Does Jesus’ Baptism Condemn You?

Does baptism matter? Most Americans seem to have come to the conclusion that it does not, a person can be saved and go to heaven baptized or not. It is such a settled conviction with most that it is a closed topic. There is no need for study.

It seems to me this is taking the same attitude the Pharisees took back in the first century. They had their settled law and there was no point in thinking there was any possibility that they might be in error. When Jesus came along and started questioning some of their beliefs and practices there was nothing to do but crucify him for there was no possibility in their mind that they could be wrong in their religious thinking. What he had to say had to be heresy.

A person ought to be cautious in reaching conclusions in spiritual matters for once this life is over and the next one has begun there is no going back a second time and getting it right. There are no second chances and eternity is eternity. I would like to look at baptism and want to start with an account that is often overlooked--the baptism of Jesus when John baptized him.

It is certainly true that the baptism of John differs from that which the Lord commanded in the great commission as given in Matthew 28 and Mark 16. If I was to be baptized with the baptism of John today it would not do me any good for its time has long since come and gone. Nevertheless, that was not the case when Jesus came to John to be baptized approximately 2,000 years ago.

Mark tells us, "John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4 NKJV) We know that Jesus never sinned and when Jesus comes to John to be baptized John is hesitant. "John tried to prevent Him, saying, 'I have need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?'" (Matt. 3:14 NKJV)

Note carefully how Jesus responds. "But Jesus answered and said to him, 'Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he allowed Him." (Matt. 3:15 NKJV)

Why was Jesus baptized? To fulfill all righteousness for that is what he says. What did he mean by that? The answer is found in Psalms 119:172, "My tongue shall speak of Your word, For all Your commandments are righteousness." (NKJV) Jesus was baptized because it was the righteous thing to do for God had commanded it and all of God's commandments are righteousness.

In Matt. 21 Jesus is being confronted by the chief priests and the elders who want to know by what authority he is doing the things he is doing. The Bible says, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things: The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?' And they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us 'Why then did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet.'" (Matt. 21:24-26 NKJV)

Jesus is saying John's baptism has to be either from God or from man, which is it? Jesus knew it was from God and was baptized. The Pharisees did not believe it was from God and thus were not baptized. In Jesus' case belief led to obedience; in the Pharisees' case disbelief led to disobedience.

In Luke 7 Jesus has been talking about John the Baptist and the Bible says, beginning in verse 29, "And when all the people heard Him (Jesus was the one speaking -- DS), even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him." (NKJV) This provides further proof that John's baptism was from God.

The counsel of God was that men receive John's message and be baptized. John's message was that men repent and be baptized, a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

The Good News Bible translates Mark 1:4 as follows: "So John appeared in the desert, baptizing and preaching. 'Turn away from your sins and be baptized,' he told the people, 'and God will forgive your sins.'" This was the message of God to the people that was rejected by the Pharisees, lawyers, chief priests, and elders.

But, the Bible says "even the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John." (Luke 7:29 NKJV) What does it mean "justified God," how is that done? The New American Standard translation of this verse clarifies it. It reads, "And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowledged God's justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John."

Part of John's message was that there was to be wrath to come and the way of escape was to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. When men obeyed John's preaching they were in effect saying by their actions that God was just in bringing this wrath upon them unless they did repent and obey, that it was just of him to demand their repentance and baptism.

Now, what does this have to do with you and me today, with men and women in general? There is a direct application and an argument I think no one can reject save at their own peril.

Jesus asked the question where did John's baptism come from, from God or man. Here is the question for you and me today -- where did the baptism Jesus commanded come from, from God or man?

Why would it be wrong to reject John's baptism in its time but right to reject Jesus' baptism in our time? Jesus made it clear that to reject John's baptism in its time was to reject the counsel of God against themselves. Are we not doing the same thing today, rejecting God's counsel against ourselves, when we refuse to be baptized with Jesus' baptism, the baptism of the great commission? If not, why not?

One cannot reason his way out of this dilemma but it gets even worse for those who want to reject baptism. Please note it was a salvation issue with Jesus concerning John's baptism. Are you going to say it is not a salvation issue today with Jesus' baptism?

