Month: August 2023

            This week in our study of Mark’s Gospel, we return to the Sabbath controversy of chapters 2 and 3. The Sabbath was the heart of the Jewish worship system, and its rules were arduous and thus a badge for those who fully committed themselves to them. They were exceedingly odious in their ritualistic demands which made them a burden too hard to bear. In the church council at Jerusalem in Acts 15, the apostles and other church leaders gathered to discuss the necessity of circumcision for Gentile converts. Peter referred to this demand as a yoke of the law their Jewish fathers were unable to bear. In other words, their salvation came through faith not the law because their fathers proved their inability to keep it.

            The assessment of Sabbath Day observance by the Jews in Jesus’ time would as well fit this description. A law intended for the good welfare of the people became an unbearable yoke. The endless restrictions and requirements left all dissatisfied and even prompted the leaders who insisted upon them to improvise methods of circumventing them.

            Seven years ago, in our study of the Ten Commandments, we dug deeply into the fourth commandment in five sermons. My purpose was to explain its vital necessity for both them and us, and rather than abandoning its use, we should discover its usefulness. I remember in one sermon emphasizing the Christian Sabbath as a day to honor the word of God. I began explaining where the scriptures intend us to be on the Lord’s Day. We have six days to hear the word at home and one day for attendance of corporate worship to engage together in the word. It is for the enjoyment of the congregation.

            Secondly, we are to read the word. We do our best to accomplish this in our church services. We read the word at the beginning of the service, and we end with it. In between, are congregational readings and exposition through sermons. This makes Sunday the chief day for God’s word. We have not met the requirements of duty to the word if it is not freely and frequently used in our services. We are aware of too many churches that have abandoned the Bible entirely and thus poor practice yields poor performance.

            Thirdly, we are to contemplate the word. I will defer more explanation as I hope in our reading together you do think about what we are reading and especially this would be true in hearing the word explained in the sermons.

            Fourthly, and a favorite of mine, we must pray the word. In my original message on the fourth commandment, I did not consider nor have in mind our current practice. I did not intend that we should make prayers of the word. It is not that the thought escaped me completely, but rather the use of the scriptures in this way reminded me too much of high church liturgy. After exploring further by reading the prayers of our good Christian ancestors, I discovered this was widespread practice. Because Baptists are not formal liturgists, we have lost this practice. I revived it for our church because speaking back to God the same promises He makes and the meaning He intends, increases our knowledge of the word. At least, it takes the selfishness out of our prayers.

            These are just a few thoughts gleaned from the former sermon series. It is too much for our purposes in surveying Mark, but good instruction, nonetheless. Praise God for your Sabbath attendance to engage the word of God.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            Today in our study of Mark’s gospel, we begin a three-part miniseries on Jesus’ relationship to the fourth commandment: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. ^[9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: ^[10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: ^[11] For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:8-11). This is the longest of the commandments, which being longer than the other nine, necessarily gives more explanation to its observance. However, this commandment loses ground to the briefer statements such as “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “thou shalt not steal.” When we think of the commandments, we give greater weight to these than the fourth, and think we have more latitude to disobey the fourth than the others. Most Christians are callous towards the fourth while appalled at anyone who carelessly misbehaves with six through eight. This way of regarding the commandments is backwards from Jewish practices in the first century.

            The fourth commandment became the Jews’ test of faithfulness to the law. This command was at the center with the others revolving around it. It was the grand symbol of their piety, and thus many added restrictions were part of its observance which defeated God’s purpose of making it spiritually healthy. The Sabbath was their greatest burden not their greatest joy in worshipping the Lord.

            Most of us would not feel right if we posted the Ten Commandments on the wall only to discover with closer inspection, we left out the fourth. The Ten Commandments are not the ten, they are the nine. Surprisingly, many good Bible teachers are agreeable to this. They struck the fourth commandment from the law leaving us without a specified sanctified day to worship the Lord. I could call the names of these proponents who would be familiar to you, but I shall leave them anonymous. This temptation is detrimental to the church. The result of the missing commandment is the lack of shame for missing corporate worship. There is no shame for taking the Lord’s Day to use for us.

            In the early days of Christianity in this country, the expectation of every church member was to hallow the day by making sure they were present for worship. There were disciplinary measures taken for its neglect. The church will certainly act against murderers, adulterers, thieves, and an idol in the backyard. We are less likely to make a fuss or enact disciplinary measures because a member misses a few Sundays. In our defense, we do have a lenient time limit, but admittedly do not often treat it as seriously as the others.

            This failure to hold up to the standard leaves us where we are today. While you would not easily fornicate (I hope), you will easily absent yourself from worship. The double standard with the fourth commandment has gradually eroded the church so that we feel uncomfortable speaking of it. I believe most of you expect me to give greater attention to the others and leave number four alone. Thus, we have nine commandments not ten.

            The Jews of Jesus’ day were wrong in their perversions of the commandment. They were, however, correct in considering it as important as the others. Though Israel was guilty of breaking all the commandments, it was commandments one, two, and four that God held over their heads and sent them into captivity. By the time religious parties formed among the Jews in the intertestamental period and the memory of the captivities and their current occupation by a foreign power was on their minds, the benchmark of their piety was in place. The Sabbath Day was the pinnacle of their religion. We do not want to repeat their mistakes, but neither do we want to miss the mark and come short of the glory of God with disobedience to the command to reserve the Sabbath rest for public worship.

