Covenant Confusion

Covenant confusion runs rampant in much of what is called Christendom today. All who claim to being Christians readily grant the Bible is to be our guide in living the Christian life, but what part of the Bible? Surely not the Bible in its entirety, for that would put us back to animal sacrifices, dietary laws, the keeping of festivals, etc. So, where do we draw the line? That is the subject of our study today.

There are many who justify their religious practices by making an appeal to what they find in the Old Testament, the law given by Moses. If such and such was done back then with God's approval, I know it would be acceptable today, is the thinking. There are problems with that.

(1) The Law of Moses was only given to the Jews, the children of Israel. It was given on Mt. Sinai to the Jewish people who came out of Egypt under Moses' leadership. In Deut. 5:2-3, Moses reviews what happened back then and says, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb … with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." Who was there that day? They were not Gentiles. Paul, in the book of Romans, is plain spoken in speaking of the Gentiles who he says "do not have the law." (Rom. 2:14 NKJV) He says the Gentiles were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph. 2:12 NKJV)

There was no Great Commission under the Law of Moses to attempt to go out into the world and convert the Gentiles to Judaism. When the children of Israel reached the Wilderness of Sinai, before the mountain there, the Lord called to Moses, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: … 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." (Exod. 19:3-6 NKJV) He was not speaking to Gentiles. "Whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law" (Rom. 3:19 NKJV), and that was not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not to be a part of the holy nation, not yet, not under the Law of Moses.

Yes, I understand there were Gentile proselytes, but they came to that on their own. No one ever went out under the Law of Moses to attempt to convert the Gentiles to Judaism. That was not God's plan. He had a plan for the Gentiles, but it was under Christianity, not under the Law of Moses. Ruth and Rahab are well-known proselytes, and proselytes are mentioned in Acts 2:10. To become acquainted with Judaism in those times, you had to come into proximity to the Jews; they would not go out to seek you. Again, the Great Commission did not exist under the Law of Moses. There was no command to go out into the world and convert it to Judaism.

(2) The second problem with attempting justification for religious practices by an appeal to the first covenant, the one given under Moses, is that we are commanded today to hear Jesus, not Moses. Listen to Peter, "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV) So, even the Jews, who were Peter's audience, were admonished and warned, it is no longer Moses who is to be heard. It is Christ, the prophet spoken of.

God has "in these last days spoken to us by His Son." (Heb. 1:2 NKJV) On the mount of transfiguration, when Jesus was transfigured with Peter, James, and John being present, God the Father spoke from heaven saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV) That message was recorded for us all, not meant just for the three apostles.

Jesus is our judge, not Moses. Jesus tells us his word will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). God is going to judge us "in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained," that man being Jesus (Acts 17:31 NKJV).

So Moses had his covenant, given to him by God, the Law of Moses as we call it, meant for a specific people for a set period of time. It was useful for the purpose for which it was designed. It served that purpose and has now passed into history. Jesus fulfilled the law and brought it to a close.

Paul elaborates on this subject in Gal. 3:24-26 when he says, "The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) Note, no longer under the tutor that was "the law." Christ in fulfilling the law brought it to an end.

(3) A final problem with the Law of Moses was there was no salvation to be found in it, since it required perfection in keeping the law, a thing no one could do. Paul speaks of it as "the ministry of death." (2 Cor. 3:7 NKJV) Again, he says, "the ministry of condemnation." (2 Cor. 3:9 NKJV) More on that later.

But Jesus also has a covenant, a new one, the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). It is the commands and teaching of the New Testament. If he has no law, then it is impossible to sin, for "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4 NKJV), or, as the old KJV puts it, "sin is the transgression of the law." "Where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) Paul spoke of "not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ." (1 Cor. 9:21 NKJV) See also Gal. 6:2, "so fulfill the law of Christ." (NKJV)

Also, it needs to be explained how Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) if he has no law to obey. Jesus answered that question himself when he said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15 NKJV) What is a commandment if it is not a law? Is it merely a suggestion?