How much difference is there in the meaning of the words, "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4 NKJV) spoken concerning John's baptism and the words "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) spoken concerning the baptism Jesus requires in our own time? The words sound very similar to me.

Am I saying that both baptisms were identical? No, but the difference lay not in the end to be achieved. John's baptism ultimately would have done no good had Jesus not died on the cross. In that sense, it looked forward and was a promise. We have this in our everyday lives all of the time. If I do this then I am promised that even though that may be down the road a ways. Paychecks are like that. We work trusting by faith the promise that we will be paid down the road in a couple of weeks. This was John's baptism.

Does this mean their actual forgiveness lay down the road somewhere in the future and was not immediate? No, for it was a certainty, not just a promise, that Jesus would die on the cross. The deed was as good as done the day it was first prophesied, actually, even before when it was first conceived in the mind of God. When Moses and Elijah met Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus had not yet died on the cross. Was their salvation hanging in the balance until he died? To ask is to answer. So it was with those who obeyed John's teaching. Their sins were forgiven then and there or else John misled them for he said it was for the forgiveness of sins.

The baptism Jesus gave humanity by way of the great commission was based on the fact that Jesus had already died and shed his blood for the remission of sins and the salvation of man. Man has to believe the gospel -- the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4). In short, for a man to receive the baptism of Jesus he must believe in the historical Jesus, the Savior of the world.

If a man today refuses to obey the command to be baptized he refuses to do what Jesus said he was doing when he said, "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." (Matt. 3:15 NKJV) It has already been pointed out that all God's commands are righteousness (Psalms 119:172). If we have a command to be baptized today, as far as I know, all agree we have, should we not obey it and fulfill all righteousness? Why is it wrong to follow Jesus' example?

Does Jesus' baptism condemn you? It well could for when all is said and done you will either make camp with the Pharisees and other unbelievers who could not take God's word at face value, believe and obey it, or you will camp with those who did believe and did obey. You will either reject the counsel of God against yourself refusing to be baptized or else you will accept it, believe, and obey it. Make no mistake about it, for there are way too many passages that teach it, God has commanded baptism for you and me today thus it becomes a matter of either we will or we won't. We will either accept his counsel or we will reject it.

I am sometimes taken aback by how people can just blow off baptism as being an insignificant thing unworthy of time or trouble. There are so many today that want to be saved by faith apart from baptism and cannot see, as though blinded, that baptism is a part of faith, a part of the faith that saves. You are either going to believe God or you are not going to believe him when he speaks of baptism in his word. Why is it we can see this when Jesus addresses the subject of John's baptism but cannot see the direct application to our own response, in our time, to Jesus' baptism as commanded in the great commission?

I doubt any of us can fully grasp the power that tradition exerts on us when it comes to how we see things and how we think. Add to that the influence of friends and family and the desire for it to be the way we want it to be often because of family, friends, and loved ones. All that be as it may God's word stands and so what are we going to do about it becomes the question. Many have answered "I am not going to believe it," as did the Pharisees. They did not believe it because they did not want to believe it. We pretty much end up believing what we want to believe instead of what we ought to believe.

Belief is a choice. We can base what we believe on our personal feelings and emotions or we can base it on our God-given ability to reason from his word. How we come to belief, in reference to doctrine and what we will accept and obey or reject and disobey, makes all the difference in the world in our ultimate destiny. The route of the Pharisees was the route of personal feelings and desires. They could thus reject John's baptism. Much the same line of reasoning, based on deeply held feelings, leads people to reject baptism today.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Redemption in Christ

One frequently comes across the words redeem, redeemed, and redemption in reading through the New Testament.  I found twenty instances using a concordance for the New King James version of the Bible.  What do these words mean?  If you were to look into a modern-day dictionary you would likely find a number of responses.  My Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 2000 edition, lists nine meanings for the word redeem.  Most have the general idea of paying off or buying back or releasing.

According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, a dictionary based on the words found in the King James Version of the Bible, there are four Greek words behind the English words translated as redeem and redemption, two verbs, and two nouns.  For the purpose of this article I will only be dealing with three of them, those most relevant to the purpose of this article, and I will be quoting from Vine.

