The Intersection of Politics and Christianity

(This is a twelve year old article but I find it relevant for today so post it.)

I write this under the date of March 6, 2012.  By now virtually everyone who follows the news at all has heard of Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student, who testified before a portion of Congress recently arguing that birth control pills should be covered by her employer's health care plan.  She argued that it is just too expensive for students to purchase the pills on their own.

As you know the President's health care plan has a contraception mandate in it requiring employers or their insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives.  This has aroused a fight between the President and the leaders of the Catholic Church whose church doctrine opposes the use of contraceptives.  They argue his mandate is a matter of the violation of the church and state relationship whereby the state is trying to force upon the church a requirement that they provide a service or pay for it that is directly contrary to their church doctrine while the President and his party argue it is a matter of women's rights and health care.

Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative talk radio personality, got involved last week by calling Ms. Fluke a slut.  Here is a part of Limbaugh's monologue quoted from the March 2nd ABC News Web Site online from the blog posted there by Mary Bruce.

"'What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her?  It makes her a slut, right?  It makes her a prostitute,' Limbaugh said Wednesday.  'She wants to be paid to have sex.  She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.  She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.  What does that make us?  We're the pimps.'"

The President then became involved making a phone call to Ms. Fluke to offer his support to her, commending her for her testimony, and expressing his disappointment that she had been subjected to these personal attacks.

I have written all of the above so you the reader have the necessary background information before you to see where I am coming from in the remarks I am about to make.  First, I want to tell you what this article is not about.  It is not about the use of contraceptives.  It is not about whether or not the government should mandate that health care plans cover contraceptives.  It is not about the Catholic Church or any of its doctrines.  It is not about Rush Limbaugh and whether or not he should have said what he said.  What it is about is defending that which is scripturally indefensible, fornication.

What kind of a country do we live in when we have national leaders that go to bat for unmarried college women, commending them, for basically committing fornication?  Now I fully understand that some women have health issues that may require birth control pills for reasons other than birth control.  I am fine with that but do not be misled or so naïve that you think that Ms. Fluke was advocating for that reason and for that small group of college-age women that fit into that category.  She had in mind birth control pills for college coeds who needed them for birth control pure and simple.  President Obama was not so naïve that he did not know that and yet his desire was to render support.

Paul guided by the Holy Spirit said, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9 KJV)  Paul spoke of these acts as being unrighteous.  He says those who do such things "shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

He says in 1 Cor. 6:18, "Flee fornication.  Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." (KJV)  Did you get that?  The Bible calls fornication a sin.  Now who is worse—Rush Limbaugh for calling names or our national leaders whose desire it is to defend the indefensible, defend sin?  God will decide.

In an article entitled "Rush Limbaugh Apologies for Calling Sandra Fluke a 'Slut,'" dated Sat., Mar 3, 2012, by Dean Schabner and Matt Negrin on the ABC NEWS online site, President Obama is said to have called Ms. Fluke "to tell her that her parents should be proud of her for speaking out for women."  I can tell you had that been my sister in the 1960’s testifying before Congress, unmarried, a single college student, that she needed insurance coverage for her birth control pills I don't know what would have happened at home at our house but it would not have been pretty and "proud" is the last thing in the world my parents would have been and they would have been right.  Don’t confound the holding of high political office with holiness and righteousness.

It is past time to quit calling this country a Christian nation.  It has aborted millions of babies (a holocaust), every year we have more and more states legalizing gay marriages which involve the sexual act the Bible refers to as an abomination (Lev. 18:22), we are slowly but surely destroying God's definition of marriage, and now we think it is wonderful that a college student advocate for birth control for fornication and commend her for taking such a stand.

As I write this piece I am 65 just having had a birthday about 3 weeks ago.  I think back on the days of my childhood and youth and how the morals of this country have changed.  The big push toward massive national immorality came in my college years in the late 60's with the hippie generation, the sexual revolution, Woodstock, drugs, etc.  I came from a very tiny rural community and graduated from high school in a class of 10 students.  A big class for our community was 16 which is what the class ahead of me had.  But, the point I want to make is I never knew of but one kid who came from a divorced family.  Nearly every child lived with their biological family.  I graduated from high school in 1965.

Children today do not have parents.  They have live-ins, here today, gone tomorrow.  It is mom's boyfriend, not dad.  It is dad's girlfriend, not mom.  What a life we live today but I thought everything was supposed to get better with time.  I thought it was called progress and was inevitable.  Man was to be his own master.  Maybe we just need a few more laws passed by our legislatures or a few more mandates to make us what we ought to be.  Maybe a little more ignoring of God would help (hope you recognize satire).

