The Kingdom of God and the New Birth

Why write an article on the topic of the kingdom of God and the new birth? Because Jesus tied them together in talking to Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NKJV) Unfortunately, many misunderstand the kingdom of God spoken of in the passage and, as a result, come to erroneous suppositions, suppositions that lead astray. Perhaps the prominent of these is the idea that one can be saved like the thief on the cross. This is a topic that needs to be discussed.

Chronology is essential to a proper understanding of what Jesus is teaching. Jesus is king over his kingdom, but when did Jesus become a king with a kingdom over which to rule? When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus in John 3, was he speaking of what already existed, speaking in the present tense, or was he speaking prophetically?

He was speaking prophetically. Much of the teaching Jesus did while on earth related to the coming kingdom over which he would be king. It was yet in the future, but it had been prophesied from days of old. Daniel spoke of it when he said, in interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream, "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed … and it shall stand forever." (Dan 2:44)

Israel and Judah of the Old Testament were ruled by kings, but both nations ended up in captivity, and the kingdoms were destroyed. The Jewish nation into which Jesus was born, into which he came, had no king. They were ruled by the Romans.

We need to trace the history of the kingdom that was established by Jesus. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the events about to overtake her here is what he said, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:31-33 NKJV)

When John the Baptist comes on the scene and begins his ministry, his message is that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2 NKJV) It was at hand, meaning not here yet but getting close. This was the kingdom of God that both Daniel and the angel Gabriel said was to stand forever.

One chapter later, we see Jesus preaching the exact same message, "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV)

How close was that kingdom? Jesus said in his preaching to an audience in Mark 9:1, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." (NAS)

Two points need to be emphasized here regarding this passage. (1) The kingdom still had not yet arrived, but it would be doing so within the lifetime of some of those standing there. (2) When it came, it would arrive "with power." Put another way, you would know it when it happened for there would be power with its coming.

When Jesus spoke those words recorded in Mark 9:1 the kingdom did not yet exist, and if Jesus is to be the king of it, he does not yet have a kingdom. But, one might object, the New Testament speaks of Jesus as being a king before this kingdom of which you speak has arrived. True. But can a person be a king before he sits on the throne and begins to rule? We would, I think, all agree that he could. If it is certain he is to be king, we can call him king, but we do that in anticipation of what we know is coming.

What do we know up to this point in time that can help us determine when the kingdom is to arrive? We know it is a matter of just a very few years and we know that when it comes there is power that will come with it, making it recognizable as having arrived.

The New Testament gives us all the information we need to determine the exact day the kingdom of God became a reality among men. Since it came with power, if we know when the power came, we know when the kingdom arrived. Can we know? Yes.

In Luke 24:49, Jesus told the apostles, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (NKJV) This was just before his ascension back to heaven.

Luke explains this a little more when he says, "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; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:4-5 NKJV)

Now look the two passages over carefully and compare them. The promise of the Father was the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), but Luke (Luke 24:49) says the promise is with power. The power comes with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Remember what Jesus said in Mark 9:1? The kingdom of God was to come with power. When the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of God arrived with power.

Let us take a look at what happened at that time. "When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)

Note the reaction of the crowd that had gathered. "Then they were all amazed and marveled." (Acts 2:7 NKJV) Now let us go back to Luke's quotation of Jesus in Acts 1:8. Speaking to the apostles, Jesus had said, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." (NKJV) The kingdom had arrived with power. All recognized power had come down from heaven, from God himself.

What had they seen and heard that day? They had heard the sound that came from heaven "as of a rushing mighty wind" (Acts 2:2 NKJV), which is why they had come to gather together. Whether they had seen the "tongues, as of fire" (Acts 2:3 NKJV) that sat upon the apostles, one cannot say with certainty, but they most assuredly had heard the sound and then witnessed and heard the apostles speaking in tongues that they (the apostles) had never learned. There was little doubt in their mind that a higher power than that which was merely human had arrived.