The Greek verb “lutroo” signifies “to release on receipt of ransom … signifying to release by paying a ransom price.”  Vine lists Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 1:18-19 as examples.  The Titus passage, speaking of Christ, reads, “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people.” (NKJV)  Peter says we were redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:18-19 NKJV).  We were thus released from sin and its penalty by the ransom price of the blood of Jesus shed on the cross.  Christ delivered us from sin.

The noun form of “lutroo” is “lutrosis.”  Lutrosis is “a redemption.”  “With his own blood he entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” (Heb. 9:12 NKJV)  Hebrews 9:12 is a statement of fact as to what has been done and how, redemption by the blood of Jesus.

The final Greek word to be dealt with here is “apolutrosis,” which is “a strengthened form of” lutrosis.  It is “a releasing, for … a ransom.”  I am here interested in the third example of lutrosis given by Vine.  He says, “forgiveness and justification, redemption as the result of expiation, deliverance from the guilt of sins.”  Scriptures listed under this Greek term are Rom. 3:24, Eph. 1:7, and Col. 1:14.

Each passage speaks of redemption by the blood of Christ.  “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by his blood.” (Rom. 3:24-25)  “We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Eph. 1:7 NKJV)  The Colossian passage is identical to the Ephesian passage, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Col. 1:14 NKJV)

Having done the word study one can see that redemption is a release, a deliverance from sin and its consequences by means of a ransom, the ransom being Christ’s shed blood, his death on the cross.  Its end result is thus salvation of one’s soul, the soul of the one who takes advantage of the ransom Jesus made.  The ransom made was “a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6 NKJV) but while this redemption is universal in its scope, that is it is available to all, it is only effective for those who come into Christ.

This redemption, this salvation, is “in Christ Jesus.” “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood.” (Rom.:3:23-25a NKJV)

One enters into Christ by believing and obeying the gospel; the final step in obeying the gospel and thereby being placed into Christ is baptism.  Baptism is preceded by faith in Christ, repentance of sins, and confession of one’s faith in Jesus.

We are then to be “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)  “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3:26-27 NKJV)  Faith led to baptism.  The corollary of Gal. 3:26-27 would be “as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have not put on Christ.”  If not, why not?

I do not know of a single scripture that speaks of entering into Christ some way other than through baptism.  There was no other way on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) when Peter preached the first gospel sermon.  Peter required baptism in that sermon.  “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)  Everyone means everyone.  There is no other way today.  Mankind has no power to override the spirit-filled preaching of an apostle.

One fact people often overlook who desire to be redeemed by the blood of Jesus is that Jesus shed his blood in his death.  He was dead when the soldier came around and pierced his side and the blood and water then flowed from his side. (John 19:33-34)  Paul says in Rom. 6:3 that we “were baptized into his death.”  His blood was shed in his death; we enter into his death by baptism where we contact the blood that redeems us.  This is a spiritual contact but whoever thought it would be otherwise?

“We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14 NKJV)  It is an “eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12) for those who remain faithful to the end of life.  To be delivered from one’s sins and released from the burden, guilt, and punishment due us for our sins is like the weight of the world off one’s shoulders.  What a joy, what a relief.

Anyone who so desires can be redeemed by the blood of Jesus.  God has offered us all his special invitation.  “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’  And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’  And let him who thirsts come.  And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17 NKJV) 

If someone was to offer you in this material world a gift of great value, very costly, whether in terms of monetary value or of great personal sacrifice and you rejected it that would come across on your part as cold and unfeeling, ungrateful, unloving, and unkind.  What if we reject Christ’s great sacrificial gift of his life?

“Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold … but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” (1 Peter 1:18-19 NKJV)  We “were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Cor. 6:20 NKJV)

Anyone who is willing and so desires can even this day be redeemed by the blood of Christ.

