The Chastening of the Lord

People often have a misconception about God. They cannot imagine that God would ever bring upon us trials and tribulations, punish us for our sins, or do anything in this life but bring us good--good as we see it. God is love, God is grace, and the very idea that God would ever send upon us anything but that which is most pleasant is abhorrent to our way of thinking.

There is no doubt that when one looks at the big picture that God only does what is best for us for our eternal welfare. Loving parents are like that with their children. All that they do in regard to their children is for the child’s welfare if they are the kind of parents they ought to be. Does that mean, however, that all they do is pleasant from the child’s point of view?

Are we not God’s children? How is it that we would think that God would not send us some unpleasantness in our lives for our own good to correct us and make for us a pleasant and happy future? Sometimes our fleshly children need to be disciplined so they can learn how to conduct themselves and not become involved in self-destructive behaviors. We all come into this world knowing nothing but that which is instinctual. We all need to learn how to live to succeed and if this is true in the physical material world how much more is it true in the spiritual realm?

Hebrews 12:5-11 can be a bit difficult.  What is the chastening of the Lord? How does God do that? How can I recognize it when it is occurring? Questions naturally come to mind.

To refresh your memory of this passage I quote it here:

“(5) And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: ‘My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; (6) For whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.’(7) If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? (8) But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. (9) Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? (10) For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. (11) Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” (NKJV)

There are some points that are readily apparent when one reads the passage, despite the questions one might have.

(1) Verse 5 makes it clear that this chastening is a rebuking from God, for we are not to be “discouraged when you are rebuked by Him.”

(2) It is something to be endured, “If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons.” (verse 7) When one “endures” a thing it generally means the thing being endured is unpleasant.

(3) It is a correction, “we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?” (verse 9)

(4) It is for our profit, “he for our profit” chastens us. (verse 10)

(5) It is painful, “no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful.” (verse 11)

(6) "It yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness." (verse 11)

The question remains as to how God chastens us and why in a more specific sense. I do not claim to have all the answers, but the book of Amos sheds some light on the subject.

All students of the Old Testament are aware of how time after time God’s people would become unfaithful to him and how he would punish them. However, was it just always a matter of punishment for punishment’s sake? No, not always.

“Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt.” (Amos 3:1 NKJV) God speaking, obviously, but then note what he says in chapter 4:6, "'Also I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, And lack of bread in all your places; Yet you have not returned to Me,' Says the LORD." (Amos 4:6 NKJV)

Take a look at another passage, verses 7-8 (same chapter): "'I also withheld rain from you, When there were still three months to the harvest. … Yet you have not returned to Me,' Says the LORD." (Amos 4:7-8 NKJV)

Or how about verse 9: “'I blasted you with blight and mildew. When your gardens increased, Your vineyards, Your fig trees, And your olive trees, The locust devoured them; Yet you have not returned to Me,’ Says the LORD.” (Amos 4:9 NKJV)

I think the reader will get the idea, but if you wish to read more of the same go ahead and read verses 10 and 11.

It becomes clear that the purpose of these troubles, trials, and tribulations was to get the children of Israel (God’s children) to repent and return to him. Why would we think it strange if God was found to still be working today in the same manner to get people to repent--that is, through trials, tribulations, and troubles?

One could say that was on a national scale in Amos' time and did not involve individual action. There is truth to that, but I doubt the man who lacked bread in his house (verse 6), suffered from drought (verses 7-8), suffered from blight and mildew and locusts (verse 9), was thinking much on a national level. His problems were personal: no food, no water.

And, besides, how does a nation repent unless the people who comprise that nation repent on an individual basis? There can be no national repentance without individuals repenting.

There will be in life trials and troubles. No one can say when such occurs that it is a specific instance of God chastening, but it may be. Hebrews 12 teaches beyond doubt that if you are a child of God you will be chastened. God’s desire is that we are always repenting of sin in our lives and that we are always drawing nearer to him and becoming more and more what he would have us be.

I think Albert Barnes, the commentator, put it best when he made the following comments on the Hebrews 12:6 passage: “And as there is in the life of every child of God something that deserves correction, it happens that it is universally true that ‘whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.’” Would any of us disagree with that? I think not.

He further says: “It should be a matter of deep concern when we are afflicted in any manner, not to treat the matter lightly, but to derive from our trials all the lessons which they are adapted to produce on the mind.” (comments on Heb. 12:5, Barnes Commentary on Hebrews)

Whether it is illness, financial setback, or whatever negative thing it may be that comes into our life, we ought to be brought closer to God by it, repent if need be of sin, live more spiritually, and live for eternity. It may or may not be God’s chastening, but we need to learn our dependence upon him. We are not going to get out of this life alive. What is left if not God? He knows that. He thus chastens us as needed. Why? The answer is for our good and because he loves us, desiring only the eternal best for us. Let us then, “despise not thou the chastening of the Lord.” (Heb. 12:5 KJV)

[For further study on this topic see the book of Haggai, the TEV version, chapter 1 and 2:17. See also, same version, Amos 4:6-12.]

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

What Must a Person Believe to be Saved by the Gospel of Christ

That the gospel of Christ must be believed (as well as obeyed) to receive Christian salvation is made abundantly clear by the apostle Paul in one of the best-known passages found in the Bible—Rom. 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Rom. 1:16 NAS) It thus becomes essential that we learn what it is that an individual must believe in order to be saved if we seek the salvation of our souls. What is included in the gospel that must be believed?

Paul helps us out and gives us a good start in defining the gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." (NAS)

We learn from this passage two things found in the gospel, thus things that must be believed. (1) Christ died for our sins. (2) He was resurrected from the dead. We will discuss each. We will not discuss his burial for that has never been an issue.

One must believe that Christ died for a purpose, to accomplish a goal—he died for our sins. He died as a propitiation for our sins. "He himself is the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 2:2 NAS) Or, as some other translations put it, "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins" (NIV, CSB, NRSV). Jesus was "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29 NAS) He "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Heb. 9:26 NKJV) He was God's sacrificial lamb who died to make atonement for the sins of mankind.

God cannot be a God of justice nor can he maintain his honor if he allows man to violate his law and run amok without consequence. No one respects a law or its author if the law can be broken without a penalty for doing so. "Sin is the transgression of the law" of God. (1 John 3:4 KJV)

God cannot be glorified by men who show disrespect by violating his laws at will. When men violate God's law by sin it shows disrespect for God and dishonors him. It displaces the natural order of things and puts man over God, man's will over God's will, man over his maker. God will not allow that to happen. "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." (Gal. 6:7 NAS)

"The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23 NAS) One could almost say God, by definition of what it means to be God, has to punish sin. His nature demands it, and justice calls for it.

