Christ the Savior of the Church But Which One

Paul tells us, "Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) This passage is clear-cut and easy to understand, save for one thing--what body is he the savior of? The New Testament teaches the body is the church (Col. 1:24, Eph. 1:22-23), so is it the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Nazarene Church, or one of the hundreds of others that could be named? Many would say it is all of them taken collectively. Is it? It is a subject worthy of study, for if we do not get it right we will be found outside the body Jesus saves on the Day of Judgment.

It is essential that we understand when Paul said Jesus was the "savior of the body," he was talking about the church already in existence, a church that would continue to exist until the end of time. The church is the body, "And he (God the Father--DS) put all things under his (Jesus'--DS) feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV) Paul says again in Col. 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the church." (NKJV) The church is thus Christ's spiritual body, which Christ will save at the last day as he is the savior of the body. Being a church member then is essential for salvation. There is not a word in scripture about salvation outside the body of Christ, outside the church.

However, we still have the burden of figuring out just which church it is that Christ is going to save as we have hundreds and hundreds of churches today. Is there any help in figuring it out? Yes, quite a bit.

I will start with what ought to be obvious to all. If the church of which a person is a member began centuries after the New Testament was written, it is not the church that Jesus said he would save. How do we know? The church Jesus established and over which he was and is the Savior was established in the first century on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Let us say just as an example that a church began in the 1600's. If a person claims the church of which he is a member is the one which Jesus built and is the Savior of and yet it was not begun until the 1600's one does not have to be a mathematical genius to see the timeline does not fit.

Are we to believe Jesus saved people in a church that did not exist? Are we to believe Jesus saved people in any of the hundreds of churches now in existence before they were founded? A little common sense goes a long way. If people were saved in the hundreds of years before the Reformation and the establishment of the multitudes of churches we have today, it only proves those churches were never needed for salvation and were not a part of the church Jesus saved and is saving. It proves they are man-made churches. Jesus promised to save his church, not man-made churches.

That the church was begun in the first century is so self-evident from even a casual glance at scripture, I do not want to spend much time on it here. Many of Paul's salutations in the epistles establish that fact, for he often begins with words like, "To the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2 NKJV), "To the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2 NKJV), "To the church of the Thessalonians" (1 Thess. 1:2 NKJV). It is hard to write to a body not yet established, to something that does not exist. The church was begun on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, commencing with those who responded to Peter's preaching that day. In Acts 2:47 the New King James Version of the Bible reads, "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." Much more could be written on the establishment of the church but that is not the purpose of this particular article.

Every denomination that exists today was built many hundreds of years after Christ built his church. This puts every one of them in a terrible bind. Only emotion can rescue them; there is no hope that reason can. How can one claim his church, speaking by way of accommodation, is the church Jesus built when one takes chronology into account? People were saved and added to the church that Jesus is saving for many hundreds of years before any denomination existed.

If you admit the obvious that your denomination is not the church Christ built, then troubling questions arise. Why does it exist? Who built it? Jesus built his church but the chronology says your church is not his church, so who built it? Was Jesus' church insufficient by itself without your church (denomination)? If he did not build your denomination but man did, who gave man the right? Where is the Bible authority for any man to go out and build a church in addition to God's church? That is the very thing that happened if God's church already existed before your denomination.

If your church is not the church Jesus built then how can it be a friend to Christ's church? It is in competition with Christ's church. If it taught the same thing Christ's church taught (the same doctrine), was the same in organization, work, worship, the same in every respect, then it would be his church and not a denomination, and yet I have never known a denominational person willing to declare that his church is the church Jesus built. Why not? Because that would make it exclusive as Christ built only one and that would necessarily exclude others in other denominations.

I think men generally realize these things, it is only common sense, a little logic, pretty much like two plus two equals four, simple reasoning, and yet it is so troubling to allow our minds to dwell on these things that we quickly shut the thoughts off before anxiety sets in. If we do not see an answer, a way out, our mind seems to say let it go. We pretend the problem is not there, is non-existent, and we refuse to think about it lest it cause us worry, concern, and trouble. But, like cancer, if the problem is there, it will not go away on its own and, sooner or later, one way or another, we will be forced to deal with it. It refuses to be swept under the rug and forgotten. There is a Judgment Day when we will have to provide answers as to what we did and why in our lives.

Often the answer that comes up is that all the denominations taken together are the church Jesus built. We all know deep down that is not true, but again we do not like to think about it. Every one of them was built hundreds of years after the fact by man, not by God. Add to that more denominations are being established all the time.

