Cafeteria Christians

There are many occasions in life where you can pick and choose what you want.  If you are following Weight-Watcher's, for example, you may choose to stick with the prescribed diet plan on some days and not on others; that's up to you, although your weight goals will probably be easier to reach the closer you stick to the plan.  At Subway, you can choose what meats and vegetables you want on your sandwich, and even choose whether they toast the bread before loading on the ingredients.  If you sign up for college courses, you get a certain amount of latitude on your elective courses, as long as you sign up for the courses that are required for your degree.  Of course, in each of those situations, your choices may have consequences:  As I said, if you don’t stick to the diet plan, you probably aren’t going to lose as much weight; if you order a turkey sub, but then opt to not have turkey put in the sandwich, you don’t really have a turkey sub; if you neglect to take the required courses at college, you will never get your degree (I am reminded of the classic John Belushi line, “Seven years of college, down the drain”).

I was going to say that you can’t do that with the Bible, but, of course, that wouldn’t be true.  You can ignore the Bible completely, if you want to, but there are consequences.  My point is that, “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”  You have every right to ignore it if you choose, but you do so at your own peril.  I’m not going to waste your time telling you what the threat is; I suspect that you know that very well.  It is not my intention to scare you with threats, anyway, I want you to see how right you can be, and help you to be rewarded in the next life. 

One of the great strengths of the Bible is the lack of contradiction.  The Bible was written over the course of many centuries, by many different writers, and yet it holds together very well.  I know that there are some that will argue that the Bible does have contradictions.  For example, in Habakkuk 2:3, we are told that the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.  Wait, if it tarries, wait for it, because it won’t tarry?  I will admit that this verse is, in and of itself, a little confusing, but, Habakkuk is giving instruction to people who do not yet know what the appointed time is.  Think about that for a minute.  If they don’t know when the appointed time is, how can they possibly know if it is late?  So, clearly, the first use of the word ‘tarry’ refers to when they grow impatient, and think that, “Surely, if the appointed time were coming, it would have been here by now,” even though they have no frame of reference.  So, the second time the word ‘tarry’ is used, he is assuring them that, no matter how late it might seem, the time will come, but on God’s clock, not ours. 

Some people may point out that there are variations in the Gospels.  Each account gives a different list of names of the women who went to the tomb on Sunday morning, for example (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1-10, John 20:1).  That, of course, isn’t necessarily a contradiction, since none of them claim to present a complete list of the women involved.  If I told you that Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert held a Rally to Restore Sanity, you wouldn’t assume that they were the only two people there, would you?  There are also minor differences in some of the other accounts, for example, Matthew 20 and Mark 10 are very similar, except that Matthew relates that James and John’s mother asked Him for special dispensation for her sons, while Mark says that it was James and John themselves, and Matthew says that after that, Jesus healed two blind men, but Mark says He only healed one.  These are minor details, and really only show that there was no collusion between Matthew and Mark when they wrote their respective accounts; they have nothing to do with the overall ‘big picture’ of the Gospel message.

The thing that concerns me is that some people will disregard what Peter said, in order to believe what Paul wrote, or discount Paul and trust James.  Paul chided the Church at Corinth for claiming loyalties to individuals other than the Lord:  “For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?   Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.”  Clearly, our faith should not be in Paul, or Peter, or James, or Apollos, but in the God that directed them in their actions and in their writings.

The Name of God

What, exactly, is the name of God?  Some people seem to think that His name is ‘God.’  In some ways, that makes sense, after all we capitalize the word God when we are talking about Him, but, then again, we capitalize the pronouns He and Him in much the same way, and those are obviously not His name; the same term is used (without capitalization) for false gods.  The capitalization just indicates that we are talking about the one true God.