Was Jesus now on his throne? Did he now have a kingdom over which to rule? He did if the kingdom had arrived with power, which it had. Hear Peter in his sermon that day. He says David knew that God "would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts 2:30 NKJV) Remember also the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary when he said of Jesus, "The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David." (Luke 1:32 NKJV)

Peter then says Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33 NKJV) The reader is reminded of passages just studied here. The kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1), the promise was of power from on high (Luke 24:49), but that power promised was the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). The kingdom came with the baptism of the apostles with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

But let us look closer at Peter's statement about Jesus sitting on David's throne. Acts 2:29-31 (read paying special attention), "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." (Act 2:29-31 NKJV) The point one needs to get out of this is that for Christ to sit on the throne and thus be king over this kingdom, he first had to be resurrected.

The kingdom over which Jesus now reigns and rules did not exist while Jesus lived on earth. Daniel had a vision of Jesus being crowned as a sitting, ruling king. "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14 NKJV) Jesus received the kingdom upon his arrival in heaven for that is what the text says--"then to Him was given … a kingdom."

The kingdom over which he now rules is "not of this world" (John 18:36 NKJV) but rather a spiritual kingdom which will never be destroyed. Yes, Jesus is now king in his kingdom. Every Christian is a subject of the king of kings--Jesus, the Lord and Savior.

Why has all of this been important beyond just being a history lesson? Why bother writing this? What does this business about the kingdom have to do with salvation and the new birth?

Here is the application. When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus in John 3:3-5, he spoke of a kingdom that was yet to come. Hear the things he said in that passage. "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'" (NKJV) Could Nicodemus become a citizen that day (actually that night) of a kingdom that did not yet exist? Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of that which was yet to come.

What does it mean then to be born of water and the Spirit, which Jesus says is essential to entering the kingdom of God (meaning you cannot be saved without it)? There is no problem in coming to an accurate understanding. Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:19 NKJV)

The kingdom began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 with Peter preaching. Did he use the keys of the kingdom that day to open the door to the kingdom of God to mankind? Did anyone that day learn how to enter the kingdom? Was anyone that day born of water and the Spirit? Were any saved that day?

What did men do that day when they became convinced Peter had preached the truth (thus faith was developed within them)? What did he, the man with the keys, tell them to do? Did he not say to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) The Bible says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." (Acts 2:41 NKJV) They were thus born of water and the Spirit of John 3:5.

It is thus not too hard to learn what a man must do to be born again--listen to the man with the keys—listen to Peter. One is born of the Spirit when the Spirit working through the tool he uses (the word of God--"the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" Eph. 6:17 - NKJV) leads a man to faith and repentance, and then born of water when he is baptized for the remission of sins. It is but one birth, but has two aspects to it; either part without the other results in an aborted birth.

The man with the keys of the kingdom is belittled by most who call themselves Christians. Ask most denominational preachers to get into the pulpit this coming Sunday and preach just what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost with no additions and no subtractions and you could not get them to do it. They do not preach it because they do not believe there is a single ounce of water in a man's salvation, despite John 3:5, the very words of Jesus. This means they cannot preach what Peter did or what Jesus taught Nicodemus.

We ought to go with the man with the keys rather than with those who wish they had the keys. Yes, Jesus could have saved us without any water in the means to do so, but he chose not to. Have you ever thought that baptism might well be a test of your faith? What are you going to do if you are going to be saved by faith but fail the test, fail to believe?

Water does not save a man, but obeying Jesus does. Naaman, the leper (2 Kings 5), was not cleansed by the water of the Jordan River from his leprosy, but until he had faith enough to go do as he was directed and dip seven times he was not cleansed and never would have been. Could God have cleansed him from the leprosy some other way? Sure, had he chosen to do so. The power was not inherent in the water but in believing God enough to do what God said to do. And just so it is with baptism today. When God said to do it, that leaves one who wants to be saved without a choice.