We also know that they do not teach the same doctrines nor practice the same things. One denomination is open to gay marriage and homosexuality, to women in leadership roles, to sprinkling for baptism, to this or that while another denomination is one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction on these issues and others. Their doctrines are as far apart as the East is from the West. They are not of one mind nor one practice.

To get everybody to heaven who just believes in Jesus, which is a belief commonly held, means there is no such thing as truth and that the things Jesus and the apostles taught about Christian living are at best simply good advice, not commandments, and are irrelevant to salvation. In the denominational world, one man's truth is another man's lie. Let a Baptist and an Episcopalian get together and talk about Christianity and homosexuality and see what happens. I use that as only an example. Make no mistake about it, if denominationalism with its generally held belief that we are all going to heaven just so we believe is to be accepted, a man must also accept the idea that neither truth nor practice matters. There is just no way in the world of getting around that.

In this article, I have said nothing about the Roman Catholic Church as I have excluded it from the denominational world. However, it does not get a free ride.  The question with it is whether a totally apostate church can be saved. However, that is an article for another time.

We can answer the question "Christ the Savior of the church but which one" by saying it is none of the denominations, but it is the church Jesus himself built. It is the church restored to what it was on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 in terms of initiation into it and whose work, worship, and organization is defined and limited by the New Testament scriptures. What is true for an individual Christian is also true of a group of Christians, namely, a church: "Anyone who does not remain in Christ's teaching but goes beyond it does not have God." (2 John 9 CSB)

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

Parable of the Tares -- No Middle Ground

The story of the parable of the tares is found in Matt. 13:24-30 and explained by Jesus in verses 36-43. I quote the parable as follows:

"Another parable he put forth to them, saying: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, 'First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.''" (Matt. 13:24-30 NKJV)

There has been debate over the years about this parable as to whether or not the kingdom referred to is the church or the entirety of the world, all of humanity, over which God rules. It is the world for in Jesus’ explanation of the parable he says as much, “The field is the world.” (Matt. 13:38 NKJV) The emphasis in the parable is the contrast between the wheat and the tares. There is no middle ground to be had. One is either a tare (a weed in the newer translations) or wheat and which one it is makes all the difference.

Let us say for the sake of argument the parable is a reference to people in the church. It is not but let us say for the moment it is. There is no middle ground there to reside in. You still have an either/or scenario. If the ungodly in the church are not to be saved then what hope does that leave for the ungodly outside the church? The answer is none. All outside the church are ungodly in that they have never obeyed the gospel and are sinners in God’s sight. If you have not obeyed the gospel and you are old enough to do so then you are still in your sins.

All the godly are in the church. One cannot be godly and be outside the church for the same process that saves a man (gospel obedience) makes him, by God’s grace, godly. God adds the saved, the godly ones, to the church. "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV) The church is that which Jesus is the Savior of. "Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) The "body" is the church. "And he put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body." (Eph. 1:22-23 NKJV)

If a person is saved he is in the church, the body of Christ, but this does not mean once saved always saved for a Christian can fall away and become ungodly, even become a disbeliever, later in life.

In a practical sense as far as what will happen in the last day, the Day of Judgment, everyone is a tare who is not saved whether in the church or outside it. All outside the church are going to be gathered together to be burned along with any tares that are found in the church. Again, the parable is not about the ungodly in the church but those who are ungodly in the church will not be saved.

While Peter may have had (?) reference to the Roman invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 when he penned the following passage he nevertheless made a point we all need to give consideration to. He said, "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17 NKJV) What indeed? When one obeys the gospel the Lord adds that person to the body of Christ, the church, where the saved abide.

Paul talks of Jesus' second coming and says this, "When the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, when he comes, in that day." (2 Thess. 1:7-10 NKJV) We see no middle ground. One has either obeyed the gospel or he has not.

It brings me great sadness to know people I care about and realize that to them gospel obedience and faithfulness is no big deal. What are they thinking? Do they think the Bible is a fairy tale and there is no judgment to come? Do they believe you cannot trust God's word, that all the talk about eternal fire and gnashing of teeth is just so much hyperbole? Have they followed hook, line, and sinker the common opinion that as long as you are a decent human being you will be saved? Do they think they are special and God is going to give them a free pass despite their shunning of him, disrespect, and lack of love for him? Or, is it that they are just so "this-worldly" that they cannot give spiritual matters the time of day? What are they thinking? I do not know but does it matter what the motive for disobedience is when the result is the same regardless?

They live their lives giving God little to no consideration. "The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts." (Psalms 10:4 NKJV) No, to you and me they do not seem "wicked" as we generally think of wicked people but we must remember we do not think as God thinks nor do we see or understand as he does. "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways," says the Lord." (Isa. 55:8 NKJV) Besides, if we are honest, and we stop and think about it, we know a person who does not seek God is proud in that he thinks he can do fine without giving God a primary place in his/her life.

