Canaan and Heaven--How God's Grace Is Given

How God's grace is given to men is not only an interesting study but also one of utmost importance as it relates to our salvation, a salvation which is clearly set forth in the scriptures as being a free gift of God to man. "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 3:24 NKJV) It is by grace through faith we are saved and not by works. (Eph. 2:8-9) Salvation is specifically said to be "the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8 NKJV)

Many more or less assume this gift of God, freely given, has no conditions attached, that it is unconditional, or else works would be included in its obtainment. We sometimes jump to conclusions, fired up by emotionalism, rather than coming to our conclusions as a result of thoughtful study and meditation.

While salvation (and thus heaven itself—our promised land) is said to be a free gift from God it is no more said to be a free gift than was the promised land to the children of Israel in the Old Testament beginning with the original promise to Abraham in Gen. 12:7, "To your descendants I will give this land." (NKJV) (See also Gen. 13:15, 17)

To Moses God said, regarding Abraham's descendants, the children of Israel, "I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan." (Exodus 6:4 NKJV) Look up the word "given" or "give" in any Bible concordance and you will find time and again, passage after passage, stating that God either had given the children of Israel the land of Canaan or would do so.

But if it was a gift from God freely given then surely there was nothing the children of Israel had to do to obtain it other than believe—was there? The way people reason today, if they were to be consistent, they would have to answer "no there was not" but they know better. They will not say that for they know their Old Testament history well enough to know that while God had given them the land, and they were assured of it, they still had to fight battle after battle to drive out those who lived there.

How can a person say a gift is free if effort is required to receive it? That is a fair question deserving an answer. By definition, a gift is the giving of something that does not have to be given. There is no legal necessity to give a gift. I give to the government tax money but none of us would say that is a gift. On the other hand, if I give to an orphanage that is a gift freely given for there is nothing compelling me to give other than the desire of my heart to do so. If God gave the land of Canaan to the children of Israel, as he did, what forced him to do that? Was he under obligation or was it the desire of his heart?

Man can complain all he wants about the children of Israel having to fight all those battles and say to himself "what kind of gift was that?" It is an argument with God for he is the one who said he was "giving" the land. Man would say man was earning the land, earning it the hard way with combat, but God called it giving. There is an important lesson here. We need to learn to think the way God thinks, not the way humanity thinks. "My thoughts are not your thoughts" (Isa. 55:8 NKJV) is what God says. When God gives to man a gift it does not necessarily mean no effort is required to take possession of the gift. It does mean, however, because God is giving it, obey and you will succeed (no doubt about it) and you will become a recipient of the gift of God.

God speaks in the New Testament of salvation as being a gift. With men thinking the way they do this means to most "sit back, relax, and dump it into my lap." Bad mistake! The children of Israel received the land of Canaan by God's grace. It was a free gift that did not have to be given. They defeated the inhabitants of the land not because they were a stronger military force but because God was fighting with them and for them delivering the inhabitants into their hands.

God's gift of grace means opportunity. God's grace in giving the children of Israel the land of Canaan meant believe and obey and I (God) guarantee your success. It is no different today with us other than the location of the Promised Land. By God's grace, we are given an opportunity to reach the promised land of heaven itself and our success is guaranteed if we will believe and obey.

Lest the reader thinks I am setting up an analogy that is invalid comparing the children of Israel and their promised land and God's children today and our promised land, this is the very thing the writer of the book of Hebrews does beginning in Heb. 3:7 and going through about Heb. 4:11.

In Heb. 3:18-19 the writer says a thing of utmost importance to you and me if we are to learn the lesson he desires us to learn. "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." (NKJV) The reader ought to note carefully how the Hebrew writer ties together faith and obedience or unbelief and disobedience. Those who believe obey; those who disbelieve disobey.

