Who Governs the Church if We Follow the Bible

Who governs the church ought to matter a great deal to all those who want to be Christians and Christians only by following what the Bible says. I know of no other way to be just a Christian, that and nothing more, other than to follow the Bible as closely as humanly possible. That means one must ignore the traditions of men in religion and all teachings that cannot be found in the New Testament.

Too often, men just inherit the past in religion. We were all born into a world full of denominations and the Roman Catholic Church. If we are not careful, we just inherit a religion from either our parents or our wife or husband and claim it for our own, all the while assuming it must be pleasing to God. The truth often is that the ones we are following after likely received their religion the same way we have when we do that.

One of the easiest ways to test one's religion is by comparing how the church of which he is a member is governed in comparison to the teaching of the New Testament on the subject. The New Testament is very clear on this matter, making it easy to find the truth and thus to see whether we are in a church that is a New Testament church. If it is not, we ought to get out of it.

"Christ is head of the church" (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) and whatever is done in the church or anywhere else is to be done "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Col. 3:17 NKJV), meaning by his authority. Jesus has all authority, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." (Matt. 28:18 NKJV) We cannot step outside the authority of Christ as found in his word and set up a way of governing the church to suit ourselves. Well, let me revise that a little--we can, but if we do, we are in rebellion against the head of the church and against the one whom God the Father gave all authority to. We disrespect him and his word when we do so, and involve ourselves in sin by supporting such a setup.

Christ did provide for government, oversight would probably be a better word, within local congregations of churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16), churches over which he is head. As just stated in the prior paragraph, those who would govern within a local congregation were given no authority to step outside his word, to add to it, to take away from it, or do anything that would take away from Christ's headship of the church. His word, his authority, has to be respected by those who would be appointed as overseers of the local congregation in a locality.

While the apostles lived, they had authority in the church (they still do through their writings). To disobey an apostle who was speaking the word of God by inspiration of the Holy Spirit was the same as to be in disobedience to the one who gave the inspiration--God himself. The brethren at Corinth who received instructions from the apostle Paul were not free to disregard those instructions because he was not present with them and was not one of them. However, the apostles were only 12 in number, could not be everywhere at once or know about every group of brethren in every village throughout the Middle East, Southwestern Asia, and Southeastern Europe, nor were they going to live forever.

Church oversight or leadership was needed on the local level. This God provided for in the appointment of elders in the churches, each church having a plurality of elders, with no one single elder being the chief elder. In Acts 14:23, when Paul and Barnabas were on their first missionary journey, the text says, "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." (NKJV)

Paul wrote to Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Where there was a church, a congregation, there were to be elders appointed, provided there were men within it that met the qualifications that Paul gave to both Timothy and Titus for the appointment of such men. One can read about these qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

Now, please read carefully and understand that the words elder and bishop refer to the same individual. This is easily seen in Titus 1:5 where Paul tells Titus to appoint elders and then in verse 6 begins giving him the qualifications for such men going on through verse 9 but refers to these men in verse 7 as bishops--he says, "For a bishop must…" (compare Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7). These bishops were not like bishops in the Catholic Church today but ruled with other like bishops, or elders, in the local church only. (I add that this same group of men was also designated by words like shepherd and pastor.)

They did, however, rule in the church. This can be seen in 1 Timothy where Paul says one of the qualifications is that an appointee must be "one who rules his own house well … for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:4-5 NKJV) In the book of Hebrews, we are instructed to "obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (Heb. 13:17 NKJV) The elders were to take care of the local church of God, of which they were members, and from which they had been appointed, ruling it in accord with God's word.

In the book of Acts, chapter 20, verse 17, Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus to come meet him at Miletus. One of the things he said to them was this, "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." (Acts 20:28 NKJV) Several comments are in order on this passage.

Take note that they had a flock to oversee, and that flock was specific -- the Christians in the church at Ephesus from whence Paul had called them to come to Miletus. They were elders in the church at Ephesus. He did not tell them to go and try to oversee the flock at Colosse or the one at Derbe or any other such place. The flock they had been appointed to oversee was specific--it was the flock at Ephesus and nowhere else.

The modern-day idea people have of a bishop, as in a Catholic bishop, is nowhere found in the Bible. Remember that an elder is a bishop; they are one and the same (Titus 1:5 compared with Titus 1:7), but they were not like today's Catholic bishop. There was no such thing as a single bishop ruling over even a single congregation in the New Testament, let alone over multiple congregations spread out over a wide area. As is the case with most of Catholicism, no Bible required, none wanted for authority, will be ignored if found, and burned if we could go back to the Middle Ages, to a time when ownership was barred from the public. (You have to remember Catholics claim authority for the church and thus do not need Bible authority from their point of view.)