But, unlike the Law of Moses, the Law Jesus has given us, the new covenant, is not for one nation or race of people alone but for all humanity, Jews and all Gentiles alike. The command of the Great Commission is to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:15-16 NKJV) Peter, at the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile conversion we have a specific record of, put it this way: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV) It is a new covenant, one that contains law most assuredly, but also has grace, making forgiveness possible.

Between Mount Sinai and the cross, salvation under the Law of Moses demanded, of those to whom it was given, perfect obedience. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.'" (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) Please note the words "all things." God meant what he said. "All" meant all. James also emphasized this point about the law when he said, "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10 NKJV)

That was the problem with the Law of Moses, "The law is not of faith, but 'The man who does them shall live by them.'" (Gal. 3:12 NKJV, see also Rom. 10:5) That is, does them all, every one of them, without fail. Paul further says, "If there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." (Gal. 3:21 NKJV) That is the same as saying no such law was given. The conclusion, "By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal. 2:16 NKJV) Justification was impossible under it. "For the law made nothing perfect." (Heb. 7:19 NKJV) "The law … can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect … For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." (Heb. 10:1,4 NKJV)

Does this mean men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, Daniel, and countless others who lived and died under the Law of Moses were doomed? No, not at all. When Jesus died on the cross, his shed blood flowed backwards as well as forwards to cleanse from sin. "For this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9:15 NKJV) The first covenant is a reference to the Law of Moses.

They were granted grace through the blood of Jesus not because of any perfection in keeping the Law, but because they were of faith. As the Hebrew writer says, "Time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions … " (Heb. 11:32-33 NKJV) Their faith was in God, not in the Law in the sense of the Law being their Savior.

I am reminded of a statement I heard from a preacher years ago, one now gone, who made the comment that men have always been saved the same way, by faith and obedience. Many associate the idea of obedience with works and doubt the necessity of such, but all of the worthies of the Old Testament were obedient people. Can it be said a person is a man or woman of faith who is disobedient? Heb. 3:18-19 associates the subject of obedience with faith. "Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?" (Heb. 3:17-18 NKJV) They did not obey for they lacked faith. They go hand in hand.

By the time of Jesus, many of the Jews looked for their salvation by means of law, by means of law keeping, by means of their own efforts along that line. Think of the Pharisees. All they could see was the law, not the God behind the law. Their faith was in law keeping, not God per se. Their law keeping could force God's hand in their eyes. God would have to accept them.

That was the old covenant, the Law of Moses under which the Jewish nation lived for hundreds of years. Jesus came into the world, and with him a change in the covenants under which God's people are to live. We move from under the old covenant to the new, initiated at the cross of Christ. As we have already shown, it was a covenant under which all of mankind was to be brought, not for the Jews only. Disciples are to be made of all nations, not just of the Jews. (Matt. 28:19)

It is a covenant of grace. "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NKJV) Yes, as already shown, God still has law. There are still commands to be obeyed, but what is now required for salvation is quite different. Faith and faithfulness are what is now required of mankind, not perfection in law keeping (command keeping). We now have a Savior, the Lord Jesus, to whom we can look for forgiveness. It is a Savior who saves us, not a law. "We conclude that a man is justified by faith (faith in Jesus—DS) apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28 NKJV)

We are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith." (Rom. 3:24-25 NKJV) The blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse man, any man, of sin, but the blood of Jesus can—if we believe. "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand." (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV)

Does this mean it is no longer necessary to obey God's commands, no longer necessary to be obedient to God's laws? Paul addressed this question in Romans chapter 6. "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!" (Rom. 6:15 NKJV) "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23 NKJV) "If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom. 8:13 NKJV) "To be carnally minded is death." (Rom. 8:6 NKJV) Or, as the New Living Translation puts this verse, "Letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death."

One might be inclined to say that sounds like law keeping for salvation again, like under the Law of Moses. Not so. Why not? Because the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus does not demand perfection but only a walk in life according to the Spirit. That means I must be a spiritually minded individual who allows the teaching of the Spirit, as found in God's word, to direct my life. The new covenant is "not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) The Law of Moses "was weak through the flesh." (Rom. 8:3 NKJV) It was of the letter, obey perfectly without fail. Mankind is prone to sin, and that law had no remedy for it no matter how penitent one might be, that is, until the cross. The new covenant, which is of the Spirit, grants grace without the perfection of the letter.