While God will uphold his honor and his glory the Bible also teaches that God loves man, "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16 NKJV), and does not desire that any man perish for he is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) As far back as Ezekiel we read the words of God, "'I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,' says the Lord God. 'Therefore turn and live.'" (Ezek. 18:32 NKJV) "God is love." (1 John 4:8 NAS)

God's desire for man is man's salvation, but "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NAS) The question then became one of how God could save man and, at the same time, be just? Sin had to be punished if justice was to exist.

The answer was to punish sin through his son's death on the cross. "He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed." (1 Peter 2:24 NAS) Christ took man's place. He took man's punishment for sin. Thus, one thing man must believe, that is absolutely essential to salvation, is that Christ died for our sins just as it is stated in 1 Cor. 15:3 and that he obtained atonement for them in his death.

A second thing Paul says we must believe is that Christ was raised from the dead. He says in Rom. 1:4, in speaking of Jesus, that he was "declared with power to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead." (Rom. 1:4 NAS) Jesus' resurrection proved that he was who he claimed to be, proved him to be God's son, which meant he had the power to forgive sins and save man. His resurrection was essential. Paul goes so far as to say, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless." (1 Cor. 15:17 NAS) Why would that be true? Because without the resurrection, it would have shown Jesus to be an imposter.

Think about it as follows. If Jesus was lying all the while he was on earth about who he was and what he was doing that would make him a liar and a deceitful man. Would a righteous God resurrect such a man and join in the deception? Not if God is good and just. If Jesus is not resurrected, it shows God wants no part of him. However, Jesus was resurrected, which showed that God placed his stamp of approval on Jesus' life and teaching and his sacrificial death, to provide a means for the forgiveness of sins.

In believing Jesus was resurrected, one is thus accepting of the fact that Jesus was and is the Lord and Savior of man and the Son of God. Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection (see Matt. 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:18-19 and other similar scriptures throughout the other gospels) and taught the necessity of his own sacrificial death (John 3:14-15) in order for man to be saved. His resurrection provided proof that his word was good in all that he taught and that man can have faith in him.

What else must one believe to be saved by the gospel of Christ? One good way to find out is to examine the preaching of the apostles and evangelists as recorded in Acts as they went out into the world attempting to convert people to Christ. First, a couple of premises need to be laid down for if you do not accept the premises you will not accept the apostles' and evangelists' inspired teaching on the subject. Premise one is that they preached the gospel. Premise two is that what one taught by inspiration as essential all taught by inspiration as essential, whether the item is mentioned or not. If this were not the case, then you would have multiple gospels being preached with one apostle preaching one thing and another something different.

In Peter's gospel sermon in Acts 2, the first such sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, Peter preached repentance and baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Was one required to believe him? Was this something a person had to believe to be saved? Was what he preached a part of the gospel? Did he preach by inspiration that day? Is a man required to believe he must repent of sins? Is a man required to believe he must be baptized for the remission of sins? If a man is not required to believe it, why preach it to people? Why preach it to people who need the gospel if it is not a part of the gospel?

Sadly, most of the world is not willing to accept Peter's gospel preaching in Acts 2, but 3,000 that day did. "So then, those who had received (does the word 'received' mean believed?—DS) his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41 NAS) The truth is deep down people know Peter preached by inspiration; they know he preached the gospel, but their religious tradition will not allow them to accept the part about baptism.

Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:12), Philip also in preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:35-38), Ananias in preaching to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:17-18 and Acts 22:16), Peter in preaching to Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:48), Paul in preaching to Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) and to the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31-33), Paul again in Corinth (Acts 18:8) and then later to the 12 at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5) all preached baptism in preaching the gospel. How do we know? We know because in each account at the end of the preaching, we find those who were receptive to the preaching being baptized. It is impossible to be baptized if you are ignorant of baptism which is the case if it is not being preached, preached as a part of the gospel in those conversion accounts. Thus, we see that one must believe there is a need to be baptized after repentance and then do it.

Well, what else? Well, a man must believe he needs to confess Christ and then do that as well. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Rom. 10:9-10 NAS)

The only scripturally qualified candidate for baptism is a person who believes and has repented of his sins. One can only know a person is a believer if they tell you, which requires a confession by the mouth of the Lord Jesus. The fact that some religious groups sprinkle those too young to know or believe anything and call it baptism does not make it so. Scriptural baptism has prerequisites. Without those, you just have someone getting wet. Even worse, those people grow up believing a lie, believing they have been baptized. Bible baptism requires a penitent believer in Jesus Christ, which disqualifies infants, toddlers, and young children.

In John 3:16, we are told that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (NAS) Who is this person one must believe in? The text teaches it is the only begotten Son of God. It is "he who believes in the Son" who has eternal life (John 3:36 NAS). One must believe Jesus was and is the Son of God.

John, near the end of his gospel, speaking of things that had been written, says, "These have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31 NAS) Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins." (John 8:24 NAS)

When Jesus asked his disciples in Matt. 16 who men said he was, they told him, but then he asked a more specific question, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15 NKJV) Peter responded, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) Upon this fact, Jesus built the church (Matt. 16:18) of which he is the Savior (Eph. 5:23). This foundational truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, is the confession men need to make out of believing hearts to obtain salvation. Men must believe Jesus was/is the Son of God and be willing to confess the same.

The faith we hold must lead to an "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5, 16:26), which is to say it is not just a conceptual faith held inactive in the mind but one that leads a man or woman to act according to that which they have come to believe. As James says, "faith without works (obedience—DS) is dead" (James 2:26 NAS). Dead things do not bring life (salvation). If one's faith stops at the point of intellectual faith alone, and leaves out repentance, confession of Jesus, and baptism, then it is dead. It is dead for two reasons. One, it stopped short of full faith in the gospel message, which required these things, and two, it was never "obedient to the faith." (see Acts 6:7 NAS)

The last thing that must be believed is that God is a rewarder of those who seek him. "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (Heb. 11:6 NAS) When one believes and obeys the gospel, he has been a seeker after God. We must then believe, having done that, that God has forgiven us of our sins. They are cast off, done away. We are forgiven. This is the gospel that we must believe.

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

The Heart of Man from a Biblical Perspective

The Bible has much to say about the heart of man. The word “heart” in the New King James Version of the Bible is found 835 times in 775 verses, according to the E-Sword concordance for the NKJV. The study of the human heart is thus a massive study and, from a human point of view, a complex one. God knows all of our hearts, “For you alone know the hearts of all the sons of men.” (I Kings 8:39 NKJV) The question is, do you and I know our own hearts?

How many times has each of us questioned ourselves over the years? I suspect those who have never doubted themselves are a tiny minority. When we read passages in the Bible about men deceiving themselves in places like Gal. 6:3 and James 1:26, it causes us all the more concern, for the question becomes am I being honest with myself, or am I self-deceived? We obviously need to learn all we can about our hearts with the hope being that we can come to know ourselves better and improve our hearts. Who is the real me? Who am I? What is the true state of my heart, not what I think about it, but what is its true state in reality?