Why did the adults of that group we refer to as the children of Israel who left Egypt with Moses to go to the Promised Land fail to enter in? They disobeyed God who told them, "Go up and possess the land which I have given to you." (Deut. 9:23 NKJV) They feared the inhabitants of the land and did not believe God's word that he had given them the land and thus would fight with them in all their battles allowing victory. Moses speaking to them says, "You rebelled against the commandment of the Lord your God, and you did not believe him nor obey his voice." (Deut. 9:23 NKJV)

When men do not believe they do not obey. Obedience then is a matter of faith, disobedience a matter of a lack of faith. Why are people today, people who claim to believe, not baptized "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) as Peter preached and commanded in the very first Holy Spirit inspired gospel sermon ever to be preached? The answer is because disbelief leads naturally to disobedience. The Hebrew writer sums it up well, "the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." (Heb. 4:2 NKJV) Yes, he was speaking of a generation long gone but speaking for our benefit today so that we can learn from it. Will we learn?

The Hebrew writer goes on in speaking of those Israelites who failed to enter the promised land saying, "those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience" (Heb. 4:6 NKJV) and then warns us not to fall "according to the same example of disobedience." (Heb. 4:11 NKJV)

What should we learn from all of this? Genuine faith that saves is a faith that when it hears believes and obeys. Men can call obedience salvation by works if they want to, that is their choice, but the wise man will obey and not seek salvation without obedience. To seek salvation without obedience is to seek salvation without any real faith. "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:26 NKJV) and things that are dead no longer have life and are ready to be buried. Willful disobedience manifests a lack of faith and is rebellion.

God's gifts and grace, in the context of the subject of which we are talking, always requires more of man than a dead faith that refuses to act. When God speaks (gives a command in his word) our obligation is to obey and not sit around and meditate on how doing so means works and not grace. The children of Israel would have been glad to walk into Canaan under other circumstances more pleasing to themselves. They were just not willing to believe God and do it his way. His grace, his gift, was not to them sufficient grace.

Will we be that way about going to heaven? Are we only going to heaven if we can get there our way? Are we only willing to go if God requires absolutely nothing of us? I hope that does not prove to be the case.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Does Sin Even Exist

"I will certainly judge you because you have said, 'I have not sinned.'" (God speaking through Jeremiah to Judah, Jer. 2:35b HCSB)

In a nation that is increasingly rejecting Christianity and the Bible, one must ask the question "what then becomes of sin?" If sin is, as the King James Version of the Bible reads, "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) but there is no validity to the Bible, which is supposed to be God's law, what then becomes of sin? Does it cease to exist? Do those who reject the Bible as the word of the living God totally abandon the concept of sin? If not, then upon what basis do they propose to define sin?

If sin is not to be defined by God's word and if sin is something other than the transgression of God's law, then: (1) What is sin and how is it defined; what are the rules that if broken constitute sin? (2) What authority decides these things? (3) On what basis does that authority exist, that is, how is authority established? Is it political and/or military power that makes the authority so that sin is defined by power? How is such authority obtained? If the God of the Bible and his word are taken out of the picture, then the authority cannot be of Christian origin, so what is its origin?

Without the acceptance of the New Testament as the authority for defining sin, the reality is there is no other alternative but man himself becoming the authority either as an individual or as a ruling party or institution made up of men. The problem then becomes what man or what group of men, for we know not all are agreed. A democrat and a republican are likely to have far differing views on a whole host of issues that call for moral and value judgments.

Likewise, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had vastly different values than did Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, so who becomes the authority? Who decides? When Christianity is removed from the field, whose ideology or worldview do we follow? Is it communism, Islam (ISIS?), Hinduism — where do we go, what ideology or religion rules us?

If we proclaim a world without sin since we reject Christianity, God, and the New Testament as God's word, then the only law man can break is manmade and solely dependent on the fist, the hand of power, for enforcement. Why then should I obey your set of values even if you enshrine them into law when the only reason you were able to do so was that you had the power to enforce your will? Political and legal power that comes from man does not equate with moral superiority; it never has and never will. Why is one individual to be respected over another as an authority figure on values if there is no God?

