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.]

More on Willful Sin—Can Anyone be Saved?

While I have written on this subject, willful sin, in the past, I thought it worthwhile to write a follow-up as this is a subject that troubles many Christians. There is material here that was not in the first article.

The passage that troubles people is Heb. 10:26-31 but more specifically verses 26 and 27. "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (NKJV) I want you to hear the words of Albert Barnes, perhaps the best-known of all English Bible commentators, in his comments on the willful sin of this passage. He says:

"It is not to be construed here strictly, or metaphysically (here Barnes is talking about the word 'willfully'), for all sin is voluntary, or is committed willingly, but must refer to a deliberate act, where a man means to abandon his religion, and to turn away from God. If it were to be taken with metaphysical exactness, it would demonstrate that every Christian who ever does anything wrong, no matter how small, would be lost."

You will be hard-pressed to find a commentator anywhere who would disagree with Barnes’ statement. Virtually every commentator will tell you that the passage has reference to one whose intent is to leave the faith altogether. That person willfully chooses to go another direction.

I do not think this person is one who necessarily ceases to believe. I say that because of verse 27 where there is with this individual "a certain fearful expectation of judgment." (NKJV) However, I grant that the phrase could be taken to be merely descriptive of the judgment and how awful it will be and that is Barnes’ take on it for he says, “The ‘fearful apprehension’ or expectation here does not refer so much to what would be in the mind itself, or what would be experienced, as to what must follow.” Philip Schaff in his commentary agrees for he says, “It describes not what is expected, but what will certainly be, and in truth what is already in reserve—‘a reception of judgment.’” They may well be correct.

We all know Christians who have fallen away simply because they enjoyed sin more than righteousness. They preferred "the pleasures of sin for a season" (Heb. 11:25 KJV) over an eternity of bliss. They did not go into another religion but into a sinful life.  

Here are some words from Neil Lightfoot's commentary on the passage. "He speaks not so much of an act of sin but of a state of sin, for the force of the verb is repeated action—'if we go on sinning,' 'if we continue to sin,' 'if we persist in sin.'" That this is true can be seen from some of the newer Bible translations of the passage. "For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." (Heb. 10:26 NRSV) "Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins." (Heb. 10:26 NLT) The passage is not talking about a single act of sin but a determination to live a life of sin after becoming a Christian.

The New Testament never envisioned Christians ever reaching the point in this life where they would never sin. Yes, that is the goal but the apostle John said, in talking to Christians, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 NKJV) Well, then, what is the Christian to do about his sin? John tells us in the very next verse where he says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9 NKJV) Finally, he says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:10 NKJV)

The Christian who sins needs to confess their sins to God after having become penitent. "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter." (2 Cor. 7:9-11 NKJV) The Corinthians were Christians who had sinned and considering the sins they committed as we read about them in the book of First Corinthians one has to think "they knew better" before committing some of them.

John says he wrote to his little children, as he calls them, "that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1 NKJV) I assure you a penitent Christian can be forgiven of sin. Not a doubt in the world about it as far as scripture goes and Jesus will be your advocate. Before the Christian era began, we all recall from scripture that Peter denied Christ and lied about being his disciple and even said he did not know the man (Matt. 26:72). Was this a willful sin? Did Peter not know he was lying? Was Peter forgiven? Could Peter be forgiven but you can't be? Who can believe it?

"Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:16 NKJV) There is grace and mercy for the Christian. Grace and mercy are not just reserved exclusively for the alien sinner who comes to God.

It is true we may always feel sorrowful about what we have done and have long lingering regrets but I am not so sure that is a bad thing if it helps us to determine to never ever again even entertain the thought of doing such things. I often think of David and Absalom which is a heart-wrenching story. Where did David go wrong with his son who he loved so deeply? This whole thing with Absalom tore David's heart out. Then think about what he had to live with in having had Bathsheba's husband murdered and his adultery with her. Many of us are men and women of sorrows but we have to lean on the only hope we have, a true hope, one that will forgive—Jesus. Yes, Jesus will forgive you and save you.