When Moses asked God’s name, God told him, simply, “I am.”  That can get a little awkward to deal with, as anyone can say, “I am.”  The Jewish people got in the habit of referring to God by the term YHWH (which, by the way, they never actually say aloud.  NOTE:  Hebrew is also written right-to-left, so it would appear HWHY in Hebrew text), sometimes transliterated into English as Jehovah, but, basically, Hebrew for the phrase, “the existing one.”  That’s a little easier to avoid in casual conversation than, “I am.”  In any case, it didn’t really make too much difference what God told Moses His name was, anyway; no one else knew God’s name, either.

There are many references in the Old Testament to the name of God, or the name of the Lord, but all of those “names” seem to be manufactured titles, rather than proper names.  A tone point, Isaiah quotes God as saying that His name is “the Lord.”  El Shaddai, for example, means, “Most Powerful,” and is translated as “Almighty” throughout the Bible.  There are some passages that indicate that, at some future date, God is going to reveal His name. 

Jesus claimed to have manifested God’s name throughout Israel, and yet, nowhere does He mention a name of God.  In the Book of Acts, Peter talks about the name of Jesus, and says that there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved.  Paul tells us that Jesus is the One for whom the whole family in Heaven and earth is named (or, perhaps he means that the Father is the One for whom the whole family is named, but, if that’s the case, then Jesus, the Son, was named for Jesus, the Father).  Jesus does tell us, in Matthew 28:19, to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Now, the term he uses, name, is singular; He’s only referring to one name.  Now, if the whole family in Heaven and earth is named Jesus, then that makes sense.

It also makes sense that Jesus talked about using that name to baptize people.  Paul tells us in Romans 6 that baptism allows us to put on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You can’t exactly be baptized in the likeness of the Father’s death, burial and resurrection, or the Holy Ghost’s; neither went through what the Son went through.  So why did Jesus say to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, then?  To make sure that His disciples knew and understood exactly who He was, and what His relationship was. 

If you look through the Book of Acts, at no time do any of the apostles ever mention the Father or the Holy Ghost in the baptismal rites (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, and Acts 22:16).  Some have said that the words recorded in scripture were not their exact words (and they’re probably right), but that the apostles were simply mentioning by whose authority they were performing baptisms.  That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.  They were performing Christian baptisms; the authority for that is pretty obvious.  Going back to what Paul said in Romans, though, they were baptizing people into the saving power of Christ, so they used Jesus’ name.

Now I don’t claim to know if Jesus is the only name God has.  In fact, the name Jesus means, “Jehovah is Salvation.”  If it were not for the fact that this actually was the name that He used when He walked the earth, I’m not sure that I would consider it a proper name.  Even at that, though, we are left with what Peter told us, as led by the Holy Spirit, in the Book of Acts:  There is none other name, given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

The Power of Life and Death

In Genesis it says that Abraham was instructed to offer up his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice to God.  In Hebrews, we are told that Abraham was willing to do this because he knew that God had promised that in Isaac would Abraham’s seed be called, and that Abraham had faith that, if he killed Isaac, that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead.

            In John 11, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the grave for four days.  In Luke 8, Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead.  In Luke 7, Jesus raised a man from the dead who was the only son of a poor widow woman.  Later on in that same chapter, two of John the Baptist’s disciples came to Him, and asked if He were the one.  Jesus told them to go back to John and tell John what they had seen, and He included raising the dead among the things that they should tell John that they had seen.

            In Job, Satan comes before the Lord and asks permission to torment Job.  The Lord, willing to show off Job’s integrity, grants that permission, but orders Satan to save Job’s life.  Think about that for a minute: Satan had to get permission before he could touch Job, and even then, God wouldn’t allow Job’s death.

            There are some churches that teach something called, “baptism for the dead.”  Now, I am by no means an expert in this doctrine, but, from what I understand, it basically comes down to this:  If a close friend of yours, or a relative expressed a desire to be baptized, but died before they were able to, then you can get baptized by proxy for them.  This idea comes from 1 Corinthians 15:29, which asks, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”  Reading the chapter in context, though, we see that the subject at hand was the resurrection of the dead.  Some of the Corinthians had a faulty understanding of the resurrection, and Paul was trying to make a point.  If there is no resurrection, the Christ is not raised.  If Christ is dead, then all that are ‘asleep’ in Christ have perished.  What is the point of being a Christian, if in this life only we have hope?  What would be the point of being baptized in the likeness of His death, burial, and resurrection if—not wait, scratch that, His death and burial if there is no resurrection.