This article was not written with the intent to condemn or attack Ms. Fluke.  The truth is "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 KJV)  Furthermore, if people would study up on the Greek word translated fornication (the Greek being the word porneia) they would quickly learn why most modern translations have dropped the word fornication and replaced it with the more general term "sexual immorality."  Some want to argue that "sexual immorality" is too broad a term and covers too much ground for the Greek.  That is wishful thinking and reflects a lack of in-depth study.  The best study I have ever come across on the subject is a 20-page article by Oscar Miles in Faith and Facts Quarterly, April 2008, Vol 36, Number 2, pages 36-56.  It is a scholarly work with in-depth research with 39 footnotes reflecting that research.

The purpose of what I just said was to make the point that there are a lot more people guilty of fornication (Greek "porneia") than ever thought they were.  One does not have to be involved in the act of procreation to commit the sin of fornication for all sexual immorality is covered by the Greek word as accurately reflected by the more modern day Bible translations.  People commit fornication, sexual immorality, who have no need of birth control pills. 

So the article is not about Ms. Fluke specifically or even about a particular sin or group of sins but it is about a so-called Christian nation that has lost its way and no longer has any use for the Bible; a nation whose desire is to become a secular state and discard religion.  It is about government and government officials who would not know what a sin was if it slapped them in the face and who promote sin and applaud it.  We get what we want, what we desire.  We also get to reap the consequences; we get to reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7).

People on the one hand do not want to obey God and want to ridicule his outdated commandments, as they see them, but on the other hand, when tragedy strikes they want to think it could not possibly be God punishing this great righteous nation.  It is foolish for a man to say any one event is an act of God in punishment of a nation for no man can know that.  However, is it not also foolishness to think God is just going to continue endlessly to put up with our sins?

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17 NKJV)  We have forgotten God in our morality and our government.  We govern ourselves by the men and women we vote into office.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for what happens to us as a nation.  I hope I am not here when God decides the day has come for our punishment.  We are surely not a righteous nation. 

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

Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins?  The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual's part.  It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation.   It is hard to understand but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teach we are saved by faith which no one doubts but they add the word “alone.”  And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV, see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT)  The King James Version and the New King James Version reads “not by faith only.”

One has to remember faith has to be defined.  When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith?  If it is a living faith it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active.  To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question.  In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached.  Were those people in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith?  Certainly!  They were but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38).  Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it, the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching, saved at the point of faith; based on what they teach their doctrine demands it.  They would deny that but only in part.  They would say you must repent but to do that you have to split Peter’s preaching in half taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism.  One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence or in this case to Peter’s oral command.  Or, should we say the Holy Spirit’s oral command?  Yes, we should.

But, if they include repentance in their faith alone doctrine then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone” for that it would not be.    

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented but had developed faith.  We know they had come to faith for the text says “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and ask Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37)  We know Peter’s response.  Why command people to repent who have already repented?  Peter commanded them to repent thus they had not done so even though they had faith.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin.  These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus when they asked what shall we do.  The text says they were cut to the heart.  Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) but it is not repentance.  To repent one must turn from sin to righteousness.  It is a state of mind and will.  It is a determination to cease sinning and live righteously.  One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith.  The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism.  Some of the faith-only people like to say repentance is inherent in faith, that faith is a synecdoche.  Yes, I believe that is true at times but when used that way it includes not just repentance but baptism also.  That they will not accept.  However, in Acts 2 faith is clearly not a synecdoche.  The question they must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when those people were saved.  The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.  

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins.  There is no truth in it but for the sake of argument let us pursue the thought.  If that was so then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins.  You can be forgiven without repentance.  If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins.  Saved without repentance.  Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, would be good to ask the faith-only people.  Had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it and repented and been saved without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized?  Their doctrine demands that if they are consistent.  And, in such a scenario could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused baptism?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)  It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed.  But, in an undisputed passage Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV)  You cannot go to heaven without baptism. 

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission for in it Jesus commanded baptism.  “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  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, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved?  He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) 

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

The Place of Hate in a Christian’s Life

It goes without saying that Christians do not associate hate with the characteristics God would have his children possess.  Christianity is about love for God and for our fellow man.  Hate would seem to be the antithesis of all Christianity stands for and yet there are things a Christian must come to hate if he is to become like God in his character.  If God hates a thing can I as his child love the thing he hates?  "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" (Amos 3:3 NKJV)  God's child must learn to hate what God hates to walk with God.  Please note I say things, not people.  We strive to hate the things people do, not the individuals.

