The Fragrance of Christ

The apostle Paul made the following statement in 2 Cor. 2:15-16, “For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death to death, and to the other the aroma of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things?” (NKJV)

I like the phrase “the fragrance of Christ.” When I think of the word fragrance, I think of that which has a pleasant smell--a flower out of the garden. But there are many wonderful fragrances when you live out in the country as I do. The smell of new mown hay, the smell of a cornfield in August on a late summer evening about dusk, the smell of the farm field after having just been turned over (plowed) in the spring. All evoke pleasant thoughts; arouse an inner peace and contentment, a satisfaction with God’s creation, and a comfort in knowing he is out there, Lord over all his creation. It is strange how smells can direct one to thoughts of God, but then God created them that way.

If we are a Christian, when we think of Christ, the thought of him should have the same kind of effect on us as the aromas we have been talking about. It is pleasant to think about Christ. Like the pleasant smells of a country evening in late summer, thoughts of Christ should bring peace and contentment to our souls and they do, that is, if Christ is in us and we are in him. When Paul preached Christ, those who accepted Christ found the tree of life, for Christ was and is that tree, a tree figuratively speaking, with pleasant blooms, a sweet fragrance of life, bearing as its fruit life itself.

But as there are pleasant smells, there are also unpleasant ones--the trash can, the hog pen, skunks, decaying animals killed in the road, etc. From those we flee. Christ and his gospel are like the unpleasant, offensive smell of death in those who are rejecting him. Ever wonder why some just do not want to hear it, the gospel? I am persuaded that deep down they know their guilt and their need but the desire is to live their life as they please (the Bible in the newer translations sometimes uses the phrase “selfish ambition,” or the word “selfishness,” or “self-seeking” with regards to a certain state of mind) and they thus harden their heart as they do not want to hear what they will not accept and that which condemns them.

To the one who hears the gospel and accepts it there is a sense of freedom, the conscience is made clean, and burdens are lifted as the song goes “at Calvary.” To the one who will not hear, does not want to hear, his view of Christ and his gospel is a message of enslavement, of the loss of personal freedom. Thus, the fragrance of Christ is to the one party pleasantness while to the other offensive. One man’s heart is hardened by the gospel of Christ, while the other man’s is softened and made tender, but it is always a personal choice as to which it will be; either way, we allow it.

In Eph. 5:2, the New King James Version of the Bible speaks of Christ’s sacrifice of himself for us as “an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” I think the International Standard Version states it best as far as the meaning of the passage goes when it says Christ “gave himself for us as an offering and sacrifice, a fragrant aroma to God.” That is to say God was pleased. He was satisfied. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient.

The fragrance of Christ is the fragrance of life, of pleasantness. Each of us must choose either the fragrance of life or the fragrance of death. We get to choose which it will be. Moses, in speaking to the children of Israel in Deut. 30:19, spoke words that are applicable to us today as well. “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.” (NKJV) Why not choose Christ?

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

 

The Church Christ Built--Marks of Identification

The church Christ built is worthless to man if it is impossible to find it, if it only existed in ancient history, and cannot be known today. Fortunately, like all things that exist, there are marks of identification that allow us to know his church from those made by man. What are the marks of identification of the Lord’s church versus man-made churches?

(1) The time of its founding. The Lord’s church began in the first century on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Any church that was built or came into existence later cannot be the church Jesus built. Many of today’s churches were founded during the years of the Reformation and in the years since then, thus eliminating them from consideration as being the church Jesus built.

(2) The builder--Christ himself built his church. If a church can trace its beginnings back to a particular man or movement that can be named for its founding, it is clearly not the church Christ built.

(3) Its name. If a church is the church Jesus built, then one would expect it would not have a name given by men attached to it. Actually, no formal name was ever given to the church Jesus built. It was often referred to by appellations such as: the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23, 4:12), the Lamb’s bride (Rev. 21:9-10, Rom. 7:4), the church of God (Acts 20:28), the church of Christ (Rom. 16:16), the church of the living God (1 Tim. 3:15), the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23), the household of God (Eph. 2:19), the flock of God (1 Peter 5:2), God’s field (1 Cor. 2:9), God’s building (1 Cor. 2:9), the house of God (1 Tim. 3:15), the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17), and, of course, the most common designation for the church in the Bible is the singular term, “the church.”

