Living With One's Conscience

A good conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Without it, there is no peace -- only anxiety, turmoil, and restlessness. Anyone who has ever violated their conscience knows the truthfulness of this statement.

A bad conscience pricks us continually without let-up. It is the perfect tormentor. Day and night, we suffer from its attacks. Wherever we go, it travels with us. We cannot lose it. It is determined to give us no rest or relief.

Rest can only be had at what is generally felt to be a hard price to pay. That price is the shame and humiliation of admitting (confessing) our sin and making whatever restitution, if any, that can be made for it. It is awfully hard to put oneself through that, but that is exactly the price the conscience requires of us before it will let us go free.

I know of a man who went before the church confessing his unfaithfulness. Afterwards, he spoke of what a burden was lifted from his shoulders. The conscience was now clear, and life could move forward with the inner turmoil now gone and peace restored. That is a common reaction from those who finally decide to quit fighting the conscience they have violated and pay the price conscience demands.

The apostle Paul said, "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NAS) He made this statement the day after his arrest in Jerusalem. How many of us can say what Paul said? Can you? Can I? My guess is that very few can.

Peter, who denied Christ, could not say it. David, who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, could not say it. Aaron, in making the golden calf, could not say it.

Paul's statement that he had lived in all good conscience before God simply meant that he had never knowingly done anything that, at the time he was doing it, he knew to be in violation of God's law, knew it to be sin while he was doing it. To live then in good conscience before God is to live in such a way as not to knowingly do anything that is in violation of God's will.

There is certainly such a thing as sinning without violating one's conscience, a thing we have to be aware of. Paul is the perfect example. He said, in Acts 22:4, "I persecuted this Way to the death" (NAS), the way being Christianity. Then he says in Acts 26:10, "not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them." (NAS) This was great sin, absolutely, but it was not a violation of his conscience, for at that time he believed with all his heart it was the right thing to do according to his religion, a Jew of the Pharisee sect. (Acts 26:5)

There is probably nothing in a person's life harder to change than their religion, a thing Paul ended up doing. There is so much emotion involved in it, often much family history, friendships, and so on, so that it is very hard to be fair, that is, objective, with the scriptures, so we end up reading them the way we desire them to read versus what they actually say. We need to study the scriptures objectively, but our human emotions will not allow it. Our faith is the correct one just because it has to be that way; there are no other possibilities, at least none we are willing to consider.

Another factor that makes it very difficult for a person to change their religion is that of human pride. How hard it is for any of us to be man enough, as they say, to say we are wrong? We will not even allow the thought. As soon as even a tiny doubt enters our mind, we cast it out as far from us as possible. The degree of humility that is required to admit one has been wrong is very great. It is too much for many to even entertain the thought. The stakes are too high, or so it seems.

But I am drifting away from the subject at hand, so back to it—the conscience. Paul was not the only man in the Bible whose good conscience did not keep him from serious sin. One of the most tragic cases in the Bible was that of the prophet described as "a man of God" (1 Kings 13:1) who was sent by God to Jeroboam to prophecy against the altar on which Jeroboam was planning to make sacrifices to the two golden calves he had made. On his return trip back home, the prophet was met by "an old prophet" whom the Bible says "lied to him" (I Kings 13:18), claiming an angel had spoken to him, countermanding God's original command.

That original command to the younger (we assume) prophet had been, "'You shall eat no bread, nor drink water there; do not return by going the way which you came.'" (1 Kings 13:17 NAS) When the younger prophet, again we assume he was younger, believed what the old prophet told him about an angel countermanding the original command, the assumption being that God himself had sent the angel, he went back with the old prophet and did the very things God had told him not to do. As a result, he was met by a lion on the way back home and lost his life. He disobeyed God's command in all good conscience, believing he was doing God's will.

There are a couple of lessons we ought to learn from this account. First, as it relates to the conscience, this younger (?) prophet sinned in all good conscience. The conscience cannot be our guide. We must strive to have a good conscience for "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23 NKJV), but a good conscience proves nothing about the righteousness of the beliefs one holds to. The Islamic terrorists of our own day have a good conscience. Having a good conscience is no guarantee that you are right in either your thinking or your actions.

Secondly, I believe the young (?) prophet wanted to do what was right and thought he was. His conscience was clean in returning with the old prophet. He wasn't expecting to be lied to by a man of God, by a genuine prophet. One's good conscience and doing what one believes to be right is no guarantee of God's approval. God is a God of truth. He is not a God of lies or of falsehood, no matter who the speaker is (not all who teach error are deliberate liars). This prophet, who sinned and met his death, believed a religious man's lie.

