from Brown Trail School of Preaching; a B.A. degree in Bible from Oklahoma Christian College; an M.A. degree in Philosophy of Religion and Christian Doctrine from Harding Graduate School of Religion; a Ph.D. in Christian Doctrine and Apologetics from Tennessee Bible College. He has worked with churches in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Oklahoma. In addition, he has taught on the faculties of the Brown Trail Preacher Training School, Tennessee Bible College, and the Southwest School of Bible Studies. Currently, he preaches for the church of Christ in Sheffield, Texas, where he also serves as an elder.

The proposition for October 24-25 is: “The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism has ceased and is no longer in the church today.” Ben Vick will affirm. Mac Deaver will deny.

The proposition for October 26-27 is: “The Scriptures teach that when a person becomes a Christian he is baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit.” Mac Deaver will affirm. Ben Vick will deny.

Many, unable to attend in person, are already planning to watch the event live online at this link.

I will be serving as Deaver’s moderator. Follow @WDeaver on Twitter for pics and updates from Indianapolis (or, see the Twitter updates on my blog).

The discussion should be most interesting, revealing, and even historic, since—at least to this writer’s knowledge—there has never been a public debate between two preachers in the church of Christ on this topic. Let us pray for the truth to shine and God to be glorified.

Posted in General

Test All Things

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Charles Ivie

“Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Such a familiar verse, but do we really always obey this command? Or do we simply accept, as having already been tested, many statements by well-known brethren from the past? Acceptance of any view, simply because it was set forth by a respected brother, is very dangerous to the Lord’s church. This is the very attitude that has furthered denominationalism.

Let us consider two passages that have been lightly considered in the past. It is not my purpose to bring reproach upon anyone, nor to impugn the motives of those advancing the false views. My purpose is to point out how carelessly some views have been accepted as fact. There are other passages that could be used, but these will suffice.

1 Peter 4:11, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” This verse is often used to teach we must speak according to God’s word. Certainly, there is no problem with this idea. We are commanded to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15); God’s word is truth (John 17:17). We also are not to follow empty deceit or traditions of men, but to follow Christ (Colossians 2:8). However, is this the idea Peter is putting forth in 1 Peter 4:11? The context shows that it is not. If one speaks by the power of God, he is to give God the credit. Herod did not and died of worms (Acts 12:21-23). If one ministers, he is to recognize it is of God’s ability, thereby glorifying God.

Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” This passage is often used to show that we, as Christians, are to do good works. It is true that we are to do good works. We are commanded to walk worthy of our calling (Ephesians 4:1). But, is this the idea being taught in Ephesians 2:10? Paul was inspired to use the Greek word “epi,” which is translated for or unto in the phrase for good works. This word basically means: upon, or on the basis of. Therefore, we understand that we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17), on the basis of good works (continued obedience to the gospel, Romans 2:7,8).

These ideas are mentioned, not to spark controversy, but to point out that our first  understanding of a passage is not always the correct one. Part of the problem in understanding the Holy Spirit issue is the acceptance of well-known views as truth. Faithful Bible students have misunderstood (and others will misunderstand) verses of God’s word. Therefore, let us be diligent to “test all things,” no matter who speaks them.

Posted in Christian Living

Man’s Noblest Function

Posted on by Randal

By J. Randal Matheny

Man has no nobler function than to defend the truth. —Ruth McKenney

This quote, apparently by the American author and journalist, appeared in an email without context or explanation. From McKenney’s life, she would undoubtedly have meant something different by her worthy sentiment than Christians do as far as the content of truth, although many of us would hasten to agree with her statement.

But she was wrong.

Man has a nobler function. Defending truth is good and necessary, but does not lie at the peak of the scales of those greatest purposes that man could adopt.

At the end of his life, our Lord Jesus’ prayer was that he might glorify the Father (John 17:1ff). At the beginning of his ministry, his concern was that his followers would, like him, glorify the heavenly Father (Matthew 5:13-16).

In the Old Testament, a person was urged to tell the truth under testimony, because a greater issue was at stake: “give glory to the Lord God of Israel and give praise to him” (Joshua 7:19 ESV).