When the Bible speaks of the human heart, it is speaking of man's intellect, man’s will, man’s emotions or feelings, or a man’s conscience, or any given combination of these. However, the word may also refer to the whole inner being of man, combining all these elements into the whole that makes up the man. Each of these aspects of the human heart is worth looking at.

(1) The heart is the thinking aspect of man. “For as he thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Prov. 23:7 NKJV) Jesus asks, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” (Matt. 9:4 NKJV) “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts.” (Matt. 15:19 NKJV) “If that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming.’” (Matt. 24:48 NKJV) The evil servant says this, in his heart, because that is what he is thinking. “But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart.” (Luke 2:19 NKJV) Mary thought about these things and mulled them over in her mind. One could go on and find verse after verse in the Bible teaching the same thing about the heart being the center of thought, reasoning, and understanding within a person.

The question that necessarily comes to mind when one thinks about this aspect of the human heart is, “Am I responsible for the way I think?” The Bible answers in the affirmative. “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” (Rom. 8:6 NKJV) “Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things.” (Phil. 4:8 NKJV)

I readily admit it is tough to change the way you think, but is that not what every person does when they repent? Yes, repentance is certainly a change of the will but is it not also a change of the mind, a change of our thinking? When a man comes to accept the Bible and its teaching, is he not committing himself to a new way of thinking about the world and his relationship not only with God but also with his fellowman? When one accepts the gospel, they are saying I am going to let the Bible guide my thinking, and I am not going to think about things the way I used to. While we will never be perfect, we can change our attitudes and the way we think.

(2) The heart is the will of man. I have already spoken about repentance, which God requires of man (Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30) in the paragraph above, how the will of man is involved. It is hard to separate the will from thought, but there is this much difference in it--the will provides man with the determination to carry through with his thinking. Daniel was told in a heavenly vision, “From the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard.” (Dan. 10:12 NKJV) Daniel willed or determined to understand and to humble himself. “Set your heart” means to will in your heart, as used in this context.

“Take from among you an offering to the Lord. Whoever is of a willing heart.” (Exod. 35:5 NKJV) One cannot obey God whose heart is unwilling. There were rulers who believed in Jesus (John 12:42) but were unwilling to confess him lest they be put out of the synagogue. The widow who put in two mites into the collection did so because she willed to do so. (Mark 12:41-44 NKJV) No man has obeyed the gospel who did not first find it in his heart to do so, will in his heart to do it.

It is good to be a strong-willed person, provided the will has been guided by proper knowledge and correct thinking. Only the strong-willed can go on a diet and stick with it. Only the strong-willed can successfully train for and run a marathon. The list could go on and on of things that require a strong will to succeed. Christianity is one of those things for, “All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Tim. 4:12 NKJV) Paul could never have succeeded in view of all the things he had to suffer (see 2 Cor. 11:23-27 NKJV) had he not had a strong will.

A strong will is good if directed properly by correct thinking and proper knowledge. Without such guidance, the will can become a man’s worst enemy for oftentimes it can be said of strong-willed people that they are only stubborn people. Pharaoh is an excellent Bible example. Pharaoh hardened his heart time after time. The will in his heart was to do his own will, not God’s. It is difficult to convert a strong-willed person who has been brought up on false doctrine. (A radical Islamist would be a good example.) Samuel, speaking to Saul, said, “Stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.” (1 Sam. 15:23 NKJV) We must have the will to do God’s will, but we must be certain it is his will and not our version of what we would like his will to be.

(3) The heart is a man’s feelings or emotions. “The Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.” (Gen. 6:6 NKJV) Grief is ascribed to God’s heart on this occasion but is also ascribed to man’s heart, “Your heart should not be grieved.” (Deut. 15:10 NKJV) The heart sorrows, “Even in laughter the heart may sorrow.” (Prov. 14:13 NKJV) Joy resides in the heart, “My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cry for sorrow of heart.” (Isa. 65:14 NKJV) Rejoicing takes place in the heart, “Your heart will rejoice.” (John 16:22 NKJV)

In fact, all of the following emotions can be found in the heart: gladness (Psalms 4:7), desires (Psalms 20:4, 73:7, Prov. 6:25), is troubled (Psalms 25:17), trusts (Psalms 28:7), is broken (Psalms 34:18), suffers turmoil (Psalms 38:8), fails one (Psalms 40:12), is pained (Psalms 55:4), is proud (Psalms 101:5), hates (Psalms 105:25), is wounded (Psalms 109:22), is distressed (Psalms 143:4), despises (Prov. 5:12), is anxious (Prov. 12:25), is bitter (Prov. 14:10), is merry (Prov. 15:13), is haughty (Prov. 18:12), is proud (Prov. 21:4), envies (Prov. 23:17), delights (Prov. 27:9), anguishes (2 Cor. 2:4). This list is not meant to be exhaustive of all the emotions of which the Bible speaks that are attributed to the heart. The reader can readily see that I went through the books of Psalms and Proverbs to come up with the list, with one added from 2 Corinthians. That leaves a lot of other books and verses that need to be seen before one can say his research has exhausted all the available biblical sources.

One will readily notice that the word “love” as an emotion of the heart is not found in my listing. Does not the Bible teach we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart? Yes, it certainly does. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matt. 22:37 NKJV) Human emotions are a part of the Bible heart (“all your heart”), and so love as a tender longing emotion toward God is commanded. But did you know that the word love, when traced back to the Greek, does not often mean affection?

The Greeks had 4 words which, when translated into English, were all translated by the one English word “love.” When we talk about sex, friendship, affection, etc., we generally lump it all together into one word, the word “love,” and let the reader decide for himself what we are talking about. The Greeks were much more precise in their language. The Greek word found behind our English word “love” most often in our New Testaments is the word agape (noun) or agapao (the verb form).

The reader may be surprised to learn (speaking of this Greek term) that, “Christian love…is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run with the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered.” (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 693) “Christian love has God for its primary object, and expresses itself first of all in implicit obedience to his commandments.” (Ibid) “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NKJV)

The Greek word “phileo” is also translated in our Bibles as love (though used far, far less frequently), and it “more nearly represents tender affection.” (Ibid) “Phileo is never used in a command to men to love God; it is, however, used as a warning in 1 Cor. 16:22.” (Ibid) All of this is according to Vine, a recognized authority on the Greek. However, when you read 1 Cor. 16:22 there is no doubt one must love God with the tender affections for the verse reads, “If anyone does not love (phileo--DS) the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed” (NKJV) thus while it may not be a direct command it has the force of a command and all the authority of a command. (Matt. 10:37 teaches more or less the same thing using the word “phileo.”)