In such a world, much like the one that seems to be developing here in the West, sin becomes whatever some man or group of men or even the culture itself says it is, but men do not live forever. A generation is soon gone and the next one takes its place. What the prior generation called sin is then cast aside and now becomes righteousness under their new rule. Is this not exactly what we had with the gay marriage issue? So will this present generation, who is determined to have its own way minus God, be praised by the next, or will it be the case that it, in turn, will be denigrated for its narrow, restrictive, judgmental view on polygamy? Don't say it cannot happen. The baby boomers can tell you when they were children the idea of gay marriage was considered ridiculous.

Liberalism, once it gains momentum, is hard to stop short of license. Just because one has not yet arrived at his destination does not mean he never will. A world without God is just that. There is no moral persuasion, no fear of God, to hold a man back. Only the gun can do that in a world without God.

Once we reject Christianity, the word of God as found in the New Testament as our guide for life, for the development of a set of values by which we will live, we have no firm ground to stand on, for human values are ever-shifting. Compare how Americans felt about such subjects as abortion, divorce, living together outside marriage, having children out of wedlock, and homosexuality a hundred years ago and compare it with how they feel about those same moral issues today. Human values change with time unless they are based on that which is unchangeable — God's word.

Not all change in societal values is bad, for in the matter of attitudes about race and segregation change has been positive, but when one builds his life on the public consensus of what is culturally correct at any given point in time, he/she is building a life while standing on shifting sands that cannot be depended upon for stability. Those same sands are sure to shift under you with time and are shifting inconspicuously under you as you stand on them in any given year. And, as regards racial issues and segregation, there would never have been problems in those areas had the scriptures been followed.

One might wish to argue that Christians themselves have changed their views on moral issues over the years so that if you just take the word of God alone as your basis for building a moral life you are no better off than anyone else. Sounds like a good argument, but is it?

If I take a passage of scripture, say 1 Cor. 6:9-10, and quote it to you, I ask, has the teaching of that passage, correctly translated, changed in the last two thousand years? Here is the passage:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

Have some men who call themselves Christians rejected parts or all of the passage? Surely so, but the teaching (wording) of the passage itself is set in stone and will never change until the earth itself ceases to be. Each individual either has to accept what it says, reject what it says, or take a smorgasbord approach to it, taking this and leaving that, but it says what it says. (Yes, all men can repent. The passage is talking about the unrepentant.)

The word of God itself is never changing. "All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Peter 1:24-25 NKJV) The Bible says what it says whether men will accept it or not. The words endure forever.

The man who is willing to accept the word of God as a foundation for building a set of life values by which to live can be assured he will not be building on shifting sands. The word of God is written as if set in stone even if what men do with it or decide about it is not. Men get into trouble with the word of God when they begin to doubt it, and that is generally brought on by pressures that develop within them, often unawares, from group or societal thinking or family pressures.

We are all constantly being pressured to read the Bible in a way that justifies what the Bible, as written, will not justify — justify the sins we do not want to be sin. If we succumb to that temptation we end up cutting and pasting scripture and making a Bible that suits us. We pick this scripture over that one, have the Bible writers in disagreement with one another, and we contort and distort it until we get it to read the way we want it to read. But it does not have to be that way.

Man can build a life (a value system) on the solid bedrock of the New Testament (the new covenant of Christ) if he is willing. That is the very thing that cannot be done when building upon cultural consensus. He can read the text and say "that is what it says" and so that is my foundation, the value I must incorporate into my life no matter what the culture of the time is.

Even if all of society justifies you in building upon the cultural consensus in the time in which you live, the very next generation may vilify you and your generation for the values it held. Seeking justification from society and the approval of the society in which you live means what? Well, in the 1930s and '40s in Germany it would mean you were a Nazi. A society's values should not necessarily be your own. They must be weighed in light of God's word.