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

Are the New Testament Scriptures Alone Sufficient

Sometimes we take it for granted that everyone who calls themselves a Christian holds the New Testament scriptures in as high a regard as we do. However, that is not the case. Some, while calling themselves Christians, do not believe in the all-sufficiency of the New Testament scriptures to save a person. They feel we need more guidance and direction than can be found in the scriptures alone.

Who are these Christian (God will decide) groups who are not satisfied with the New Testament scriptures alone? I can think of three groups off-hand and there may well be others. (1) The Catholic Church and they do not deny it. (2) The Mormons. (3) Those groups or individuals who believe they need and receive direct guidance from the Holy Spirit in addition to the scriptures.

What do the scriptures themselves teach on the subject? If the scriptures make the claim to be sufficient then those denying such make it clear they are not Bible believers despite all claims to the contrary.

The Holy Spirit speaking through Paul the apostle said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJV)

Who was Paul, at that time, writing to? To Timothy, but it is obvious that what applied to Timothy as to how he was to view scripture was and is applicable to all. Paul says scripture is able to make us complete. If we are complete we lack nothing. If we are "thoroughly equipped" that is all the equipment that is needed.

However, the objection is made that Paul was obviously speaking of the Old Testament scriptures, at least primarily, as not all of the New Testament had yet been written. Well, what is that supposed to imply? Is it supposed to cast doubt on scripture given at a later date? Is it designed to cast doubt on books written later as to their inspiration, books that are included in our New Testaments?

Were none of the New Testament books written when Paul wrote the words found in 2 Tim. 3:16-17? Most scholars believe 2 Timothy, quoted above, was written somewhere in the range of 66 to 68 AD. While dates are all over the place on some New Testament books all scholars I know about concede that Second Timothy was the last book written by Paul. Was Paul excluding his own writings when he spoke of scripture being given by inspiration of God, books he had already written?

To the Corinthians Paul said "the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." (1 Cor. 14:37 NKJV) Paul issued commands (1 Cor. 7:10, 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 12) and directed Timothy to do so (1 Tim. 4:11, 5:7, 6:17). To the Galatians he claimed inspiration for his message. "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:10-11 NKJV) He says the same thing again in Ephesians 3:3. Paul recognized his own inspiration.

But we also have Peter's testimony on the subject when he says, "as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16 NKJV)

Sounds like when Peter wrote this Paul was still living but had already written many epistles which Peter compares to "the rest of the scriptures." He says Paul's writings could be twisted to the destruction of untaught and unstable people. That could not be if Paul's writings were not scripture. Peter considered Paul's writings to be scripture just like "the rest of the scriptures."

When Paul wrote what he did in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 he was not excluding his own writings or talking merely about the Old Testament scriptures. Neither was he excluding what might be written later in other New Testament books by other apostles or men of inspiration.

But now note something else. What is the purpose of scripture? It is, as Paul puts it, "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:17 NKJV) If that is the case then the one who says the New Testament scriptures alone are insufficient is in an awful bind. Why? Because his position is that the man of God cannot be complete, cannot be thoroughly equipped for every good work by the scriptures alone and he thus puts himself in opposition to what the word of God says.

An objection might well be made here, by those in opposition, that I have left the barn door open for later revelation. Indeed I did for, as I said, Paul's statement was not just about scripture already written but about all scripture given by God regardless of the date it would be given. The door was left open but only for a limited period of time.

The key here is the phrase Paul used when he said "given by inspiration of God." As you well know some speak of latter-day revelation hundreds of years after the completion of the New Testament. How can we be sure revelation ceased when the New Testament scriptures as we now have them were completed?

When God gave scripture he gave mankind a means by which man could be assured that the message was from God. The message was given orally and then later written down by inspired men. The Bible says the word was confirmed as the apostles went out everywhere, "the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs." (Mark 16:20 NKJV)

The Hebrew writer says salvation (speaking of the word of salvation) "began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?" (Heb. 2:3-4 NKJV)

All through Acts we see miracles being performed. There were the tongues from God that sat upon the apostles on the Day of Pentecost and the speaking in tongues that day as the word was first preached to man after Christ's resurrection.