However, the Bible foresaw the development of Catholicism and of the bishops seeking greater power than what was granted to them. Paul, in talking directly to the elders at Ephesus (and remember an elder is a bishop, one and the same), said to them, "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:30 NKJV) Now no one can deny what Paul said, and no one can deny who he was talking to when he said it.

The second thing I want to note from the Acts 20:28 passage is the fact that these men were to be in charge of the church at Ephesus as overseers. When decisions needed to be made and plans made for the specific work of that church, it was their duty to see to it and to oversee it. It is not the purpose of this article to go into all the work of an elder, so I leave it at that. Our purpose is to define who is to govern the church.

In the third place, they were to shepherd the church of God, of which they were made overseers. The word shepherd refers to their duty to guard the flock, feed, and care for it. They were "pastors" of the church as per Eph. 4:11. But, please note that they were pastors in the plural, not the singular. The idea men have today that one man can be the only pastor of a congregation is unscriptural. Such a character cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament. No New Testament congregation ever was led by a single person, not one.

If you have a pastor in the denominational sense of the way the word is used today, you are not a New Testament church in your organization and government. Find the church that had a single pastor in the New Testament. That is a challenge. It cannot be done.

The truth is, the word "pastors" (as per Eph. 4:11, the only place it is found) means shepherds, and the Greek there (poimenas) should have been translated by the word "shepherds" to be consistent. To prove that the word pastors as used in Eph. 4:11 is the same as "shepherds," see how the Greek is translated in that passage in the English Standard Version, which I here quote. "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers." (Eph. 4:11 ESV) See also Young's Literal Translation, which also uses the word "shepherds" instead of "pastors." Barnes, the well-known Bible commentator, says this is the only place in the New Testament where that particular Greek word is rendered "pastors" rather than "shepherds."  My own research has found the same.

All of this contrasts greatly with the way most churches today are governed. In the New Testament, each congregation was self-governed by men appointed as elders after having met the qualifications given by the Holy Spirit via the apostle Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus for such. There were no national or international bodies that ruled all the churches. There were no Popes or rule by a single man designated as "the pastor" as per some denominations today. Each congregation, through its elders, made its own decisions about its work based on New Testament teaching concerning that work and how it was to be done.

God made the provision to govern the church this way, not me. Do not grow angry with me for simply pointing it out. It is his way. Man has to decide whether they are going to abide by God's way or go their own way. There is little doubt but what most will go their own way for that is their preference--my way or our way, not God's way. What this simple little study does do, even if it does not change minds, is show one whether or not he or she is in a New Testament church. You do not have to judge anyone to do it. All you have to do is look at the church's government. Who governs the church where you are?

On a personal level, I think the thing that bothers me most about this issue is that people seemingly do not seem to care about the truth. One wonders sometimes – does truth really matter with anyone anymore?

I add this as a postscript: God set up this form of church government in his own wisdom. Under this form of church government, if one church goes wrong, it does not drag others along with it, for they are not tied together administratively.

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

Obvious Errors of Catholicism

(To read this in a PDF format click here.)

According to the most recent Vatican estimates I have seen (the year 2023), there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world today. The Pew Research group says around 20% of people living in the United States are Catholic. Roman Catholicism is much like Judaism was in Old Testament times. It is a religion where you may have converts (called proselytes in Judaism),  but the vast majority are what they are by birth, raised that way by their parents from birth. They are Catholic before they have any idea of what that means, Catholic by infant baptism.

Such was true under Judaism as well; you were a Jew whether you knew it or not, based on birth. Boys were circumcised at the age of eight days old, initiating them into the religion. I have often thought Roman Catholicism has more in common with Judaism than Christianity—the way you enter into it (generally by birthright), all the rites and rituals, all the new rules and regulations (rules instituted by the Pharisees under Judaism in the Old Testament, under the Popes, councils, etc. in Roman Catholicism), and the great emphasis on tradition in both religions.

Nothing evokes people's emotions like religion. Question a person's religion and their hackles rise instantly. They are ready to fight, to go at it. The Bible teaches that it is good to be zealous in a good thing always (Gal. 4:18), but when one is zealous in error, it results in evil. Paul, before he became an apostle, said he was zealous of the traditions of the fathers more so than many of his contemporaries (Gal. 1:14). That led him to imprison and persecute Christians (Gal. 1:13). Some were put to death.  He said when that happened, he gave his vote against them (Acts 26:10). The Catholics have a history of doing the same, of persecution, even to putting people to death.