One cannot condone those religious bodies who call themselves Christian but whose doctrines change with every shifting cultural wind, who seemingly are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, who one day believe this until it becomes unpopular in the culture and then the next day proclaim they believe just the opposite; but a Christian does not have to follow the crowd, even the religious crowd. He can follow what is in print, what will not deviate, nor leave him, nor forsake him, but will be solid rock under his feet. He can build a life built on a solid foundation, on the New Testament scriptures.

Your blueprint for life is not the so-called history of Christianity, the doctrines of the church, or of church councils, but the always enduring, never changing New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is your solid foundation, not the ever-changing traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, or of any other religious body, or the values of the culture in which you live. And, rest assured, no matter what modern man believes about it, Jesus would tell you that yes, sin still exists.

[To download this article or print it out here.]

 

A Way That Seems Right

The apostle John made the statement that he had "no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth." (3 John 4, NKJV) Yet, today, some approximately two thousand years later, it is questioned whether one can know the truth or whether such a thing even exists, at least in the moral and religious realm. I find that quite distressing, but find myself unable to do much about it.

It was reported to me that one I know quite well made the comment as it relates to Christian doctrine that "everyone sees it differently." The implication, of course, is that it makes little to no difference what one believes and practices in the Christian religion as long as it fits somewhere in the broad spectrum of what men call Christendom. The idea is that one can be a member of about any Christian denomination with their peculiarities and all will be well with one's soul. It implies that truth cannot be known with any certainty.

It is a live-and-let-live philosophy. My Christian faith and practice are as good as yours, and yours as good as mine, even though we are in deep disagreement about many things. It just makes no difference.

Certainly, there is nothing rational in this train of thought, but that is the world we live in. How do people think today? George Barna recently came out with a new report entitled: 2025 American Worldview Inventory – Report #6 Americans Possess Contradictory and Unbiblical Views about Moral Truth. I quote from it:

"Most adults in the United States do not believe that there are any moral absolutes, and they live accordingly. … Even substantial majorities of some of the largest Christian church groups reject absolute morality, including 69% of Catholics and 61% of those who attend a mainline Protestant church.

Beyond that, half of the adults considered to be spiritually conservative and a cornerstone of evangelical Christianity—a niche known as 'theologically-identified born-again Christians'—admit to rejecting absolute moral truth.

The research has shown that these days, Americans most often make their moral choices based on their emotional reaction to a situation. In fact, the only consideration that a majority of adults trust to discern moral truth is their feelings, which is relied upon by three out of four adults (74%)."

Further down in the report he goes on to say: "One of the guiding moral ideals is that being open-minded and accepting of alternative philosophies of life is a sign of maturity—even if those points of view conflict with one's personal perspectives. A large majority (67%) of adults embrace this supposed 'sophisticated' thinking. ...

Pluralism is alive and well in America today: the dominant worldview of nine out of 10 adults is Syncretism, which is the blending of beliefs and behaviors conceived or favored by a variety of competing worldviews.

The popularity of that approach to life provides an ideal philosophical environment for people to suppose that competing, even conflicting, truth views can all be right or should at least be appreciated as valid."

If, in fact, we live in such a society, it is easy to see that the narrow gate Jesus spoke of is non-existent in the mind of the average American, even of many Christian conservatives. Jesus said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it." (Matt. 7:13 NKJV) In American religious thought today, Jesus had it just backwards. In our minds the gate that leads to life is quite broad indeed.

Today, even among many, perhaps most Christians, who can say(?), one sees this kind of thinking. Let someone die who has not lived a Christian life but has been a nice guy, man or woman, friendly and kind, but never lived as a Christian, and it is suddenly said upon their death that they are "in a better place now" or they have received "their angel wings." We rail against those who would judge others, and we should oppose such judging, but on the other hand, who put you or me in charge of judging people into heaven? Who made us judge?