David committed a number of sins, quite serious ones even by man's standards. Nevertheless, he was a deeply spiritually minded man. He lived under the Law of Moses and was a doomed man had Christ never come to earth and made his sacrifice. Yes, he was always penitent of his sins, but there was no satisfactory propitiation for them—not until Christ. Under the new covenant that Christ brought us, the penitent Christian who has an attitude toward God like David had, walking in the Spirit, not fleshly minded, has always forgiveness upon his repentance. He does not await some future event.

John, the apostle, puts it this way, "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7-9 NKJV)

A few final thoughts before closing. Jesus is the author of the New Covenant, the New Testament, under which all people live today. We are to be ruled and judged by it. That does not mean we discount the abundance of the good things for our edification found in the Old Testament. There is a world of things to be learned from it. However, we cannot seek justification from it.

One might be inclined to think that we are only talking here about the issue of salvation. However, think about all the things that have been borrowed from Judaism, things like instrumental music, burning of incense, priestly robes, observing the Levitical feasts, keeping of the Sabbath, etc. They find their justification not from the teachings of the New Testament but from the practices found under the Law of Moses. God did not give things of that nature to us under the New Covenant. What he did say was, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9 NKJV)

We need to decide which covenant we will allow to direct our lives. Many, unwittingly, try to have a mixture, a some of this, some of that. We need to stick to the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 12:24). "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." (Mark 14:24 NKJV) Let us abide in it.

(A large portion of each of the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are devoted to the changing of the covenants, from Moses' to Christ's. I would encourage all to read those books that distinguish the covenants.)

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Does Sin Even Exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Way That Seems Right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Faithfulness of Jesus to God the Father

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew writer makes this clear when he says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John 10:17-18 also helps clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s Plea--Be Reconciled to God

The word reconciliation is a very emotionally laden word, for there cannot be reconciliation without there first having been alienation or strife. There are millions upon millions of people in this world of billions who have sorrow in their lives that words cannot express. It is a sadness that continues with them daily, month by month, year by year, and how can they tell anyone? They live in a melancholic state often undiscerned by others. What can they say? They cannot verbalize their feelings even to themselves, let alone to anyone else. It is a sadness, a depression, an emptiness, a sorrow that words cannot describe.

Why such sorrow, such longful mourning, such a sense of despair? Because there is alienation within the family. Families are torn apart because one member or another became alienated and will no longer have anything to do with the rest of the family, or at least with the one with whom they are alienated. They are angry and live in bitterness and resentment. Sometimes both parties involved come to feel that way, but often it is a one-party matter. The individual feels that he/she was done wrong and mistreated, whether true or not; that is how they see it.

I knew a family, and there are many such families, whose only child, a son, ran away from home while alienated as a teenager, and that was the last they saw him or heard from him, at least for many, many years, into decades. They had no idea where he was. The mother died without ever seeing her son again or knowing what became of him. I cannot imagine the pain that mother and dad dealt with all of those years. No doubt that mother would have rejoiced in tears to have seen her son at her bedside, just one time, as she passed from this world into the next. However, that was not to be.

When I came to know the mother and dad, they were devout church members. I am sure faith in God is all that allowed them to live all those many years, from middle age on into old age. The one who suffers the least in these family breakups is the alienated. They feel justified.

Two great examples in the Bible of men whose sons became alienated were David with his son Absalom, and in the New Testament, the case of the prodigal son. David suffered immensely over Absalom. It would take up too much space to retell the story of David's relationship with Absalom, so let me speak here only of David's love for Absalom, even after Absalom rebelled and had sought to overthrow David as king and take his father's life.

Prior to David's army going into battle against the army of Absalom, David commanded Joab, the commander of his own army, to "deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom." (2 Sam. 18:5 NKJV) When word was sent back to David as to how the battle had gone, the first thing David wanted to know was, "Is the young man Absalom safe?" (2 Sam. 18:29 NKJV) When he was told that was not the case, that Absalom was dead, the Bible gives us some of the most heart-wrenching words ever uttered by a father.