This historical record should teach us that we ought not to act emotionally but consider rationally the propositions we are confronted with to differentiate truth from error. Put in the simplest terms, think before you decide or act, for once a person's acts become history, that is where they stay. One can be forgiven, but the historical record will remain and cannot be changed.

In this article, I want to give some obvious reasons why no one should be a Roman Catholic, and if you are one, why you ought to come out of that religion. I might add this listing is, as they say, only the tip of the iceberg. One could write for days on end on this general topic.

(1) Roman Catholicism has been a religion of violence, torture, terror, and murder; thus, it cannot be the religion of Christ and the New Testament. This is a strong statement, but the historical record backs it up. I ask no one to take my word for it. Read, read, and read some more, not what I write but what the historians have written.

I suppose a good place to start would be "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". Many criticize "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as biased, but none I have run across claim it is entirely inaccurate. The book covers more than just Catholic persecution of those of other faiths, but it does cover that extensively. One can read there, or elsewhere, about the Inquisition. Read about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572. "Pope Gregory XIII celebrated the massacre — he had a medal struck and commissioned Giorgio Vasari to paint frescoes commemorating it in the Vatican" (sourced from Claude, the A.I.). Read about the burnings at the stake. Read about the Crusades.

I ask where in the New Testament does Jesus teach "kill the heretics," but Rome did that time and time again. It became mad with power and arrogance. That was not Christianity. It was Roman Catholicism. This history alone should keep one out of Catholicism.

(2) Another obvious error of Catholicism is that of transubstantiation, the word meaning a change of substance. In what Catholics call the Mass, most Protestants call the communion, or the Lord's Supper, Catholics claim the bread turns into the literal body of Christ and the fruit of the vine into the literal blood of Christ. If it does, why do we see no flesh as we observe the bread or blood as we observe the fruit of the vine? The answer is simple enough to the rational mind not blinded by emotionalism. You can't see what is not there.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26, he said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is My body." (verse 26) He said of the cup (verse 27, speaking of the contents), "This is my blood" (verse 28). Did he mean it literally? As he made those statements, he was sitting before the twelve in his fleshly body, the body their eyes were observing. When he spoke of the cup being his blood, was not his literal blood flowing within the arteries and veins of his body at that very moment? Were the twelve supposed to take him literally and believe they were eating and partaking of his literal flesh and blood while their eyes were observing him in his physical body?

You do know the New Testament given by the Holy Spirit of God forbids any and all Christians from eating blood. "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15:28-29, see also Acts 15:20 and Acts 21:25) In the Old Testament, God said this about eating blood, "I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." (Lev. 17:10 NKJV) "No one among you shall eat blood." (Lev. 17:12 NKJV)

Jesus often used figurative or symbolic language. He referred to himself as a door (John 10:9), and we see clearly that he is, but we know that language is not literal, and it does not refer to the physical or material. He said he was the vine (John 15:1), and again, we see he is, but not a literal botanical vine. The same can be said when he referred to himself as the bread of life, etc.

The Catholics go so far with their doctrine of transubstantiation that they worship the wafer, once consecrated, as God, and yes, I know what their response would be to my charge. I reject their response. The wafer is no more Jesus after the consecration than it was before. They worship the wafer despite any disclaimer on their part.

The Lord's supper was to be a memorial of the Lord's death, "in remembrance of Me," as the scriptures state it (1 Cor. 11:24-25 NKJV). With the Catholics, it is not a remembrance but rather another sacrifice. They say it is a non-bloody sacrifice, but the Bible teaches that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb 9:22 NKJV) A non-bloody sacrifice avails nothing. Besides, Christ's sacrifice was a once-for-all-time event sufficient to cover all past sins and all future sins of those who are of the faith. He "does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (Heb. 7:27 NKJV, see also Heb. 9:12, 28, and Heb. 10:10)

I must move on, for I am drifting into the errors of the Mass when I only want to deal with the obvious error of transubstantiation. One could write a massive volume on the errors of Catholicism, but that is not my purpose here.

(3) The final obvious error of Catholicism that I am going to deal with is that of the Papacy. No one reads of a Pope in the Bible, and everyone knows that. It was and is a Catholic invention.

The claim is that Peter was the first Pope, and that is based on Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus' response to it saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church." (Matt. 16:17-18 NKJV) They say the church was built on Peter, Peter being the rock Jesus was referring to. Peter was thus to be the head of the church on earth after Jesus' ascension.

But the Bible says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) No physical building can be built without a foundation to build upon. No institution can be built unless it has a purpose, a function to fulfill, its foundation, its mission. Paul says, as quoted in this Corinthian passage, that Jesus is that foundation.