Certainly, there were people saved who had their sins remitted, without baptism, while Jesus personally walked the earth, but that was also before the kingdom of God was established. Remember mentioning the importance of chronology? And, yes, God can save a person anyway he desires—he is God. However, he has told us in John 3 how we are saved in the age in which we live. Do we believe him? Are we going to teach others living today that water doesn’t matter despite what Jesus taught us in John 3:3-5? Not me. Faith means believing what Jesus taught.

One final comment. Jesus was really the one who did the preaching on the day of Pentecost. Hear Jesus speaking in John 16:13-14, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-14 NKJV) The Spirit did not speak on his own authority on the Day of Pentecost, speaking through Peter, but took what was Jesus' and declared it to them. One cannot reject Peter's sermon that day without rejecting Jesus. 

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

The Spirit of Christ and Liberalism

As a result of an article I wrote in the past, I was accused of lacking the spirit of Christ in that I opposed adulterous marriages and gay marriage, and the accuser surmised correctly that I also opposed freedom of choice for women as pertains to abortion. It was implied that I was intolerant, unloving, and lacked the spirit of Christ. I determined then to write an article dealing with the spirit of Christ.

There are many people in America today who have built their own Christ. He bears only a vague resemblance to the Christ of the Bible, although those who built him refuse to see it that way. Building one's own God does have its advantage in that you can design him as you desire and make his character and nature out as best suits your fancy and your own concept of sin and righteousness. The only problem is the obvious one—it is all a facade. A manmade Christ can no more save than could Jeroboam's two golden calves (see 1 Kings 18:25-30).

It is said Christ loved all people, even those from the worst class of sinners, and that he associated with all. Well, who has ever denied that? Not me. But the idea is, from those who have built a Christ after their own fancy, that with Christ it is okay to continue on in sin as long as you believe in him, love him, and love your fellowman. Christ would and will forgive you anyway, and did not then or now demand repentance and reformation of life. He, it is supposed, just accepted people as they were in their sinful state. Really!

Matthew says Jesus began his preaching career preaching repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV) In Matt. 11:20 we read, "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent." (Matt. 11:20 NKJV) Furthermore, in the next few verses, he warns those cities of what lies ahead on the Day of Judgment for them. To give one example, he says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for Capernaum, which he says "will be brought down to Hades." (Matt. 11:23 NKJV)

When Jesus sent the 12 out to preach, what were they sent to preach? Mark says, "So they went out and preached that people should repent." (Mark 6:12 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (NKJV) He says this twice, in Luke 13:3 and then in Luke 13:5. Don't let anyone tell you that the spirit of Christ was such that he so loved people to such an extent that he would save them while they continued on in an impenitent state, unwilling to repent and render obedience to God the Father.

In the very first gospel sermon ever preached after Christ's ascension, as soon as the crowd was convicted in their hearts, by Peter's preaching, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, they asked, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV) The first word out of Peter's mouth in reply was "repent." (Acts 2:38 NKJV) At Athens, Luke records Paul's preaching there, saying "God…now commands all men everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30 NKJV)

But one must beware of this crowd of people who have made a Jesus who does not require repentance but allows one to live on in sin and yet be saved. Some of them want to make Paul out to be a renegade, a rebel against Christ who preached a different theology, a different gospel than Christ taught. The idea they have is that you can live a life based on what Jesus said and did in the gospel accounts and pay no heed to Paul who was out there just doing his own thing—so they say and believe.

For them to be right about Paul, several things have to be proven true. (1) It must be proven Paul was a liar—a liar about his conversion experience (see Acts 9, 22, 26), a liar about how he received the gospel (Gal. 1:11-12), a liar about having the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.2:13, compare Eph. 3:5 with 1 Cor. 15:9 and 2 Cor. 11:5) and not just that he lied about having the Holy Spirit but that Ananias also lied about Paul receiving it (Acts 9:17).