We now live in a time when we are not dependent on what religious men teach us for the simple reason that just about everyone, at least in America, has ready access to God's word, where God speaks directly to us on the printed page. There is no reason we should be led astray by "religious men."

It is obvious, to those who think about it, that few preachers teach the whole truth. Yes, they may teach some truth, most of them probably do, but also sadly, error as well. How many different denominations are there in the world today, all teaching (preaching) something different? I recently heard there are 45,000 denominations, but I have no way of confirming that number. The world is full of these "old prophets," so to speak, who lead people astray.

I do not say they are liars, like the old prophet, but a mistaken preacher can kill you just as quickly as an old prophet if you allow it. Would you not agree also that most teachers of error have a clear conscience, not realizing their error? I will grant them that much sincerity.

We ought to demand of preachers more and more book, chapter, and verse preaching. Just tell us, preferably, far preferably, even to the extent of quoting directly, what the Bible says. Many preachers seem to assume we want to hear what they have to say. Why would we? Why, when we go to services to worship and to hear what God has to say, would we want to hear a man just giving his ideas and opinions?

We must have a clear conscience toward God, but that conscience must be educated in truth, as we have already shown. John says, "Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God." (1 John 3:21 NAS) That then is our goal, a conscience properly trained, with accurate knowledge, clear of conscience wrongdoing. When we have that, we have inner peace.

However, as was first pointed out in this piece, most of us are not in Paul's camp. We cannot say we have never violated our conscience; quite the contrary. In fact, the very nature of temptation and sin leads men into the violation of their conscience and into sin. James says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." (James 1:14-15 NAS)

We generally know when we are sinning. We know when we have been tempted. We know when we are giving in to it. We know that while we are doing it, it is wrong. Can a conscience violated, which is another way of saying a heart that has become impure, be restored to cleanliness again? If not, why did Jesus die? Did he die just for those sinners who were like Paul, or did he die for sinners of every stripe?

When David had sinned with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, the prophet Nathan came to him and confronted him. David knew his sin (2 Sam. 12), so it took but little to convince him of his evil. Psalm 51 is a record of David's reaction when confronted by his sin. Could he ever be restored? Could his conscience ever be made clean again?

Let us listen to a little of what he had to say in prayer to God. "Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me." (Psalms 51:1-3 NAS) Then verse 7, "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (NAS) And, finally, verse 10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." (Psalms 51:10 NAS)

Do you think God did that? Ask yourself why God wanted this passage recorded in holy writ? Why did he want it worded the way it was? For whose benefit was it written?

I think Paul answered that question in Rom. 15:4, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." (NAS) Do you not believe along with me that Psalms 51 and the things written therein were for you and me? Do the things written there not give us encouragement?

Can you be forgiven and once again live with a clear conscience? What do you believe the Bible teaches? What do you believe God did with David? Did he forgive him and restore within him a clean heart as David had asked? Do you think David will be in heaven?

What does God require of us when we have violated our conscience and sinned as did David? David says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." (Psalms 51:17 NAS)

The teaching of the Bible is not that we can totally forget the past. Paul always remembered what he had done in persecuting the saints unto the death, but he also said unto us, "one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:13b-14 NAS)

Memory will not be erased, but we can put the past behind us and move ahead with confidence that God will forgive us. We can once again walk with a good conscience.

For one like Saul, who became Paul the apostle, one who was not a Christian, we can do as he did. He came to faith in Christ, repented of his sins, and was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38) His conscience was now trained correctly, and he could henceforth walk by faith rather than by the traditions of the Pharisees. Had he not obeyed the gospel, he would have violated his conscience, for he now knew the truth.

I am convinced thousands and thousands are walking around even today who know they ought to obey the gospel, for their conscience tells them so. Their conscience is not clear. They are paying a price even now for their disobedience, for the conscience will not be quiet. They are not like Paul, but they could be. It is only a matter of the will, so simple but so hard for so many.

But there are others, Christians already, who have violated their conscience. Like David, who was once a faithful child of God under the Law of Moses, they have violated their conscience by sin. God will have them back and restore to them a clean heart and a clear conscience as they walk on down the road of life, but first, they must make the same decision David made. David wanted to come back. He repented. He prayed to God. He ceased to sin and walked in righteousness. That is what it will take.

A good, clean, clear conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Inner peace is better than inner war. God has left us the choice as to which we have. We get to decide. We can have whichever we prefer. It is our choice.  

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

Religious Titles Forbidden in Christianity

Years ago, I got into a discussion with a messianic Jew who insisted he had the right to use the title "Rabbi" without any violation of scripture. I pointed him to Matt. 23:8, "but you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren" (NKJV) to no avail. He is not alone, for you could point a Catholic priest to Matt. 23:9, "do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (NKJV), and it would have no effect upon him either.