"For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalms 18:31 NKJV) Jesus is specifically referred to as a "rock" in 1 Cor. 10:4, where Paul, talking about Israel coming out of Egyptian bondage, says, "all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (NKJV) Jesus is the rock the church was built upon. The church was not built upon Peter but rather upon the truth he confessed about Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) Jesus was "The stone which the builders rejected" that "has become the chief cornerstone." (1 Peter 2:7 NKJV)

Isaiah prophesied this hundreds of years earlier. He said, "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.' " (Isa. 28:16 NKJV) When Peter in Acts 3 healed the lame man and he and John were thereafter brought before the Sanhedrin he answered them saying, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' " (Acts 4:10-11 NKJV)

Perhaps the clearest passage, although those listed are perfectly clear, is found in Ephesians 2:20. It is a reference to the household of God, which is the church, and says, "Having been built on the foundation of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (NKJV) The church was no more built upon Peter individually than it was any of the other apostles individually, and all of them were first built upon Jesus.

The only primacy Peter had was that of being privileged to preach the first gospel sermon on the Day of Pentecost to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his household). He used the keys to the kingdom (the gospel preached) to open the door of salvation to both. But those same keys were given to all the apostles. The Great Commission was not given to Peter exclusively.

Why would God build the church on any man? Paul said, "Let no one boast in men." (1 Cor. 3:21 NKJV) The idea of a papacy goes against everything taught in the New Testament about the relationship of brethren to one another. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you." (Matt. 20:25-26 NKJV) "For who makes you differ from another?" (1 Cor. 4:7 NKJV) Christ is the head of the church both in heaven and on earth. (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) Make no mistake about it, the office of the Pope, of an earthly fleshly superior after Christ, is an invention of men and is not of God.

Paul never deferred to Peter. In fact, he rebuked him in the book of Galatians, chapter two, for refusing to eat with the Gentiles. Paul said of himself, "I am not a bit behind the most eminent apostles." (2 Cor. 11:5 NKJV) That would certainly include Peter, the one the Catholics claim was the Pope. If he were the Pope, Paul did not seem to know it. And certainly, Paul did not address Peter as "the Holy Father," which is the way Catholics address the Pope. Jesus said we are to address no man as father (in a spiritual sense). He said, "Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt. 23:9 NKJV) Catholics do it anyway.

The office of the Pope seems to be a desire to be exalted, to be seen like one of the original twelve, to speak unknown truths to the world through the Holy Spirit, and to rule. The trouble with that is multifaceted, but I will mention just one thing. The Bible says the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). If I could be saved in the first century by what was taught, believed, and practiced back then, what need do I have today of anything additional that a Pope could give me? Think long about that. Why is he needed? I hope it is not to keep heresy in check, for we have seen the torture and death that brought historically.

The only rule of the church the Bible gives us for today is that of elders in each local congregation of brethren who are to oversee the work God has given the church. You will find the qualifications for them in the books of 1 Timothy and Titus, and that was not a one-man rule. There were to be plural elders in each congregation, and they were to rule only over that single congregation of which they were members. Those who seek to exalt themselves to something higher than that sin.

But let's take this one step further. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Peter was given an office unique to him. What would that prove about any succession? The answer—not a single thing. The Bible nowhere speaks about a succession to any of the apostles. Apostolic authority in the first-century church required miraculous spiritual gifts. Certainly, we would expect that of a man who claims to be "the Holy Father" on earth and accepts the praise, adoration, and, one could even say, the worship of the crowds. Paul, as an apostle, said, "In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds" (2 Cor. 12:11-12 NKJV), but the Popes show none of these signs.

Peter had these signs. He even raised the dead (Tabitha or Dorcas) in Acts 9:36-40. So, where are these signs among Peter's so-called successors? Those who are supposed to be even more exalted than ordinary apostles, in that they are the head of the church on earth, Christ's representative in that office, so it is said, and yet are powerless, unlike Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles.

Christ did not give any to be Pope in his church. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13 NKJV) Strange Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, fails to mention the most eminent position of all in bringing God's people to the unity of the faith, the knowledge of Jesus, to the stature of the fullness of Christ - the Pope - if such an office existed. Paul never mentions a Pope in his writings, yet the Catholics tell us there was a Pope even while Paul lived; it was, they say, Peter.

I could write much more, but this will suffice for now. These errors are so obvious that one wonders why people do not see them, but history has taught us that people can easily be led astray and blinded to what is obvious to others. They get so caught up in false religions that it generally takes a total disaster to befall them before they are freed from them. The Japanese would never have rid themselves of Emperor worship had it not been for their near-total destruction during World War II. No one expects Islam to end before the second coming of Christ. No one expects the majority of Catholics to escape Catholicism, as obvious as its errors are. It is easy to be blinded, or so it seems, but much of that blindness is simply because we want it that way. We want to believe what we want to believe. We want it to be true. Often, we will have it no other way.