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

Philip Preaching the Gospel in Samaria

"But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." (Acts 8:12 NAS)

Most people with an elementary knowledge of the scriptures understand that the first gospel sermon ever to be preached was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.   If one wants to learn what one must do to be saved from sin it is a great place to start. This sermon was the first ever preached after Jesus’ resurrection and return to heaven where he sat down at the right hand of God the Father.   His blood had now been shed for the remission of the sins of man.  Full forgiveness was now possible.

After Peter’s preaching Jesus on that day of Pentecost, having made believers of approximately 3,000 souls, Peter exhorted them to “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38 NAS)   What was required for their salvation that day?   Faith, repentance, and baptism.

Who was saved that Day of Pentecost?   The text tells us, “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41 NAS)  Who was saved?  Was it those who believed the word only?  Or, was it those who heard the word and acted on it, who repented and were baptized?  To ask is to answer.

We find a similar account in Acts 8 but this time a different Holy Spirit inspired preacher, Philip the Evangelist.  Here we see Philip preaching in the city of Samaria and the text tells us he “began proclaiming Christ to them.” (Acts 8:5 NAS) But, now watch what happened.  “When they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” (Acts 8:12 NAS)`

The Acts 8:12 passage parallels Acts 2:41.  What was the good news Philip preached?   Was it the gospel Peter preached?  Was it “the power of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16 NAS)?  I am sure we can all agree on this.

The text says "they believed Philip" (Acts 8:12) with regard to what he was preaching.  This is the equivalent of "those who had received his word" with reference to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:41.  When they believed Philip what did they do?  The text says "they were being baptized."  In Acts 2:41 when they received Peter's word what did they do?  They were baptized.   Thus we see that in the beginning of the church, of Christianity, of faith in Christ, that when the gospel was preached and believed or received it led to people being baptized.  There has to be a reason for that.

Is baptism a part of the gospel?  Is it a part of the good news?   It is if it is "for the forgiveness of your sins" as per Acts 2:38.  It is if Peter preached it.  It is if Philip preached it.  It is if these two Holy Spirit inspired men preached it.  It is if it is a part of God’s means of saving people, a part of God’s plan.  Saying this is not discounting faith in any way.   It is only those who first believe who benefit by baptism.   Baptism is the obedience of faith.   It is what a scriptural faith leads to.

Only when one receives the word, the gospel, only when one believes, is he baptized.  Those who did not receive the word did not believe it, were not baptized.  This pretty much tells us who has believed the gospel and who has disbelieved it.  If you believe something else, something other than the gospel, you are not baptized.  We ought to consider that seriously.

We know in both cases baptism was preached for how else were people led to be baptized? What led Philip's audience to be baptized if Philip did not preach it?  Where did they learn about baptism if he did not preach it?   Why were people baptized on the day of Pentecost under Peter's preaching if he did not preach it?  But, we do not have to guess about Peter's preaching for Peter's words were "repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS)

I am reminded of those living in the lifetime of John the Baptist who rejected John’s baptism. The Bible says, “But, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.” (Luke 7:30 NAS)   We now live under King Jesus who has a baptism of his own for mankind.   Are we going to reject it?  Is not the baptism Jesus gives us God’s purpose for us?

If you have never been baptized for the remission of sins you are in a fight against God.   Don't be one of those who insist on being saved your way rather than the way taught by Peter and Philip, by the Holy Spirit.   You cannot win in a fight against God.   It is his narrow gate or the wide gate and the gate you enter makes all the difference (Matt. 7:13-14).  You cannot become a child of God by disobedience, by ignoring his word, by doing it the way my group believes. God only has one group--those who have done it his way.  It is "the Way."   The way of salvation.

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

The Relationship of The Blood of Jesus and Baptism

All who claim to be Christians believe we are saved by the blood of Jesus.  All believe that for the Bible clearly states it, "We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph 1:7 NKJV)  There are very few, however, who realize where God has placed that blood spiritually speaking. 

Christianity is a religion of the spirit.  No man is saved by coming into physical contact with the blood of Christ.  This is simply a truism accepted by all.  We do not each get a microscopic drop of literal blood placed on our souls.  So the question then becomes where has God placed the blood in a spiritual sense?  It does matter; it is a matter of salvation. 