Not only are men accepting religious titles, contrary to Jesus' teaching, but the general public is just as guilty in consenting to these titles. I have never seen a single instance in my lifetime of a Catholic priest being interviewed on TV without the interviewer calling him Father. Indeed, I suspect any interviewer who neglected to do so would lose his job. There is little doubt his superiors would call him on the carpet and accuse him of being disrespectful. There is no problem being disrespectful to Jesus and his command, but just do not offend the Catholic priest or the Catholic Church.

What did Jesus teach on this subject? The answer is found in Matt. 23:1-12:

"(1) Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, (2) saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. (3) Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (4) For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. (6) They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, (7) greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' (8) But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. (9) Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (10) And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. (11) But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.' " (NKJV)

In his condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says (verse 5), "all their works they do to be seen by men." The desire to be seen as a man superior to his fellowman, a man who ought to be bowed down to figuratively, if not literally, was the desire of the heart and the sin of the pride that resided within them. Jesus gives several examples of things they were doing and things they enjoyed that manifested this attitude. One of those things was to be called Rabbi, Rabbi. These men were being called Rabbi and loved it. It was wrong then to do this, but my messianic Jew says it is fine to do it today.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary on Matthew, says of the word Rabbi used here that, "It was a title given to eminent teachers of the law among the Jews; a title of honor and dignity, denoting authority and ability to teach." No doubt Barnes was correct in also saying that each time the word was used, "it implied their superiority to the persons who used it." (comments on Matt. 23:7) They thus reveled in having the title, for their desire was to be seen (recognized) by men (verse 5).

Jesus clearly gave the command, in verse 8 of Matthew 23, to not accept the title of Rabbi, for he says, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren." (NKJV) He gives two reasons. (1) Christ only is our teacher. (2) You are all brethren. The individual I was in discussion with says that what Jesus wanted us to understand from this passage was only that Christ is our ultimate teacher, that we need to keep that in mind, and that we are not specifically forbidden from using the word Rabbi as a title. He never considers the second reason Jesus gave for forbidding the use of the title—"you are all brethren." We all stand on equal footing before God. No one is special, no one gets a pass, and no one gets to exalt himself above the rest of the brethren.

The reader might find it interesting to know that you will not find the word Rabbi in the Old Testament. The Bible commentator Adam Clarke says of the word Rabbi, "None of the prophets had ever received this title, nor any of the Jewish doctors before the time of Hillel and Shammai, which was about the time of our Lord." You will find this in his comments on Matt. 23:8. Man had come up with a title to give to himself that pleased his vanity.

Jesus likewise forbids our calling anyone Father, as a religious title, in Matt. 23:9 already quoted. The word father is used in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament many times in many different ways. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words lists 9 different applications of the noun father as used in the New Testament alone. This means, obviously, that the word father can be used by men when used appropriately and not in the way Jesus condemned. What did Jesus condemn?

Jesus condemned me, you, and the neighbor next door from calling any man Father as a title in the spiritual realm. Reread Matt. 23:1-12 as many times as it takes to get the gist of what Jesus is getting at. There was a problem among men (the scribes and Pharisees in particular) in that they were seeking the praise, honor, and glory of men. They are proud and puffed up. They want to be recognized and acknowledged as superior. They desire titles. They do not want to be the servant of Matt. 23:11. They want to be exalted among men (Matt. 23:12). The warning to you and me is don't do it, don't allow it, don't call them what they want to be called, and don't reward their pride and vanity.

I am in full agreement with what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on the word father in Matt. 23:9 where he says, "But the word 'father' also denotes 'authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command, and a claim to particular respect.' In this sense it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to people. Christian brethren are equal."

Yes, Paul said to the Corinthians, "For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4:15 NKJV) Paul also referred to Timothy as his "true son in the faith." (1 Tim. 1:2 NKJV) He referred to Titus (Titus 1:4) and to Onesimus (Philemon 1:10) in a similar way.

In 2 Cor. 12:14, Paul implies that the church at Corinth is his children (making him their father), and likewise in Gal. 4:19 with reference to the churches of Galatia. John, the apostle, does the same sort of thing when he says, "My little children, these things I write to you." (1 John 2:1 NKJV) There are other passages with similar import.

It is said that Paul, John, and Peter also (1 Peter 5:13) are referring to themselves as spiritual fathers, so we can use the word father as a title in reference to priests who are spiritual fathers over their flock. There is a lot wrong with that line of thinking. Neither Paul, nor John, nor Peter was using the word as a title. They were rather simply describing the fact that by teaching and preaching the gospel, children of God had been begotten. That they felt some duty or obligation toward those whom they had taught the gospel, there is no doubt. Those who had obeyed the gospel under their preaching felt like children to them. They had a love for them and felt a kinship to them, much like a father toward his children, but that is as far as it went. They did not adopt the title Father and attach it to their name.