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

 

Trails and Temptations – Adam and Eve – You and Me

                    

No doubt Adam and Eve are the most notorious couple to ever live, but the thought came to me recently that we are not much different than they were. We are as weak and frail as they were; we need forgiveness as much as they did.

When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they were there without the knowledge of good or evil; they did not know what evil was. In fact, God's command was that they not eat "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Gen. 2:17 ESV) This command was directed at Adam before Eve's creation, but Eve became aware of it as she testified to the same before the serpent in Gen. 3:3. We know what evil is, and yet we do it.

In those earliest days in the Garden, they understood their station in life. God, their creator, was over them, and they understood they were subordinate to him. That was fine with them for a time, how long we do not know, for they were living in an earthly paradise and one without temptation, that is, until the serpent came on the scene.

They were like we are so often, content until an outside party comes along and convinces us how bad off we are and how much better things could be. How many people in this world have fallen because of an outsider’s influence? I am thinking, as I write, how drug addiction and alcoholism would be virtually nonexistent if it were not for such influencers. No one is born with a natural desire for drugs or alcohol. You are not born with a taste or longing for any of that. It takes someone on the outside to influence you, to convince you that things will be better if you indulge.

Many years ago, there was a common saying one heard from time to time, saying "it takes two to tango." How true it is. Most sin comes to us as a result of someone’s influence on us. It goes far beyond just drugs and alcohol. Every time there is an illicit affair, adultery, or an adulterous marriage, every time someone joins in a criminal enterprise with others, gang-related or not, an outsider was involved, urging the satisfaction of the temptation to the sin.

All advertisements are an attempt by one party to influence another. That is not to say that all advertisements entice us to sin, but it is to say we are being hit constantly with enticements from outside ourselves to get us to do this or that. Satan is still active. He knows what he needs to do for his own purposes, and it generally begins with enticement.

None of that justifies our succumbing to the temptations, but human nature being what it is, the flesh being what it is, we often yield to our own desires when we are enticed by outside parties or influences. If you lived alone on a deserted island far from civilization, had no means of contact with others, your temptations to sin would be few and only related to your thoughts and attitude toward God. To be tempted within you generally have to be exposed to people and things without.

Christ warned those who entice people to sin. "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes." (Matt. 18:7 ESV) Again, in the prior verse, verse 6, he says, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (ESV) To be the person who brings temptation to sin into the life of another is serious business, deadly business.

While the serpent in the Garden knew what he was doing, many who bring temptation to us do not realize what they are doing. Many are untaught in spiritual matters. Some think, for example, that bringing alcohol into a person's life will better that person socially, be good for them, help them belong, help them out in the business world, etc. Nevertheless, no matter the motive, sin is sin and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Eve did not know what temptation was until the serpent came along. She had been living with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without any apparent temptation to eat its fruit until the serpent arrived. We are often satisfied with our lives without being involved with sin until someone or something convinces us there is something better if only we will do this or that, contrary to what God has told us in his word. To get her to sin, the serpent had to get Eve to the point where she was dissatisfied.

Satan tells Eve the fruit of this tree will make her like God (Gen. 3:5). As a result, she began to look at the fruit of the tree differently than she had in the past. Now it became good for food and delightful in appearance, plus the serpent says it will make her wise like God (Gen. 3:6). One suspects it was always a tree of wonder to look upon, for it was the only tree in the garden God had forbidden them to eat of or even touch. But she had not been tempted by it, not until the serpent arrived.

In 1993, a movie called "Indecent Proposal" came out here in America, a movie I did not see but one that was heavily advertised at the time and quite scandalous. It starred Robert Redford and Demi Moore, and the plot was of a couple in financial straits. They encounter a billionaire who makes a proposal to them. He offers them a million dollars for a one-night stand with the man's wife. They finally give in and do it.

I use that as an analogy to say we are like Eve. We can be tempted to do things we would not ordinarily do or even entertain the thought of doing, given the right set of circumstances. Part of the Lord's prayer that he taught his followers was "lead us not into temptation" (Matt. 6:13 ESV). How we all ought to pray that prayer. Jesus instructed the three who accompanied him into the Garden just before his arrest to “watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation.” (Matt. 26:41 ESV) Paul warns us, “Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” (Gal. 6:1 ESV)

God tempts no one to do evil (James 1:13), but God has the power to direct us away from temptation. God allowed Satan to try Job, try as in trial. Jesus himself was tempted by Satan, "led up by the Spirit … to be tempted by the devil." (Matt. 4:1 ESV) This was temptation to sin, but it was also a trial to see if Jesus would do it.