The Christian use of the body has a greater purpose than health or reputation: “glorify God with your body” (2 Cor. 6:20 NET).

Even the Christian mission has a higher calling than just saving souls and living exemplary lives, but these are means through which pagans may “glorify God when he appears” (1 Pet. 2:12; cf. 2 Cor. 9:13).

The overarching purpose of man is to glorify God. Under this noblest of functions, to paraphrase McKenney, fit all the activities and all the efforts of Christ’s disciples.

If saints believe that man’s noblest function is to defend the truth, they will ever seek for error against which they may throw themselves in its fulfillment. They will become spiritual ferrets, running through the hidden pipes of churches in search of doctrinal departures and moral turpitude.

And since they must fulfill that function, if they cannot find error, they will fabricate it. But there is more to life in Christ than ferreting out error in order to defend the truth.

In heaven, not only will death and pain and tears be gone, but error as well. But man will still be able to glorify God in the highest.

Is not a function or purpose that may continue into eternity far higher and greater?

Posted in Christian Living

An Act of Love

Posted on by John Henson

By John Henson

Passover was the most significant feast of Judaism and every Jew was to be present in Jerusalem, if possible, to celebrate it.

The Passover memorialized Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt. Specifically, it called attention to the night death passed over. It was an important time in Palestine.

Passover’s additional importance was the coinciding barley harvest. According to Leviticus 23:10-11, the crop could not be sold until a barley sheave was waved before the Lord.

The Jews made every preparation for the feast including helping pilgrims coming to Jerusalem. According to Josephus, 256,500 lambs were slaughtered ― one for every ten people ― for consumption during the feast. If true, almost 3,000,000 people would attend the Passover.

Other preparations included teaching daily lessons in the temple, repairing and marking roads and preparing minds for the coming holy day. Interestingly, tombs were white-washed not for aesthetic purposes, but to help pilgrims identify them so they wouldn’t be touched. Touching a tomb made one ceremonially unclean.

With all the preparations, there was one other performed in the house of Simon the Leper when Jesus reclined to eat. A woman (according to John 12 probably Mary, Lazarus’ sister) broke a vial of Nard and poured the entire contents on Jesus.

Jesus said the act was lovely. Love does lovely things. Nard was a very expensive import from India. Custom required only a few drops be used for guests, but Mary used the entire vial.

Mary’s act was extravagant. Love does not count the cost; it does all it can. When a husband gives a bouquet, he doesn’t give dead or dying flowers. What message would that send? No, he buys a fine bouquet of roses because they’re the best.

Mary wouldn’t let this opportunity to show her love for Jesus slip. Sometimes there may be only one opportunity to tell someone, “I love you.” Love won’t let that opportunity get away.

In our relationship with Jesus exactly what is the status of our love for him? Do we do lovely things? Do we give the best of ourselves and our money? Do we take every opportunity we can to express our love in good works?

Have you prepared yourself for heaven? Of all the things we can do to prepare for a great event, have we kept in mind Jesus coming? Are you ready? Prepare today!

Posted in Baptism, Doctrine

Consequences of Baptist Doctrine

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver

[The following is excerpted from Deaver’s book, The Baptist Church and the New Testament Church, pp. 47-49.]

In view of the study already made regarding the Bible teaching on the essentiality of baptism, we need to consider now some of the consequences of the Baptist doctrine that one can be saved before and without baptism.

First of all, the teaching that baptism is not essential to one’s salvation means that the Baptist church is not necessary. Baptists teach that one can be saved without baptism, but that one cannot get into the Baptist church without being baptized…And, in which case the Baptist church is not necessary to one’s salvation.

Secondly, the Baptist idea that one can be saved without baptism means that it takes more to get into the Baptist church than it does for one to go to heaven. Baptists hold that one is saved by faith, the moment he believes, and that he is later baptized into the Baptist church because he has already been saved. If one can go to heaven because he is saved, and if one is saved by faith, and if one cannot get into the Baptist church without baptism—then, obviously, it takes more to get into the Baptist church than it does to go to heaven!