In the Bible, blood stands for life.  God speaking to Noah and his sons after the flood said unto them, "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Gen 9:4 NKJV)  Again, God speaking to Moses in Lev. 17:11 says to Moses, "The life of the flesh is in the blood." (NKJV)  And, then again, in Lev. 17:14, "The life of all flesh is its blood." (NKJV) 

In the New Testament Judas when he had betrayed the Lord, felt remorse, and returned the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders saying to them, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." (Matt. 27:4 NKJV)  What did he mean by using the phrase "innocent blood?"  He meant he had betrayed innocent life.  Blood stood for life. 

When Pilate washed his hands before the multitude who wanted Jesus put to death and made the statement, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person" (Matt. 27:24 NKJV) what did he mean?  Was it not I am innocent of putting to death this innocent man?  Blood stood for life. 

Jesus was God's sacrificial lamb who, as John the Baptist said, takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)  This required the shedding of his blood, the taking of his life.  Jesus said, in instituting the Lord's Supper, "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28 NKJV)  We are justified by his blood (Rom. 5:9) and "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Eph. 1:7 NKJV) 

When Jesus died on the cross his blood was shed in that his life was taken.  Jesus had shed some blood prior to his death.  There was the scourging he endured, the crown of thorns on his head, the nails driven through his hands yet, all of that being true, he had not yet shed his blood in the Bible sense of the giving up of life itself.  Surely no one believes we were saved by the literal blood of the scourging, thorns, or nails. 

When Jesus uttered his last words on the cross and gave up the ghost his blood was then shed in Bible parlance.  John, in John 19:33-34, in speaking of what happened while Jesus was on the cross after his death said, "But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out." (John 19:33-34 NKJV) 

This event, the piercing of his side, had symbolic importance for the sacrifice of himself had already taken place, his life already given for ours.  Remember Lev. 17:11?  "The life of the flesh is in the blood."  With his side being pierced the life of Jesus was now gone for the whole world to see.  His blood was shed in every sense of the word.  Where was the soul-cleansing blood of Jesus shed?  In his death, when he died on the cross, but now it was evident to all he was dead.  

So, we know where Jesus shed his blood--in his death, at the moment he died.  This then tells us all that if we are to come into contact with that blood we must enter into his death.  For me to come into contact with that saving blood, spiritually speaking, I must get into Christ's death.  Paul was very clear on where and how you and I do this.  He says in Rom. 6:3, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (NKJV) 

He goes on, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4 NKJV)  When is a person to walk in the newness of life?  After baptism.  Can one walk in newness of life unless the blood of Jesus has cleansed him?  Newness of life comes to a man upon being raised from the waters of baptism.  God placed the cleansing blood in the waters of baptism.  In that act, when done from a heart of faith having repented of one’s sins, the blood of Jesus cleanses a man or woman from all sin. 

But, objection is made by man and it is said baptism is a little thing.  Is the blood of Jesus a little thing?  If one can be saved without baptism into the death of Christ then one can be saved without the blood of Jesus.  

Paul in 2 Cor. 5:17 makes this statement, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Co 5:17 NKJV)  Bearing that in mind what did Paul say to us in the passages just under consideration?  Did he not say, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus … ?" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  Yes, he said we were baptized into Christ. 

In Christ how?  By being baptized into him.  Where is one a "new creation?"  In Christ.  How can a man be a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) unless the blood of Christ has cleansed him?  In Christ, I am cleansed, a new creation, but I am baptized into Christ.  I get into Christ by baptism.  The blood of cleansing then spiritually speaking is found in baptism. 

In talking to Timothy, Paul says this is a faithful saying, "For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him." (2 Tim. 2:11 NKJV)  We died with him by being baptized into his death. (Rom. 6:3)  Paul says if we did that we shall live with him thus the blood of Jesus must be contacted in the waters of baptism.  It is only through his blood that we have life.  But, what if we did not die with Him in baptism?  I will let the reader answer. 

Then Paul says in Eph. 5:25-26, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:25-26 NKJV)  Does anyone believe the church Jesus loved and gave himself for has not been cleansed by his blood?  But, the text says he cleansed the church with the "washing of water by the word."  Thus the blood was in the waters of baptism. 