Jesus said Satan was seeking Peter and all of the apostles, "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:31-32 NRSV, the NRSV is accurate with this translation). Satan goes about as a roaring lion seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).

We never in this world become so strong that we cannot be tempted under the right circumstances. The temptation to sin abounds. When we think we are of a mind that we cannot fall into sin, that we do not need God's help for we are strong enough within ourselves, that is a dangerous state of mind. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov. 16:18 ESV)

Yes, Jesus said, "it is necessary that temptations come" (Matt. 18:7)-for our faith must be tested-but the prayer to God to "lead us not into temptation" (Matt. 6:13) has to help alleviate temptations, or why pray? Nevertheless, we will be tested for it is necessary. "The LORD tests the righteous." (Psalm 11:5 ESV) God "tests our hearts." (1 Thess. 2:4 ESV) God "tests the heart and the mind." (Jer. 11:20 ESV) Peter told those to whom he wrote in the first century to “not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you.” (1 Peter 4:12 ESV) Its purpose was to test them, and so it is.

Even if one sees the temptation of Matt. 6:13 as trial (the NRSV), thus "do not bring us to the time of trial" rather than "lead us not into temptation"; one must remember that trials, if severe enough, can tempt us to do evil. Many have given up the faith due to the trials that came into their lives. Their thinking became if God loved me, if he exists at all, he would not be allowing this in my life, so they abandoned their faith.

Generally speaking, the difference between a trial and a temptation comes down to this: trials are allowed by God to refine or strengthen our faith (if endured), produce steadfastness, and develop within us spiritual maturity. (See James 1:2-4) They most often consist of troubles and tribulations that come into our lives from the outside. They generally involve hardship and difficulty of one kind or another.

Trials come into our lives to make us what God would have us to be. Peter said to those to whom he wrote, "Now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith … may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed." (1 Peter 1:6-7 NIV) "Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him." (James 1:12 ESV)

Temptations come from within ourselves. “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.” (James 1:14 ESV) This is the desire for sin, as has been one of the themes of this article, the stimuli for it most often comes from those things without that we see or hear. Such was the case with Eve, and so it often is with us.

Peter tells us "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials" (2 Peter 2:9 ESV, "temptations" in the footnote). The passage in Peter, taken in context, refers to Lot's rescue from the evil environment he was in. Peter does not say God will keep you from all trials, but that he can rescue you from them. Prayer is always appropriate whether one is faced with either a trial or a temptation.

Trials and temptations, temptations and trials, different but often much the same. Eve wanted to be better, to better herself, be wise like God, but at the cost of disloyalty. The guilty party in every broken marriage is guilty of the same disloyalty. And, as for you and me, we are disloyal to God every time we willingly break one of his commands, the same as Eve.

The only way man has of loving God is by keeping his commandments, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3 ESV) You can't hug God, you cannot give him a kiss, you cannot give him anything, for everything that exists is his already. Besides, spiritual beings do not need or have use for material things. The only way to show love for God is by obedience. Eve failed in this, and sadly, we too often have.

We might say Eve just wanted to be happy. Well, the Bible does say sin is pleasurable for a season (Heb. 11:25 KJV). Eve did not realize how short the season was going to be. It was, as other versions say, "fleeting" (ESV), "short-lived" (HCSB), and "passing" (NAS), describing the pleasures of sin. She learned that the regret, pain, and sorrow, the result of her sin, lasted far longer than any pleasure she got from partaking of what was forbidden. How often have we learned the same lesson? We may be forgiven, but there is still regret, pain, and sorrow over our sins. And, of course, there is always the judgment to come if we fail to repent.

How about Adam? The Bible says he was not deceived into sinning as Eve was (2 Cor. 11:3, 1 Tim. 2:14). Eve believed the serpent. Adam did not, but his desire to please his wife overrode his love for God and his common sense. I believe many people in the world could be convinced of the truth, believe and obey it, but family or loved ones get in the way. Family ought to be a blessing, but it is not always so. Nevertheless, while family may play some role in our disbelief and disobedience, we are still individually accountable for the decisions we make.

The Bible speaks to us all as individuals. No family group will be saved based on their relationship to one another; no church (congregation) will be saved as a collective group; and no husband and wife as a couple, because they are husband and wife. "Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?" (1 Cor. 7:16 ESV) "So then each of us will give an account of himself to God." (Rom. 14:12 ESV)

Adam loved his wife more than he loved God. Jesus said many hundreds of years later, "whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matt.10:37 ESV, see also Luke 14:26) Who am I to say I would have done better than Adam had I been in his shoes? I am not defending him, but I am saying I can understand. God himself had said it was not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18). Whatever Eve's fate was to be, he wanted to be with her. It is wonderful for a man to love his wife, but it is not wonderful to follow her into sin or put her above God in one's affections. The same holds true with a wife and her husband.