(2) If Paul was uninspired and a rebel against God and Christ, just a man who had his own theology, then it destroys the book of Acts written by Luke for the reason that Luke would then become an unreliable historian, a man no one could believe, because he writes about Paul's conversion three times as historical fact and mentions that one of the purposes of Ananias' visit to Paul was that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) which would be untrue. Paul's miracles, recorded by Luke, then come into question. If the book of Acts is unreliable history, then what about the book of Luke itself? Why should it be considered reliable? The same man wrote both books.

(3) If Paul was not a Holy Spirit inspired man but only a rebel against Christ with his own theology what does this say about Peter who wrote of Paul saying, "Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--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) Peter says Paul's writings are scripture—"as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

If Paul's writings are not from the Holy Spirit, then please tell us how one could twist his writings to their own destruction. If he was uninspired you could twist his words a thousand different ways and it would have no bearing whatsoever on your salvation. Paul had the spirit of Christ, his detractors to the contrary notwithstanding.

Those who want to pit Paul against Christ and claim that Paul's teaching was not of Christ will need to delete Luke's writings from their Bibles, as well as Peter's and all of Paul's, and I hope to soon show that they need to get rid of John's writings also. How?

Have you ever read Gal. 2:9, Paul speaking? "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (NKJV) If John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, a man who taught falsely about the commands of God, what does that say about John and his writings? If Paul deceived John, how can we believe the things John wrote, for he might have been deceived about those things as well.

Furthermore, if this James, who is mentioned in Gal. 2:9, is, as scholars think, the James who wrote the book of James, then he too was deluded in giving Paul the right hand of fellowship and his writings, as well as John's, then come into question. I guess, of course, one could say Paul was lying about this since he wrote the book of Galatians, but the book of Acts teaches that Paul was in good standing with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem.

You do see, do you not, where all of this business leads about Paul having his own doctrine separate and apart from the Lord's? You end up having to delete every book of the New Testament Paul wrote, that Luke wrote, that John wrote, that Peter wrote, and that James wrote. That leaves but little of the New Testament. Only a liberal could believe it.

This liberal crowd that wants to make Christ out as a God made after their own image err in another way as well. They define love for God the way they so desire rather than the way God has defined it. Here is God's definition, the definition that they will not accept. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:2-3 NKJV)

Their desire is to override any concern about keeping the commandments of God, thus keeping the door open for continuing on in adulterous marriages, homosexuality, open the door for gay marriage, and keep it open for abortion. This was not the spirit of John the Baptist, "For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, 'It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.'" (Mark 6:17-18 NKJV) There had been a divorce and remarriage but God did not recognize it for he said through John that Herodias was still Philip's wife. John was going to break up an adulterous marriage. No need to worry about that among those who have made their own Christ, for their Christ does not demand repentance and reformation of life for salvation.

Their claim is that God is satisfied with adulterous marriages, homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, etc., because it would be intolerant not to be, and it is an act of love to accept those things in people, accept them without repentance. Passages like 1 Cor. 6:9-10 mean nothing to them (Paul wrote it after all). "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (NKJV) They do not believe what their eyes read. They claim Christ is on their side, and Paul was a renegade and a rebel. Who do you think had the spirit of Christ? Was it Paul or the modern-day liberal?

Now, how about the spirit of Christ in his own being? Did Christ have the spirit of obedience to the Father or the spirit of disobedience? First, let it be known that Christ was assuredly under commandment from God just as much as you and I are. Jesus said, "This command I have received from My Father." (John 10:18 NKJV) "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak." (John 12:49 NKJV) "As the Father gave Me commandment, so I do." (John 14:31 NKJV) "I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." (John 15:10 NKJV)

Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38 NKJV) "I always do those things that please Him." (John 8:29 NKJV) "I do know Him and keep His word." (John 8:55 NKJV) Finally, in Rom. 5:19, Paul speaking of Jesus said, "So also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." (NKJV) One cannot obey unless one has something to obey, a commandment.