I have gone through this to make an application to today. How many times do we hear people talk about loving God yet not understanding that love for God is not all about my emotions (or yours) but about keeping God’s commandments, “For this is the love (agape--DS) of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NKJV) “He who does not love (agapao--DS) me does not keep my words.” (John 14:24 NKJV) “He who says, ‘I know him,’ and does not keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4 NKJV) They live their lives dedicated to God (they think), but the reality is they are dedicated to their religious emotions and what the word of God actually says is only of secondary importance to them. Their emotions tell them they love God, so with them, that settles the matter; forget what the word of God says.

Yes, we must love God with our emotions (1 Cor. 16:22), but to make the emotions alone the whole heart of which the Bible speaks is not honest scholarship and easily leads to destruction. Paul’s religious emotions toward God were doing just fine while he disbelieved and persecuted Christians. He would have told you with sincerity that he loved God while he was doing those things.  False doctrine taught and believed, while it may well be emotionally satisfying, will never be made into what it is not--truth. So, yes, love God with your emotions, but never set emotions on a throne and allow them to rule as king in your relationship with God, for there is far more to a man’s heart, according to the Bible, than just emotions, and emotions alone can lead one astray, as proven in Paul's case prior to his conversion experience.

(4) The heart is a man’s conscience. When Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, the Bible says of many who heard him that they “were cut to the heart.” (Acts 2:37 NKJV) They felt guilty. Their conscience was bothering them. See also Acts 23:1 and John 8:9 for other passages teaching the same. One cannot separate the conscience from the heart.

Finally, and this is important for the Bible student, when we read about the human heart in the Bible, we can clearly see, as shown above, that oftentimes, maybe only one aspect of the heart is under consideration in a passage. In other places, sometimes more than one aspect of the heart is under consideration, but not all. For example, in Matt. 22:37, where we are told we must “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (NKJV), we can see that the mind (the thinking aspect) is separated from the heart in this passage. The context will often make these things clear as we read. However, oftentimes the word simply refers to the entire inner being of the man himself. My heart reflects (or is) all I am in my thinking, my will, my emotions, my conscience--to the totality of my being wrapped up into one package. Again, we must read carefully the context.

It is time to ask the question upon which all of our fortunes depend. Upon what treasure has my heart set itself upon? “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:21 NKJV) It is really all up to us for “The preparations of the heart belong to man.” (Prov. 16:1 NKJV) God has empowered us, and now it is up to us what we will do with that power. We can prepare our hearts if we are willing to do so. Pharaoh was not willing. Will we be? He heard God’s will but was not of a willing heart to obey it. Am I? Are you?

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

 

They Loved the Praise of Men

Most of us, given a choice, would like to be well thought of and spoken well of rather than to be reviled, criticized, and despised. This is natural and easily understood, but there is danger that this natural desire leads us into sin. When one gets to the point where one cares more about what people think than what God thinks and commands, they are in trouble, in trouble with the Lord and Savior.

We find a group of such men in John 12, men who wanted the praise of men above God’s praise, men in trouble with God.

“Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42-43, NKJV)

Sometimes we want to please people too much. While it is good and proper to want to have a good reputation among others and be well spoken of it is but folly to sell one’s soul for it. Paul says, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (Gal. 1:10 NKJV) Our duty in life is not to seek to please men but rather to please God, our creator. We live for God, not man.

We have been purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28, Eph. 1:13-14). We have been bought by him, and we are his; he owns us, “For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Cor. 6:20 NKJV) We are the sons, the children of God (1 John 3:2), “his own special people.” (1 Peter 2:9, NKJV)

The praise of men is vain. It cannot keep the sorrow out of our hearts when death strikes our families, it cannot keep the pain away that hits us when a son or daughter goes wrong or becomes alienated, it cannot keep us from growing old and feeble, and it cannot take our place at the grave. In the really important things of life, it is vain, even worthless. It changes nothing.

Those whose praise we so often seek are those whom we see as being more important, or powerful, or influential than ourselves. We seldom seem concerned with being praised by the poor man or one whose circumstances are humble. We do not care about the opinion of the man with the eighth-grade education, or the janitor, the trash man, or the cleaning lady. We are arrogant, proud, and self-important. We are only interested in what you think about us if you are one whom we value as a person whose praise seems to better us in the eyes of others. At a very minimum, you must be one of our peers, as we see it, before we are interested in your praise. This attitude itself is a sin.

All men stand equal before God. We are to show partiality to none. James speaks of this in James 2:1-6, “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there,’ or, ‘Sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man.” (NKJV)

Peter tells us “honour all men” (1 Peter 2:17 KJV) or, as the ESV states it, “honor everyone.” With God one man is as valuable as another and we are to have that attitude as well. We are to be followers of him who shows no partiality and who desires that all men be saved. Indeed, of those who are more powerful and influential, God has said, “For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” (1 Cor. 1:26 NKJV) The words “are called” are supplied words in the New King James version to complete the thought. All men are called by the gospel, but the meaning is that not many of this class of people--the wise, the mighty, the noble--will respond to God’s call. And yet, this is the class of people whose praise we so often desire.

If we are faithful and obedient, we will in due time receive honor, honor from God. Paul tells us God will mete out tribulation and distress to every soul of man who does evil, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 2:10 NAS) Glory and honor from God in the last day should be the praise we seek. It is an honor that will not die with men nor fade away with time, but will be eternal.

We learn from the rulers who loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43) that truth is not always the determining factor in the way people live and conduct themselves, even when they know the truth and are not deceived. A man can know the truth, as did these men, as did the rich young ruler, as did Demas, and yet it does not make enough difference to them to get them to alter their lives and bring them into accord with the truth.

The second sin ever committed was of this very nature. Paul says of Adam that he “was not deceived” (1 Tim. 2:14). Adam knew the truth; Adam believed the truth; Adam willfully disobeyed the truth. Temptation was to him greater than the truth he knew and greater than his faith and love for God.

There was a time in my life (when I was much, much younger) when I had the idea just teach a man the truth so he would see it and know it, and he would most certainly obey it. WRONG! The examples of men already mentioned provide the proof.

There are things that motivate men over and above truth. Adam’s desire and love for his wife, a desire to please her, won out over truth. Remember, he was not deceived. The rulers who believed in Jesus but would not confess him found the praise of men more important, a greater motivating factor, than truth. While it is easy to be very critical of them honesty of heart would compel most of us to admit similar guilt in our own lives on occasion. We have held our peace when we should have spoken up, for the desire to be well thought of among those whom we were with, at the time, was greater than our desire to take a stand for Christ and the truth. Is there any who can honestly say they have never been guilty of such conduct?