When a church has a name or designation not found in the Bible, that ought to immediately raise a red flag. That alone tells you it differs from what you find in scripture and makes it suspect. If a church is named after a man, a method of governance, or a peculiar doctrinal stance, it detracts from God’s honor and glory. God is to be given glory in the church (Eph. 3:20-21)—not a man or a movement.

(4) Its members--their names. In the church built by Jesus no member was called anything other than a disciple, a brother or a sister as the case might be, or just brethren when taken collectively, a child of God, a saint, or just by the name Christian (Acts 11:26). This listing is not necessarily exhaustive but is sufficient to make a needed point. In the New Testament church there were no such beings as Christians who also had an additional appellation or name to distinguish them from others. This was the very thing Paul condemned in 1 Cor. 2:4 when he said, “For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not carnal?” (NKJV)

No church whose members are called by a denominational name in addition to the name Christian is the church Jesus built. Not only is it carnal, as Paul said, but it is also dishonoring to God, as if it is not good enough to just be called a Christian or child of God. The name “Christian” is a Christ-honoring name. Denominational names dishonor Christ as his name is replaced with that which the Bible knows nothing about.

(5) Membership--how do people become members of Christ’s church? This is an easily answered question. The church was established on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. When Peter confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, in Matt. 16:16, Jesus’ responded by saying, “on this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18 NKJV) but then in the very next verse he tells Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 16:19 NKJV) Jesus thus uses the terms the church and the kingdom interchangeably making them one and the same.

The kingdom of God is not something that in our own time is down the road in the future. Jesus said to those with whom he was speaking, in Mark 9:1, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” (NKJV) Paul says some years later in Col. 1:13, “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” (NKJV)

Peter used the keys of the kingdom (the keys being the gospel message with its requirements) on the day of Pentecost. When the 3,000 that day heard the message, believed it, repented of their sins (as instructed to do--Acts 2:38), and were baptized for the forgiveness of sins (as instructed to do--Acts 2:38), they were then translated into the kingdom of God by God himself. It is in that kingdom, not out of it, where salvation is found. If saved that day, no one doubts that they were, they were at that very time translated into the “kingdom of the Son of his love.” (Col. 1:13 NKJV)

Men do not join the church (the kingdom of God), but rather God adds them upon conditions. “The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47 NKJV) The conditions are those set forth by Peter on the day of Pentecost. Jesus said, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV) There are only two kingdoms, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. One must be in the kingdom of God for salvation, but Jesus is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23) which is the church (Col. 1:24). The kingdom and the body, the church, are one and the same, the difference being only in the way it is being portrayed. The kingdom has a king, the body has a head, but the same one who is king is also the head--the head of the body and of the church, which are one and the same (Col. 1:24).

Membership in this body, this church of Christ, this church Jesus built, is granted only on the basis of the new birth (John 3:5). It begins with the Spirit in that through the Spirit’s word, the gospel message, man is led to faith and repentance and a willingness and desire to confess Christ for who he is--the Son of God--and it culminates in baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16) but more succinctly to put to death the old man of sin and to arise a new spiritual creation (Rom. 6:4-6). The old man dies in baptism (Rom. 6:4), “we were buried with him through baptism into death.” (NKJV) We come up from the water clothed with Christ (Gal. 3:27 NAS). Paul is thus able to say, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)

These then are the terms of membership if one desires to be in the church Jesus built. One can get into churches built by men on other terms, into man-made churches, but there is only one way into the Lord’s church. We must go back to the New Testament and enter the Lord’s church on the same terms of membership that they did back then. The same process that makes one a Christian also makes him a member of the church Jesus built, also adds him to the church, the Lord doing the adding when the requirements are met.

(6) Another mark of the Lord’s church is its organization. Each congregation was on its own, running its own affairs, with no guidance from any kind of national church organization. Each congregation was to have elders appointed who met certain requirements as set out in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. This group of men was sometimes referred to under various terms in the same way Christians were as discussed earlier. The terms used were elders, overseers, shepherds, bishops, pastors, and rulers.

One of the requirements for a bishop or elder was that he be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, Titus 1:6), and thus the church Jesus built was led by men. There were no women in leadership positions in the church. Perhaps the reason is given by Paul in 1 Tim. 2 when he says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Tim. 2:12-14 NKJV) This is a historical reason that time will never be able to erase and thus it was not a matter of culture as some teach today.

If you find a congregation that is in violation of God’s plan for church leadership, you can be certain that it is not the church Jesus built or it has apostasized, one or the other. The eldership was always made up of a number of men and not just a single individual (Titus 1:5, Heb. 13:17). Thus, in the church Christ built, there were no women in leadership positions or teaching over men (preachers), nor was there any such thing as the modern pastor system. Those things are from men, not God.