All three of these apostles would have recoiled in horror at the thought of being given the title Father. Paul says, "There is one God and Father of all." (Eph. 4:6 NKJV) Paul was not seeking the title of Father, had no desire to be called Father Paul, and that is just the opposite of the desire of the Catholic Church for their priests. I wonder what would happen in a Catholic congregation if all the membership suddenly stopped calling their priest Father and refused to do so. Would the fur start to fly?

[Paul compared himself and his companions not only to a father but also to a mother. In 1 Thess.2:7-8 Paul says to the church of the Thessalonians, "We were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us." (NKJV) Dear to us like a mother's children are to her.]

None of the apostles even took the word apostle as a title. They claimed to be apostles, for such they were, but not one time in scripture (I just searched my online concordance) will you find the word apostle before their name. An apostle was what they were, just as a man might be an elder (a bishop) or an evangelist in the church. These words were never meant to be titles or given as titles, but were rather descriptive of the work or role one had.

But there is more wrong with the Catholic position than just this. Their idea is that only certain men are priests (one per local church) and they have a spiritual priesthood over "their flock." Peter and John both teach that all Christians are priests, not just a select few. (Read 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev. 1:5-6.) There is also nothing in the New Testament giving authority to one man only to rule a congregation, or flock, if you want to designate it that way. This desire for position over others is what led to one man rule. If you will read your New Testament, you will find that every congregation was to be overseen by a plurality of elders (bishops), not just by one.

Paul and Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, "appointed elders in every church" (Acts 14:23 NKJV). Elders is plural, not singular. Every church was overseen by a group of men known as elders or bishops, not by a singular man designated the one and only priest of the congregation with the title of Father. Paul told Titus, "Appoint elders in every city as I commanded you." (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Remember, in New Testament times, there was only one church within a city, unlike today, so when Titus appointed elders in a city, he was appointing them within the church in that city. Every church had not a single elder but plural elders. The terms elder and bishop were used interchangeably and describe the same set of men (read Titus 1:5-7).

The Catholic position is thus wrong not just on a single count but on multiple counts. The desire for position and importance, for power and prestige, is what led to the concept of one man rule and the title of Father within the Catholic Church, but, as all know, it did not end just within the local congregations. Indeed, it only started there, for all know there is now a hierarchy within the Catholic Church. The next step up after becoming a father or priest in a local parish is to become a bishop, then archbishop, then cardinal, and ultimately Pope. But, I say, with a little sarcasm, it is not about titles, power, and position -- not in Catholicism.

It is said, by both the messianic Jew I was in discussion with and by the Catholics, that we cannot take the passages literally in Matt. 23. Why not? Jesus did. He was describing a real situation that then existed—men being called rabbi—and he said to stop doing it. That is as literal as it can get. He was attempting to stop a practice then in existence. It is still in existence because men desire the titles and the glory that go with them, and thus want to get around Jesus' command by trying to make his language out to be figurative. The context will not allow it.

In Matt. 23:10 Jesus says, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ." (NKJV) The word rendered teachers here is in other versions rendered masters (ASV, KJV, HCSB), instructors (ESV, NRSV), leaders (NAS, LITV), or directors (YLT). All of these translations are helpful, when taken as a group, for they give us a better idea of the meaning of the Greek that is being translated, better than any single word alone would. God wants teachers of his word, or else the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled, but a man can go out and teach and preach the word without taking a title. It is good to teach, not bad. What is bad is to want to be exalted for doing so. Don't allow men to give you a title. You do not need it.

Often, preachers are given titles like Reverend or Pastor. This is certainly a violation of the principle Jesus taught in Matt. 23 regarding the giving of titles. We can do the work God has given us to do without a title. Why desire a title? If I have a Ph.D. I can preach perfectly well without being called Dr. Smith. I do not need the title, and if my pride demands it and I want the attention, then I have a problem, don't I? If I want to be called Pastor or Reverend, I have a problem, don't I? To ask is to answer.

It is not wrong to say what we do. If I preach, it is not wrong to say I preach. If I teach, it is not wrong to say I teach. But the desire for a title and the recognition that goes with it is where the wrong comes in. Who am I? Who are you? We are just brothers and sisters in Christ, all equal within the body of Christ.

Finally, we have to recognize that Jesus was talking about the spiritual realm of life and not the secular in Matt. 23. He was talking about religion, not about medicine, not about education, not about the military, not about secular government, not about home and the family. We must have titles in the secular world. But I think that is so obvious that a child can see it. Jesus was not talking about the things of the world.