If we don't care about God while living why should we think we shall be saved in the Day of Judgment? Whatever other lessons are to be found in the parable of the tares this one stands out to me -- there is no middle ground. One is either wheat or a tare, saved or lost, has obeyed the gospel or hasn't obeyed the gospel, loves God or does not love God. How we desire middle ground, if not for ourselves for others, but there is no middle ground to be had. It is finally heaven or hell.

"Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. The son of man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 13:40-42 NKJV)

There is no middle ground but unlike in the physical realm where a species cannot help but be whatever it is in the spiritual realm a tare can be changed into wheat if the desire is there to make the change. God's desire is to save, not to cast into the furnace of fire. "The Lord … is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) "Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" says the Lord God, "and not that he should turn from his ways and live?" (Ezek. 18:23 NKJV) "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord God. "Therefore turn and live!" (Ezek. 18:32 NKJV)

Yes, turn and live for there is no middle ground.

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

 

The Way Into Christ

It is only human nature to want the way to heaven to be as broad and all-inclusive as possible thus the more ways into Christ that can be found the better from a human perspective.  We have people we want to see saved and yet we are pretty sure they are not due to either the way they are living or to the beliefs they hold thus a broad gate and a wide way to heaven would suit us just fine.  But it goes without saying that our love for one who does not walk in the light of truth cannot change the truth itself.  No man is saved “unconditionally” which is to say saved regardless of belief, character, and conduct.  God saves sinners, true enough, but not while they actively engage in the practice of sin unrepentantly.

The fact remains that no matter how much we desire another’s salvation it is up to them to bring their life into accord with God’s will for neither you nor I can broaden the gate.  “Narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life and there are few who find it.” (Matt. 7:14 NKJV)

Salvation is found only in Christ.  “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12 NKJV)  Jesus said he was “the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 NKJV)  Again, he says, “I am the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:9 NKJV)

The point I want to drive home is that salvation is found “in Christ” and not “out of Christ.”  Paul speaks of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV)  Redemption “is in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 3:24 NKJV)  Elsewhere Paul says Christ “is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)  The body of which he is the Savior is his spiritual body, the church, for the church is his body (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) which makes being “in Christ” essential.  We must be in that which Christ is going to save.  “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation,” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) emphasis on “in Christ” and not out of him.  Thus it is essential to be “in Christ” for that is where “every spiritual blessing” is found (Eph. 1:3 NKJV) which, of course, includes salvation itself. 

Having firmly established that salvation is found “in Christ” how then does one enter into Christ?  How many ways are there?  The Bible teaches there are conditions for entering into Christ, prerequisites if you will, namely faith, repentance, and confession all of which are absolutely essential to salvation but none of those things by themselves or even taken collectively will put you “into Christ.”  Only baptism is said to do that--no not baptism by itself  but baptism that is built on faith accompanied by repentance with a willingness to confess Christ.  Baptism is the final step one takes to enter Christ and find salvation in him.

Hear the language Paul uses:  “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV), “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV), “for by one spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) speaking of the body of Christ.  Baptism puts one into Christ where salvation is found.

How does this accord with the examples of conversions as we find them in Acts?  In Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon was preached that was ever preached and that by inspiration of the apostle Peter (the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter) people were made believers.  Were they saved?  God did not consider them saved for his command to them through Peter was “repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV)  Denominationalism would say they were saved after faith and repentance and the rest of God’s command to them that day (be baptized) was not needed for salvation.  Well, who are you going to believe?  We ought to believe Peter and the Holy Spirit and not our denominational pastors.

Peter said, “Every one of you.”  There were to be and are to be no exceptions.  This brings to mind Paul’s statement to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV)  Note here again the phrase “we were all”--that is every one of us.  No, Paul did not do a lot of baptizing personally but that it was done as a result of his preaching and by those working with him there is no doubt for “many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8 NKJV)  No one was considered as “one of them” who was not baptized either on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:38) or at Corinth (1 Cor. 12:13).

Paul himself was made a believer and repented when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus.  Was he saved?  Jesus told him directly, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”   The Lord sent Ananias to tell him what he must do.  What did Ananias tell him?  “Now why are you waiting?  Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (Acts 22:16 NKJV)  When a man’s sins are gone, washed away, he is “in Christ.”  So no, Paul was not saved on the road to Damascus even though he came to faith and repentance there, not if the word “must” means must.