            I, personally, don’t believe in baptism for the dead; I don’t believe that it would ever be necessary.  I think it’s safe to say that I am in the majority with this opinion (which could be a problem, since many are called, but few are chosen), but there are different reasons for believing that this is not necessary.  Many people do not believe that baptism is necessary, so who cares if a friend or relative wanted to get baptized, but couldn’t?  Others believe that baptism is necessary, but that if one has a sincere desire to do the will of God, that God, having the power of life and death, will not allow that person to die until they have fulfilled God’s will.  Remember Jonah?  God had something for him to do, and he tried to go the other way, but God prepared a ‘great fish’ to swallow him and keep him alive until he was ready to what God told him to do.  I will grant you, God doesn’t usually do that for people who are just being stubborn, but, if He did that for Jonah, wouldn’t He take care of someone who sincerely wishes to serve God?

            The Catch-22 here is that people who don’t believe baptism is essential don’t believe that God will protect someone who wants to get baptized simply because they don’t believe that baptism is essential.  Taking that logic one step further, obviously, baptism isn’t essential, because there is always the possibility that someone could die waiting to get baptized.  It’s circular logic, and, quite frankly, it expresses a lack of faith; who do you think is killing people behind God’s back?  I have not heard of anyone in modern times dying while waiting to get baptized, even in churches that don’t do a baptismal ceremony until they have a sufficiently impressive number of people that want to get baptized (which makes no sense to me; if there is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, shouldn’t there be joy in the church over one new Christian that wants to gets baptized?).  I did know a man who by all rights should have died before his baptism, but didn’t.  We had a young man in our church that was hospitalized because of problems with his blood pressure.  He was placed in a semi-private room with an older gentleman with terminal cancer.  Between this young man sharing his faith with his roommate, and people from the church coming to visit him, the dying man and his wife both decided they wanted to get baptized.  The doctors forbad it, though, on the grounds that the physical trauma would likely be fatal.  When asked how long he would live without baptism, they answered in days, rather than weeks or months; which raises the question, why not allow the baptism, then?  In any case, we were at an impasse.  He couldn’t leave the hospital without being released by the medical staff, which they, understandably, wouldn’t do with his health being so precarious.  They also would not allow us to bring in a portable baptismal tank and baptize him in his room.  After some prayer, the cancer disappeared.  Personally, I would have been happy if it had simply gone into remission, although I suppose the doctors could have still refused to release him from the hospital.  He did not go into remission, though, he experienced a complete healing, and the doctors had no choice but to release him.  He came out to church and got baptized, and has since died.

            My basic point is this: God loves you, and He wants you to do what is right.  God also has the final say as far as who lives and who dies, and when.  I’m not saying that you should tempt God by going out and doing stupid things because you ‘know’ that He’ll protect you, but don’t think that God is going to let you die when you’re in the process of performing His will.

The Parable of the Talents

Jesus taught a parable which has become known as the parable of the talents.  I want to make it clear, at the outset, that a talent was a certain weight of precious metal.  In other words, the lord left two stewards with something to safeguard and invest while he was gone.  Jesus says that the lord gave to them according to their several ability, not that those were their abilities.  In any case, one of the stewards was given five talents, another two, and the third only one.

Some time ago, I was told that the one talent represented faith.  I suppose that makes sense, after all, faith is the one thing that all Christians have.  I am something of a skeptic by nature, though, and I wanted to see proof.  People were able to give all kinds of logical explanations and arguments, but I was stubborn, and nothing that anyone told me qualified in my mind as proof.

A week ago, though, I heard a sermon in Sunday morning service that I think, although it may still not really be ‘proof,’ it certainly comes much closer, and I now feel much more confident that the one talent was, indeed, faith.  This in spite of the fact that the sermon was not about the parable of the talents; in fact, the parable wasn’t even mentioned.