"O my son Absalom—my son, my son Absalom—if only I had died in your place! O Absalom my son, my son!" (2 Sam. 18:33 NKJV) The Bible says David "was deeply moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept." (2 Sam. 18:33 NKJV) You always love your child no matter how deeply they grow to despise you. Oh, what it would have meant to David if there could have been reconciliation before it came to this, but reconciliation requires two willing parties. One alone is not enough.

The New Testament example of alienation did not end in tragedy, as was the case with David and Absalom, but rather in great joy, in rejoicing. In the prodigal son, we have a son who was not as alienated as Absalom was, but who, nevertheless, was not satisfied and wanted to part ways from his father. He felt he was being held back from the good life while at home.

The New Testament example of the prodigal son is too well known to repeat here, other than to mention the father's overwhelming joy when he saw his son coming down the road home. "When he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him." (Luke 15:20 NKJV)

Thus we have two examples of alienation with two totally different endings. One wonders why people refuse to be reconciled when reconciliation is the road to peace, joy, and happiness. Nothing good is to be found in continual alienation.

The account of the prodigal son and his father is really about you and me and God. We are God's creatures, his people. "It is he who has made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people and the sheep of his pasture." (Psalm 100:3 NKJV) "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way." (Isa. 53:6 NKJV)

We are, or have been, depending on where we are now in our standing with God, like the prodigal son. We left God when we chose sin over him. "There is none righteous, no, not one." (Rom. 3:10 NKJV) "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NKJV)

The gospel message is God's call for the prodigal to come home. It is the message of the father seeking the son or daughter who has gone astray, who waits patiently until their return, if only they are willing to be reconciled. He is longsuffering and forbearing, not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4 NKJV)

The gospel is as if God was standing and calling to us to come, for as Paul said to the Thessalonians, "He called you by our gospel." (2 Thess. 2:14 NKJV) It is "the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19 NKJV) "And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely." (Rev. 22:17 NKJV)

It is an invitation, but it is more than that. It is a plea: "as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God." (2 Cor. 5:20 NKJV) Reconciliation is a choice, a decision to be made. The son I told you about earlier, whose father and mother I knew, made a choice, a choice to not be reconciled for those many years. It was a bad choice. It is a horrible choice, even a tragedy, any time a person makes the decision that he will not be reconciled with those against whom he is alienated. All are losers, none winners.

We ought to be reconciled to our fellowman if alienated. We are to forgive one another so that we might be forgiven. "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matt. 6:14 NKJV) We ought to grow tired of fussing and fighting, of anger, hatred, and bitterness.

You know, if we were to ask the question of why heaven is going to be such a grand and joyous place, we would have to talk not only about what will be there but also about what will not be there—all of these evil things that burden the heart and bring tears and sorrow. Heaven is a place of love. It is not a place of alienation, anger, and bitterness.

The Bible says when Jesus drew near the city of Jerusalem, as he drew near to it for the last time (from afar), "he wept." (Luke 19:41 NKJV) What do you think brought him to tears? In Matthew, we find his feelings expressed when he says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!" (Matt. 23:37 NKJV) This was God crying for his lost, alienated children who would not come home.

God's plea is that we be reconciled to him. He is the prodigal son's father, figuratively speaking, looking down the road to see if we will come home. Are you going to tell him you are not willing? If so, is that where you will find happiness and contentment—find it in alienation? We ought to come home to God with tears of rejoicing that the alienation is over and we are home at last, that wonderful word and wonderful place—home. Home is where you belong, where I belong, where we all belong, home with God.

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

Faith, Works, Baptism, and Obedience

Many believe that since the Bible teaches justification by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), baptism is excluded as an act essential to salvation, despite many passages that teach just the opposite (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26; 1 Cor. 12:13 paired with Eph. 5:23 [baptized into one body, Christ the Savior of the body]; John 3:5; Gal. 3:26-27; etc.). It is the burden of this article to show the fallacy of this belief.