There was also a group of men known as deacons who worked or served in the church under the direction of the eldership. Qualifications for these men are found in 1 Tim. 3:8-13. Some feel the 7 men chosen to supervise the daily distribution in the church at Jerusalem, as found in Acts 6:1-6, were the first deacons. They certainly filled the role deacons might well fill.

(7) Worship of the church. What are the acts of worship as found in the New Testament that, when done in the right manner, please God? Partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week is one (Acts 20:7), prayer is another, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19-20, Col. 3:16) is included, teaching of God’s word in which exhortation would be a part, and giving. Very few, if any, would object to any of these things for all are pretty much in agreement that these things can be found on the pages of the New Testament as things authorized in worship. We can do all of these things in the name of the Lord Jesus. “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 3:17 NKJV)

But when we talk about the worship of the church, there is more to it than just the correct object of worship--God in heaven. Jesus said we must worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24). He then says in reference to God that, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17 NKJV) This means, obviously, that man is not free to worship God just any way he chooses and call it worship, worship that is pleasing to God. God gets to decide what pleases, not man. If you recall, the church at Corinth in 1 Cor. 11 had a worship problem as it pertained to the Lord’s Supper. We are not free, in the Lord’s church, to do things our way.

The problem today, when one is searching for the church built by Christ as far as it pertains to the worship, is finding a church that has not added to the worship. All kinds of entertainment have been made a part of the worship--plays, instrumental music, musical entertainment (generally called in my part of the country “special music”), special events, and around election time even political rallies passed off as worship service. No, if we want the church the saints had in the first century, the one that belonged to Christ, we will have to content ourselves with doing what they did under divine approval and say that is good enough for it is good indeed as it came to us from “the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.” (James 1:17 NKJV)

(8) The works of the church. The church Jesus built taught the gospel, they attempted to build each other up in the faith, and lend a hand to one another as needed; they were encouraged in every good work, and helped the poor and needy. The mission of the church was spiritual, but that did not mean it was divorced from the cares of this world completely. “Whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 John 3:17 NKJV)

Much of what you see being done in churches today was never a part of the New Testament church. There were no ball teams, no seminars on how to do your taxes or lose weight, no business enterprises to raise money versus giving it out of your own pocket, and the list could go on and on. We need to learn what work the New Testament churches were involved in and get back to it, and forget about everything else.

In this article, I have tried to set forth the marks of identification for the church Christ built. That is the church we need to be in and get back to. If we did all denominations would cease to exist. Men will fight that tooth and nail for it is one thing to say we want Christ’s church and it is another thing to want it enough to give up “our church,” our denomination. In other words, the old saying “talk is cheap” is more than just a saying. A lot of things will have to be given up to get back to Jesus’ church, but it can be done once the will to do it is found. 

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

Instrumental Music in Christian Worship

In studying the subject of instrumental music in Christian worship, there is no person living today in the Western world who can remember a time when instruments were not in common use and generally accepted across what is called Christendom in denominational churches. However, that is not the case everywhere.

In Eastern Europe, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, as well as the Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Georgian, Ukrainian, and Antiochian Orthodox churches do not use instrumental music in their worship services. Neither do the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite, which include the Ukrainian, Melkite, Romanian, Italo-Albanian, Slovak, and Hungarian Greek Catholic Churches.

It was over 600 years after Christ’s death before instrumental music was introduced into worship. If there is any truth to the tradition, Pope Vitalian was the first to add the instrument to worship, with the date being a little uncertain, but somewhere approximately 670 AD. It was another 300 years or more before it became common in the Western church, some would say even later. It was opposed vigorously and only slowly came to be accepted. These are the historical facts of the matter and can be easily checked by anyone.

These historical facts are immensely important. It proves the introduction of instrumental music into Christian worship was done by man rather than by God. If of God, rather than man, why did they not use the instrument from the beginning of the church rather than wait hundreds of years?

Remember when Jesus was confronted by the chief priests and elders who wanted to know by what authority he was doing the things he was doing? He told them he would answer when they answered his question which was, “The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25 NKJV) Thus, we need to ask the question of the instrument in Christian worship: where is it from, from heaven or from man? To ask is to answer if for no other reason than the date of its introduction. One must ask who gave man the authority to bring it into the worship? Did man just usurp the authority?