In 2 Peter, Peter tells us to add to our faith.  He tells us to “add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.“  Now, clearly, Peter isn’t going to tell us to add to something that some of might not have.  Further, what Peter says goes right along with what Jesus said in the parable:  The one who had five, gained another five, the one that had two, gained another two, and they were both recognized as good and faithful servants.  The one that was only given one didn’t do anything with it, and was rebuked for being wicked and slothful.  Peter tells us that the man who doesn’t have virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.  Peter goes on to admonish us to give diligence to make our calling and election sure, and that, if we do these things, we shall never fall. Now, everybody slips occasionally; nobody’s perfect; we all make mistakes.  Clearly, Peter is not suggesting that if we have faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc. that we will never mess up.  He’s talking about a much more important and permanent fall here, just as Jesus said of the slothful servant in the parable that he was cast into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

In some ways, it doesn’t really seem fair; the third servant didn’t lose his faith, he just never did anything with it.  Mark Twain once said, “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.”  What good is literacy if you do not put it to use?  By the same token, what good is faith if you don’t use it?  James told us repeatedly in James 2 that faith without works is dead.  He even makes the point that the devils have faith; what they don’t have is obedience.

Don’t misunderstand me:  Faith is the determining factor in salvation, but only if it the kind of faith that drives you to want to try to please God.  Someone who really believes the Gospel message will find themselves wanting to learn more about God, and His plan, and will want to tell everyone about His love.  We could never earn salvation, it is much too precious a gift.  We can, however prove ourselves to be completely unworthy of it.  And, again, don’t misunderstand me; we are unworthy of it, yet God offers it to us anyway.  But there will always be those that will take the gift for granted, and, in truth, treat it as something despised instead of something that is precious and must be protected at all costs and those people have no place with us.

After the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches us that on Judgment Day, the sheep (the obedient ones) will be on His right hand, and the goats (the ones that but all the time) will be on His left.  The sheep will be rewarded for what they did in this life, but the goats will go to eternal punishment for what they didn’t do.

Naaman the Leper

In 2 Kings 5, there is a story about a Syrian named Naaman, who also happened to have leprosy.  Apparently, leper or not, he was an important man in the kingdom of Syria, and a very kind man.  I say this because he had a Hebrew slave girl in his household who lamented that they were not in Israel, that the prophet could recover Naaman from his leprosy, and Naaman went to the king to ask leave to go see the prophet. 

A few things strike me here:  First off, the slave girl could have kept her mouth shut, or offered a solution in return for her own freedom.  She chose to do the right thing, though, and advise her master that a healing could be had.  Second, he believed her.  What kind of testimony had she established in his house, that she could say something like that and be believed?  I can’t believe that, with leprosy being what it was in those days, Naaman hadn’t already tried every treatment available, and yet, this girl says that there is a man in her native country that can heal him.  Doesn’t that just sound national pride?  Third, the scriptures don’t tell us who the girl was.

So, the king encourages Naaman to go; and Naaman loads up with all kinds of silver, gold, and garments for the prophet, in hopes that he can, in fact, recover Naaman from his leprosy.  So Naaman goes directly to the king of Israel, seeking his healing.  The king becomes distraught; in his mind, this is nothing but a provocation.  The king of Syria has sent this leper to Israel for a healing, not because he believes that it will happen, but so that, when it doesn’t happen, he has an excuse to wage war with Israel. 

Well, the prophet, Elisha, became aware of what was happening, and sent a message to the king that if he sent Naaman to Elisha, then Naaman and the king of Syria would know that there was a God in Israel.  The king, anxious to get rid of Naaman without starting a war, complied.

So Naaman goes to Elisha.  Perhaps at this point he’s feeling a little jerked around.  The girl certainly didn’t make it sound like it was going to be this complicated.  Elisha doesn’t even talk to Naaman directly, but Naaman was probably used to that, being a leper.  Elisha tells him to go wash in the River Jordan seven times, and he will be healed of his leprosy.