Pastor V. Mark Smith

             In this week’s message, we find ourselves delving into the subject of fasting. While this is the second part of a message on legalism, I choose to dive deeper into this one act that was a badge of righteousness for the hypocritical religionists of Jesus’ day. You might assume by my negative attitude towards it that I do not recommend it. My exact point and stated position are that it is a personal conviction for each believer to decide. It is not my business to criticize those who do. However, the announcement of a fast and to appear fasting is against Jesus’ teachings. The temptation to legalism is born out of it. This is true of any markers we purposely use to display an attitude of superiority over other Christians.

            In my studies, I find certain authors I respect more than others and consider them my trusted companions as I search the scriptures. I notice a difference in how my companions handle this subject. On one hand, there are those who insist we recover the discipline of fasting in the modern church. By way of example, one wrote: “…fasting has enormous benefits for the Christian’s soul.” Another wrote: “In my own life, I have not practiced regular fasting.” According to author one, author two misses a major (enormous) opportunity to be closer to Christ and obedient to Him than author one. Keep in mind that benefits of the Christian life are always primarily to make us closer to Him. Author two also wrote: “Whether fasting is a mandated spiritual activity for every Christian in the New Testament is up for debate.” We do not know if author one believes fasting is “a mandated spiritual activity for every Christian.” This is the point I seek to make. If there is a spiritual activity that has enormous benefits for the soul, yet not mandated in the scriptures, we are at loss to explain the reason.

            I cannot think of anything taught in scripture that has these implications for the soul without a mandate. It simply becomes a natural part of the Christian disposition. You may find fasting comes naturally in times of troubling decisions, or in grief or loss. I can identify with fasting this way. Author one claims that a growling stomach is a reminder to pray. For me, an alarm set on a particular schedule does the same thing.

            I do not mean to discourage anyone from the practice of fasting. I only want us to be mindful of the danger as well as the benefits. Criticism of those who do not and the claim they would be better Christians (enormously so) if they did, appeals too much to knowledge only the Holy Spirit has of the individual. When I first became pastor of Berean, I found some of the members wanted me to be their conscience. I refused to inject myself into their personal lives at this level. It makes me have God-like power over them. I cannot and will not declare a fast for you or for Berean Baptist Church in general. If you must, do it in the quietness of your spirit.

            One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. (Romans 14:5-8)

Pastor V. Mark Smith

            I often derive the bulletin articles I write each week from subjects that pique my interest and help encourage me in my walk for the Lord. All do this in some way whether they are positive affirmations or negative rebukes. Knowing what to do and not to do have equally encouraging effects. Other articles are like the one today. This one comes from the frustration of the degradation of truth that we as Baptists should stand for.

            Let me set the stage. A few weeks ago, on the observance of the Lord’s Supper, I authored an article referring to a 19^th century work by Edward Hiscox titled The New Directory for Baptist Churches. Most of you have never heard of it, but it had widespread circulation for many years around the turn of the 20^th century. My article commented on the remarkable consistency of our liturgy in the Lord’s Supper compared to Hiscox’s description of Baptist practice in his time. In conversation with members of the church, we discussed Baptist practices in which I commented that I am unashamedly Baptist. I am convinced the biblical principles we observe should not change.

            You may wonder where this is leading and why I am fidgety with a burr under my saddle. With limited space, I must get to the point. In my renewed interest in Hiscox’s book which I have owned for many years, I discovered a rewrite and updating of the book by a contemporary Baptist pastor. The apostle Peter wrote:  “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23). Most of us would agree this verse sets the standard for an immutable, infallible word from God. If our practices were biblical and valid in the 19^th century (and before), they are, according to the word, still biblical and valid today. It was disheartening—no, a better word is disgusting—that a modern pastor would insert unbiblical practices into Hiscox’s work and pretend that Hiscox would sanction them as if he had written them himself.

            These changes included the possibility of membership in a Baptist church without baptism, the acceptance of infant baptism if circumstances warranted it, the sanction of private communion, the possibility of membership association for those noncompliant with church discipline and doctrine (in other words the sanction of individual conviction over the agreed doctrines of the membership under the guise of soul liberty) among other irregularities. These were troubling enough and are factors that undermine and destroy the church. However, added to this was ecumenical cooperation with churches that are not of like faith and order. The topping on this mishmash of the devil’s concoction came in the section on ministerial ordination. This Baptist (?) sanctioned the ordination of women to the pastorate. In my experience this heresy is the last step before the acceptance of homosexuality in the church. Indeed, the approval of the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches followed. These two groups are heretical and accepting of the previous issues. They defile the meaning of church.

            My extreme disappointment is the attachment to Edward Hiscox with the title, The New Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches. New indeed! My further discovery was the author’s affiliation with the American Baptist Churches USA, a group we do not recognize as Baptists, and neither would we accept their baptisms as valid. Baptists face the degradation of faith and practice with groups such as these that dilute the name and disguise the truths Baptists died for. We will remain historical Baptists believing we are the same with the church Christ founded. We will earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude v. 3).

Pastor V. Mark Smith