A person then has to ask himself some questions as he considers whether or not he wants to worship with those who use instruments. Do I want as my authority for worship what men gave or what God gave? They say it doesn’t matter; God doesn’t care. How can we know this? How can a person know that a thing that clearly came from man, not God, is a matter of little or no consequence to him?

Do you just know it because your heart tells you so? Jeremiah said, (Jer. 17:9 NKJV), “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Again, the Lord says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” (Isa. 55:8 NKJV)

The Bible has examples of men who thought it was a little thing to deviate from what God said with regard to the worship of him. They thought it would not matter. One thinks of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, who “each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” (Lev 10:1-2 ESV) We can be absolutely certain they did not think it mattered.

Uzziah was one of the kings of Judah whom you can read about in 2 Chron. 26. The Bible says, “he transgressed against the Lord his God by entering the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense.” (2 Chron. 26:16 NKJV) Azariah the priest, along with 80 other priests, went in after him and withstood him to the face for only the priests, the sons of Aaron, had God authorized to perform this service. Uzziah became very angry with them at which time leprosy broke out on his forehead, a direct intervention from God. He remained a leper until the day of his death, living in isolation. Do you think Uzziah thought it would matter to God if he entered the temple and burned incense?

Why was Cain’s offering rejected if how we worship God is just left up to how man decides he wants to do it? Surely, Cain thought in his mind that God would accept his sacrifice before offering it. He had faith in that, but the trouble was the faith he had was the faith in his own thinking. That is what he had faith in. Abel, his brother, on the other hand, had faith in what God had said about the offering before offering it. Heb. 11:4 says Abel offered his sacrifice by faith, and we know from the scriptures that faith comes from hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17), thus Abel did his offering God’s way, offering what God wanted according to God’s word. Cain offered his offering his own way.

What is Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11 all about if it is not about the corruption of the worship in how the Lord’s Supper is to be partaken of? Does it matter to God? Some are still saying today it does not matter. We can do this or that with it. How can one say that in light of history? Why does Paul place restrictions on women in the public worship if things do not matter in worship, that is, if God does not care how he is worshiped?

Those who say the instrument does not matter know more than any man can possibly know about it. No man can know a thing with certainty about which God has said nothing. I once read a sermon whose message in the title has stuck in my memory now for decades. The sermon was by a preacher named Benjamin Franklin, some distant relation to the Benjamin Franklin of historical fame, in a book entitled The Gospel Preacher, Vol. 1. The name of the sermon was “The Course to Pursue to be Infallibly Safe.” That sermon had nothing to do with instrumental music, but it seems to me the title is exceedingly applicable to the subject.

Is there an infallibly safe way where a man can be right beyond any question and in which all men would agree there is safety with regards to the subject of music in the worship? Yes, there is. No person who calls himself a Christian has ever questioned the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with the voice only and without the use of musical instruments. All agree this is pleasing to God without question or doubt of any kind.

Paul says we are to speak to one another “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19 NKJV). See also Col. 3:16. All accept the teachings of these two passages without question as being what is good and right and acceptable and pleasing before the Lord. Yes, there is an infallibly safe way we ought to pursue.

However, if a person chooses to be reckless, if a person desires to be a gambler, if a person wants to take a chance, he must also be prepared to take the consequences if his heart misleads him on the matter and he finds out that God does not think as he thinks on the last day. It is quite a gamble. Of course, if you ask the man or woman who is involved in the worship where the instrument is used, they will tell you they are not gambling, they know it is okay. Ask them how they know and they are not able to give a satisfactory answer, only that their heart tells them so.

G. K. Wallace wrote a tract on the subject of instrumental music years ago that took an unusual slant but one that also left a lasting impression with me. His point was that we have to decide what we will be guided by. Will it be by what the Bible says or by what the Bible does not say? Many justify the use of the instrument in worship, saying “the Bible does not say not to,” thus they are guided in their decision-making by what the Bible does not say. That opens a very broad door for what can be brought into worship, going far beyond just instruments of music.

The New Testament is the new covenant of Christ under which we live today, not the Old Testament. There were instruments of music used in Old Testament worship. Why was it okay to use them? Because there was word from God approving such under the Law of Moses (2 Chron. 29:25 and various Psalms). Why is it wrong to use them today? Because there is no word from God approving such under the law of Christ under which we live today.

If a man desired to live under the Law of Moses today, he could not be saved. Much of the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews discuss this very issue. We cannot hope to be saved today by animal sacrifice, by worshiping as they worshiped, by observing Jewish festivals, etc.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Where there is no word from God, there can be no faith. Faith based on the word of God demands word from God. There is no word from God in the New Testament regarding men worshiping him with instruments of music.