There is an interesting passage in Heb. 10:22 where the writer is admonishing those to whom he wrote.  He says, "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." (NKJV)  Let us couple that with what Peter spoke of concerning baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (NKJV) 

To have one's heart sprinkled from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22) is the same as to have a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21).  Peter says this is accomplished in baptism while the Hebrew writer speaks of our bodies being washed with pure water.  They are one and the same.  The clean conscience is acquired through being baptized.  Peter goes so far as to say baptism saves us.  The blood of Christ must then be found in the waters of baptism.  That is where the conscience is cleansed.  The conscience cannot be cleansed from God's standpoint without the blood of Jesus.  It is cleansed in baptism.  This is the only logical deduction one can make. 

I realize an article like this is going to be very, very unpopular.  People want no part of baptism being a salvation issue.  Passage after passage teaches that it is (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21) plainly and clearly.  In fact, when God's word says "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Act 2:38 NKJV) one wonders how such a passage can be misunderstood by rational men.  

A question that arises in my mind is this.  Let us suppose for the sake of argument that God wanted to tell men that they must be baptized to have their sins forgiven and to be saved.  Since the language he used is not adequate to satisfy the mass of mankind how would you, if you were him, phrase it to make it clear to all readers?  What words would you use to convey the idea?  Remember what he said as stated was not adequate to convince men.  You would have to use other words.  What words would you use? 

People are not rational when it comes to religion.  In religion, emotions generally rule.  Men and women often cannot see the truth because as plain as it might be they are not willing to face up to it, because they do not want to see and know the truth.  Perhaps truth condemns them or their family and maybe some of the family has already passed on while living in error.  In other cases, truth may prohibit them from living the kind of life they would prefer to live.  Add to those things change can be very uncomfortable.  It may be much easier to continue as you are versus changing with the unpleasantness that can bring in relationships.  Whatever the cause a refusal to accept truth gives them a comfort, temporary though it may be, that they cannot find in the truth itself. 

I want to close with this.  You and I might wish it was some other way.  Some cannot bear the thought that they have family now gone who if what I have written today is the truth never accepted the truth and died in error.  We worry about them and we are not willing to accept the truth because of where we think that would place them.  My advice is to leave those matters with God for he will do what is right.  If they end up in the wrong place in the life to come do you think you will bring them joy by meeting up with them there?  You would only add sorrow to sorrow, guilt to guilt. 

But, I have to ask you one other question, a momentous question.  Are you going to pass error on to your children and grandchildren after you?  If Mom and Dad died in error they are now in God's hands.  Let him deal with the matter.  As for you, you likely have children, grandchildren, a spouse to be concerned about, some or all of these.  Will you lead them down the road of error because of the past?  If so you will likely get what you deserve.  How could it be otherwise? 

Did Jesus command baptism?  If he did (you know he did) you know your duty.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Jesus and Tolerance--The Narrow Gate

Jesus’ teaching on the narrow gate is a part of the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matt. 7:13-14.  The question being raised here is whether or not Jesus was being narrow-minded as he spoke of only one gate, of only one way, that would lead to eternal life.  That is a pertinent question in the time in which we live, a time in which many are questioning Christianity making accusations that it is exclusive and intolerant.  Here is what 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.  Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (NKJV) 

As human beings, we sometimes believe and act upon wrong premises that can do us much harm.  To use myself as an example I once believed and acted on the premise that if a person exercised faithfully and intensely he could eat anything he wanted and not have to worry about diabetes.  I found out differently when I developed insulin resistance but until the truth hit me squarely in the face that was what I believed and the way I lived my life. 

In America today we have begun to think that the ultimate good is tolerance and we are acting on that premise.  We are so convinced that this is the case that we are closing our minds to other possibilities much like I had closed my own mind to the possibility of a man like me getting diabetes.  Let me ask a question.  Is tolerance of greater value than truth?  Are we better off with a tolerant Jesus or a truthful Jesus?  If we could have only one or the other which would we be better off with? 