One of the best known passages in the Bible regarding things God hates is found in Prov. 6:16-19, “These six things the LORD hates,  Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:  A proud look,  A lying tongue,  Hands that shed innocent blood,  A heart that devises wicked plans,  Feet that are swift in running to evil,  A false witness who speaks lies,  And one who sows discord among brethren.” (NKJV) 

Another very well-known passage is found in Malachi 2:16, “The Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce.” (NKJV) 

The Lord says he hates thinking “evil in your heart against your neighbor.” (Zech. 8:17 NKJV) 

In a prophecy of Jesus found in Psalms 45:7 the Psalmist says, “You love righteousness and hate wickedness.” (NKJV)  If you turn to Heb. 1:9 you will find this Old Testament passage quoted and applied to Jesus.

This short list is far from an all-inclusive list of the things God hates, for example we know he hates idolatry, but all the things he hates can be summarized by saying God hates sin.  We must also come to hate it if we are to be like him. 

There are, however, some passages found in the scriptures that tell us specifically things we ought to hate.  “A righteous man hates lying.” (Prov. 13:5 NKJV)  A wise man will hate “pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverse mouth.” (Prov. 8:13 NKJV) 

In Rev. 2:6 the church at Ephesus was commended for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans which the Lord said, “I also hate.” (NKJV) 

The bottom line is we must come to hate all sin.  “You who love the Lord, hate evil!” (Psalms 97:10 NKJV)  “Hate evil, love good.” (Amos 5:15 NKJV)  “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.” (Prov. 8:13 NKJV) 

We might talk a little bit about hate.  When we think of hate we generally think first of hate directed against people, ill will accompanied by deep emotion to the point the person hated is detested and we wish him/her nothing good.  However, the word hate can mean more than one thing so one must beware of how the word is used in context to determine its true meaning in each instance.  Even in the use of the word as already given one must remember not all persons hated are equally hated with the same passion and to the same degree. 

Sometimes all the word hate means is an aversion to something evil.  For example, I hate poison ivy and sunburns.  One is to hate in scriptural language "iniquity" (Heb. 1:9 ASV). 

Another usage expresses a preference for one thing over another.  For example, I hate pecan pie compared to cherry pie.  In the New Testament one hates his/her parents, even his own life also, in comparison to his love for Christ (Luke 14:26).  Nowhere does the New Testament teach hatred of one's parents or of one's own life, just the opposite (see Matt. 15:4, Eph. 6:2-3, Eph. 5:28-29). 

There are those today here in America, and their numbers are increasing, who see the Bible as a book of hatred because it condemns sin in the flesh (sin in humanity).  They are unwilling to admit the actions they are engaged in are sin and do not want to hear it or hear it preached.  The only sin they can see is the Bible itself, a book of hatred from their point of view because it is intolerant of the sin in their life. 

Many of them would like to see hate speech legislation enacted to control any condemnation of what the Bible calls sin.  They are at war with God, with Christ, with the Bible, and with all Christians who hold to the word of God and they are growing in political power.  Perhaps that will change; time will tell. 

God is not a God of hate but of love.  He is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) which is one reason the earth still stands today, because of God's longsuffering toward sinners.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16 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)  This has always been God's plea to man—turn from sin to me and live.  Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." (Heb. 5:9 NKJV)  That excludes no one except for those who prefer their own way of life to God's.

Race, age, gender, nationality, intelligence, talents, looks, education, social class, or standing, no one is excluded from eternal salvation save for those who just will not have it because of their preference for self over God.  God is a gracious and generous God.  "For you, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, and abundant in mercy to all those who call upon you." (Psalm 86:5 NKJV)

A God who loves and who is good cannot tolerate that which is unloving and evil.  Only God as God has the knowledge or ability to know what is best for man, only he knows right from wrong for we can only know as he reveals this knowledge to us.  We are all born knowing nothing.  As human beings, we are all limited in every aspect of our life even as we grow and acquire knowledge and understanding.  There is only so much we can know; only so much we can do.  We are continually changing for the better or the worse.  God does not change.  "For I am the Lord, I do not change." (Mal. 3:6 NKJV)  Who God is, what he is, his nature, his character, cannot change.  God cannot quit being God.

Gamaliel gave good advice to the men of Israel in Acts 5:39 when he told them they could not fight against God and win.  One will either fight against God and lose or bring his will into accord with the Lord's will and be found as a friend of God.  The ramifications of the choice made are eternal and cannot be altered once our final breath departs from us.

In bringing our will in line with the Lord's will we must learn to love what he loves and hate what he hates.  While God hates sin he does not hate the sinner for he has done everything in the world he could possibly do to save the sinner except for saving the sinner in his sins unrepentant.  God would have to love sin (evil) to do that.  What would be good about a God who would save an unrepentant Hitler or Stalin?

In 1 Cor. 2:16 Paul says, "We have the mind of Christ." (NKJV)  Let us love what Christ loved and hate what he hated. 

[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.]