But that is a reflection of how people think today. People have discarded the clear teachings of the Bible and developed their own religion, which is basically whatever seems right to me. What does the Bible say about such a course? "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12 NKJV)

Paul, in Rom. 10:2, spoke of those in his day who "have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." (NKJV) I make two points about those Jews of whom he spoke. (1) He was not complimenting them. He goes on to say they were "seeking to establish their own righteousness" (ver. 3). That is exactly what is happening today with the way we are thinking about Christianity and life.

(2) The second point is that Paul spoke of knowledge. He was saying there is such a thing as truth. It is not my truth nor your truth, but "the truth" applicable to both of us. It is objective, not subjective, and is independent of our feelings.

Today, believing the way so many do, the Bible is forced to take a back seat, but it will not stay there. You cannot fight against God and win; only a fool tries to do so.

It is felt that Christianity is too narrow if you take the word of God to mean what it says, so we play around with it and tell ourselves the text does not mean what it seems to be saying in so many different places. We spend our time not in teaching what the text says but in teaching why the text does not mean what it says. No, not all of us, but so many do.

Of course, there is such a thing as intolerance which we must fight against. The problem is that we have come to tolerate the evil and condemn the good. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

This raises the question, of course, of how do we know the good from the evil? Are we to determine it for ourselves? Is it whatever seems right to me? Is there no objective standard? That is where we are today, each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes, living by feelings, and intolerant of anyone judging their personal decisions. We have abandoned our standard, the Bible, and each is doing what is right in their own eyes.

Two examples are our society's open embrace of homosexual unions and of living together outside marriage. We all know the Bible condemns both, but we have embraced both as a society, for we make the rules now, not God. We will reject him if need be, and so we have.

Where is all this new worldview going to land us? God only knows. It will not be a good place, but only time will tell. We do know, however, "sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov. 14:34 NKJV) and God will eventually judge us all.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Faithfulness of Jesus to God the Father

Hebrews 3:1-2 reads as follows: "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him who appointed him, as Moses also was faithful in all his house." (NKJV)

Reading this passage and its surrounding context awhile back got me to thinking about the faithfulness of Jesus. We seldom think about Jesus being "faithful," that is in the sense of being faithful to God, even though we know he lived a sin-free life. I think there is profit to be had in looking into this subject in as much as Jesus is to be our example. It is Jesus who said, "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matt. 16:24 NKJV) Following Jesus would include following him in faithfulness.

While Jesus was in the beginning with God and the Holy Spirit when the words were uttered "let us make man in our image, according to our likeness" (Gen. 1:26 NKJV, see also John 1:1-11) once Jesus entered the world, sent by God the Father (John 17:18), he became not only the Son of God but also the Son of Man and became subject to the Father. Paul said, in speaking to the Corinthians, "I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (1 Cor. 11:3 NKJV) Paul said earlier, in the same book, "And you are Christ's (speaking of the Corinthian Christians—DS), and Christ is God's." (1 Cor. 3:23 NKJV) When Paul wrote those words Jesus was back in heaven but if he was then subject to the Father then certainly he was subject to him earlier while on earth.

We also know that when this world comes to an end and the Day of Judgment has come to be history that Jesus who now sits at the "right hand of the majesty on high" (Heb. 1:3 NKJV) ruling "till he has put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 15:25 NKJV) will then himself "be subject to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:28 NKJV)

We are really talking here about decisions made by the Godhead before the creation of the world itself. Sometime before the foundation of the world the Godhead made the decision that once the world was created and man placed upon it that Jesus would, at some future point in time, a time known only to God, take upon himself the form of man, enter into the world, and become its Savior by the sacrifice of himself on the cross for the sins of man. Yes, God knew his creation, man, would sin before man was created.