Adam did not have to abandon his wife because of her sin. He could have done as Moses did for the children of Israel when they sinned and God was of a mind to destroy them; he intervened with God (Exod. 32:9-14, 30-35). Why didn't Adam do this? We cannot know but only speculate, which would profit nothing. We can know Adam was weak through the flesh. That brings us back to you and me. Are we not also weak through the flesh?

We are like Adam; we know what God has told us; the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Adam knew that; God had told him; he ate of the forbidden fruit anyway. Don't tell me you never sinned knowingly. If you do, I will not believe you. You knew sin leads to death, but you did it anyway, just like Adam. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 ESV) Your sins were not all sins of ignorance, committed because you did not know you were committing a sin. "None is righteous, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10 ESV)

We sin because at the time we think it is worthwhile, yes, foolish, but true. I think of Peter when he denied Christ. Why did he do it? Because he feared he too would be arrested like Jesus and suffer. He feared an unknown fate at the hands of unfriendly men. No good could come of that, of being arrested. When in the book of Galatians he withdrew and refused to eat with the Gentiles again he did so out of fear, the fear of what his fellow Jews would think and the negative consequences he might suffer as a result.

The point is that sin at the time can seem good, the best route to pursue, has benefits, but it is a very shortsighted view of things. I don't know what Adam and Eve thought. Did they think God had lied to them when he said they would die if they ate of the forbidden fruit? Or, did they think that death would be so far down the road that it would not matter for the here and now? Yes, they died spiritually when they sinned; I realize that. The point I am making, though, is that the day of accountability always comes. The clock may seem to be ticking slowly, but ticking it is, and like the tortoise in the fairy tale, it will eventually reach its destination, the end. This we must keep in mind. We cannot outrun the day of accountability.

We say God walked with them in the garden and spoke to them directly; if he did that with us, we would not sin. Really? Point 1: God's walking with them in the garden was not like you walking with me down the street, physically side by side. God is a spirit; Adam and Eve were flesh and blood. No man has ever seen God and lived (Exod. 33:20, John 1:18). If God walked in the garden in any kind of a literal sense, it was as a theophany.

An example would be God appearing to Moses in the burning bush. In such cases, God takes on an appearance that man can see and yet live, but it is not God's full essence. I guess one could say God takes on a disguise, not to deceive, but to allow man to be in his presence for a time and yet live.

God walks with the Christian when the Christian brother or sister is walking in the light of God's word. (1 John 1) "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105 ESV) God walks with his people today, "For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, 'I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'" (2 Cor. 6:16 ESV)

Point 2: Then we may be inclined to think that, because God spoke directly to them, if he did that with us, we would be faithful if we could just hear his voice. Well, that did not work at Sinai with the children of Israel. It didn't keep Moses sin-free. It didn't keep Abraham from lying about his wife.

Besides, God speaks directly to us today through his word. You say that is different? If one says that it is different, it is not different with God. Remember the account of the rich man and Lazarus when the rich man was pleading for one to be sent back from the dead to his brothers to warn them to turn from their evil ways? Hear Abraham's reply, "They have Abraham and the Prophets; let them hear them." (Luke 16:29 ESV) Of course, Abraham and the Prophets had been dead for an untold number of years. They were to be heard from the writings they left, writings of the Holy Spirit.

So, who were Adam and Eve? They were your neighbor. They were even closer. They were you and me. Look in the mirror.

Jesus did not come into the world just for Adam and Eve's sake. We all need Jesus, the salvation of our souls. We are all sinners. God knew what was going to come to pass with man's creation before creating man; thus, grace was provided "in Christ Jesus before the ages began." (2 Tim. 1:9 ESV) "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world." (Eph. 1:4 ESV)

I don't know what will become of Adam and Eve in the judgment. I don't know whether they repented and God forgave them, but one can hope so, and it certainly seems reasonable to think they did. However, that is irrelevant for you and me. What will God do with us, for we have been much like Adam and Eve? Have we repented? Are we trying to walk with God in light of his word? That is the question that is the really important one.

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

Things God Cannot Do

The Bible teaches that there are things God cannot do. Why not? It is certainly not because he lacks the power or knowledge, but it's a matter of who he is, his character. We can understand that. There are things you and I could do, but our character would never allow it. I thought it would be good to use an online Bible concordance for the New King James Version and type in the word "cannot" and see what came up. I was interested only in those things God cannot do. Here is the list I compiled.