Thirdly, the doctrine of salvation without baptism means Baptist preachers cannot follow New Testament examples of conversion…The following quotation is from a book called The History of the Denton County Baptist Association and the Sixty Churches in Its Jurisdiction. This book was written by Mr. J. N. Rayzor, a prominent Baptist of Denton, Texas. The quotation is found on page 82. Here it is:

“An incident occurred in the Pilot Point church during Rev. J. B. Cole’s pastorate, which involved a point of doctrine that subjected Pastor Cole to criticism, and gave the incident much publicity and notoriety. Pastor Cole went fishing one day with a business man who was not a Christian, and he availed himself of the opportunity to talk to the lost man about his unsaved condition, and led him to an acceptance of Christ. Jo Ives, the man converted, said to Pastor Cole, ‘Here is water, what doth hinder me from being baptized?’ Obviously Brother Cole thought of the story of Philip and the Eunuch, and taking that incident an example, he led Mr. Ives out into the water and baptized him. Rev. Cole had been a Baptist but a short time and was not up on their conception of baptism, and how and when it should be administered. The news of the incident soon spread among the members, and then the show began. The following Sunday Mr. Ives presented himself to the church, asking membership, and his application was rejected and he was hurt at the action of the church and turned to another church which readily accepted his baptism. The criticism of the pastor caused him to ask a committee of eminent brethren to sit in judgment upon his conduct—Dr. A. J. Holt, J. B. Link, and R. C. Buckner. After reviewing the details of the incident they wrote the church, advising it to drop the matter, and Pastor Cole to go his way, but not to repeat the act.”

Note that Pastor Cole was advised by his eminent brethren never to follow this Bible example again. This is the story of a man who knew something about the Bible, and little about Baptist doctrine, and who thought he could follow a Bible example of conversion. But, he learned that such would not be tolerated.

Posted in General

A Prophet Like Moses

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Fourteen centuries before Jesus was born, Moses told the Israelites, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut. 18:15, ESV). After the church was established (Acts 2), Peter hearkened back to the prophecy of Deuteronomy and identified the prophet when he said, “Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you’…God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:22,26). Indeed, Jesus and Moses bear many striking similarities.

Both were Jews. Moses was a descendent of Levi (Exod. 2:1) through whom God delivered the Old Testament law. Jesus was a descendent of Judah (Rev. 5:5) who was born under that law (Gal. 4:4).

Both escaped death in infancy. In Moses’ time, the wicked Pharaoh (likely Thutmosis I) ordered all newborn baby boys to be thrown into the Nile River to drown (Exod. 1:22). In God’s providence, the baby Moses was rescued from such a fate. After Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Herod—perceiving a future threat to his power—commanded the murder of all boys two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16). Yet, the young Jesus was kept safe.

Both were deliverers. Moses delivered the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery (Exod. 3:10). Jesus delivered spiritual Israel (Rom. 2:28-29; Gal. 3:29) from the slavery of sin (Matt. 1:21).

Both knew God face to face. Among all the Old Testament prophets, Moses was uniquely near to God so that the Lord spoke to him as a friend, face to face (Exod. 33:11; Deut. 34:10). Of course, Jesus knew God on a level far superior to that, being himself God’s only begotten Son (John 1:18).

Both were prophets. A prophet was one who spoke on behalf of God. God sent Moses to Pharaoh with the promise that he would be with Moses’ mouth and teach him what to do (Exod. 4:15). Later, Jesus would repeatedly stake the claim that he was only teaching what he had received from his Father (John 8:26). So, the words of Moses and Jesus both originated with God.

Both were law givers. The law that God gave at Mt. Sinai after the Exodus was given through Moses (John 1:17). It was Moses who furnished the Lord with tablets of stone on which were written the divine commandments. Christ fulfilled all the Old Law (Matt. 5:17), nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14), and inaugurated a New Covenant (Matt. 26:28), which is also called the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2).

Both worked miracles. By divine power, Moses turned the Nile into blood, initiated the other plagues, parted the Red Sea, and brought water from a rock at Kadesh. Jesus performed so many miracles that John reminisced—should they be all written down—they would fill too many volumes for the world to hold (John 21:25).

