Should the 151st psalm have been included in our Bible?

Sincerely,
Plus On

Dear Plus One,

Psalm “151” is a title given to a psalm that is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the Bible, but that is about it.  Even the Jews consider it to be apocryphal.  An apocryphal book (‘apocrypha’ means ‘hidden’) is a book that was rejected from the Bible because it was considered inauthentic. These books are not written by God and never were accepted by God’s people as divinely inspired.  Some apocryphal books (such as the aforementioned Psalm) were included in the Septuagint, which confuses people at times, but even though some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint, they were never considered God-breathed Scripture.  Printed Bibles include maps, commentaries, and footnotes… and yet, we don’t consider those things to be Scripture; in the same way, the Septuagint included apocryphal books that were never viewed as the Word of God.

It is well documented that Jews didn’t consider the apocryphal books to be authored by God.  Josephus, a venerated Jewish historian, specifically stated that the apocryphal books weren’t from God in his writing Against Apion.  The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls stated that the Apocrypha wasn’t inspired.  To further prove the point, the Apocrypha itself says that it isn’t Scripture!  The apocryphal book, 2 Maccabees, specifically says that it isn’t inspired by God in 15:38-39, and the author apologizes for any inaccurate information he might have provided.  Though the apocryphal books are unique historical accounts, they are never quoted in the New Testament, and they were never accepted by the church or the Jewish community as divinely inspired text.  That is exactly why it isn’t necessary that they be included in modern translations of the Bible – they aren’t Bible, just secular history.

     I just started going to church about three months ago, and I feel so blessed to be a part of what God is and His message.  I have a friend who inspired me to go to the church in the first place, and I told him recently that I want to get baptized.  My church does group baptisms and won’t be having one probably for months.  My friend really wants me to get baptized ASAP even though I’m okay with waiting.  He thinks it’s bad for me to wait.  Is it a bad thing to wait?

Sincerely,
Patient

Dear Patient,

A church that only does group baptisms every three or four months doesn’t understand what baptism is all about.  In the Bible, when people were ready to be baptized, they were baptized immediately (Acts 16:33).  The word ‘baptism’ simply means ‘immersion’ – it is the reason for your immersion that makes baptism a soul-saving act.  When we understand that baptism saves us from our sins (1 Pet. 3:21) and are baptized by the authority of Christ (Acts 2:38) and believe in His Name (Mk. 16:16), then that baptism saves us.  Many people are baptized without understanding these things… in which case, they just get wet.  Baptism isn’t merely an “outward showing of an inward faith” or “for membership”.  Baptism is what saves us (1 Pet 3:21).  Baptism is the point when someone goes from being lost to being saved because they are buried and resurrected with Christ (Rom 6:4-5).  Baptism is the final requirement to become a Christian.  There is not a single example of someone becoming a Christian without baptism.

It is definitely a bad thing to wait, and as attached as you may be to your church, you should seriously consider that they aren’t teaching the total truth of God’s Word.  We would be happy to point you toward congregations in your area that teach everything the Bible says and don’t leave important details out.  Your friend is right.  E-mail us at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org if we can be of help.

     The New Testament gives qualifications for men to serve the local congregation as elders and as deacons.  If there are men qualified to serve as deacons but there is not a plurality of men qualified to serve as elders, should the congregation ask men to serve as deacons when there are no elders?

Sincerely,
Deacon Dilemma

Dear Deacon Dilemma,

No elders means no deacons.  A deacon without an eldership is a servant without someone to serve.  Deacons are servants of the church.  The word ‘deacon’ comes from the Greek word ‘diakonos’ which literally means ‘servant’.  The deacons who meet the qualifications of 1 Tim. 3:8-13 are a specific type of servant in the church – they serve the eldership (Php 1:1).  Deacons are given authority by the elders to oversee various responsibilities within the church.  These responsibilities might be building maintenance, the treasury, benevolence, etc. – whatever tasks the elders need help doing are the tasks deacons are to fulfill.

    Can you explain what's going on in John 20:22-23 where Jesus appears to give His disciples the power to forgive or not forgive sins?  Other Bible verses like Hebrews 4:16 and 1 John 1:9 seem to indicate that it is God who directly forgives sins.

Sincerely,
Got The Power?

Dear Got The Power,

The passage in Jhn 20:23 is more easily understood when we look at the original Greek.  It is very rare that going back to the Greek is a big deal, but in this case, it adds a lot of color.  When Jesus says, “Whatever sins you retain, they are retained”, the verb used for ‘are retained’ is a Greek perfect verb.  A perfect verb is a verb used when the action has already happened and the effects of that action are still with us.  The most accurate translation of that passage is “whatever sins you retain have already been retained, and the effects are still with us”.  Of course, that translation is a little bit cludgy, so most translators shorten it up a bit to what you read in the average translation.  It isn’t wrong to shorten it, but it does lose a little bit of the color that makes it easier to appreciate Jesus’ words.
Jesus was telling His apostles that they were going to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and the things that they were going to say wouldn’t be of their own opinion.  When they taught, they taught God’s pre-appointed laws.

      Would you say that baptism is necessary for going to heaven?  If so, do you think that if you're unable to get baptized for whatever reason but you've had a change of heart that you will still go to hell?

Sincerely,
Double-Checking Destinations

Dear Double-Checking Destinations,

The most well-documented and clearest doctrine in the New Testament is baptism… yet, it is also the most commonly ignored topic in the religious world.  Peter said it best when he said, “Baptism saves you” (1 Pet 3:21).  Every person that became a christian in the New Testament was baptized – immediately.  You won’t find a single person in the book of Acts that wasn’t baptized.  When the first sermon was preached after Christ ascended into heaven, the apostles told the people that they needed to “repent and be baptized… for the remission of their sins” (Acts 2:38).  Paul tells us that baptism is a burial with Christ, and only after that burial do we receive a new life (Rom 6:3-4).  Baptism was so important to Paul that he was baptized even before eating or drinking (Acts 9:18-19), which shows how important it is because Paul hadn’t had food or water in three days (Acts 9:9)!  Belief is not enough; even the demons believe in God (Jas 2:19).  It is only when our belief is combined with obedience that we have living faith (Jas 2:17-18), and the very first command to obey that God gives us is to be baptized in the name of His Son (Matt 28:19, Mk 16:16).  We die to sin when we are baptized.
Now, let’s quickly deal with the second part to your question.  The only way you can know with confidence that you are saved is to do what the Bible says (Rom 1:16).  If God chooses to make exceptions to that rule on the Judgment Day, that is His right… He is the final Judge (Heb 12:23).  However, 99.99% of us have the ability to get baptized, so that is what we should do.