A little later in Acts 4 upon the release of Peter and John from arrest and imprisonment a prayer is uttered by the disciples. "Lord … grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." (Acts 4:29-30 NKJV) Then in verse 33 we read, no doubt in answer to their prayer, "with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus."

In Acts 5:12 Luke says, "And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people." (NKJV) Both Peter and Paul raised the dead through the power of God. Philip worked miracles in Samaria. Paul spoke of preaching the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum with "mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God." (Rom. 15:19 NKJV) Here is the point—if there has been latter-day revelation there has to have been of necessity confirmation from God by means of miracles.

If we have additional scripture that has been given since the New Testament scriptures were written where are they and where is the proof that shows God confirmed them? Now I understand some are ready and willing to show me these additional scriptures they claim are from God but where is their proof? We need some confirmation from God in the same way we got it in the first century.

Miracles were only to last as long as they were needed and they were needed only as long as there was revelation being given that needed confirmation. Listen to Paul from Ephesians 4:7-14 (NKJV):

(8) "Therefore He says: 'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.' … (11) And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, (12) for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, (13) 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; (14) that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive."

Paul was here talking about God giving gifts (miraculous abilities) to men which he says were for "the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Eph. 4:12 NKJV)

But, I want you to note that he sets a time limit on this. He says in verse 13 "till." And I want you to look closely at verse 14 which shows us when this "till" shall have come to pass for many think it will be when Jesus returns. Not so. It was to be while the earth still stood and prior to Jesus' return.

Paul says when that "till" arrives we will "no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men." (Eph. 4:14 NKJV) Thus, Christians will still be on the earth when the till that is to come arrives but they will no longer be carried away by every false doctrine. Why not? Simply because they will have God's completed revelation available to them and can compare its teaching versus man's teaching.

The till that is to come is the completed scriptures. In Eph. 4:13 he says, "till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man." (NKJV) That perfect man is the mature man, the man who has been made complete by the scriptures, the perfect man of Eph. 4:13 (NKJV) is the complete man of 2 Tim. 3:17 (NKJV).

Paul speaks of this also over in 1 Cor. 13:8-12. "Whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." (NKJV)

That which is perfect which was to come was the completed scriptures or as you might put it the completed revelation of God to man. How can we be sure this passage is not a reference to Christ's second coming? Do you think knowledge will vanish when Jesus comes? I think there will be a great increase in knowledge. People will know things they never knew before. Obviously, the knowledge that is being spoken of here, that is to vanish away, is miraculous knowledge that God gave to man in the days of spiritual gifts (see 1 Cor. 12:8).

Now consider this, if we continued to have revelation after the death of those granted spiritual gifts in the first century, even up to modern times, it means no one has yet been able to overcome the "trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:14 NKJV) Why not? Because they lacked the whole truth of God's revelation that would allow them to know truth from error. It means all those who lived from the second century on up to today have lacked part of what they needed to combat error.

If part of inspiration came say in the sixteenth century then where does that leave the man or woman who lived and died before then? This is the dilemma all so-called Christian groups face who claim inspiration and revelation outside the New Testament. Catholics, for example, have added untold numbers of new doctrines across the ages. Truth in many of these religious bodies is never fully attainable for you never know what is coming down the road in the next generation.

Let us take a second look at 1 Cor. 13:8-12 quoted above. What is to vanish in addition to knowledge and tongues? Prophecy.

This eliminates latter-day prophecy and Mormon prophets. When? When scripture is completed. How can we know when that is? When miraculous confirmation by miracles has ceased. Has that happened? If you define a miracle as being the kind of miracle performed in the book of Acts, and how else can one define one, then they ceased sometime around the end of the first century.

If prophecy has ceased we no longer have apostles. If we do, we seek the signs of an apostle which Paul talked about. He says, "Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." (2 Cor. 12:12 NKJV) Some still claim we have and need apostles today. Where are their signs and wonders and mighty deeds?

Thus when miracles ceased revelation had ended; the scriptures had been completed; the man of God had the means to be made perfect (Eph. 4:14), to be made complete (2 Tim. 3:17), to become mature. Henceforth nothing else would ever be needed.