Paul equates baptism into Christ with putting on Christ.  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)  When I put on a coat I am in the coat.  When I put on Christ I am in Christ.  That is where I need to be for that is where salvation is found.  Can one be in Christ who has not put on Christ?

We need to always remember Jesus himself commanded baptism (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)--the Great Commission.  Why did he do so if it does not matter to him and is non-essential for salvation?  Put yourself for a short moment of time into the apostles' shoes who received this commission (verse 20 teaches we have received that commission as well for it has been handed down to us).  Jesus tells them to make disciples (learners, those who will follow one’s teaching) of all nations baptizing them (Matt. 28:19).  That is a command.  There is no choice about it.

Question--how do you do that in today’s world where people have swallowed the denominational line that you need not be baptized?  We are commanded to baptize those made disciples yet they refuse thinking it unnecessary even though Jesus commanded it.  It ought to be obvious that discipleship ends at that point where one bulks at a command and refuses obedience.

I have said nothing on Mark 16:16, the words of Jesus, “he who believes and is baptized will be saved” but do I need to?  I do not think so.  If words mean anything it is self-explanatory.

I want to deal with some objections.  There are many passages in the Bible that if one wants to be a careless scholar he can lead himself astray.  For example, take a passage like Rom. 5:1-2, written by Paul, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (NKJV)  Or, here is another, “even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.” (Rom. 3:22 NKJV)  A careless scholar takes these passages and many similar ones found throughout the New Testament and says “see, here it is, salvation is by faith and baptism has nothing to do with it.”

Some things are obvious about this kind of scholarship.  For one thing, it pits the writer, Paul, against himself not only in other books of the Bible but in this very same book itself--the book of Romans.  If the reader will just read on to chapter 6 he will find baptism.

“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death 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.  For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.  For he who has died has been freed from sin.  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” (Rom. 6:3-8 NKJV)

How about the person who has not been baptized into Christ’s death?  What if you have not been “united together in the likeness of his death?” (Rom. 6:5)  The text says “if we have.” (Rom. 6:5)  It does not say “if we have not.”  Baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6:3) and that being the case it is also into the benefits or blessings of Christ’s death.  You only walk in newness of life, a new creature, a new creation, when you arise as such from the waters of baptism for “our old man was crucified with him.” (Rom. 6:6)  Crucifixion means death.  We were baptized “into death.” (Rom. 6:4)  We arise from the baptismal waters to “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4) because “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5: 17 NKJV)  The text says “If we died with Christ.” (Rom. 6:8)  It does not say “if we do not die with Christ.”  We need to read and reason as we do so.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jesus speaking, John 3:3, NKJV)  “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Jesus, John 3:5 NKJV)

A man is saved by faith, the Bible teaches that, but it is a faith that truly believes and thus acts.  That is why on the Day of Pentecost when God told the people, speaking through Peter, to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins the people did it.  Why, because they believed God’s message.  That is why Paul, then known as Saul, was baptized when God speaking through Ananias told him to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins.  Why?  Because he believed what God’s messenger Ananias told him.

Faith or belief has been perverted today.  Thus today you cannot read Peter’s sermon as delivered on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, believe it, and be accepted as a man of faith by the majority in Christendom.  Why, because the consensus is today that you do not have to believe what Peter said to do for the remission of sins and if you do believe it that is heresy.  Thus there can be no faith in what Peter preached as a command to the people that day.  Faith today thus means no faith.  Yes, it is strange and hard to reason out (maybe because there is no reason to it).  It is a perversion of faith.  Scriptural faith means you believe what Peter preached, not disbelieve it.

In the Bible when it comes to salvation faith and obedience are so linked together that there can be no saving faith without the obedience that proceeds from it.  Here is a perfect example.  Heb. 3:18-19, “And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who did not obey?  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” (NKJV)  Why did the children of Israel under Moses’ leadership not enter the land of Canaan, the land of rest?  Because they heard God’s command to go take the land but they did not believe God (did not believe he would give them the power to overcome the inhabitants) and not believing they would not obey.  That is where most of Christendom is today with baptism.  They know what the Bible clearly says about it but they are unwilling to obey because they do not believe plain statements of scripture concerning baptism’s function and purpose.

One thing that would help men greatly in understanding faith is if they would learn what a synecdoche is.  A synecdoche is a figure of speech “by which we speak of the whole by a part, or a part by using a term denoting the whole…This is many times the case with the salvation of sinners.  The whole number of conditions is indicated by the use of one.  Generally the first one is mentioned-that of faith-because without it nothing else could follow.” (Prof. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, Pages 300-305)  We should not read the Bible, come across the word faith, and think without giving it thought that it necessarily means mental assent alone.  Be a scholar and study it out and see based on the context and the totality of New Testament teaching on the subject what the word means where it is located.