Jesus was our Savior chosen to be so before the foundation of the world. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world (read that again a second time for emphasis—DS), that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." He was "foreordained before the foundation of the world." (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV)

Jesus was born into the world to be a sacrifice for man's sin. "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death (emphasis on what you have just read—DS) … that he, by the grace of God might taste death for everyone." (Heb. 2:9 NKJV) Jesus came into the world for the express purpose of dying "for everyone." This was by God's gracious act. Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:29), "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8 NKJV)

Yes, Jesus was and is God. Only God can save us. Jesus was our Savior chosen to be so by the Godhead before the foundation of the world. However, while Jesus was/is God (see Heb. 1:8, John 1:1-2, Phil. 2:6, and other passages) when he took on the role of the Son of Man coming to earth in bodily form he himself became subject (willingly) to the Father.

The Hebrew writer makes this clear when he says:

"But to the son he says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.' " (Heb. 1:8-9 NKJV)

Jesus who was himself God (read the verse above again) had a God. Who did Jesus pray to if not to his God and Father? Who did he sing praise to (Heb. 2:12) if not to his God? Who did he put his trust in (Heb. 2:13) if not in his God?

It was "in all things he had to be made like his brethren" (Heb. 2:17 NKJV) and thus his faith in and dependency upon the Father, God in heaven. Now please do not misunderstand. The most difficult subject that a man can study and never really understand is how both deity and humanity dwelt within Jesus at the same time. I am avoiding that subject in this article like the plague. I am only saying here that in Jesus' role as the Son of Man he had a dependency on God the Father just as all men do. Even as the Son of God, sons are subject to their fathers and must always show them honor and respect.

The Bible says Jesus was "faithful" to God who appointed him as the apostle and high priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1-2). The text also points out how Moses had also been "faithful." What does the word faithful mean? What makes a person faithful? When we speak of the faithfulness of Jesus what does that mean?

A good synonym for faithful would be the word "reliable." Other synonyms might be "dependable" or "trustworthy." My Merriam-Webster's Pocket Thesaurus says of the word faithful, "firm in adherence to whatever one is bound to by duty or promise."

The Bible speaks of God being faithful. "Therefore know that the Lord your God, he is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy." (Deut. 7:9 NKJV) What does that mean? It means if God said it you can depend on it. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), neither can he grow weary and tired or weak and unable to fulfill what he has said. When God makes a covenant with man God will keep his part right down to dotting every i and crossing every t. He will fall short in nothing in keeping his part of the covenant. Man must remember, however, that the covenant God has made with his people is conditional, not unconditional.

In speaking of the children of Israel that came out of Egypt with Moses the Psalmist says, "For their heart was not steadfast with him, nor were they faithful in his covenant." (Psalms 78:37 NKJV) They entered into a covenant relationship with God at Mt. Sinai in the desert but they proved unfaithful in keeping their part of the covenant and thus were not allowed to enter the Promised Land due to disobedience (Heb. 3:18, 4:6). Jesus, who came many years afterwards, did not prove unfaithful in keeping that same covenant—the Law of Moses.

We can see then that being faithful means, on man's part, being obedient to the covenant he is under with God. Have you ever read or paid any attention to the cover page or title page of your New Testament? The New Testament I am using as I write says on its cover page "The New Testament of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ." The older versions used to read differently. I am now looking at the cover page for the old American Standard Version of 1901 and that cover page reads "The New Covenant Commonly Called The New Testament Of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ."

God has had two covenants with man. The first he made with the Jewish nation. This was the Law of Moses delivered on Mt. Sinai and is the covenant that Jesus kept faithfully and under which the thief on the cross lived and died (mentioned for the benefit of those who think he died under the Christian dispensation of time). The second covenant is the New Covenant commonly called the New Testament which all of mankind has lived under, or put another way been subject to, since Christ's death on the cross. Much of the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are devoted to this very subject of the change of the law or the covenants under which men live.

