by Barry Newton

Sometimes between planning who will prepare the turkey gravy and singing "Auld Lang Syne," being a peacemaker can seem like an insurmountable mountain. To scale the cliffs of conflict during this holiday season, here are a few tools which may prove beneficial.

• "What I Hear You Saying Is _____"

Have you ever been on the outside of an argument that snowballed? What typically happens? After she makes her case, then he makes his case. It is obvious to her that he did not get it. With growing emotional frustration, she states her case even more forcefully. Amazed at her deliberate stubbornness, he reiterates his position with escalating agitation. People can resist working together or genuinely considering another's viewpoint until they first feel as though they have been understood and validated. For this reason, acknowledging the other person's idea can greatly assist in working out a problem.

If we can reiterate in our own words another's perspective without denouncing it with negative words or setting it up to be attacked, typically we will gain a lot of distance on the cliff of conflict.

• "You've Got a Point"

This short phrase can be even more powerful than the previous suggestion. There is a book entitled, We Have Met the Enemy And They Are Partly Right. Many times a person does have a valid point, even if we do not agree with the whole package being presented. If we can validate their perspective, this can often provide great strides toward peaceful resolution.

• Identify the Issue and Each Person's Values

Knowing what the issue really is and why people are taking opposing positions can sometimes suggest creative solutions. If he is concerned about the money and her concern revolves around spending time with her family, then various solutions might be possible, such as: save up during the year or travel during a less expensive time of the year.

As Jesus sat down on a mountain he taught the people, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God."

by Stan Mitchell

A businessman died suddenly and arrived at the pearly gates and was told the glad news that he could enter in. But being a good businessman, he wanted to make one last deal. "Could I," he asked, "go back to earth and bring some things up here with me?"

The Lord thought about it a moment, and then said, "Go ahead, but you can only bring what you can put in your briefcase."

So the businessman returned to earth, took his life's savings, and bought all the gold he could with it. When he returned to heaven, the Lord looked in the briefcase, and nodded his assent. "Go on in," he said. The businessman was thrilled!

Other residents of heaven came to welcome him. Proudly, he showed them the contents of his briefcase. They were all bewildered.

"What's wrong?" he demanded. "It took all of my life's savings!" "We know," they replied. "But why would you sell your life's savings ... and buy pavement?"

But do you want to know the sad part of this story? You know, of course, that we don't get to make deals with God in heaven, or anywhere else, and that we can't take anything with us.

Have you ever seen a hearse pulling a U-Haul behind it? But the worst part of this story is that our life's savings, our silver and gold, our computer equipment, cars, houses – everything – are marked HIGHLY FLAMMABLE!

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare" (2 Peter 3:10). When it comes time to walk the streets of gold, remember that nothing on earth could live up to what is already there!

by Richard Mansel

What is baptism? For most of us, this seems rather obvious. Yet the concept of baptism is one of the most controversial in all of Christendom.

The basic Greek word for the variants of "baptism" is "bapto" and it means "to dip or immerse." Yet there is no shortage of debate about whether baptism should be immersion, sprinkling or pouring. I will seek to define baptism in the next few articles.

Three proofs can be provided to prove that baptism is by immersion. How is it defined by Greek authorities? How was it used in Greek extra-Biblical literature? How is it used contextually in Scripture?

Greek authorities verify the definition of immersion. I hasten to add that lexical authority, on its own, is not conclusive. However, adding the extra-Biblical usage and the contextual study of Scripture we can find validation for the Greek authorities.

The Theological Dictionary of The New Testament in its nine volume study of New Testament words defines "bapto" as "to dip in or under" (p. 1:529). William Mounce defines "bapto" as "to dip or immerse" (p. 112). William Thayer defines it as "to immerse" (p. 95). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines it as "to dip in or under" (p. 1:410). Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich define it as "to dip or dip in" (p. 132). Dozens more could be cited, but this will suffice for now.

W. E. Vine adds a dimension to the definition (also cited in TDNT, ISBE and Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich). Vine writes, "to dip, was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment" (p. 97). As we contemplate this, we imagine a bowl of dye. We take a hand towel that we wish to dye completely and we ask whether we should immerse, dip or pour in order to accomplish our task.

If we take our towel and pour dye on it, we will find splotches instead of uniformity. If we take the towel and sprinkle dye on it, we will have a towel that has been spotted rather than solidly colored. Finally, if we immerse the towel we will find a towel that is completely dyed to our specifications.

In Acts 22:16, Saul (Paul) is told, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (NKJV). Since we find that baptism washes away sins, we return to our illustration. If we want our sins washed away do we pour (splotchy), sprinkle (spotty) or immerse (complete)? Logic would tell us that the latter is the only right answer.

How would Jews have understood this concept? The Jews had the "mikveh" which the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines as "an immersion pool used for ritual washing" (ISBE, p.1:353).

A Jewish authority defines "mikveh" as a "Ritual bath. According to Jewish law, individuals as well as various objects must be immersed and ritually cleansed on certain occasions."/1

The concept of a ritual cleansing by immersion is a short step to Christian baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Washings were a very important part of Jewish life, so they would have been able to make a simple transition to immersion for the remission of sins (cf. Exodus 19; Numbers 19). We could learn a lot from our Old Testament roots.

We shall examine further proofs in subsequent articles.