I want to deal with one other passage and that by Peter before closing.  In Acts 10:43 Peter is at the house of Cornelius preaching and says this, “To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins.” (NKJV)  This is the same Peter who preached on the Day of Pentecost that those there must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.  Has he now changed his tune in chapter 10, at a later date, and is he now preaching another gospel?

No, for in the New Testament faith and baptism fit together as a unit.  It is simple, if you believe, if you truly believe, you are baptized.  Again, did Peter change his tune here versus what he taught on the Day of Pentecost, no not at all.  The text says five verses later, speaking of Peter addressing Cornelius and his household, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 10:48 NKJV)  One who believes in Jesus believes what Jesus said and what Jesus said was “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  What Jesus said was, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  Yes, even Cornelius had to be baptized and was “commanded” to do it.

Baptism is a test of the purity or sincerity of faith.  It is not whether you believe me but whether you believe Jesus and his apostles.  Yes, there is only one way into Christ but man has sought out many inventions to try and circumvent the way of the Lord. 

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

    

Mary of Bethany--Doing What You Can

Sometimes even when we do well we receive criticism and blame as though what we did was evil rather than good.  Such was the case with Mary of Bethany, a friend of Jesus and one whom Jesus loved (John 11:5).  If you are not familiar with the story of Mary who anointed Jesus with some very expensive oil of spikenard not long before his arrest, trial, and crucifixion you can read the account in Matt. 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8.

I will summarize the story for you briefly.  A supper had been made for Jesus (John 12:2) in the home of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3).  Jesus was there as the invited guest along with others which included his disciples (Matt. 26:8), and Martha, Lazarus, and Mary (John 12:2-3), the latter three being a brother and his two sisters.  This was the same Lazarus that Jesus had raised from the dead (John 12:1, 9).  While Jesus was reclined at the table, according to the custom of the time, Mary came up behind him with a flask of fragrant oil (John 12:5), opened it, and anointed both his head and feet with the oil (Matt. 26:7, John 12:3).

This angered some among them.  "When his disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, 'To what purpose is this waste?  For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.'" (Matt. 26:8-9 NKJV)  Mark says, "They criticized her sharply." (Mark 14:5 NKJV)  Jesus intervened on her behalf saying, "Let her alone.  Why do you trouble her?  She has done a good work for me. … She has done what she could.  She has come beforehand to anoint my body for burial.  Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the whole world, what this woman did will also be spoken of as a memorial to her." (Mark 14:6-9 NKJV)  Is that not what we are doing even now as we bring up this story and seek lessons from it?

Mary of Bethany loved Jesus deeply and had "sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word" gladly (Luke 10:39 NKJV) at an earlier time.  On that earlier occasion, Jesus said of her, "Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:42 NKJV)  Mary was still choosing that good part which would not be taken away as she poured the oil onto the Lord's head and his feet wiping his feet with her hair (John 12:3).  The oil was not cheap.  A footnote in the New Living Translation of the Bible at Mark 14:5 says that the 300 denarii cost of the oil would be the equivalent of 300 day's wages.

What lessons can we learn from this account?  There are several.  (1) When you love someone money doesn't matter.  If you have it you are more than willing to give it whether little or much.  Mary was not alone in this.  Remember the poor widow who gave "all that she had, her whole livelihood?" (Mark 12:44 NKJV)  Remember the churches of Macedonia of whom Paul spoke of their "deep poverty" (2 Cor. 8:2 NKJV) how that Paul says, "I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints?" (2 Cor. 8:3-4 NKJV)  Loving God means we long and desire to give to him and his work.

We cannot bestow our goods on Jesus directly as did Mary of Bethany but we must remember that the church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18, 24).  When Saul of Tarsus was persecuting the church and Jesus met him on the road to Damascus he said to Saul, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" (Acts 9:4 NKJV)  When we give to the church (notice I said "the church," not a denomination) we are giving to Jesus.  Saul was persecuting the church yet Jesus associated that with being persecuted himself.  Why?  Because, the church is Christ's body.

It is understood that in giving to the church the funds given will be used for the purposes God would have them be used for else they are not being given to God at all.  One cannot take out of the church treasury funds to take a group to a recreational site to enjoy themselves and say "It is God's work."  God's work is to preach the gospel, help the poor, and do the work God's people are supposed to do.  Entertaining ourselves is not a part of that.