Now I ask again, after quoting these passages, was the spirit of Christ one of obedience to God's commandments or one of disobedience? Let my liberal friends answer. Let them answer this question also—who gave them the right to decide what commands of God love can override? Are not all of God's commandments based on love? When a man says this command can be overlooked or ignored (disobeyed), is he not saying that the commandment lacks love? Is he not saying God gave a commandment here that has no love in it, that is, in fact, unloving? Does he really want to stick his neck out on the chopping block like that?

Why does not Mark 7:9 apply to those who so approach the Bible as do these liberals? "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (NKJV) As long as I think I know more about sin and righteousness than God does, as long as I believe my love and my way of showing love is purer than God's way, just that long do I prove myself, not Paul the apostle but myself, the true rebel against God. 

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

Is Water Baptism in John 3:5

From time to time, one is surprised by the ideas that people come up with. One idea that was presented to me and surprised me was the thought that the water mentioned in John 3:5 where Jesus says, “most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (NKJV) had reference not to baptism but to the water of childbirth. I was aware that others explain the water away in other ways as not being baptism, but this childbirth explanation was a new one to me.

In any case, I thought it good to write yet another article on the subject, dealing this time not so much on biblical arguments, for that I have already done in other articles, but upon the historical record to show that today’s interpretations of water in John 3:5 as being something other than baptism are modern-day explanations. While it may seem that many support those views today, it was not that way in the past; in fact, just the opposite.

In the book entitled The Gospel Plan of Salvation, first published in 1874, by T. W. Brents, I quote as follows: “The religious world, with one voice, from the days of Christ until quite recently, has ascribed this language to water baptism.” (Page 490) He goes on to quote a Dr. Wall as follows: “There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language, but what understands it of baptism.” (Page 490, a quote from Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 147)

Burton Coffman, in his Commentary on John, page 81, says, “It is only quite recently in Christian times that interpretations of this verse have been devised to exclude its obvious reference to Christian baptism.” He goes on to quote John Boys, the Dean of Canterbury, a famous preacher and scholar of the Church of England in the seventeenth century who said of his time (1600’s) that some few (he says “few”--not “many”) were saying that the water of the passage we are speaking of, John 3:5, “are not to be construed of external baptism.”

Boys is further quoted as saying, “Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius, in the commentaries on this place (3:5), along with Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, Hierome, Basil, Gregory, Nyssen, and many more, yea most of the Fathers—Hooker, a man of incomparable reading, openeth his mouth wider, avowing peremptorily that all the ancients … have construed this text, as our church doth, of outward baptism.” (as quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 81).

One last quote from Coffman’s commentary is from the famous church historian Phillip Schaff, of the nineteenth century, Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, who said, “It seems impossible to disconnect water in John 3:5 from baptism. Calvin’s interpretation arose from doctrinal opposition to the R. Catholic over-valuation of the sacrament, which must be guarded against in another way.” (quoted in Burton Coffman, Commentary on John, page 82)

Online there is an article entitled, “Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers,” from whence I quote this: “Every Christian, all the Church Fathers, bishops, and saints who lived after the apostles (and some while the apostles were still alive) interpreted our Lord's words in John chapter 3 that to be ‘born again’ and ‘born of water and the Spirit’ refers to the Sacrament of Baptism. There are no exceptions. And Protestant scholars frankly admit this fact (note the relevant sections on Baptism in Reformed/Presbyterian scholar Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition).” No author is listed for this article but the home page suggests it is by Phil Porvaznik. In any case, there are extensive quotations from what the author says are all the church fathers through the fifth century to back up his statement of what the thinking was in the early years of the church.  As I prepare to post this, the article is still online at:

https://www.evangelizationstation.com/oldsite/htm_html/Sacraments/Baptism/born_again.htm

Hopefully, it will remain online for some time to come, but there are no guarantees of that.