The word “fear” is not mentioned in reading about the rulers who believed in Jesus but would not confess him. It was there nonetheless. The fear of being put out of the synagogue, the fear of bringing down the displeasure of man, the fear of no longer being spoken well of, the fear of being ostracized, was foremost in their mind. As it was with them, so it often is with us, when we refuse to speak out. We desire the praise of men and to be well thought of more than we desire the praise of God, and yet we know that this praise is only for a time, transient.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned us all when he said, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you.” (Luke 6:26 NKJV) A man who has not incurred the disfavor of at least some is a man who has never taken a stand. Jesus says the blessed man is not the one all speak well of but rather “blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for my sake.” (Matt. 5:11 NKJV)

Paul told Timothy, “All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Tim. 3:12 NKJV) If a man is being persecuted, he is not being praised by all men. Yet, we find in looking at the qualifications for elders that a man “must have a good testimony among those who are outside.” (1 Tim. 3:7 NKJV) How do we deal, then, with what appears to be a contradiction?

That can be answered by considering who the persecutors of Christians will be. If you are an honest person who works hard, most people will honor that. The ordinary person who is fair appreciates the good others may do. If you are helping the poor, the homeless, the elderly, your neighbors, about everyone will consider those things to be good works and be pleased to see you working at that. These are the things the Bible teaches that Christians ought to be doing.

In the book of Ephesians, Christians are said to be God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.” (Eph. 2:10 NKJV) Peter says that we are to have our “conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (1 Peter 2:12 NKJV)

Those who speak evil of the faithful Christian and are persecutors usually do so based on their disdain for Christianity itself. They do not want to be brought under the control of Jesus’ teaching. They do not want to be seen as sinners and so scoff at the Bible and are willing to persecute vocally those who believe and uphold its teachings. They love their sinful lifestyles and resent any teaching that would imply they are in error or cast them in a bad light. In America, they want a secular society where God is cast out.

Christians are also persecuted by those of certain other religions, such as the Islamic religion. You see this especially in Africa and more and more in parts of Europe. All you need to do is listen to the news coming out of those parts of the world.

Christians who try and live by God’s word are also persecuted by those who claim to be Christians but want the Bible to be interpreted in such a way as to allow them to live and do pretty much as they please. To this group, the Bible does not actually mean what it literally says. It was never meant to be taken literally is their idea. They resemble the Pharisees of Jesus' day. They have deep religious feelings, but not according to knowledge, and have come up with their own set of commands that set aside God’s. They are very liberal minded and progressive.

Thus, those who speak evil of the Christian usually do so for their own religious reasons, even atheism is a form of religion. Paul, in talking about the qualifications for an elder, when he says he must have a good report from those on the outside, was speaking about the man’s character and honesty, his good works, etc. No man can live a faithful Christian life and have all men speaking well of him continuously as it pertains to his religious beliefs and practices. Jesus did not; Paul did not. The Bible does not contradict itself.

When a man wants the praise of men above the praise of God there is no end to the concessions he is willing to make. He will concede eternal life itself as did the rulers in John 12. He most certainly will concede on doctrinal matters. Is it not true that the desire for the praise of men is behind much of the extremely liberal views of the Bible? The New Testament is clear in its teaching on subjects such as baptism, the role of women, homosexuality, and yet it makes but little difference to many. We must be politically correct and pleasing to the culture of the time. To teach against things such as homosexuality is considered hate speech by many who oppose God's teaching on the subject.

How do we overcome the tendency we all have to want to be well thought of and liked by all? We need to measure the cost. What is the price of seeking the praise of men over the cost of seeking the praise of God? Which pays better? Which pays longer? Which brings greater honor and glory? Each must make a decision. Our hearts will lead us to choose one way or the other. The choice is one of free will. What will you decide? In the words of Joshua, “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24:15 NKJV)

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

Apollos and Baptism

There are many mysterious characters mentioned in the Bible we would like to know more about. One of them is Apollos, the eloquent evangelist. However, the fact that we know but little about him could be said equally of most of the apostles. What makes Apollos especially mysterious is what we do know about him.

Here is what we know, Acts 18:24-28 (NAS), "Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

The first mystery is how could this man have been instructed in the way of the Lord and yet not known about the baptism authored by Jesus, knowing only John's baptism? It is obvious that baptism was the subject he needed to be enlightened on and that it was a part of "the way of God" explained to him.

It is relatively certain Apollos was not in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached, among other things, the baptism not of John but that given by Christ in the Great Commission of Matt. 28:18-19 (see also Acts 2:38). Of this baptism the text tells us he was ignorant for he knew only the baptism of John.

We can also conclude Apollos did not spend time in Jerusalem afterwards for the apostles that remained there, and the church leaders, knew clearly the differences in the two baptisms and he, in close association with them, would have soon learned the difference himself. It is thus highly probable that Apollos had never been in Jerusalem after Jesus' death.

It can also be safely assumed that he was not possessed of any miraculous spiritual gift that would have conferred this knowledge on him or else he would have known and not needed further instruction from Priscilla and Aquila.

So, one of the big mysteries concerning Apollos is how he failed to come to this knowledge long before meeting up with Priscilla and Aquila. Why did not his earlier instructors in the way of the Lord convey this truth to him? We will never know, for the Bible does not tell us.

Was it important that Apollos know this truth? Many today would say no, not at all, for baptism has nothing to do with salvation, denying what Peter taught in Acts 2:38. Yet, Priscilla and Aquila felt it was a matter so important that they drew Apollos aside to teach him this fundamental doctrine. Being well acquainted with Paul, who had lived with them for a time and with whom they had traveled, they knew the truth and why it was essential that Apollos know it as well. If you are going to be a teacher, you must teach the truth. The salvation of the men and women Apollos would be teaching was at stake. It was a part of "the way of God." (Acts 18:26)

Was Apollos lost because he had not been baptized with the baptism Jesus taught in the Great Commission and through Peter on the day of Pentecost? No, nor was he baptized after learning the truth from Priscilla and Aquila. He had already been baptized with John's baptism, which itself was "for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) When one's sins are remitted, they are remitted.

Read Heb. 10:2 from several translations. The passage has reference to sin offerings under the Law of Moses, but it also has direct application to the remission of sins under the baptism of John. The writer says, quoting from the original ASV of 1901, "Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins." When your sins have been forgiven, they have been forgiven. There is no need for a second baptism, and so Apollos, having been baptized once with John's baptism, at a time when that baptism was valid, did not need to be baptized again.

When the church first began, it already had charter members, those who had believed the preaching of John and of Jesus concerning Jesus and the need for repentance and cleansing of their sins. When they were baptized by John or one of his disciples, they were cleansed, for Jesus himself said that John's baptism was from heaven. Listen to the scriptures.

Jesus speaking, Matt. 21:25 (NAS), "'The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?' And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, "From heaven," He will say to us, "Then why did you not believe him?"'" And then Luke says, (Luke 7:30 NAS), "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John."