In the first place, the Bible teaches that baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done. Just the opposite is stated in Titus 3:5: “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” (NKJV). The washing of regeneration is a reference to baptism and is excluded by Paul as being a work of righteousness which we have done that saves us apart from God’s mercy. What is baptism, then? It is a part of God’s means of extending his mercy to mankind. Baptism is God showing us kindness. It is God, through grace, giving us a means to be saved by his mercy.

Water baptism amounts to nothing; it is worthless without God behind it in his compassion for us. When Naaman dipped seven times in the Jordan River for his cleansing from leprosy (2 Kings 5), it would not have made an ounce of difference without God being behind the command with the extension of his grace. The water did not cleanse Naaman; God did. But Naaman was not going to be cleansed without dipping in the Jordan those seven times, without obeying the command to do so. Why can’t we see the parallel with baptism in our day?

One acquainted with the New Testament cannot read Titus 3:5 without being reminded of John 3:5: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (NKJV). Paul, in Titus, is saying what Jesus said in John. To be saved in Titus is to enter the kingdom of God in John. To be saved is to be in the kingdom of God, where the saved are.

Indeed, Paul teaches justification by faith. “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17 NKJV). “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28 NKJV). “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV).

One cannot enter the waters of baptism without faith in what God said about doing so and expect the cleansing of sin. If I do not believe what God said about it, I have not acted in faith and cannot be justified by faith.

In the book of Romans, from which I have just quoted, Paul is writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Greeks. The Jews came to Christianity out of the background of Judaism and the Law of Moses. Much of what Paul writes in Romans is directed to the Jews, whose inclination through much of the first century was to try to hang on to both the Law of Moses and to Christ at the same time. The Law of Moses was a law system, not a faith system. What was the problem with the Law of Moses, a works system of salvation?

Paul tells us, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’” (Gal. 3:10 NKJV). James says, “Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10 NKJV). This is the problem not just with the Law of Moses but with any and all law systems God might give man. As soon as a man violates one law, justice demands satisfaction—punishment—“the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15 NKJV). To violate a law of God, any law he gives, is unrighteousness; it is sin. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV).

Jesus was the only sinless man ever to live. Law condemns all of us, for we have all broken God’s law. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV). Thus, “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16c NKJV). The word “the” in Gal. 2:16, just quoted, is not found in the original but was added by the translators in both instances. When translated without the additions, it reads as follows: “By works of law no flesh shall be justified.” If you check an interlinear, you will find this to be true. What is the point?

The point is that while it is true Paul had specific reference to the Law of Moses because that is the law his audience had in mind, he phrases his statement in such a way as to include all law. No one will ever get to heaven by perfect keeping of works of law. Paul says the same thing in Rom. 3:28, where again the word “the” has been added by translators and is not in the original. It thus should read as follows: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of (‘the’ omitted here is not in the original manuscripts—DS) law” (NKJV). Deeds are works.

A question thus arises: If I am not saved by works of law, why be concerned with obedience? Paul knew this was what some would conclude, and he begins to address that issue in Rom. 6:1, where he says, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (NKJV). Remember, it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 NKJV).

Paul never meant to imply that obedience was optional. Paul responds vigorously, saying, “God forbid” (ASV, KJV), “By no means!” (ESV), “May it never be” (NAS), “Certainly not!” (NKJV). He says, “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Rom. 6:2 NKJV).

He then says, “Do you not know,” introducing the subject of baptism, “that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3-4 NKJV). Whose death? Into Christ’s death. But watch it closely, for up pops verse 8: “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (NKJV). So we are baptized into Christ’s death, but that is also the place where “we died with Christ.” When we arise from this death, we “should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV), for we have been granted a new spiritual life and we should “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead” (Rom. 6:13 NKJV). We have been “set free from sin” (Rom. 6:18 NKJV), but when? When we died to it, “For he who has died has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7 NKJV; see also Rom. 6:2). When did we die? In baptism (Rom. 6:4). Thus, no baptism, then no death; no death, then no being freed from sin.

Now who is Paul talking to? To Christians who have been justified by faith, not by works. Did Paul consider baptism to be a work of the kind of which he had been talking, by which a man could not be saved? Not at all! How, then, did he consider it? As a part of being justified by faith.