Because an interpretation is old does not make it right, but conversely, because an interpretation is new does not make it right either. Christianity is now about 2,000 years old. For about 1500 years of that, most who considered themselves Christians understood the passage in John 3:5 pertaining to being born of water as a clear reference to baptism. Modern-day interpretations that differ from that should not be considered infallible simply because they are modern. Not everything new is better than the old. “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’” (Jer. 6:16 NKJV)

Here is a good way to read John 3:5 when people want to give a new interpretation to the water of the passage. Read it transposing the meaning they propose into the passage and see if it makes sense. For example, the passage reads “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Now transpose the meaning given by my antagonist, “unless one is born of the water of childbirth and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” That is like saying unless one is born a human being he cannot enter the kingdom of God. As the kids today would say, “Well, duh.”

There is no warrant for understanding the water of John 3:5 being anything other than baptism. We see multitudes of people being baptized in water in the book of Acts. That practice, plus many other passages emphasizing the need for water baptism in the scriptures, ought to settle any questions about the matter.

I understand I have not discussed John 3:5 with regard to making scriptural arguments. I said in the beginning that the purpose of this article was to throw some light on the historical record and not do what I have already done before in several different articles where I have discussed the passage in depth from a scriptural perspective.  

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

The Christian, Politics, and the Government

What role, if any, should the Christian play in politics? All any man can know about the subject is what the Bible says and since it was written for the benefit and enlightenment of all men in all ages from the time it was first penned until the last day of this earth’s existence and for all cultures and under all the different kinds of governments it speaks to us not in specifics but in general statements on the subject. As it relates to specifics, it is sometimes hard to know exactly what one ought to do under some scenarios that arise but we have God given principles to guide us.

That America is a deeply divided nation, no one doubts. There are two very distinct trains of thought in our society about what the nature of our country ought to be, and it seems any middle ground has disappeared, leading to anger and bitterness on both sides. So where does a Christian fit in, what does he do, what should he do? What does the Bible teach?

First of all, it should be clear to all who truly want to be what a Christian ought to be that one’s first order of business is to be as much of a Christian as he/she can be every single day of his/her life. What does that mean? It means I should live a spiritual life daily. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” (Gal. 5:22-23 NKJV) Just above this passage in Gal. 5:19-21 are listed the “works of the flesh” (V. 19) of which I would like to list two of those works as they pertain most directly to the topic at hand (politics), namely, “hatred” (v. 20) and “outbursts of wrath” (v. 20). The reader can clearly see the contrasts between the works of the flesh and those of the spirit.

Furthermore, there is a passage in Eph. 4:31 which also speaks directly to the issue, “Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice.” (NKJV)

When we Americans are so deeply divided over the issues, it is very easy for a citizen who is also a Christian to become bitter and angry and think and speak evil of others who are in opposition, and even reach the point where he/she despises them in his/her heart. Yes, the Bible teaches we ought to hate evil, “You who love the Lord, hate evil!” (Psalms 97:10 NKJV, see also Prov. 8:13 and Amos 5:15) Hate the evil but love the person. “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8 NKJV)

We ought to hate the evil a government does when it enacts laws that are contrary and supportive of evil (say, as examples, laws supporting gay marriage and abortion), and it must be admitted, for it cannot be denied, that government is made up of the men and women who make the laws. Yes, they are responsible for the evil a government may allow or do in its lawmaking and governing capacity, but in a democracy, we are also accountable in that we vote the lawmakers and the executive into or out of office. We, as a nation, will be held accountable, which means we need to vote for those candidates running for office who are most supportive of Christian principles.

We can and ought to hate laws that are contrary to God’s teaching in the New Testament, and the kind of thinking that leads to those laws, but yet have compassion for the misguided lawmakers who made them in that each has a soul that is worth more than all of the wealth of this world combined. “For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” (Matt. 16:26 NKJV) Jesus said, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Mark 2:17 NKJV) That was his mission. What is the mission of his servants? Are we in the condemning them to hell camp or are we in the converting them to Christ camp?

