Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: December 17, 2006
IS JESUS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON?
Ben Justice
“Christmas” is very much a religious holiday for millions and millions of people.
It is the holiday which occurs on December 25th, when people celebrate and
commemorate the birth of Jesus. Since Christmas is observed as a religious
holiday in commemoration of the birth of our Lord, we simply ask, “Is Jesus the
Reason for the Season?” Let’s ask the question this way: “Where in the NT do
we find the authority (either given in a direct statement, example, or implication)
to set aside a special day to celebrate the birth of Jesus as a religious day?” The
Bible teaches that all we do in the name of religion must be authorized by the
Christ. Col. 3:17 declares, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” “In the name of”
means “by the authority of.” Therefore, we must have authority to engage in
religious practices. If there is no authority for a practice, then to do it anyway
amounts to adding to God’s word, which is sinful (Rev. 22:18). The principle set
forth in Gal. 4:10 is that it is sinful to observe days from a religious standpoint
when there is no authority to do it. Again, we ask, “Where is the scripture that
authorizes us to set aside a day (in this case Dec. 25th) and observe it as a
religious holiday in commemoration of the birth of Jesus?” Surely, if God had
wanted it, he would have authorized it! Now, it is true that the birth of Jesus is
taught in the scriptures, and thus one has the authority to teach on the birth of
Jesus. However, this is a far cry from saying that this grants authority to set
aside a special day to observe the birth of Jesus religiously. There are many
significant events associated with the life of Jesus. There is his baptism, but
there is no authority to set aside a special day and celebrate his baptism. There
is his transfiguration. Again, there is no authority to set aside a special day to
celebrate his transfiguration. Then, there is the death of Jesus. Indeed, there
is Bible authority to commemorate our Lord’s death. The First Century Church
did this every first day of the week when they partook of the Lord’s Supper (Acts
20:7; see also I Cor. 11:26). The fact is, when people set aside a day as a
religious day, and of which is not authorized in the NT, they have done.
WAS PHOEBE A DEACONESS?
Ben Justice
In Rom. 16:1-2, Paul penned these words to the church at Rome: “I commend you
unto Phoebe, our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: (2) That
ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever
business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succorer of many, and of myself
also.” It is quite unfortunate that many see Phoebe as a deacon or maybe even a
preacher based upon what these verses teach. Of course, such interpretation is
based upon the radical feminist movement that seeks to change and reverse the
roles of men and women in God’s scheme of things. The argument hinges on a
few things set forth in the above text. First and foremost is the term “servant.”
The Greek word is diakonos. This word is also translated “deacon(s)” in the NT.
The KJV and ASV translate this Greek word as “servant” in Rom. 16:1. However,
the RSV, Philips paraphrase, and the NIV translate the word as “deaconess.”
Words must be defined by their context — immediate and remote. Since it is the
case that “deacons” must be “the husband of one wife” (I Tim. 3:12), it therefore
follows that Phoebe could not have possibly occupied this position. God is not
the author of confusion; He does not set forth contradictory teaching.
Second, some have taken the word “assist” as proof that Phoebe occupied a
position of authority in the church. The Greek word translated “assist” is
paristemi. It literally denotes “to stand beside.” This word is used in 2 Tim. 4:
17, translated “stood with.” Paul wrote, “Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, .
. .” Does this mean Paul exercised an authoritative position over Christ? The
idea is coming to the aid of someone with a view to helping them. In no way,
does this word imply that Phoebe exercised a leadership role in the church in
which she exercised authority over the men.
Third, the word “succorer” in v. 2 has also been perverted to mean something it
does not mean. Phoebe “hath been a succorer of many.” The word “succorer” is
from prostatis, which means “helper” in rendering assistance. The word in no
way implies oversight. In fact, Phoebe had been a “succorer” to the apostle
Paul. Did Phoebe exercise oversight over the apostle? Who will so argue?
In Woods’ “Questions and Answers,” he summarizes the language concerning
Phoebe’s position and role: “This does not mean that she held some official
position in the church; the designation is functional and denotes the work she
did, and not an office she held” (Vol. 2, Pg. 172).