In this world, in secular affairs, we must have titles to designate knowledge and authority, but that is the whole point of Jesus' argument in Matt. 23 for he is saying in the spiritual realm it is different, as there is only one authority and that is God, so don't go around acquiring titles and making some pretense of authority you don't have. Don't accept a title and don't give one to others. That includes the uninspired Pope.

The teaching of scripture on these matters is plain enough, but men have sought out many inventions.

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

Obvious Errors of Catholicism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Why Men Do Not Believe

Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, asked the brethren to "pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you; and that we may be delivered from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith." (2 Thess. 3:2 NAS) The question I want to deal with in this article is why men do not believe. This is a question that has bothered me over the years, for it seems only natural to believe. Yet, I cannot deny what is obvious to all, just as Paul said, "not all have faith." What does the Bible have to say about the reasons for unbelief?

Paul said of himself, in talking about his past, how he was a persecutor of Christians, and then says, "I was shown mercy, because I acted ignorantly in unbelief." (1 Tim. 1:13 NAS) Thus, there was a time in Paul's life when he was an unbeliever. Yet, Paul, then known as Saul, was an honest man, for he says elsewhere in Acts 23:1 while standing before the Council or Sanhedrin that "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day" (NAS) or, as the NKJV puts it, "in all good conscience."

It would be easy to say unbelievers are all dishonest, but that will not work. Paul's case proves just the opposite. Paul, or Saul, was present from the very beginning of the Christian religion. In Acts 7, we are told that those who stoned Stephen "laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul." (Acts 7:58 NAS) And then we read in chapter 8, the first verse, that "Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death." (NAS) This was in the earliest days of Christianity.

One wonders why Saul was blinded to the miracles that were occurring in Jerusalem. Working back from Acts chapter 7, back from the time of Stephen's stoning, we find in Acts 6:8, "Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." (NAS) The footnote to verse 8 in the NAS says "attesting miracles." Even earlier in Acts 5:12, we are told, "By the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people." (NKJV) Is it likely that Saul was totally ignorant of these events, of what had been going on? Read also Acts 5:15-16. Was he unaware of how Ananias and Sapphira had been miraculously struck down? Was he unaware of Peter healing the lame man at the temple gate in Acts 3? Was he unaware of the veil of the temple being rent on the day of Christ's crucifixion? Were the priests denying that? More questions could be asked.

It is highly unlikely that Saul was totally unaware of everything that had been transpiring. He says in Acts 22:3 that he was raised in Jerusalem. That does not necessarily imply he was an eyewitness to everything that went on there, but one is reminded of what Cleopas said to Jesus, unknowingly, on the road to Emmaus, "Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?" (Luke 24:18 NAS) That was said before the disciples generally knew that Jesus had risen from the dead, but one wonders if much the same could not be said of Saul in the days of which we speak. Are you the only one who does not know of the miraculous events occurring here in the name of Jesus Christ?

Yet, Saul was an honest unbeliever. My point is this: here we have a man with a world of evidence before him, but he is not willing to accept it. Why not? How do we explain it? I cannot except for one statement that Paul made later.

I refer to Gal. 1:13-14, "For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions." (NAS) Vine says the Greek word here for zealous means "an uncompromising partisan." Thayer says "one burning with zeal." Not just zealous but burning with zeal.

With unbelievers who are extremely zealous, even in their error, their misguided zeal blinds the mind and heart to the extent that even miracles have no effect upon them. Paul, evidently, fit into that category for a time. No doubt, this is one reason it is so hard to convert one who holds false doctrine zealously.

Paul says in Rom. 10:2 of his fellow countrymen, "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge." (NAS) They were where he once was--religious but unbelievers—zealots. The Bible teaches that zeal itself is not a bad thing (Gal. 4:18), is good, but it must be based on knowledge.

Looking back over all of this, the one lesson that ought to be burned into our minds is that zeal does not make right. Zeal proves nothing about truth or error. The Catholics were zealous centuries ago, while burning men and women at the stake, just as Saul was in agreeing that Stephen ought to be put to death. Zeal is no measure of truth.

Extreme zeal blinds. It gives one tunnel vision, all the while destroying one's ability to reason. We see this in radical Islam, but its blinding power is seen in many different places. Many hold to atheism with extreme zeal, along with the theory of evolution, especially in the academic world. The Nazi's of Germany of WW II come to mind as another example. People often have extreme zeal for whatever they believe in, resulting in the truth being hidden from them.