If our reaction to ungodly laws that are passed is one of hatred, anger, bitterness, railing, and reviling against the lawmakers then we have done two things--(1) we have allowed politics to destroy our own soul and our hope for heaven and (2) we have ended any hope that those responsible can be converted due to our unchristian attitude and reaction toward them.

Do not misunderstand, the unjust are not going to heaven, which includes lawmakers who have promoted sin via the laws they have helped pass. The Bible does not teach that they are. It does teach, however, that the Christian’s job is to do his/her best to bring the world to Christ. We must teach the truth of the Bible on every Bible subject. If the powers that be in government reject the truth, God will deal with them on the last day. “'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19 NKJV) As for the Christian God says, “give place to wrath” (Rom. 12:19 NKJV) or as the ESV translates it, “never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.” (Rom. 12:19 ESV)

The Bible teaches we ought to pray for those in authority. “Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:1-4 NKJV)

One might say what do we pray for when we pray for them? We might pray a number of things. We might pray that they be given wisdom, that if there is need that they might be led to repentance, we might pray that God would work providentially in their life to help them see the light, we might pray for their welfare and that of their family, and as the text says, we should give thanks for them. We might say sometimes what is there to be thankful for in some men? Well, we ought to look for the good.

No one was ever more unjustly mistreated by the government than Jesus himself. Pilate declared Jesus innocent when he said, “I am innocent of the blood of this just person” (Matt. 27:24 NKJV) and then turned right around and had Jesus “scourged” (Matt. 27:26 NKJV) and handed him over to be put to death. Do you think that might have aroused bitterness and anger in most of us had we been in Jesus’ shoes or been a family member or close friend? Yet, Jesus “was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.” (Isa. 53:7 NKJV)

Peter says, “When he was reviled, did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but committed himself to him who judges righteously.” (1 Peter 2:23 NKJV) God is the ultimate judge of all things and everyone. The government may do great evil, but the Christian answer is to follow the example of Jesus. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom. 12:21 NKJV) “Do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19 NKJV)

That God judges governments (thus countries) cannot be doubted by anyone who has ever read the Old Testament prophets. It was not just Israel and Judah that God judged and brought to ruin because of their sins. If you read the Old Testament, you will read of nation after nation that God prophesied judgment against through his prophets and eventually brought them to their downfall.

Even before that, we can go back to the time when the children of Israel were given the land of Palestine after they departed from Egypt. Why did God drive out and destroy those nations that occupied the land before Israel? Because of evil, of sin, of wrongdoing. Moses speaking on behalf of God told Israel prior to their entry into the Promised Land that “it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out from before you.” (Deut. 9:4 NKJV) Every nation God brought judgment against in the Old Testament was brought to judgment because of its sin and evil.

A couple of points need to be made here. (1) Generally speaking, a country comes to be whatever its leadership leads it to be or allows it to be. Thus, in the Old Testament history of God’s people, we read of good kings and bad kings. When a bad king ruled, idolatry and other evils were in the ascendancy; when a good king came to power, a check was put on that and some, if not all, of the evil was rolled back. Leadership (government) is always for the better or the worse. (2) God will eventually judge a nation for its evil, even if the leadership led it to be that way, unless there is repentance. Needless to say, repentance is hard to come by. (The reader would do well to read Jer. 18:7-10.)

Unfortunately, from a human point of view, when God brings judgment on a nation, the just often suffer along with the unjust, even if it is only for a time. When Judah was carried away into Babylonian captivity for the sins of the nation, Daniel and his three friends had to go too, even though guilty of no sin themselves. The just became captives along with the unjust.

Romans 13 is the chapter that tells us our duties as Christians toward the government. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Rom. 13:1 ESV) Paul goes on to say, “Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Rom. 13:2 ESV) Paul then goes on to explain that government is meant for our good, not to bring evil upon us. (Rom. 13:3-7) I think we all understand the need for government and how there must be laws, rules, and regulations for our safety and well-being. Try and imagine living in a world of utter chaos and lawlessness where there was no government at all and it was every man for himself.