(1) God says in Isa. 1:13, "I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting." (NKJV) Prior to this verse God speaking through Isaiah says of his people that they "have rebelled against me." (Isa. 1:2 NKJV) A couple of verses later they are referred to as a "sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" (Isa 1:4 NKJV) They were up to their necks in sin of all kinds and yet were still offering sacrifices to God (V. 11) and observing the assemblies (v. 13). They were a people full of hypocrisy.

God cannot endure worship directed to him when those offering it are full of sin that they are unrepentant of. Living a life of sinful indulgence and disregard for God's word did not please God then, nor will it now, no matter how much playing church we do. Acceptable worship to God must be from a life of faithful living in spirit and truth.

We see what God cannot endure nearly everywhere we look if we have eyes to see. As an example, it is common to see congregations in which there are unscripturally divorced and remarried couples, couples living in adultery by the Bible definition, that are members in good standing. I personally knew of a man who left his wife of, I am told, 37 years, for another woman, married this woman, and now attends another congregation which seemed to accept him and her with open arms, unrepentant. It is also common to hear on the news of churches welcoming homosexual pastors or priests, as they call them. If you know anything about the Bible, you know God condemns homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). These are just a couple of examples, but God is still saying, "I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting." (Isa. 1:13 NKJV)

(2) Habakkuk says of God in Hab. 1:13, "You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness." Obviously, God sees or knows the wickedness of man; otherwise, how could he judge man? "There is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Heb. 4:13 NKJV) The Psalmist tells us in speaking of God that "he knows the secrets of the heart." (Psalms 44:21 NKJV) So, there is no hiding wickedness from God, even wickedness in the heart. Habakkuk is saying in this passage that God cannot tolerate or endure wickedness or sin.

What is the message for today? "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." (Gal. 6:7-8 NKJV) "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10 NKJV) "Tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek." (Rom. 2:9 NKJV)

The fact that God does not punish men on the spot and immediately for their sin does not mean he has not seen it or has overlooked it. If it seems we have gotten by with it, it is only because God is "longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) There will be a day of accounting. God "cannot look on wickedness." It is impossible for him to accept it.

(3) "God cannot be tempted by evil." (James 1:13 NKJV) This is just a straightforward statement of fact. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life tempt men, not God. God is spirit. The same passage tells us that God tempts no one.

What does this mean that God cannot be tempted by evil? It means God will not lie to me, he will not cheat me, he will do me no wrong at all, for that would be evil, the thing God cannot be tempted to do. It means God cannot be bribed or bought off, for that would be evil. Evil, by its nature, is absent from God. It means, as we are told in many places in scripture, that God is good.

Yes, there will be problems that enter my life, but they will be for my growth and improvement. "Brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete lacking nothing." (James 1:2-4 NKJV) "He himself has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.'" (Heb. 13:5 NKJV)

(4) God "cannot lie." (Titus 1:2 NKJV) Titus tells us this in connection with a promise God has made to his people--the promise of eternal life. This is a great comfort and hope as time goes by in our lives and we see ourselves growing older. We know some day we must leave this world for the great unknown, but God has given a promise, and he cannot lie; there is such a thing as eternal life. What a joyous thought and hope.

But we must also remember that when we are told that God cannot lie, it pertains to everything God has said. We cannot choose what parts of the Bible we want to believe and obey. God cannot lie about anything he has said. If he has given a commandment you or I do not like, we must remember God was not lying when he gave us the commandment. He meant for it to be kept and obeyed. Next time you read a commandment that is hard to accept, ask yourself this question: Is God lying about this? Does he mean it?

Today, men and women are living in disobedience to plain commandments of God because in their minds, he will not care, he did not mean it for us today, he knows times have changed. In other words, God did not mean what he said and will not count our disobedience against us as sin. We need to remember the words of Jesus, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." (Matt. 4:4 NKJV) We ought to emphasize from that passage the phrase "every word." God "cannot lie."

(5) God "cannot deny himself." (2 Tim. 2:13 NKJV) Taken in the context in which this passage is found, the entire verse reads as follows: "If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself." This is very similar to the previous passage from Titus telling us God cannot lie. To be faithful means we keep our word. For God not to do this would make him unfaithful, and he would be denying himself, denying what he had previously told us.

This really means that you and I can take God's word to the bank, as the old saying goes. It is good as gold, better than gold. There is no possibility of a failure or fault to be found with it. We need to have confidence in the word of God, for without it, when doubts start entering in, sin and falling away are not far behind. Jesus says, "The scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35 NKJV) God cannot deny himself.

It is wonderful to know the things God can do, but it is also wonderful to learn there are things God cannot, will not, do.

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