We also learn from Paul's case that truth is not dependent on my feelings about it. I may be totally opposed to the truth in all good conscience, but that will not turn my error into the truth, nor will it transform the truth into error. Jacob believed a lie and was sure Joseph was dead upon seeing the blood-stained robe of many colors (Gen. 37:33). His feelings did not make the error true. Trust your feelings and you risk your eternal life. "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool." (Prov. 28:26 NKJV) We must trust what God's word says and not our feelings about it.

Yet, I think there is little doubt that in religion today, feelings generally prevail over what is plainly recorded in scripture. How I feel about an issue is what matters. It is also what will destroy. It is what God says about an issue that counts, not how I feel about it. Too many of us want to tell God how he ought to view matters, view them the way we want.

Men also fail to believe when their minds will not allow them to think otherworldly. The truth is incomprehensible to them, beyond belief. They can only believe what they see or know with their senses. They live by human instinct. They cannot think beyond the physical flesh and blood realm of existence. Life after death, the resurrection of the dead, God, all these things are beyond comprehension to them. It just cannot be. It is incomprehensible. They see themselves as advanced evolutionary animals, but never consider the first cause or source.

A good Bible example of this was when Jesus went back to his hometown--Nazareth. The Bible reads in Matt. 13:54-58, "And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said, 'Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?' And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.' And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief." (NAS)

They said of him, "Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers?" That should have been easy to answer if you were willing to admit the man did miracles. They admitted he did. However, all human reasoning was against Jesus being associated with deity, for they had known him and his family all their life. It made no sense to them. It just could not be. It was impossible.

Another example was when Jesus was resurrected. You remember when Mary Magdalene saw Jesus after he was resurrected and then went back to the disciples and told them. The Bible says, "They refused to believe it." (Mark 16:11 NAS) Then, when the two who were with Jesus on the road to Emmaus came back and reported the same to the disciples, after Mary had, the Bible says, "They did not believe them either." (Mark 16:13 NAS)

They were like Saul on the road to Damascus; they had to personally experience the miracle to believe. Jesus had to come into their presence, and when he did, he rebuked them for their unbelief (Mark 16:14). Men do not rise from the dead. How is it possible? It was beyond the realm of all human reason and experience, too wild to imagine.

What do we learn from these two examples--Jesus' trip to his hometown and the disciples' refusal to believe the resurrection? We learn that some cannot believe because their mindset is such that if a thing is outside the realm of human experience and personal knowledge, it is unfathomable and cannot be. The mind is closed to such things.

Today, we would say they have a scientific mindset. If a matter is outside the realm of scientific study, unrelated to all known laws of physics and science, then there can be no truth to the thing. Much of the world today does not believe in life after death or a resurrection of the dead. Their mindset will not allow it. Nothing exists that is beyond the realm of human scientific knowledge, as they see it, for that would be impossible, nothing other worldly that is, nothing of another dimension or realm of existence.

They are so stuck in this way of thinking about life that they have come up with what they consider the scientific answer to the earth's creation and life on earth. They will tell you what happened millions and millions of years ago with a straight face and will consider you a fool if you doubt them. They are convinced that men evolved from sea creatures that crawled up on shore millions and millions of years ago and evolved. They do not think that is an incredible thing. They can believe that because they think they can reason that out scientifically. The only foolishness with them is the idea of God.

But what else does the Bible have to say about why men do not believe? Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:3-4, "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (NAS)

When a person is young and seemingly has what he or she perceives to be 40 or 50 years of productive life left in this world it is easy to get so caught up in education, acquisition, achievement, career building, marriage, and raising a family that there is no time or interest in a spiritual life. This continues once started pretty much on into old age.

These are people who don't believe because they have never given themselves a chance to believe. There is always too much to do, too much going on, to even give thought to God or the gospel.

Luke describes these people as those beside the road, "who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved." (Luke 8:12 NAS) The Bible says, "A natural man, does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Cor. 2:14 NAS) The natural man is the man caught up in that which is natural to man--the desire for the life of this world. The things related to God are foolishness to him, the Bible says.

In Matthew's account of the parable of the sower, Jesus says of such a one of whom we are speaking that he did not understand the word and thus "the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart." (Matt. 13:19 NAS) He does not say why such a person does not understand, but we know without his saying simply by asking a couple of questions. Did God give us his word in such a way that it could not be understood and thus was to be hidden from man? What was God's intent when he gave us his word?

A man who does not understand God's word is a man who has no desire to give it the time and attention necessary to learn it, for he has other things of more interest on his mind. He is Paul's natural man of 1 Cor. 2.

The natural man here is one whose mind is centered solely on achievement and enjoyment of this world. Jesus said, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" (John 5:44 NAS) This is the kind of man we are talking about, a man centered on achievement or acquisition in this world.