A wholly tolerant Jesus would mean the end of justice, of righteousness.  Would one want to live in a society that was totally devoid of justice, could one live peacefully in such a society?  How does one call heaven a place of joy if tolerance allows in the willfully lawless and rebellious, the evildoers and the vile, the unrepentant?  God is indeed longsuffering but he is not tolerant without end nor would justice allow it.   

If we believe Jesus was God’s son, spoke by inspiration, and never sinned then he spoke the truth about the gates between which men must choose.  There are only two and we all must choose one or the other and thus the corresponding path we will take to death’s door and eternity.  One must either accept what Jesus said as truth or else deem him a liar and no saint at all let alone God and Savior.  If Jesus is a liar then you can forget about heaven and eternal life.

Jesus and Christianity are being challenged in America today by postmodernism, secularism, relativism, multiculturalism, feminism, humanism, Darwinism, atheism, nihilism, hedonism, by just about every “ism” you can think of.  Our culture has changed so much in the last fifty years that today Jesus is no longer seen necessarily as good, as was the case in the days of my youth, but rather as one who is somewhat arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant.  How dare he give us only an either/or alternative—his way or the highway.

The very fact he has given us an alternative to the wide gate and broad way that leads to destruction is no longer seen as grace but rather as a threat of violence if we do not choose it.  Instead of being thankful that we have an option not just of escaping from destruction but of partaking in a glorious, joyful eternal life many of us end up murmuring and complaining.  

It reminds me of what Paul said when he wrote to the Galatians.  “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16 NKJV)  Has Jesus become our enemy because he told us the truth about the two gates?  A man tells us the truth and we resent it.  Many among us have decided to reject what Jesus has said as truth; we will deny it, refuse to accept it.  We reject the New Testament.

Our problem is we want a third gate, one that is not difficult to enter and upon entering is easy to travel and leads to eternal bliss.  Narrow gates, when posted on roads, lead to narrow roads which are anathema in a society that prides itself on tolerance of everything man’s imagination can devise.   

We want broadmindedness in religion and morality but if we had it would we not think it to be somewhat of an anomaly?  Broadmindedness does not work in math, chemistry, medicine, banking, or any other field of endeavor I can think of.  We all want exactness in those things and if we are to have orderly lives rather than chaos we must have it that way. 

Narrowness is not equivalent to persecution as so many think but is rather a prescription for success, success for the reason that truth itself is narrow.  Deviate from narrowness in obedience to traffic lights as you drive in the city and you endanger not only your own life but the lives of others as well and it will be just a matter of time until disaster strikes.  Tolerance says let a man do it.  Truth says your tolerance will get someone killed.

It has always amazed me that man tries to make himself out to be God and make the rules that govern life when he cannot make one hair white or black (Matt. 5:36) and is totally helpless when death’s door opens.  He thinks he can play God, make the rules, and knows better than what God has said, and then has the audacity to accuse God of arrogance.  Perhaps a mirror would be helpful.

I have often asked myself the question why men do not believe or make an effort to live faithful lives.  What is the answer?  Is it unbelief based on the intellect, on the study of the evidence about Christ where the New Testament is found to be wanting and based on myth, fairy tales, and fantasy?  Well, the apostles knew whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them after the resurrection and if he did not what was to be gained by becoming martyrs?  None of them became rich televangelists.  There was nothing to be gained if it was all a lie, based on falsehood.

People do not reject Christianity based on evidence.  It is rejected, and no attempt is made to live the life, because the human will finds the broadway more appealing.  The gate to that road is broad and easy to enter, the road is wide and easy to travel, everyone is accepted, there are no restrictions, no speed limits, no policing of it so that any lifestyle is accepted, sin does not exist on it for sin is not in the vocabulary of those who travel it, at least not in their own lives.  The Bible defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV), the law of God.  Take God out of the picture and there is no sin.  Men may come up with moral standards but if history teaches anything it is that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to man making moral law.

It is a world without God, without foundation, without any hope other than that God may accept you in the afterlife despite the fact you rejected him your entire earthly life and did so of your own free will.  He told us about this other gate and other way but we said we would have none of it and now at the end of the way we do not like where the road ends.  All roads do eventually end; the road reaches its destination.