We also have to remember that Jesus preached and baptized during his lifetime. We can be assured that if John's baptism was for the remission of sins, so was that of Jesus. Do we believe that one who obeyed Jesus while he lived on earth and was baptized by him, whether directly or through his disciples, would need to be baptized again after the day of Pentecost? I reiterate, when your sins have been remitted, they are remitted. Yes, remission at that point in time looked forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood on the cross, which was yet to come, but they were assured of the remission of their sins, having believed and obeyed what they had been taught, including baptism for the forgiveness of those sins.

Neither were the apostles baptized again after receiving John's baptism, nor was there a need for them to do so. Jesus said they were "clean." (John 13:10-11, John 15:3) He says in his prayer to the Father "they have kept thy word" (John 17:6 NAS), "I have been glorified in them" (John 17:10 NAS), "they are not of the world" (John 17:16 NAS), and finally, "not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12 NAS)

Had they been baptized? Look at John 1:35 and compare it with John 1:40. When you do, you will see that Andrew was a disciple of John before becoming acquainted with Christ. His brother, of course, was Peter. James and John were business partners with Peter and Andrew (see Luke 5:10). It is safe to assume that if Andrew was a disciple of John's so were the others. Philip, chosen by Jesus personally, was from the same city as Andrew and Peter (John 1:44). Nathanael was said by Jesus to be "an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" (John 1:47 NAS)

It is safe to assume that the men Jesus chose were godly men and men who did not shun John's preaching. If they had heard John preach, we know they were not of the camp that Luke says "rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." (Luke 7:30 NAS). Matthew was a tax collector, but even so, if you read Luke 7:29, you will see that tax collectors were baptized by John. If any of the 12 had not been baptized already, having lacked the knowledge and opportunity, we can be certain the preaching of Jesus soon taught them the truth and they were shortly thereafter baptized.

In the very next set of verses after reading about Apollos, beginning in Acts 19:1, we come to an account of twelve men whom Paul finds at Ephesus after Apollos had departed from there and gone to Corinth. These verses have caused much confusion because of what one has just read in the chapter before about Apollos, and has been part of the mystery surrounding the man. Luke says, in Acts 19:1, that Paul found there "some disciples," referring to this group of twelve men.

Because these men know nothing of the Holy Spirit, Paul begins to question them concerning their baptism. Something has to be wrong if they have been baptized and yet know nothing about the Holy Spirit, even of his existence. Now, why would that necessarily follow? Because the baptism authored by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission of Matt. 28:19, is "in ("into" is the literal translation -- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, there is the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those thus baptized (Acts 2:38), which they should have known about.

Now here is the surprise to those who have just read about Apollos in the prior chapter. Paul takes these twelve men and baptizes them "in (the literal translation being "into" -- DS) the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:5 NAS) Why was it necessary for them to be baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, but not Apollos?

Some might say that maybe Apollos was baptized again too, but the text does not say so. That might be a possibility but for one thing. The apostles baptized by John were not baptized a second time either. Why not?

The answer has to be timing. There was a time, starting with John the Baptist's initial preaching up until the Day of Pentecost, when John's baptism was valid and had God's full support behind it. Most scholars think his ministry in total lasted no more than 2 years and likely shorter than that. Obviously, this was a short period of time when if one was obedient to John's preaching and was baptized, he was saved, having received the remission of sins. Apollos would have been baptized during that time. John's baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

It seems Apollos was carrying on at least part of the ministry of John the Baptist after that ministry had ended. Did Apollos baptize the twelve at Ephesus with John's baptism or was it some other evangelist that did so? If it was Apollos why, after he learned the truth, did he not seek the twelve out again and baptize them with the baptism Jesus gave? Or, did he seek them and perhaps was unable to locate them? This again is a part of the mystery surrounding the man.

What we do know is that the twelve men at Ephesus had been baptized with John's baptism after the day of Pentecost, when the baptism authorized by Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission (into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins) became effective. At that time and thereafter, anyone being baptized with John's baptism had a baptism that no longer had any validity, it having been completely replaced by the baptism of the Great Commission. John's baptism looked forward to Christ's death, while that of Jesus looked back.

In closing, I want to leave the reader with some critical thoughts regarding salvation. Luke says these men whom Paul found were disciples (Acts 19:1), and yet were not baptized. Were they saved already anyway? What is a disciple? A disciple is, according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "a learner." Vine further says, "it denotes one who follows one's teaching." It does not necessarily denote one who is saved as is commonly thought (although it often does).

Please note from Jesus' own words about who is to be baptized. "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (the literal translation is "into" -- DS) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.'" (Matt. 28:18-20 NAS)

Disciples are to be baptized. One must be a person who is learning of Christ and who is willing to follow his teaching to be scripturally baptized. No one who is not a disciple will be baptized, for they have no knowledge and/or desire to do so. One must necessarily be a disciple before one can be saved. How can you be saved without first learning about Jesus and being willing to follow him?

And, the final point. If people were commonly saved in those days by faith alone apart from baptism why did Paul bother to take these twelve men at Ephesus and baptize them?

Here is the clincher — why did Paul just assume they had been baptized? Remember, he says in Acts 19:3, "Into what then were you baptized?" (NAS) Why assume they had been baptized into anything or anyone if it was not necessary in making Christians, if it was not necessary in obedience to the gospel, if it was not a part of the gospel?

In Acts 19:2, Paul talks of that time "when you believed." Then, in verse 3, immediately following, he says, "into what then were you baptized?" He ties belief and baptism together. If you believed you were baptized is what he is saying. All of the conversion accounts in the book of Acts teach the same thing. The question all men and women must ask themselves is what am I personally going to do about it in my own life. Paul tied belief and baptism together. Do you?

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

The Grace of God in Baptism (Titus 3:4-7)

Most Americans of a Christian persuasion believe that baptism has little to nothing to do with the grace of God. One wonders have they never read Titus 3:4-7? The truth about God’s grace and its relationship with baptism is clearly set forth in Paul’s passage to Titus which reads as follows:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NKJV)

I encourage the reader to compare this passage, as rendered in the New King James Version just quoted, with its rendering in other reliable translations such as the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. It would also be good to read it from the New International Version. It is always good to read a passage from more than one translation to make sure you understand what is being said.

What does the passage teach? It teaches what it says. We are saved by God’s mercy, and we are justified by his grace. To be saved is to be justified. If you are not justified, you are not saved. But is that all the passage says and teaches? No!

It teaches when God saves us by his mercy or grace, whichever term you wish to use, he uses means to do so. What means? Well, what does the text say? It says, "Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is baptism.

The word "regenerate" is defined, according to my little paperback Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1994, "1: formed or created again 2: spiritually reborn or converted." Since that is its meaning the New International Version phrases it, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

One who knows the scriptures immediately calls to mind the words of Jesus in John 3. Jesus says, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3 NKJV) He says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) What Paul taught in Titus 3:4-7 Jesus had already taught in John 3:3-5.