Then there are men who simply enjoy sin, which the Bible speaks of as the "passing pleasures of sin." (Heb. 11:25 NKJV) Jesus said, John 3:19-20, "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." (NAS) "Men loved the darkness" is just another way of saying they loved sin. These are people who do not want to believe, for they love sin (love the darkness) and thus are unwilling to believe.

I have not at all exhausted this study of why men do not believe. I am always searching to understand, but it is time to conclude for now. I conclude with this: belief is a choice. If it were not, how could we be condemned for not believing? "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark16:16 NKJV)

We believe what we want to believe, and we can always find a way to justify our belief. That said, there is always a motive for believing the way we do. This is not to say evidence does not exist for what we may or may not believe but it is to say our heart's desire often leads us to not weigh the evidence that is available fairly and impartially. We become subjective rather than objective in our reasoning process. Truth does exist, but the heart makes it hard to find in the minds of men.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it frees us up to enjoy what the Bible calls "the passing pleasures of sin" (Heb. 11:25 NAS) without any threat of retribution. We can achieve and receive the adoration and praise of men. It is a lot more convenient if God does not exist, at least in the here and now. We do not want him to exist; we do not want the Bible to be true, if our love is for this life and this world.

Those who do not believe have the same evidence as those who do believe. What makes the difference then? Often it comes down to just this one thing. The believer has a desire for "a better, that is, a heavenly country." (Heb. 11:16 NKJV) The unbeliever is satisfied with this world and does not want another. One wants and desires God, the other does not. The evidence remains the same for both.

If the unbeliever came to belief he would have to change his life. He loves this world. It is soothing to his soul to not give the Bible a thought. We believe what we want. The unbeliever wants to believe it is not so, for he has a great stake in it not being true. He has staked his eternal life on it not being so. The Bible cannot be true for if it is he stands condemned. He has no desire to believe that. We believe what we want to believe. That is why disbelief is a sin. It is a sin because it was and is a choice. Bad choices in life just about always lead to disaster. The Bible being true, surely the choice of disbelief will be no exception.

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

Though He Slay Me

The title for this article comes from the Old Testament book of Job, chapter 13, verse 15, where Job makes the statement, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” (NKJV)

The story of Job as told in the Old Testament is one of pain, suffering, and sorrow, of the loss of loved ones (sons and daughters), of possessions, of health, and very nearly of hope. His state got to be such that his wife’s advice was, “Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9 NKJV) Death was seen as preferable to life as it was. While Job agreed that his death was preferable to life yet the idea of cursing God was anathema to him (Job 2:10).

In the next chapter he expresses a sentiment I became very familiar with in my own father’s last days when life became more of a burden and a trial for him than a treasure to be held onto. Job says, “Why is light given to him who is in misery, and life to the bitter of soul, who long for death, but it does not come, and search for it more than hidden treasures; who rejoice exceedingly, and are glad when they can find the grave?” (Job 3:20-22 NKJV)

There are questions we can ask that we will never have an answer to in this life; this is one of them. I have sometimes wondered if, in cases like my Dad’s, life was not prolonged for the testing and maturing of the caregivers, for our benefit, but who can say? None of us can. We only make wild speculations, but it is certain God has his reason.

God had a reason in the case of Job and while the whole reason was never completely revealed to Job we are given a glimpse of what was going on behind the scenes and out of human sight. Who can say today what is going on behind the scenes and out of sight?

James talks about Job in James 5:11 where he says, “Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord--that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.” (NKJV) We say, as I did, that James said this. So he did. However, these were truly the words of the Holy Spirit speaking through James about Job.

Hundreds of years after the fact, God saw fit to use James as his mouthpiece and reveal more of the purpose behind suffering that seemed without reason or purpose, even unjust at the time. Job was to be an example for mankind (along with the prophets--James 5:10-11) of the kind of patience and endurance we are to have and it is made known to us that the end result of all such godly endurance is to be blessings from God who is “very compassionate and merciful.”

I am reminded of Paul’s words in Rom. 8:18, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” (NKJV) He is speaking to Christians.

Do you ever despair in your life? I know Paul did at least once. He said in 2 Cor. 1:8-9, speaking of the trouble he had in Asia, “we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead.” (NKJV) Paul speaks as though he was prepared to die at that point in time.

We can get to that point, to a point where we basically have given it all we can give, done all we can, and have come to the end of our rope. It can be in any area of life, not just concerning the matter of physical life.

Perhaps you have struggled financially, done all you can do, and have gotten nowhere, and now wonder what you will do, perhaps even reaching a point of desperation. You find no answers. In an article in a recent edition of the local area newspaper, I read of a woman who had been living in an alley with her two children, eating out of garbage dumps, until finally someone was made aware of her plight and came to her aid. Yes, we have desperate people living among us in despair, not knowing where to turn or what to do, who, like Paul, have nearly given up.