I was recently watching a travel show on television showing some of the exquisite cathedrals of Europe, inside and out.  Words fail one in speaking of the beauty of some of these man-made monuments.  Words like amazing, awe-inspiring, breathtaking, incredible, stunning, all seem to fall short as descriptive terms for some of the most magnificent.  Yet, God never meant money contributed to the church to carry on his work to be used to satisfy man’s vanity in building such structures.  Their appeal is to the carnal, fleshly man, not to the spiritual man.  It was the sinful side of man that built them, not the spiritual.  Those vast sums of money spent to build these monuments should have been used in preaching, teaching, and benevolence.

(2) Another thing we can learn from the account of this story about Mary of Bethany is that worship of God is as important as good works.  I would call what Mary did an act of worship on her part.  No doubt those complaining about what they considered a waste of money were right about the fact that much good could have come from selling this expensive oil and using it to help the poor.  God is all for helping the poor (a good work) but helping the poor is not all there is to being a disciple. 

Should we stop worship services saying it is a waste of time and the time could be better spent out in the community helping the poor keep up their houses, doing errands for them, etc.?  Let every member cease assembling together for worship and use the time instead to do good works and no doubt much help could be rendered but God is to be worshipped.

It is not wrong to worship God because you are taking time away from helping the poor.  If all of our time, all of our money, all of our effort was used to simply help man and we exclude God from it all we end up with is a social gospel of sorts, one that pertains to this world only, and that benefits man only on a temporal basis.  One cannot exclude the spiritual replacing it with the material and hope for the eternal.  We must have and must be continually building a spiritual relationship with God. 

(3) One must accept the fact that one will be criticized even for doing good on occasion.   Read your New Testament and see how many times Jesus was criticized for doing good.  It would be interesting to add the total up.  Anyone who has ever read the New Testament knows this happened to him time and time and time again.  If it happens to a follower of Christ why should we be surprised? 

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.  It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!" (Matt. 10:24-25 NKJV)

Do not misunderstand, I am not comparing the disciples who criticized Mary of Bethany over the oil with those who criticized Jesus during his ministry but I am only saying we need to expect criticism while doing good and learn to live with it.  Our real problem comes when we never receive criticism.  "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets." (Luke 6:26 NKJV) 

(4) Finally, this is the point I have been wanting to get to.  The text (Jesus speaking) says of Mary, "She has done what she could." (Mark 14:8 NKJV)  What more could be asked of a man or a woman?  What more does God ask of any man or woman?  When a person has done all they can do that is it, it is the end of the line; they have gone as far as it’s possible for a man or woman to go and have done all God expects from them.  God does not expect of man more than man is capable of doing.  What a great epitaph this would make at one's passing from this life into the next.  He/she has done what he/she could do.

Every man and every woman is capable of obtaining just such an epitaph from God.  I would like to mention three of whom I believe this could be said.

The Poor Widow.  I have already mentioned this poverty-stricken woman but one who was rich spiritually.  As you recall Jesus was sitting opposite the treasury watching people putting money into it.  The Bible says, "And many who were rich put in much.   Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans.  So he called His disciples to himself and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood." (Mark 12:41-44 NKJV)  She had done what she could.

Tabitha or Dorcas.  Of this lady, the Bible says, "This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did." (Acts 9:36 NKJV)  As you recall the Bible story Tabitha died.  Peter in a nearby town was sent for and when he came raised her from the dead.  Just before he raised her from the dead the Bible says, "And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them." (Acts 9:39 NKJV)  Tabitha was a Christian lady who had done what she could while living.

Lazarus the beggar.  Of this man the Bible says, "But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.  So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom." (Luke 16:20-22 NKJV)  You may well be wondering why I would include Lazarus in a list of those who had done what they could.  The answer is we need to realize that no matter how desperate a man's plight is, no matter how little it seems he has accomplished, no matter how great a failure he seems to be to other men still it matters none to God if he has done what he could in his life.  This ought to be encouraging to us for it ought to give the lowliest of us hope.

You may be saying how do I know this man had done what he could?  Because God saved him.  God will not save a man who will not try, who does not care, who is indifferent.  We are not saved by works.  If we were Lazarus would probably have little to show.  His condition was such as to not be able to help himself let alone help others.  Yet, he did all he was capable of and if that consisted only of faith then that was all that was required of him. 

There will come a time most likely, if we live long enough, where we will be unable to do a lot in God’s kingdom.  People often get to the point physically where they can no longer assemble with the saints which would under normal circumstances be sinful for we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25) but do we think God is going to hold that against those too frail and aged to attend, some even confined to nursing homes?  No, for they have done what they can everything else being equal.  God is not a God without mercy and understanding.  No doubt Lazarus was a condemned man in the eyes of many a man but not in God's eyes.