As has been said, to be faithful is to be obedient to the covenant under which one lives, in our case the New Testament. The New Testament, or New Covenant, is God speaking to you and me his will. He speaks through his word. I cannot be faithful to God while disregarding his words directed to me. If he gives me a command and I try and keep it you can call that me trying to work my way to heaven, some feel that way about obedience, but your calling it that will not make it so. It is, instead, an effort on my part to be faithful to the one who has spoken to me his word, one who is telling me what his desire for me is.

We say truthfully that Jesus was the Lamb of God, for John the Baptist called him that (John 1:29, 36), and the Hebrew writer says he "offered himself without spot to God." (Heb. 9:14 NKJV) He was "a lamb without blemish and without spot," says Peter. (1 Peter 1:19 NKJV) The only thing that brings blemishes and spots to a man's soul is sin. Sin is "the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4 KJV) The faithfulness of Jesus was such that it led to a perfectly sinless life. Peter says of him that he "committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22 NKJV) He was "without sin." (Heb. 4:15 NKJV) Was Jesus trying to work his way back to heaven by being obedient? Should I not try and be obedient?

While living on earth Jesus was under commandment from God not just pertaining to those things contained in the Law of Moses but more. Jesus had been commanded to speak the words he spoke. "For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV)

In Hebrews 3 Jesus' faithfulness is contrasted with the unfaithfulness of the children of Israel who left Egypt, led by Moses, as they headed to the Promised Land. They did not enter into the Promised Land because they did not obey and they did not obey because they did not believe (Heb. 3:18-19). The warning given to the Hebrews then living, to whom the writer of Hebrews was writing, was not to "fall after the same example of disobedience." (Heb. 4:11 NKJV) Disobedience is unfaithfulness.

I ask a question easily enough answered. Was Jesus under a command from God to give up his life on the cross for the sins of men?

Jesus answers himself. After the last supper Jesus made this statement, "But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here." (John 14:31 NKJV) At that point in time the only thing left was the cross. They left their present location for the garden where Jesus prayed and was later arrested.

Another passage that tells us the same thing in different language is Heb. 10:5-7. "Therefore, when he came into the world, he said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you had no pleasure. Then I said, "Behold, I have come—in the volume of the book it is written of me—to do your will, O God." ' " (NKJV) It was God's will that Jesus die on the cross for man's sins.

"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. 10:10 NKJV) Jesus came into the world for one purpose—to fulfill the will of God which was that we be "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ." (Heb. 10:10 NKJV)

John 10:17-18 also helps clarify:

"Therefore my Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from my Father." (John 10:17-18 NKJV)

What command was it that Jesus had received? The command to lay down his life and take it again—the command to go to the cross.

Jesus was obedient (faithful) unto death. "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." (Phil. 2:8 KJV) The words "the point of" are italicized in the NKJV Bible meaning they were added by man (the translators) and are not in the original so the actual text should read, "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross." Yes, the cross was a commandment given to Jesus.

It can be difficult sometimes for a man to obey, to be faithful, but ultimately unfaithfulness is far more costly. Jesus' prayer and weeping in the garden shows it was not easy for him to be faithful either. He went through much agony to be faithful. We need to be willing to suffer also if we are to live faithfully.

What then can we learn from Jesus' faithfulness that will help us to be faithful? It seems to me the big lesson is the total surrender of the life, the will, to God. We as human beings are always thinking about "what I want to do." Jesus did not live that way. It was for him and must be for us "not my will, but yours, be done." (Luke 22:42 NKJV) A total surrender of one's life to God is the answer to faithfulness.

And, I ask in closing, what is the command that God has given you and me? We find it in what Jesus said to the angel of the church of Smyrna, quoting from the original King James Version, "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." (Rev. 2:10 KJV) So we see there is a sense in which we too are under the commandment of death—when faithfulness requires it. Jesus was/is our example. Polycarp, a second-century Christian, was burned at the stake for his faithfulness. How strong is your faith today? Is it strong enough to be faithful? No doubt we all need to work on both our faith and our faithfulness.

[To print download this article or print it out click here.]