“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and my people love to have it so, but what will you do in the end?” (Jer. 5:31 NKJV)

What happens, in the end, is easy enough to explain.  “God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” (Gal. 6:7-8 NKJV)

Two gates, two ways of life, two destinations, life’s choices.  Was Jesus being narrow?  Jesus was being truthful; Jesus was giving grace.  Jesus was as tolerant as truth would allow and showed truth to be the greater value.  Grace, which one could argue is a godly form of tolerance, was shown in giving us the knowledge of the facts and in providing the way of salvation.  All that remains is human choice, man’s free will to choose.  The human heart is revealed in the choice that is made.

One final word, there is no such thing as not choosing a gate.  An “I will decide later” approach is in reality a failure to choose the narrow gate and the difficult way that leads to life and thus puts you in the wide gate and broad way that the many are traveling.  It is not hard to enter a wide gate thus no real effort is required.  A narrow gate is another matter.  You only get in that gate if you want in and make an effort.  The choice is ours but Jesus has already told us which road the many will choose.  We can go with the crowd or take the road less traveled.

[This article can be downloaded to save on your computer or be printed out by clicking here.]

Jesus and Gay Marriage

Some people say Jesus never spoke on the issue of gay marriage. However, I believe Jesus did speak on the subject albeit indirectly. Let us read Matt. 19:3-6:

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?' And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?' So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.' " (NKJV)

There are some significant facts in this short exchange that need to be brought out.

(1) We learn from Jesus that God made mankind male and female and that for a purpose, the purpose of joining together to become one flesh. Now think about that. If the purpose of making mankind male and female was so they could become one flesh (obviously for godly purposes) then if a man mates with another man has he not violated God's purpose for making him a man? If not, why not? God did not make man to become one flesh with another man.

(2) The wife in this marriage scenario was a female. Jesus speaks of the wife and makes it clear the wife is female (see verse 9 where the reference is to "her"). Jesus and the Pharisees agreed on that. The marriage involved a male and a female. I do not know what a couple in a homosexual relationship will call their partner if gay marriage is allowed but I know it cannot be "wife" and be the truth. If the relationship sours over time and there is a divorce who will be divorced? It can't be a wife. Can you have a marriage without a wife? If so where in scripture do you find such a marriage? I have never read of one in scripture and neither have you and Jesus never knew of any either.

(3) We learn what God joined together was a man and a woman, not a man and a man. Does God join together a man and a man? If so Jesus knew nothing about it. If so find the scripture that shows it but I will tell you before you begin it cannot be done. If God does the joining together of a male and female in a marriage, and the Bible not once indicates anything other than male and female, then who does the joining together of male and male? Is it God or man? This is an important point for the text says God does the joining together. Is God under obligation to accept man's invention, one that opposes directly his purpose for making mankind male and female?

[This article can be downloaded and/or printed out by clicking here.]

 

The Modern Day American Mindset

Fewer and fewer people believe in absolute truth today (a postmodernism effect), believe the Bible is verbally inspired and without error, or that man must submit to its dictates or suffer the consequences if he does not.  Sin is now generally accepted, and no attempt is made any longer to hide it as long as the law of the land will allow it.  We abort babies (a holocaust), commit fornication (taken for granted these days), and become adulterers thinking God wants me to be happy or else we do not care at all what he thinks or, for that matter, even believe in him.  One of the things that have amazed me recently in my own neck of the woods is the push for gay marriage among groups of people whom you would have thought never would do such a thing which illustrates the state of mind of many who confess to be believers today.  (Let the reader note that this article was originally written before gay marriage became the law of the land.)

 

One man was quoted in a local paper as saying that there was no scriptural justification for denying gays the right to marry.  I just could not believe that a person who knew anything at all about the Bible could say such a thing as that.  Another wrote that he was a born again Christian and he was a supporter of gay marriage.  Please tell me how a person can read 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and get that we ought to support gay marriage.  "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-11 ESV, my underlining for emphasis)  There is a footnote in the ESV for the phrase "men who practice homosexuality" which reads as follows:  "The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts." 