I have deliberately picked the 3 people I did here as examples because of their station in life.  None held positions of importance.  None were well known or known at all outside the immediate area.  One suspects that two of them were hardly spoken to during a normal day (the poor widow and Lazarus) and yet we have three saved people who as little as it might have been had done what they could.

We must remember there is no partiality with God.  Our station in life is inconsequential to him as far as our eternal destiny is concerned.  His ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8-9) and he does not see as man sees ("for the Lord seeth not as man seeth" I Sam. 16:7 KJV).  "Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to those who love him?" (James 2:5 NKJV)  "Not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." (1 Cor. 1:26 NKJV)

The person who is saved is the person who has done what he or she could do (read the Parable of the Talents).  We can all obey the gospel if we will.  There is no reason the epitaph "she has done what she could" needs to be reserved exclusively for Mary of Bethany.  God would have us all have that epitaph.

One final admonition, do not say it is too late for me; I have not done what I could.  None of us has done so one hundred percent.  Surely, none of us think the poor widow, Tabitha, or Lazarus always lived sin-free.  If so why did they need Jesus?  Mary of Bethany was not sin-free.  Those who wrote about Mary--Matthew, Mark, and John--were not sin-free.  Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) 

The question is not about the past but the here and now and now on.  What are we going to do here and now and now on?  While we will never be perfect we can do what we can. 

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

10 Things If Baptism Is Not Essential For Salvation

Baptism is not essential for salvation according to most denominations. The thought came to me recently, if baptism is not essential for salvation, what then? What are the necessary implications of such a doctrine?

(1) If baptism is not essential for salvation then Jesus taught error when he said, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) for you can enter the kingdom of God without water if baptism is not essential for salvation. But it is said that water here is not to be taken literally. If that is correct then there is no reason to take Spirit literally either. The two are joined together. If one is figurative the other is as well. If one is literal the other is as well.

(2) If baptism is not essential for salvation then Jesus errored again when he said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," (Mark 16:16 NKJV) for the truth would be "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved."

(3) If baptism is not essential for salvation then Peter either lied, or the Holy Spirit was in error, when on the Day of Pentecost while preaching the first gospel sermon ever preached Peter commanded believers to be baptized for the remission of sins. "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) If baptism is not for the remission of sins one has to pick either Peter or the Holy Spirit as being a teacher of error.

(4) If baptism is not essential for salvation Ananias is proven to be nothing less than an old (?) fool who did not know what he was talking about in Acts 22:16 when he told Saul (who was to become Paul the apostle), "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins." (NKJV) What sins? There are none to be washed away if salvation comes at the point of faith. Surely, after seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus and talking with him Saul was no longer an unbeliever or doubter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Thus Ananias was in great error making any claim that Saul still needed to have his sins cleansed.

(5) If baptism is not essential for salvation it makes Peter a slow learner for many years after his initial sermon on the Day of Pentecost he was still claiming that "there is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism" (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV). If salvation is by faith alone, with baptism having nothing at all to do with it, one would almost have to say that Peter became a habitual false teacher regarding the subject of baptism.

(6) If baptism is not essential for salvation then the blood of Jesus is not essential for salvation. In the Bible blood while literal also stands for or is representative of life itself. Pilate in washing his hands of the whole affair (if only it was that easy to do) said, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person." (Matt. 27:24 NKJV) He meant he was innocent of putting Jesus to death, innocent of his death. The point being is that the blood of Jesus is a phrase standing for or meaning his death. We are not saved by a literal drop of Jesus' physical blood being sprinkled on our immaterial soul.

To come into contact with the blood of Christ, spiritually speaking, shed on the sinner's behalf, we must go to where the blood is found--to the place where it was shed--to or into his death. Thus Paul says, "Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) That puts us where the blood of Christ is, bearing in mind that the blood stands for the giving up of life in death. That is why Paul in the very next verse speaks of the baptized individual walking in "newness of life" (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) for such a person has made spiritual contact with the blood of Christ and has been cleansed of his sins by the blood of Jesus. That is why Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized washing away his sins for he was washing them away in the blood of Jesus by being baptized into the death of Christ.

[The reader might also find it interesting to note that the literal blood of Jesus was shed like that of the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament after his death or in his death (John 19:33-34). I doubt not for a minute the importance of the spear thrust in Jesus' side after his death from whence "immediately blood and water came out." (John 19:34) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul." (Lev. 17:11) I only add it is the blood of death that is required. Blood equals death. Jesus could not have saved us with just the blood from the beating he took and made atonement for us that way without dying. Jesus had to die, not just shed some blood. The spear in his side with the consequent loss of blood confirmed his death.]