Both were mediators. Moses stood between Israel and the Lord to declare God’s word (Deut. 5:5). Moses mediated for Israel after the golden calf fiasco (Exod. 32) and saved thousands of lives. Now Jesus is mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6). Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).

Both suffered disrespect. Several men launched a rebellion against Moses’ authority, which the Lord put down most effectively (Num. 16). Jesus—in spite of his miracles—was still not believed (John 12:37). “And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household’” (Mark 6:4).

Both had family who temporarily failed them. Even Moses’ brother and sister, Aaron and Miriam, complained against him (Num. 12:1). Jesus had several brothers and sisters who—at least initially—rejected his claims (John 7:5).

Both were present at the Transfiguration. This event is recorded in Matthew 17. Though their earthly lives were separated by centuries, for a brief moment they were in each other’s presence: Moses with the prophet he foretold, and Jesus with the prophet who had written about him (John 5:46).

Both were baptized. Though we may not picture the Red Sea crossing as a baptism, the New Testament does. “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1-2). Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan River to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:13-17).

Both prepared men to carry on their work. Moses readied Joshua to assume the mantle of leadership (Deut. 34:9). Jesus groomed a handpicked cadre of men whom he would send into all the world to preach the gospel (Mark 16:15).

Though their similarities run deep, God made clear who it is we are to obey when he made an announcement to the mountaintop gathering of Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, James and John. “He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him’” (Matt. 17:5).

Posted in Christian Living

Be Like Johanan?

Posted on by Ron Thomas

By Ron Thomas

Have you ever met anyone who spoke better than they did? In fact, we might ask ourselves, are we guilty of speaking better than we actually do? I know I am. However, I sure don’t want to EVER be guilty of that which Johanan did.

In the chaos of Jerusalem’s sacking, Babylon’s king left a remnant in the city. Those who were poor and feeble were left behind to tend to a destroyed city which, in many respects, was a living coffin. Babylon left a governor in place; his name was Gedaliah. The governor was warned a plot was being raised against him, but Gedaliah was not receiving the viability of this plot. In time, the governor was murdered by a man named Ishmael. Ishmael was a force to be reckoned with, and a man named Johanan was one to do it.

In the meanwhile, Jeremiah was tending to matters of his own. Because of Jeremiah’s faithfulness to the Lord, when Babylon had captured Jerusalem (and thus Jeremiah), the Lord had shown mercy to His prophet when Babylon’s king gave Jeremiah the opportunity to stay in Jerusalem or go to Babylon and be cared for by the king. Jeremiah chose to stay.

In time, Johanan sought out Jeremiah and asked for counsel concerning whether he should stay in Jerusalem or flee to Egypt. They were frightened by the prospects of staying in Jerusalem, and the prospects of going to Egypt seemed rather peaceful to them. To Jeremiah they go seeking counsel. Ten days later word from the Lord comes to Jeremiah, and Jeremiah gives this word to Johanan and all that were with him.

The Lord called Johanan a hypocrite (cf. Jeremiah 42:5-6, 20).

So gripped by embarrassment (presumably) and arrogant pride (Jeremiah 43:2), the recipients of the Lord’s message spoke against Jeremiah by calling him a liar. They refused to hear anything of the Lord because they were determined to go to Egypt. Their earlier approach to Jeremiah was nothing more than a facade.

It is a struggle for us in life to know exactly what to do in all circumstances; in fact, so much of a struggle it is we sometimes just don’t know what to do! We appeal to the Lord for wisdom, counsel, and direction, praying earnestly and frequently. In doing so let us be sure we hear and obey the Lord. His word is our ultimate authority, and to go beyond the Lord’s revealed will is to leave the Lord Himself. It may be that our heart is really pulling us in one direction, but if that one direction is contrary to the Lord’s expressed will we can be sure the Lord is not with us and, in fact, He will be against us.

Do you want to be like Johanan? That’s what you’ll be like if you refuse to hear and heed what the Lord has said. He spoke better than he did.