There is also a passage in Titus we need to take note of, “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.” (Titus 3:1-2 NKJV) So, we are to obey the government, but there is more in this passage for our consideration. One who desires to get involved in politics ought to ask himself this question: Can I do it and obey the scriptures at the same time? Will it lead me to be peaceable, gentle, to be humble, and to never speak evil of another, or will it make all of that harder for me?

By getting involved, I am not speaking about running for office (although that would be included) as much as I am about becoming immersed in politics so intensely that it comes to be a major part of one's life and being. We need to be informed citizens and know the issues and the candidates, but when I become so immersed in politics through the news outlets and programs that it begins to dominate my life, almost like being possessed, that is what I have in mind and what I am talking about. Is that good for the Christian? Will it help or hinder you in developing the fruit of the Spirit in your life?

Does there ever come a time when government must be resisted? Peter answered that question in Acts 5:29 when he said, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” (NKJV) He was not speaking to the Roman authorities when he spoke, but rather to the Jewish authorities. Nevertheless, the principle would be the same. If our government were to fall into the hands of Islam and we were commanded by law to abandon the Bible and Jesus as Lord, do you think God would say okay, obey the government you are now under, become a Muslim? To ask is to answer.

When I say that under such circumstances we ought to resist the government, I do not mean by taking up arms. Christians do not go to war to fight, kill, and maim, but we ought to do as Peter and the other apostles did. What did Peter and the other apostles do? They simply continued to go on about their business of being Christians and doing the Lord’s will. Now I grant you some Christians did die because of it (Stephen and later James come to mind) but they were to “rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings.” (1 Peter 4:13 NKJV) “Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to him in doing good, as to a faithful creator.” (1 Peter 4:19 NKJV)

The Christians in the church of Smyrna were told, “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10 KJV) Here is an example of the government throwing Christians into prison (who else had that power) and possibly, if I understand the passage correctly, ending in their death, although the phrase does not have to mean that. It is certainly, however, an admonition to faithfulness even if death is the result.

The Bible does not teach that every single government that has ever existed has been good and done what is right. If so, why did God destroy the nations he did in the Old Testament? If so, why were Christians murdered by the Roman government in the first two to three centuries after the Christian faith came to be? It does teach us to submit to government and only resist in the way I have spoken of, and only do that when the laws made by men violate the law of God. The resistance consists of living as a Christian despite what the government demands.

The God given purpose of government is for the good of man. However, as long as men are the governing body, men will be men, which inevitably means there will be some ungodliness in them. That is not God’s fault but man’s.  Both David and his son Solomon were great kings but both also proved to be sinners.

So, to what extent should a Christian become involved in politics? I will ask a better question, one that is also easier to answer and is more personal. To what extent do you think you can do so and still maintain the fruit of the Spirit and be the person God would have you to be?

When I answer that question, I know it sets some severe limits on my involvement. As a Christian living in a democracy and having been given the right to vote I feel I have the duty to go vote, even if it means for the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Beyond that, I think I need to leave it with God for my soul’s sake.

If we believe God is still an active God in the affairs of man (I believe the Bible teaches he is) then he is going to work it all out eventually in the way that is in accord with his will and righteous nature. Yes, that may mean sometimes evil men rule, but they rule for a reason if they do (God knows why). But always bear in mind God is in charge. Daniel talks about a decree made against King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:17 and says it was made, “In order that the living may know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, gives it to whomever he will, and sets over it the lowest of men.” (NKJV)

God is in charge. Evil governments may arise for a time but they shall be punished for their evil eventually. If you think your government is evil and doing wrong, and you are right about that, God will take care of it in due time, one way or another, unless there is repentance. Sin never goes unpunished unless repented of and forgiven. But the question is for me as an individual--what do I do as it relates to politics and the government? The answer is I live as a Christian. 

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