When the word of God is silent on a subject, no matter how much you may believe, what you really have is opinion, not Bible faith. If there is no word of God on a subject, there can be no faith, only opinion. To have faith, you must first have the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Walking by faith demands word from God. We are to walk by faith (2 Cor. 5:7).

A foundational principle of the Christian faith is that “without faith it is impossible to please Him (God--DS)”. (Heb. 11:6 NKJV) Faith is always dependent on evidence. We don’t believe in little green men because there is no evidence of their existence. We do not actually have to see a thing to believe in it, obviously, but we do have to have evidence. When it comes to instrumental music the problem is that evidence is lacking. There is not a single word about its use found in the New Testament. It is hard to have faith in a thing that is not even mentioned or hinted at. Since when did silence become evidence?

Those who use instruments of music in Christian worship teach their acceptability. Is this teaching of God or man? If of God, where does the New Testament teach the thing? If of God, why did it take hundreds of years after Christ's death to get it started?

Had God desired that we use instruments, how hard would it have been for him to of told us? Not very! He told the Jews under the Law of Moses, but he did not tell Christians living under the law of Christ. What does the law of Christ teach in the New Testament about instrumental music? Not one thing. Where is there a single passage found that gives any support whatsoever, any command, any example, of instrumental music in the worship of Christians? The passage cannot be found.

One might go to the book of Revelation and find it there, one might say. But the book of Revelation is a symbolic book. Do we think spiritual beings in heaven play literal material instruments? Besides, if they are found in heaven, what does that have to do with the here and now? If they are there, I will be glad to play them with you if we both get there (and learn how to play). Right now, you and I are living in the here and now under the law of Christ.

Brother Wallace was correct. If I use the instrument in worship, I am not being guided by what the Bible says but by what the Bible does not say. The Bible does not say not to use them. I am being guided by what the Bible does not say if I do so. Do I want to live my life based on what the Bible does not say about things?

If this is how I derive Bible authority for what is right, the silence of the Bible, then we are free to bring into the worship anything not specifically prohibited by direct command. We can again burn incense as did the Jews of old, have drama, dance, you name it. The Bible is silent about a lot of things.

As I write this paragraph my car is in the shop. When I go to get it I do not want a bill for a muffler in addition to the seals that are being put in elsewhere on the car. I do not want to hear “you didn’t say not to” from the shop owner. Real everyday life does not get its authority for action from silence. We all know that. Why then do we accept that argument in religion?

The argument from silence, the scripture did not say not to argument, has opened the floodgates in Christendom already. We all know this has happened. You name it and some denomination is doing it. However, ask the question whether what they are doing is of God or man and you easily come up with the answer.

If a man does not need the Bible as a guide then of what value is it? Paul tells us, “We walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7 NKJV). The whole teaching of the Bible is that a man is to hear the word of God, believe it, and obey it. This is the only way a man can walk by faith--hear, believe, and obey. You do not walk by faith by adding to God’s word, not by adding instrumental music.

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

Holiness or Consequences

Christians are generally reluctant to think of themselves as holy, feeling they are not worthy of such a designation. However, the Bible teaches that Christians are holy and must be holy if they are to see God. “Pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14 NKJV) So, we see, it is holiness or consequences.

When we think of holy men and women of the Bible, we often think of Peter, Paul, John, and the prophets of the Old Testament, and women like Sarah and Deborah. We feel totally inadequate to be placed in their company. However, we do not make ourselves holy, God does; thus, it is not a matter of how we feel about it. This does not mean we are passive in becoming holy, that we have no role to play in it, but God alone can cleanse us of our sins.

When we obey the gospel, we become a new creation, a holy one. “Therefore, 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) One enters into Christ the end result of faith, repentance, and baptism—put another way, the result of obeying the gospel. We are “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) or, as found in Galatians, “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV), the last step of gospel obedience.

In baptism, the old man, the old woman, the old creature died. “We were buried with Him (Christ-DS) by baptism into death” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV). When we arise from baptism (immersion), “we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV). That would be impossible to do if you did not actually have a new life, a new spiritual life. You are a new person in God’s eyes. This is essential “for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.” (Gal. 6:15 NKJV)

This new creation that we become is holy and is God’s doing. He cleanses us of all our sins and makes us holy. We “put on the new man which was created according to God, in righteousness and true holiness.” (Eph. 4:24 NKJV) We are thereafter to be active “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” (2 Cor. 7:1 NKJV) The exhortation is to be holy in all our conduct (1 Peter 1:15). Why? Because God is (1 Peter 1:16) and we are his children.