Posted in Expository, New Testament

A Funeral in Nain

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

All of us have attended funerals, perhaps even accompanied the casket to the cemetery. But none of us has been to a funeral where the deceased sat up. It did happen once, long ago. We know where, though we do not know his name and, were it not for Dr. Luke, we would not know about it at all, since he is the only writer to record it (in Luke 7:11-17).

Verse 11 brings a crowd, tagging along with Jesus and his disciples on the way to Nain, a town not elsewhere mentioned. It was in Galilee, probably along a road from Capernaum to Jerusalem. What was it about this carpenter’s son from Nazareth (a town of no reputation) that caused a crowd to follow him? Since the crowd is distinguished from the disciples, we might question their motives. Were they following just to be part of what was going on? Were they hoping to see some great sight? Were they bored, with nothing better to do? Were they truly interested in Jesus? What of us? Are we Christ-followers, or crowd-followers?

Verse 12 reveals a solemn ceremony. A dead man is being carried out of Nain (Jewish custom forbade burying within city limits). The mother of the deceased was already a widow, so her grief must have been acute. This was her only son. Her financial situation might now be precarious, indeed, with neither husband nor son to depend on. It speaks well of the townsfolk of Nain that a considerable crowd followed the funeral procession. Thus, two crowds met—one headed toward town and another coming out of it. Coincidence? Since God knew what would happen, and that Luke would record it, and that we would study it, surely more than mere chance was involved in the fateful meeting. But it reminds us life is fragile, and brief, and sometimes parents outlive their children.

Verse 13 shows Jesus’ compassion, as he singles out the grieving mother, telling her “do not weep.” There is no hint they had met before, or knew each other, or even that they are introduced on this occasion. Jesus tells her not to weep, but without explaining what is about to happen. He tells her not to weep while her son is still very much dead. Are we aware of the grieving? Can we, like Jesus, single out those in need of compassion?

Verse 14 finds the Lord issuing a command. Interrupting the funeral, Jesus touches the bier and the procession comes to a standstill. Jesus does not direct his words to the disciples, or to the crowd, or to the mother, or even to his Father in heaven. He speaks to the young man: “I say to you, arise.” Anyone can talk to the dead. But, when Jesus speaks, the dead actually listen.

Verse 15 tells of the incredible cure, as the formerly dead man sits up and starts talking. How could it be otherwise? A corpse can no more resist a divine command than could a storm on the sea of Galilee. In point of fact, the only ones capable of refusing God’s orders are living humans. Such is the sobering and remarkable power of free will that each of us has. Jesus turns the young man over to his mother. Just think of the conversations those two had later. Surely, were they still alive when the church began, this widow and her resurrected son would have been among the earliest Christians.

Verse 16 records the conclusion reached by the crowds. Glorifying God, they inferred that Jesus was a “great prophet” and that “God has visited his people!” Both counts were right, though the people could have gone further, since Jesus was much more than a prophet—he was Immanuel (literally, “God with us”). And, not only had God visited by way of a miraculous healing, but God was actually standing there among the crowd in the person of Jesus (if only they would see it). The people’s assertion that Jesus was a divine messenger would have been more on target had they said he was their Messiah. At least the people attributed what happened to God. How many today grow up in a sea of blessings, but never think to glorify God for them?

Verse 17 indicates the circulation of a report about Jesus. How could a lid be kept on such news? It spread like wildfire through Judea and vicinity. And this was just one miracle. Recalling that John said Jesus’ miracles were too numerous to chronicle (cf. John 21:25), can you imagine all the reports that went out, and all the conversations that must have taken place about Jesus? It must have been impossible to live in Palestine and not hear about Jesus. Truly, the report about him is still circulating, and has spanned two millennia to reach our own ears.

There is no discussion about sin in this story (contrast Matt. 9:5). There is no mention of faith in this story (contrast Matt. 9:22). There is no request made of Jesus (contrast Luke 7:3). And, refreshingly, there is no criticism of Jesus (contrast Luke 13:14). Instead, Jesus, himself, takes the initiative and the whole account seems to rest on the twin pillars of his compassion and his power. It was an unforgettable day in Nain when there began a funeral that could not be completed!