/1. Myjewishlearning.com

by Kevin Cauley

A few months back, Randal asked me to take on the challenge of writing about some of the pitfalls which beginning Greek students make in an effort to learn the language. I thought that that would be a good thing to do and having made several mistakes myself in the process of learning (and continuing to learn) the language, I wrote down a few thoughts in that regard. So while this particular article is not going to focus upon any particular aspect of the Greek language, per se, it will, I believe, help the Greek student to handle his Greek wisely and not to be labeled as one who "knows just enough to be dangerous" (some may yet classify me as such!).

1. Using Grammar to Interpretationalize the Text

Perhaps one of the most tempting pitfalls of studying the Greek language is the tendency to use grammar to interpretationalize the text. By interpretationalize, I mean to unnecessarily apply an interpretation based upon one's understanding grammar. This is not to say that grammar does not influence interpretation; obviously it does. However, interpreting what a sentence means or implies often depends upon more than mere grammatical concerns. What adds to the pitfall is that words often used to describe Greek grammatical constructions which are intended to have grammatical significance are often taken to have more significance than they really have. One such example comes from what is labeled the "habitual imperfect." The beginning student might take that to mean that anytime one sees the habitual imperfect, that it was a habit of the individual to engage in such and so action. That's not necessarily the case. The habitual imperfect is called that because the action in the imperfect is being repeated iteratively. The habit is not associated with the individual being described, but with the action in the verb. It would be an interpretationalization to suggest that the habitual imperfect "he was praying" meant he prayed every day habitually. It could just mean he prayed one prayer after another iteratively in the same day.

2. Force an Interpretation in Spite of Grammar

Somewhat opposite to the above pitfall is to ignore the grammar of a text entirely and opt out for one's own specialized understanding of a passage. This generally occurs when someone already has their mind set on a particular doctrine or teaching and is not willing to conform his doctrine to the dictates of the grammar in the passage. One such example is found in Matthew 28:19-20. The main verb of this passage is "make disciples." The two modal participles in this passage (baptizing and teaching) describe just how to complete the action in the main verb. The Greek participle does not contain a grammatical time of its own. It gets its time from its relationship with the lead verb. In Matthew 28:19-20, the time of the participles occur contemporaneously with the time of the lead verb. That grammatically implies that a disciple isn't made a disciple until he is both taught and baptized. That is to say that the actions of teaching and the baptizing both must occur within the context of the action of making disciples. One who doesn't believe that baptism is necessary to become a disciple would have a theological problem with the grammatical construction of this verse, but that doesn't change the grammar.

3. Assume that There are No Exceptions to the Grammatical Rule

Some rules of grammar are more or less absolute. For example, the Greek language is written and read from left to right. While there may be some intended exceptions to that rule, we recognize them as obvious aberrations. On the other hand, some rules in Greek are not as cut and dry as beginning grammars lead a student to believe. Take, for example, the combination of an aorist participle with an aorist verb. Most beginning Greek grammars will state that the time of the aorist participle is antecedent (happens before) the action of the main verb. However, more advanced grammars will clearly state that this is not a good rule to follow when it comes to the aorist participle, but rather, that such grammatical constructions should be taken on a more or less case-by-case basis. Then why do the beginning grammars say such? A good question. Most beginning grammars don't want to confuse a beginning student with advanced linguistic ambiguities. Hence, they reveal the language in as simplistic terms as possible, allowing the student to get the "gist." We do the same thing with our children when they learn language. We teach our children what the basic rule is first. One such example occurs with regularly formed verbs. We're all familiar with small children who understand that the suffix "-ed" is added to a word to indicate past tense. They assume all past tense words are like that, so they say things like, "I eated in the cafeteria today." They add "-ed" to the verb "eat" because this is the standard rule. They have to be taught as they get more advanced in the language that "eat" is an irregular verb, the past tense of which is "ate." And believe it or not, adults learning a new language do this too! Greek is no exception to this rule.

More to come...

by Tim Hall

It was a disappointing year for corn in my garden. Though I planted six rows with Silver Queen seeds just as I've done in the past, there wasn't much to show for it. Many factors could be cited: rain at the wrong time, an overgrown chestnut tree that cast too much shade, seed that might not have been good, or a lack of effort on the part of the gardener (I quickly ruled that one out!). Regardless of the cause, the bottom line was that we enjoyed only a few ears of fresh corn this summer.

It's discouraging to see so few tangible results from our labors. Christian workers know the feeling. When we try our hardest to teach God's word but see so few who are interested, we're tempted to give up. How can we get motivated again?

The psalmist long ago exhorted God's people with these words: "Those who sow in tears shall reap in joy. He who continually goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him" (Psalm 126:5,6, NKJV). Christians should make it a point to read that passage regularly.

There are two words in this text I'll emphasize. The first is "continually." In my years of gardening I've learned that one year may be dismal for certain crops while the following year will be terrific. The key is to keep planting the seed. One thing is certain: there will never be growth if the seed isn't put in the ground.

The second word to note is "doubtless." I can't use that word when I'm referring to my efforts alone. But this verse isn't referring to mere human efforts. In verse 3, the psalmist had said, "The Lord has done great things for us, whereof we are glad." If the Lord works with us, we know that the end will be glorious. His power enables tiny seeds to penetrate asphalt and stone. In time, we'll see the fruits of our labors.

Christian, here is a promise God has made for his people throughout time. Keep on doing the good that you're able to do. Know that it will ultimately produce sheaves of blessings. Though we sow with tears, we shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing our sheaves with us!

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:58).