To be holy is to be like God in all aspects of our lives. That would be in the way we think, our attitudes, our hearts, our daily conduct, in everything we do and say. That can only come about as we read and reread and imbibe the scriptures to see and learn God’s will. We learn of earthly things from our earthly fathers; we are to learn of spiritual things from our spiritual father.

Holiness, of course, implies we keep ourselves from sin and that we be consecrated to Christ. It does not mean sinless perfection, an impossibility. It does mean we want to please God and thus strive to do so by keeping his commandments, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NKJV)

We need to discuss “sanctification” alongside the word “holiness.” Both words come from the exact same Greek word, the word “hagiasmos.” Thus, in some translations, you will read the word sanctification in a passage, and in another version, the same passage, you may read the word holiness; the two terms are interchangeable. I note in comparing the earlier versions of the New American Standard translation in Heb. 12:14 that both the 1977 version and the 1995 update used the word sanctification, whereas the most recent update, the 2020 version, has changed it now to the word holiness. Here they are for your comparison: (1) “the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14 NAS 1977), (2) “the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (NASB 2020).

Without me going through all such passages comparing translations that use the one word, while others use the other one, I give you one more example, Rom. 6:22, where the original KJV uses the word holiness as does the NKJV, NIV, and the NLT, but most all of the other major translations use the word sanctification (the ESV, CSB, NAS, NET, and the NRSV).

Both words refer to a state of being, in God’s eyes, as he views us, because of the remission of sins he has granted to us in Christ, and to a state of consecration to God in living the Christian life. If we are holy or sanctified, we are set apart to God and are saints. We are saints, the way scripture defines saints, not the way the Roman Catholic Church defines them. We are holy; we are dedicated, consecrated, set apart to God.

This state of holiness is attributed to different things in scripture. In John 17:17, we are sanctified, made holy in the New Living Translation, by God’s truth. We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit in Rom. 15:16 and 2 Thess. 2:13. Ephesians 5:26 says it is “with the washing of water by the word” (NKJV)--the CSB, the NIV, the NLT, and the NRSV use the word holy in Eph. 5:26 rather than the word sanctify. (I digress for a moment to say if Jesus makes holy or sanctifies the church by the washing of water, that makes baptism essential for cleansing of sin.) And then we are sanctified by Jesus’ blood in Heb. 13:12.

Ultimately, it all goes back to the same source—God. Only God can cleanse us of sin and make us holy. It can be compared to making a living. We might attribute our ability to make a living to our own labor, to our good health enabling us to work, to our training or education that opened the door of opportunity, to the help of others along the way, as there are many contributing factors that made it possible. Yet, in the final analysis, God made it doable. It was his goodness toward us that made whatever success we have had possible. It is he who gave us our health, our ability to do the work, and our job. No doubt many others could have had our place, but God, by his grace, gave it to us.

So, one can attribute holiness to different things, even our own efforts to be holy, and we are commanded to make that effort (1 Peter 1:15-16), but finally, its source is God.

We probably need to mention this to try to cover all the bases. You probably recall Moses at the burning bush episode in the Old Testament, how he was told to remove his sandals for the ground where he stood was holy (Exodus 3:5). I mention that to say some things are holy besides God and his people. Anything closely related to God or God’s presence is holy. Thus in Matt. 23:17 we read, “Which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?” (NKJV), and in Matt. 23:19, “Which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?” (NKJV)

The gold and the gift in the passages cited are made holy, for that is what sanctifies means. The Good News Bible translates both passages using the word holy for “it is the Temple which makes the gold holy” in Matt. 23:17 and “the altar which makes the gift holy” in Matt. 23:19. The English Standard Version uses the word “sacred” rather than holy in both passages, but you get the idea. Holiness is an attribute of God; thus, anything closely associated with him is holy, is sacred, and is to be treated as such.

I know we have a natural reluctance to view ourselves as holy men and women, for it sounds to our ears like arrogance. It is not. We must be holy, for without it we shall not see God, and that means our eternal destiny would be hell. What a change in the life of the church if all of us would start thinking of ourselves as “holy.” It could then be said of each of us that there is “a man of God” or “a woman of God.” It would not only change the church, but it would change each of us. It is a change we need to make.

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