 

Now I ask should we Christians be in the business of helping people sin by giving our consent to it and striving to pass laws to promote it.  If the passage above is not enough for you about God's will in this matter try Jude 6-7, Rom. 1:24-27, and 1 Tim. 1:9-10.  When I wrote on the subject, which I did, one lady wrote in telling me Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.  Is that right?  Did Jesus ever mention Sodom?  Check out Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:23, Matt. 11:24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29.  In most of these passages, Jesus is saying with regards to a specific city that it will be more tolerable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than it will be for that city.  But I ask the question why does he use Sodom as a standard for comparison?  Was it not because it was infamous?  Had not all the Jewish people heard of what was done to Sodom and Gomorrah and why?

 

No doubt he used Sodom as a basis for comparison because all were aware of how evil it was and the consequences it reaped as a result.  Jude says Sodom and Gomorrah were to serve as an example "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 6 NKJV)  He gives the reason as well saying they had "given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh." (Jude 6 NKJV)  So don't tell me Jesus never talked about homosexuality.  When you talk about Sodom you are talking about homosexuality.  

 

Yes, I oppose the whole manmade concept of gay marriage and I do so on scriptural grounds but the thing that is even more troubling to me is the loss of faith in the word of God by those who call themselves Christian and yet opinionate that God approves what he has clearly condemned.  In the Old Testament, he even calls the homosexual act an abomination (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).  Where is the faith in statements of scripture that cannot possibly be misunderstood?

 

The words of the Bible seem to no longer have meaning among a certain class of people that would like for others to think they are God-fearing.  They speak of love and grace as though the commandments of the Bible can be tossed aside as of no consequence and God be mocked in doing so.  If they decide among men that an act is holy and righteous that overrides everything the Bible has to say about the matter.  Jesus spoke of just such a group when he said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men." (Mark 7:8 NKJV)  I don't think any gay marriage advocate will ever have the gall to say that gay marriage is from God but if it is not from God where is it from?  Whose tradition is it?  To ask is to answer.

 

Eve had trouble accepting the word of God when presented with another option.  Today's generation ought to learn from history or do people ever learn from history?  Sometimes it seems we do not.  Eve set aside God's commandment on the say-so of another that it would be okay.  Are we not being told to do the same today?  We are when we deny the words from the passages I have quoted.  Read 1 Cor. 6:9-11 again and then take on the role of the serpent and tell people it will not matter.  Tell them like the serpent told Eve, "You will not surely die." (Gen. 3:4 NKJV) 

 

For those advocating gay marriage based on love the Bible says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  You and I as mere men do not have a right to define love when God has already done so.  What are you going to do, are you going to override God?

 

To endorse gay marriage is a violation of the golden rule and of love.  "Just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise." (Luke 7:31 NKJV)  I do not want any man to encourage me to sin.  To do that to me is to sin against me and it carries a consequence.  "Jesus said to his disciples: 'Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come.'" (Luke 17:1 NIV)  Those who are presently encouraging gay marriage are encouraging people to sin and there will be a consequence. 

 

For those who think the homosexual act is sinful outside marriage, just as fornication is, but would be acceptable to God in a marriage relationship they need to give that a second thought.  There is a difference.  God has never condemned the sexual act between a man and woman as sinful in its own right.  In fact, God said to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply." (Gen. 1:28 NKJV)  "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (Heb. 13:4 NKJV)   But note the sexual act outside of marriage, fornication, is condemned so it depends on the relationship between a man and a woman, are they married or not?

 

That cannot be said of the homosexual act between man and man.  That act God has declared to be sinful in itself and that is the big, big difference.  As for marriage, the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's wife and thus a marriage designed by God.  Nowhere in scripture will you find God making a marriage between man and man.  Thus such a thing is an invention of men, and of men, not of God.

 

Postmodernism would say there is no absolute truth thus all my quoting of scripture amounts to nothing with a postmodernist.  That my friends is the day and age we live in and the mindset that seems to have captured so many of our people.  Let the Bible as the inspired word of God take a hike.  That is depressing to me to know we have come to that state of affairs.  Faith is now the invention of man, each making his/her own faith, making their own truth, thinking all the while that all is A-okay.  We will see.  We will see.  

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