The word washed or washing is a reference to baptism. Paul says to the Corinthians, after listing a group of sins that people get caught up in, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) How were they justified? Read Titus 3:4-7 again and you will be told.

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV) The washing was done in baptism.

The writer of the book of Hebrews encourages Christians in saying, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) The washing is with water; the washing is baptism.

Now back to our original text in Titus-- Titus 3:4-7. Certainly, Paul teaches we are saved by God’s mercy, by his grace, for he very clearly states that, but if we will be honest, he just as clearly states that he saves by grace using means, and that means is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version both say, “by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5 ESV) rather than “through” which the NKJV uses. It is all one and the same.

When does God’s grace save? How does it save? Paul tells us in Titus but people would rather rely on their traditional interpretations than on plain statements of scripture and as long as that is the case little can be done. Part of the problem is when people think of grace they too often have in their mind one thought only--that salvation is all God’s doing and absolutely none of our doing. It is basically unconditional on man’s part. My mind cannot read the Bible and conjure up any such line of reasoning. Noah is a case in point.

Noah found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8) and was saved from drowning in the flood, but Noah had something to do on his part to be saved. There was an ark to be built. Was Noah saved by works? Just because God gives man something to do in order to be saved does not mean the thing required of him is a work that merits or earns salvation.

Noah had to build an ark to be saved because God required it, but it was not wood and pitch in the form of a ship and hard work that saved him. Surely, we can see that. It was the grace of God that built the ark, then floated it, kept it from sinking, and then finally brought it safely to rest. It was God’s grace that told Noah beforehand what was coming, the flood, and how to save himself. God’s grace saved Noah, but not without effort on Noah’s part. That effort consisted of believing and obeying. It is the same for you and me today.

If you can ever find a passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, which teaches or shows that any man was ever saved or could be saved by works apart from God’s grace please forward the passage to me. The fact that God gives you something to do to be saved does not mean that by complying with that act you no longer need God for you have worked (earned) your way to heaven.

Paul says in Titus that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5 NKJV) and yet in the very same verse we read it is "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV). Anyone who can add two plus two and come up with four can clearly see then that in God’s eyes baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done that merits salvation by works, and yet that is one of the arguments men make time and time again against baptism. They say baptism is salvation by works and they thus contradict Paul in Titus.

Baptism is as much a part of God’s grace for us today as was Noah’s ark building. "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Heb. 11:7 ESV) Noah had found grace in God’s eyes. (Gen. 6:8)

Now, let us say I want to become "an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" just like Noah. Do you suppose there is anything for me to do? How about the washing of regeneration? Just as God’s grace led Noah to build an ark because of God’s word, God’s grace should lead us to be baptized because of God’s word. In fact, the word of God is referred to twice in the New Testament as "the word of his grace." (Acts 14:3 and Acts 20:32) There is a reason for calling his word that. Grace is found in God’s words of instruction for man. God was under no obligation to save Noah or to save you or me. He was under no obligation to tell Noah what he needed to do to be saved and he was under no obligation to you and me to tell us the way of salvation.

I hope you did take special note in your reading of the Titus 3:5 passage that Paul says "he saved us." When we submit to baptism it is not us saving ourselves by our own power or by our own works. Without God baptism means nothing. Noah built the ark, but he most certainly did not save himself apart from God. God could have sunk the ark at any point in time even after it floated. You and I are baptized, but that does not mean we saved ourselves. It would take a fool to believe that.

One of the things I do is a little substitute teaching in a high school of about 1100 students. Sometime back, I was subbing in a World History class and was thumbing through the textbook while the kids were otherwise occupied. I was a social studies major in college and enjoy history. Quite by chance, one of the pages that opened up had a few paragraphs dealing with Christianity. I was amazed to find the following statement that I am going to quote here: "Christians believed that through the rite of baptism their sins were forgiven by the grace of God." This had reference to the early years of Christianity.

The quote was taken from the textbook World History by Prentice Hall, written by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, page 170, for high school classes. The year the book was put out was 2010. The reference was to the time of the establishment of the church in the first century. That is all I have taught in this article and that is what Paul taught in Titus to all who will open their eyes just a little bit.

With that, I am going to bring this article to a close. I have taught the truth for I only told you what Paul said in Titus. He said it; I repeated it.

(If the reader should wonder why I did not discuss the latter half of the passage in Titus relating to the "renewing by the Holy Spirit" the answer is because men do not dispute that part of the passage. That is not where the battle rages. We all agree the renewing of the Holy Spirit is essential. I also add that this article was written originally years ago even though I am just now posting it. It was revised but very little.) 

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

Without Natural Affection and Covenantbreakers

Most of us prefer a version of the Bible today that is more modern in its language than the original American Standard Version of 1901 or the King James Version, thus making the Bible easier to read and understand. However, in a few passages scattered about the Bible, the new literal translations like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV, all excellent translations taken as a whole, have, in my opinion, given us inferior translations in an attempt to make reading easier for us.

One such example is found in Rom. 1:31. In Romans 1, Paul, toward the middle of the chapter, begins to talk about the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (v. 18) and then in the last few verses lists a series of sins into which mankind had fallen. Verse 31 is a part of this listing and reads in its entirety as follows, “undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.” (NKJV)

However, read this same verse from the King James Version and it reads as follows, “Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” The ASV of 1901 reads the same as the KJV except that it omits the word “implacable.”

Here is a case where both of these older translations are more accurate to my mind than any of the newer ones, more accurate in exactness of the meaning of the original Greek words behind the English words untrustworthy (NKJV) and unloving (NKJV). That is to say, covenantbreakers is a better translation than untrustworthy, and without natural affection is a better translation than unloving.

For covenantbreakers (it is one word in the KJV), the ESV and the NIV have "faithless," the NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have "untrustworthy." These words are close enough that you can see where modern-day translators were coming from, but they still stray in my mind from the exact intent of the original. The original is not referring to general untrustworthiness but specific untrustworthiness in breaking a covenant one has made with another. I may be wrong, as I am not a Greek scholar, and modern scholarship seems to say I am, but if you go back in time, translators thought covenantbreakers was the best translation. Let each do their own study.

Hear the words of Malachi 2:13-16, and for this I will use the NKJV because it reads easier and is still accurate. “And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; so he does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did he not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. ‘For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.’”

When a man and woman marry, they make a solemn covenant between each other and God. To break that covenant would be exactly what the Greek word used in Rom. 1:31 is talking about. But there is more. How many times in reading the Old Testament do you run across the word covenant in connection with covenants God made with his people and them with him? How many times did his people break those covenants?