With others, it may be in family relationships. Every year, hundreds of families are deserted by a mother or dad, a husband or wife, through no fault of the innocent party (yes, there are some innocent parties). Desperation, fear, and despair set in. How will we go on becomes the question.

One could list figuratively a thousand things that can happen in a person’s life where it looks like hope is gone, and we have no options, and the point I want to make here is that there is no use in trying to smooth things over and say it does not get that bad, or it is just our imagination. Things can literally get that bad. Ask Paul (2 Cor. 1:8). Sometimes we just find ourselves in a situation where it is beyond any control or ability that we have to effect a positive change.

The question then becomes, what am I to do if I find myself in a situation that seems to be nearly unbearable and yet it is beyond my control to bring about change, as was the case with Job (and with Paul)? Paul said trust in God (2 Cor. 1:9). Job said the same thing (Job 13:15). We can trust in God no matter what comes, and we can pray.

I knew a lady once, a Christian woman, who said she prayed regularly, all of the time, and it did not do any good. I am convinced she prayed sincerely and was telling the truth about her supplications to God. Do we get to feeling the same way? Job did. He was praying fervently, and it did not seem God was answering him.

One thing we can learn from Job’s experience is that while we may think God is not hearing our prayers, that is not the case. God is well aware of what is happening to us and what we are going through. He knew Job’s situation. We also learn that he will respond in his own time and in the way he sees best, and taking the long view of things, we can be assured his way is the best way for us, even though at the time it may not seem that way.

Things may well not get better for us as far as our earthly plight goes. Paul spoke of his thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him, that he prayed three times that it would be removed from him, and perhaps would have continued on praying indefinitely about the matter had not God spoken to him. God’s answer was, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor. 12:9 NKJV) This also may very well be the answer we must accept in our own lives.

In Hebrews 11, the Bible says, “Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented--of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.” (Heb. 11:36-38 NKJV)

Do you wonder if any of these people ever prayed for a change in their life’s circumstances? Jesus did for his. We remember his prayer in Gethsemane, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39 NKJV). Yes, I suspect many prayers were offered by those mentioned in Hebrews 11. God’s people are praying people by definition. Would you have prayed had you been in their shoes? You know you would have, and thus you know they did also.

James tells us, “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.” (James 1:2-4 NKJV) Here is good that can come from our suffering.

Although I consider the New Living Translation a paraphrase, if I think it accurately reflects the meaning of a passage to make it clearer, then I sometimes use it. This is one such case as found in 1 Peter 1:6-7:

“So be truly glad. There is wonderful joy ahead, even though you have to endure many trials for a little while. These trials will show that your faith is genuine. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold – though your faith is far more precious than mere gold. So when your faith remains strong through many trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world.”

We can, if we are not careful, get to the point that we feel God does not care, but there is always a reason behind our suffering, even if unknown to us, as was pointed out earlier in reference to Job’s suffering.

We may have to suffer much in life, but if we remain steadfast through it, as Christians, then we will receive our reward, an inheritance eternally with Christ in heaven--life everlasting.

No, we do not understand. We know why Jesus had to die and what God’s purpose was behind that, but why did Stephen have to die so soon after the preaching of the gospel and the establishment of the church? Why did Paul have to suffer so much? Jesus had said he would, “For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” (Acts 9:16 NKJV) We have to believe God is being active behind the scenes and trust him, believe it will all work out in the end, even if we die getting to that end.

All of this brings us back to the beginning, to Job. What is going on? He did not know, did not know why. He did know God had the power to intervene if he was willing. But it all came down to this in the end, “though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” (Job 13:15 NKJV)

So, how about me, how about you? What do we do when our world has fallen apart, and it seems as though God is not listening, and hope is almost a thing of the past? First, we remember we were not the first and only ones to be in that state. Others have been in the same boat as we, and many were not rescued other than by death itself. There is no guarantee that what we think is best is what will come to pass. We are in God’s hands. His will will be done, just as Jesus prayed in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus’ prayer, in that respect, has to be our prayer, “not as I will, but as you will." (Matt. 26:39 NKJV)

Secondly, as Job said, even “though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” To whom else can we turn? Who else can bring us out on the other side? We must be resigned to his will in our life, trust and obey, and believe that in the final settling of accounts, God will be merciful to those who love him, no matter what may come. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (Peter, John 6:68 NKJV)

I remind the reader that death is not an unmitigated evil. For the righteous, it is the end of suffering and the entrance way into glory. If that is the way God chooses to rescue us from our trial, so be it. He is taking us to a better place where there is no more sorrow or suffering. That is a pretty good answer to prayer, even if it is not what we were seeking.

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