(7) If baptism is not essential for salvation then being in Christ is not essential either for we enter into Christ by baptism. "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3:27 NKJV, see also Rom. 6:3) But, does it matter whether we enter Christ or not? It does if salvation matters for salvation is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 2:10). Paul, speaking to Timothy, says he endures "all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (2 Tim. 2:10 NKJV)

Sometimes people want to quibble when one quotes Gal. 3:27 saying we left out the verse that comes right before it, verse 26, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) A quibble is all it is for when you put the two verses together here is what you get - how do you know you are a son of God through faith in Christ? For you were baptized into Christ is what verse 27 says in answer to that. You know you are a son of God through faith when you are baptized or when they were baptized with specific reference to the Galatians.

This shows the close connection of faith with baptism that many are unwilling to accept. You have faith, therefore, you are baptized. The text does not say, as many seem to advocate, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ." That is a necessary implication of the doctrine that baptism does not matter – a rewriting of the Biblical text.

(8) If baptism is not essential for salvation then neither is being a new creation. "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) All things have become new where -- in Christ. How does one enter into Christ? We have already referred the reader to Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:3, and I add here 1 Cor. 12:13, all of which teach that one is "baptized into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) What avails in Christ? Paul says it is "a new creation." (Gal. 6:15 NKJV) Until the old man is ready to die to sin by such faith in Christ as to obey him in baptism, he can never put on the new man.

To argue a man can put on Christ some other way than what the Bible says is to argue with God himself. It is to say "as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have put on Christ." It is the same as rewriting the Bible. Does one want to attempt that?

It is awfully easy to overlook a plain statement of scripture in Rom. 6 bearing on this subject. We overlook it because our practice is to bury things already dead and not to bury things in order to put them to death. However, if we read Rom. 6:2-8 carefully, maybe needing to read it two or three times and paying special attention to verse 4, we see we are buried in baptism to kill the old man. We could say he is buried alive so he might die and so the new man can arise from the grave of baptism. Here is a closer look.

"We were buried with him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) A careful reading shows that while verse 3 is speaking of being buried into the death of Christ, verse 4 is speaking of our own death as we join in his. Verse 7 also corroborates this. When we arise from baptism just as Christ was raised from the dead "so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) "Our old man was crucified with him" (Rom. 6:6 NKJV) and thus "we died with Christ." (Rom. 6:8 NKJV)

The whole teaching of Rom. 6:2-8 is that we die to sin in baptism and arise a new creation. Paul says, "If we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection." (Rom. 6:5 NKJV) Does the word "if" have meaning? What if we have not been united in the likeness of his death?

(9) If baptism is not essential for salvation then the body of Christ does not matter, the church (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:24), "for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV) If baptism is not essential for salvation then neither is being in the one body, the body of Christ, his spiritual body, the church. Yet, Christ "is the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NKJV)

If baptism is not essential then being in the one body of which Jesus is the Savior is not necessary, thus one can be saved outside the body of Christ, outside the thing Jesus is the Savior of. But, the body of Christ is the thing Jesus gave himself for. "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water (baptism again -- DS) by the word." (Eph. 5:25-26 NKJV) I do not know how one gets into the body of which Jesus is the Savior aside from obeying the Savior and being baptized into it unless he desires to rewrite scripture.

(10) If baptism is not essential to salvation then the Great Commission is null and void for it reads in part, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19 NKJV) In verse 18 just before this he says he has "all authority" meaning the authority to command. What did he command?

Jesus said to baptize the disciples. Which disciples did he say it would be okay to not baptize? Based on this verse alone, every fair-minded reader would have to conclude that Jesus meant for every single disciple of his to be baptized without exception. Can one be in willful disobedience to a direct command from Jesus and be saved? He can if baptism is not essential to salvation.

I have listed 10 things here that necessarily follow if the doctrine that baptism is not essential for salvation is true. The root of the whole problem people have with regards to baptism centers on the concept that faith and baptism are somehow at war with one another, that if baptism is essential it somehow destroys the concept of salvation by faith.

First-century Christians did not think that way. How do I know? Because every one of them was baptized and none argued about whether or not it was necessary. They just did it as an act of faith having been commanded to do it.

How do I know they were all baptized? Because if they were not baptized, they disobeyed Jesus as per Matt. 28:19 already referred to above in relationship to the Great Commission. Any apostle who received this commission and failed to carry it out has to answer to God, not to me. This does not mean they had to do the baptizing, but they were responsible for seeing that it was done when they made a disciple according to the commission given. That commission accords exactly with what Jesus taught in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (NKJV)

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