The New Testament scriptures alone are a sufficient guide to heaven and all you need. God warns us about adding to his word. The New Testament is enough; the New Testament scriptures are sufficient. Anything more than that is man playing God.

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

Revelation Has Ended – Its Proof and Consequences

Sometimes we fail to see what is in front of our eyes.  Anyone who has ever pulled out in front of a car or truck even after having looked beforehand knows the truth of this statement.  Evidently, our mind does not process what our eyes have seen so that with the mind there is nothing there.  One can see and yet not see all at the same time.

All of us human beings are prone to this syndrome not only in the physical realm but also in matters dealing with the intellect, including in the spiritual realm.  We ought to see and come to the proper conclusions but we often don’t.  Jesus said the reason he spoke in parables was “while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Matt. 13:13 NAS 2020)  Or, as the NIV puts it, “though seeing, they do not see.”  None of us wants to be in that camp but sometimes we are.

I just recently discovered how I too had not seen what was right before my eyes all these years in a passage I have read who knows how many dozens of times – John 16:13.  I had not grasped its full significance.  I owe my newfound insight to an article written by a preacher named Dub McClish as found in the book Studies in Hebrews (The Second Annual Denton Lectures, Nov. 13-17, 1983), pages 108-122.  In his article entitled “God Has Spoken The Living Word” page 121 is the relevant page.  If it was not for copyright laws I would just quote the passage verbatim but as it is I will reword the material.  I think it is well worth your consideration.

John 16:13 reads as follows: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth … “  This is the portion of the passage Mr. McClish expounds upon and which I want to consider.  While the argument made is not mine I will state it and expand upon it.

This was clearly a passage promising the Holy Spirit, a passage that is looking forward to a future event.  The question is who is Jesus speaking to?  The answer is those with whom he was gathered at the time and who was that?  It was clearly the apostles.  Read John 16:13 in context (chapters 13–17).  It was those of whom he said, “I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” (John 15:16 NKJV)

Who did Jesus choose?  “And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles.” (Luke 6:13 NKJV)  Again, one reads in Acts 1:2b-5 the following, “after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, To whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.  And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, ‘which,’ He said, ‘you have heard from Me (likely a reference to Luke 24:49—DS); for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." (NKJV)

In Acts 2:4 we see the apostles filled with the Holy Spirit.  “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Act 2:4 NKJV)

To further confirm it was the apostles to whom Jesus gave his address one needs to take into account the fact that John chapters 13 – 16 is one extended discourse given to the same group of individuals.  And who was here listed by name?  We have Peter (John 13:6), Thomas (John 14:5), Philip (John 14:8), and Judas, not Iscariot (John 14:22) mentioned by name and who might these be?  Apostles all.

The point so far has been to show that those to whom Jesus was speaking in John 16:13 were the twelve apostles.  That is extremely important.  When you or I are talking to a person that is who we are talking to.  We are not addressing someone down the street, across town, in another state, another nation, or another time.

Now I think most people who call themselves Christian have believed and do believe John 16:13 as I have but we have often overlooked a necessary implication of that verse.  Does “all” mean “all?”  If it does then it implies directly, forcibly, and without dispute, that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.  All truth is all truth.  Once you have all there is of a thing that is all there is to be had.  There will be no more.

That concept destroys any and all religions that lay claim to having any further revelations of truth since the end of the first century, since the death of the last apostle.  It destroys Roman Catholicism with its ever-changing and often new added doctrines.  It ruins Mormonism.  It (John 16:13) set a time limit on the deliverance of new doctrines – the lifetime of the last of the apostles appointed by Jesus.  Most scholars say the last living apostle of the New Testament era was John and his life ended near the end of the first century.

If the apostles were guided into all truth there was no more truth to be guided into by Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or by any other group out there that has claimed revelation after the first century.

I believe this is irrefutable.  However, I do not think for a minute it will be accepted for I well know religion is based with most of mankind more on emotion and tradition rather than rational thought.  Tradition and emotion are hard nuts to crack.  Nevertheless, truth stands on its own and always wins out in the end.  To fight against it is like fighting against growing old.  You may fight but you will not win. 

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