Paul begins the book of Romans with this statement in chapter 1, verse 5, saying he had been given grace and apostleship “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for his name’s sake” (NAS). The NKJV says, “among all nations for his name” instead of “all the Gentiles.” But what was the objective? Obedience of faith! Why? Because without obedience, faith is dead and cannot save anyone, and that is from the get-go, from the very beginning. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26 NKJV).

When Peter stands up on the Day of Pentecost and preaches the first gospel sermon ever, creates by his preaching faith in those who hear, and then tells them what to do in response to their question asking what they can do, he responds by saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). You cannot tell me they were justified by faith if their response was, “I don’t think so right now, maybe later.” Nor can you tell me they were justified by faith if they failed to believe the word of God that baptism was for the remission of sins, just as Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit, said, for that would not be belief but unbelief or disbelief. It would be the same as calling God a liar.

Paul closes the book of Romans the same way he opened it: “has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26 NAS). “Obedience of faith” is obedience led by faith, or obedience because of faith, or obedience out of faith. What does that mean, then? Faith must precede obedience. The justifying faith Paul was talking about in the book of Romans was a faith that led to obedience. Faith must precede obedience before you can have obedience out of faith.

There has never been a baptism acceptable to God but what it was first preceded by faith and submitted to by faith. This in itself invalidates infant baptism, as the infant is incapable of having faith. Faith saves because it believes God and does not doubt; therefore, it acts. Without obedience (acts, works, call it what you will), faith never really lives and is dead from the beginning and thus never saved the man at any point in time. If dead faith saved, the demons would be saved, for James says they believe (James 2:19). The same could be said of those rulers who believed in Jesus but did not confess him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

Baptism is the dividing line between living faith and dead faith. Why? Is it because I said so? No! It is because Paul said when we arise from baptism that we “should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV). We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27 NKJV). In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV). The old man died in baptism, and we arise a new creation. If we are saved before baptism (a baptism growing out of faith), the question ought to be asked, who is it that dies in baptism? Is it a saved man? Paul teaches that we die in baptism in the Romans 6:2-8 passage, but why would you want to put a saved man to death? Why kill a saved man? That is the position they put themselves in who believe we are saved by faith before baptism. This is a question that needs an answer.

I want to remind the reader once again of what Paul said of baptism in Titus 3:5: “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” (NKJV). God gave us baptism (the washing of regeneration) as a part of his saving mercy toward us, not as a work of righteousness which we have done that works our way to heaven.

Baptism puts us into Christ, where salvation is. Paul says in this very book of Romans, where he promotes the doctrine of justification by faith, that there is “no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1 NKJV). In the same book he tells us how we got into Christ Jesus, where there is no condemnation. He says, “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus …” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV).

This idea of separating faith from baptism is all man’s doing. You’ll not find it in the Bible. Paul says in the Galatian letter, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV). How do you get into Christ? Paul tells us a second time in this passage, that is, if we did not get it the first time in the Roman passage just quoted in the prior paragraph. But Paul tells us more. What?

He tells us you cannot separate faith from baptism unless you do it on your own initiative. The word “for,” beginning in verse 27 of Galatians 3, ties it to verse 26. You cannot separate the two sentences. There is more.

Can one put on Christ without baptism? Those who say you can ought to provide the passage that tells us that. According to this Galatian passage, it is done by baptism. I have never found another passage anywhere that has given an alternative.

Paul says those who are sons of God were baptized and thereby put on Christ. There is a law of exclusion in play here. If you were not baptized, you did not put on Christ in baptism and are therefore excluded from being a son of God.

To summarize, “the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38 NKJV), but it is such a faith that, when it hears, it believes and obeys and is not indifferent to obedience. It is thus a living faith. It does not fear that obedience is working your way to heaven. Neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament writer ever feared that obedience would be looked upon by God as an attempt to work your way to heaven. Baptism is God’s extension of grace to us, his means of cleansing us, chosen by him, not us, and not a part of works of righteousness that we have done that merit salvation.

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