I did a quick e-sword search on the NKJV concordance for the word covenant in the New Testament, and the word popped up 31 times in 28 total verses. The New Testament is sometimes called the New Covenant (it is listed as that on the title page of the copy I have of the original American Standard Version of 1901).

As Christians, we have entered into a covenant relationship with God. When Jesus died on the cross and we come to accept him as Lord, Savior, and King of our lives by gospel obedience, we have entered into a covenant relationship with him. Remember his words, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28 NKJV)

Paul spoke of himself and his cohorts as “ministers of the new covenant.” (1 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) “Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 722 NKJV) says the Hebrew writer. It is said to be a “better covenant” than that which was under the Law of Moses with better promises (Heb. 8:6). To be a covenantbreaker, whether between husband and wife or a Christian and his God, is a serious matter.

“Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing…,” says the Hebrew writer (Heb. 10:29 NKJV). We must be as good as our word, and if we are not, we need to repent and get to being that good. This easy covenant breaking we have today is not going to get it with God, whether the covenant we are breaking is with our wife or husband or with God.

Am I saying modern-day translations have it wrong? I am told by Claude, the A.I., that modern scholars think the original is broader than just the breaking of covenants. Here is a quote from it, “The shift from ‘covenantbreakers’ to ‘faithless’ in modern translations reflects a more contemporary understanding of the Greek term's broader meaning - it encompasses not just breaking formal covenants or treaties, but being generally untrustworthy, unreliable, or lacking in faithfulness to commitments and relationships.”

ChatGPT, the A.I., says, “the Greek ἀσύνθετος literally means ‘not keeping agreements’ but broadly conveys faithless/treacherous/untrustworthy, which explains why newer translations expand or modernize the wording.”

Certainly, a covenantbreaker would be faithless and untrustworthy so I can see that. However, here is a case for me where I find it hard to discern between translation and commentary, which is which.

The other phrase I want to talk about from Rom. 1:31 is the words, “without natural affection.” In the ESV and the NIV, the Greek is translated by one word, the word “heartless.” The NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have “unloving.” I think you will find the old King James Version has it correct as to the exact meaning of the Greek. A person might be heartless and unloving in general and still not be “without natural affection.”

Vine’s, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, a standard work that Bible students consult regularly to see what the original Greek behind the English word means, says this, “signifies without natural affection…love of kindred, especially of parents for children and children for parents.” The Greek word is “astorgos.”

An example of natural affection is found in the story of the two women (harlots) who, while living together, gave birth to sons 3 days apart. The one woman lay on her son in the night, killing him by accident. She then claimed the other woman’s son as her own. The matter was taken before King Solomon, who heard both women claiming the boy as their own. In his wisdom, King Solomon proposed to have the son killed by the sword and both women given a half, knowing the real mother would be willing to give up the child to have his life spared. Natural affection led to this very result, with the real mother pleading for the life of the son, willing to give him up to the other woman to save his life. “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” (1 Kings 3:26 NKJV)

What is natural affection if it is not God given, natural, by nature? It is hard for most of us to understand how this can be, that one would not have natural affection, and yet Paul says some have this sin in their life. In writing Romans 1, he includes it with a long list of many sins about which he says in closing, “that those who practice such things are worthy of death.” (Rom. 1:32 NKJV) We read in the Old Testament of some offering their babies up for burnt sacrifices. In 2 Kings 17, one reads of the sins that caused God to allow Israel to be carried away into captivity. One of these sins was that “they caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire.” (2 Kings 17:17 NKJV) This was a sin associated with the worship of idols.

Manasseh, the king of Judah, became guilty of the same thing: “he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.” (2 Chron. 33:6 NKJV) God, in the book of Jeremiah, said, “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my heart.” (Jer. 7:31 NKJV)

This shows the depth and degree to which men can sink when they get involved with false doctrine. Radical Islam comes to mind, where men can slit a man’s throat with a knife, the burning of Christians at the stake, etc.

However, it can work the other way as well, children against their parents. Almost every Bible reader is acquainted with the attempt by David’s son Absalom to overthrow him. One can read about Absalom’s revolt beginning in 2 Sam. 15, and every indication is that David felt Absalom would put him to death if he had the opportunity.

Many years later, Jesus spoke of a time when “brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.” (Mark 13:12 NKJV) From time to time, we read or hear in the news of children abusing their aged parents. In fact, Jesus talked about this very thing, although not speaking of physical abuse, in Matt. 15. He accused the scribes and Pharisees of not honoring their parents, not being willing to help them (Matt. 15:1-6).

Yes, these are all extreme cases, but if men can fall into the depths of sin to the degree they are willing to do these things, then certainly there is such a thing as a lack of natural affection, which none can deny. The lack of natural affection can manifest itself in many ways. But in whatever way it manifests itself, the sin of the heart remains the same. The sin of lacking natural affection is simply the sin of not loving. Perhaps this is the reason some of the modern translations use the word “unloving” in their translations.

“For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” (1 John 3:11 NKJV) “He who does not love his brother abides in death.” (1 John 3:14 NKJV) One would do well to read the book of 1 John where the word love is used 36 times in the New King James Version.

If one lacks natural affection, it is not something we are incapable of doing anything about. All sin begins in the heart, unless one is talking about sins of ignorance. If the Bible teaches anything at all, it teaches that men and their hearts can be changed. Saul had a hand in seeing Christians put to death (Acts 26:10), but God and his word changed him into the apostle Paul. Paul said there was a reason for that--that he might be an example.

I use the New Living Translation here, not because I think it is the most accurate translation of the passage, but because I think, as a commentary, it has hit the nail on the head of what the verse teaches. I refer to 1 Tim. 1:16 where Paul says, “But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.” (NLT)

It is not a matter of saying I was born without natural affection; what can I do? We are the way we are because of the attitudes we have developed over time. Saul was not loving toward those families he tore apart, casting a mother, a dad, a son, or a daughter into prison and possibly seeing them put to death depending on the case. Even so, he became a changed man.

The apostle John reached a point where he no longer had any desire to have fire called down from heaven to consume those who rejected them (Luke 9:54), but given a lifetime came to be known to us today as the apostle of love.

Those 3,000 converted on the day of Pentecost who yelled for the Son of God to be put to death had their hearts changed from hatred and murder to love and compassion. Christ can change us. It all comes down to a matter of our wills. Do we want to be known as the man or woman who lacked natural affection or the man or woman who loved his or her family? It is a matter of personal choice just as much as salvation is. Natural affection goes with salvation as much as the lack of it goes with condemnation.

Love is a choice. That cannot be emphasized too much. Love is a choice, and remember, we are talking about natural affection. When you begin to love rather than hate, you will find life to be much happier. Where do you begin? You begin from within, within your heart. You begin with your will. God can change your heart, your life, but you have to want it first. When you want it, you will begin seeking it, and when you seek, you shall find (Matt. 7:8). 

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