Naaman decides he has had enough.  There are rivers in Syria, much better rivers than the Jordan, in fact, why in the world do I have to come all this way, and you end up telling me to do something stupid like take a bath…  But Naaman’s servants manage to get his ear, and to calm him down a little bit, and remind him that, if the prophet has asked him to perform some heroic deed, or perform some great sacrifice, then he would have done it.  Are you angry because this seems too simple?

Naaman stops, and he thinks.  The servants are, of course, entirely correct.  Naaman was prepared to turn over a considerable worth of merchandise, in fact, he would have done almost anything imaginable if it meant that he could be made clean, so why not dip himself in the River Jordan?  If it doesn’t work, then he’s got a reason to be angry, but if he doesn’t try, after coming all this way, then he will never know.

So, he dips himself seven times into the River Jordan, and after that, his flesh is returned to him, completely whole and free from leprosy.  Naaman went back to Elisha, and thanked him, and tried to give the man of God those things that he had brought, but Elisha wouldn’t have any of it.  We know that you can’t buy a gift of God, but Naaman could be forgiven for not knowing. 

My main point is this:  Naaman believed, before he left Syria, or he wouldn’t have come.  He tried to buy his healing, but God wasn’t interested in his money, only his obedience.  The water of the River Jordan didn’t heal him; taking a bath does not cure leprosy.  What healed Naaman was his faith in operation.  Now, you may tell me that Naaman was in the Old Testament, things are different now, and you’d be right.  We’re not under the law, we’re under grace.  At the same time, God hasn’t changed, only His covenant with us has.  Also, Apostle Paul told us that the law was a schoolmaster that helped to bring us unto Christ.  James has taught us that, although it is our faith that saves us, that faith is dead if it is not accompanied by works.  The story of Naaman wasn’t included in the Bible to show us how different things were then, it was to give us an example of faith in operation because God knew then that we would still need that principle today.

The Gift

            There is a story that has gone around for a while:  A fifteen year old boy talked to his father about getting a car for his sixteenth birthday.  His father said that he would give him a car for his birthday, but with three conditions.  First, he had to improve his grades, second, he had to get a job after school, and third, he had to get his haircut.  Some time passed, and, the day before his birthday, this young man talked to his father, and bragged about his grades, which had improved, and about his job, and told his father that he was looking forward to his new car.  His father reminded him that he was also supposed to get a haircut.  “Dad, I was thinking about that, and I noticed that Jesus had long hair.”  His father replied, “I was thinking about that, too, and did you notice that Jesus walked everywhere He went?”

            Most of us are accustomed to our parents giving us things with conditions.  Sometimes it’s necessary.  Before parents give children something that has the potential to cause damage or destruction, they want to be sure that they have the maturity and responsibility that at least there is a reasonable chance that those things won’t happen.  It’s understandable, also, that parents, after giving something to one of their children, will not hesitate to confiscate that gift if it becomes clear that the child is not ready to use that gift responsibly.  Now, granted, sometimes parents do such things simply as a way to control their children.  Flesh-and-blood parents are sometimes controlling and/or overprotective; nobody’s perfect, except for the Lord.  In general, though, parents set conditions on such things out of a legitimate concern for the safety and well-being of their off-spring.

            If we accept the fact that our natural parents sometimes give us things with conditions, is it really surprising that our Heavenly Father would do the same?  Some would have you to believe that the free gift that Apostle Paul talks about in Romans 5 has no conditions; that it wouldn’t be a free gift if there were strings attached.  Well, Jesus listed a number of things that He said one had to do in order to be saved.  Unless Paul was talking about some other gift other than salvation, then that gift does come with some conditions (or maybe you don’t believe Jesus’ words).  In Matthew 10:22 and 24:13, Jesus said that one had to endure to the end to be saved.  Endure what? Well, he was talking about persecution, and the temptation to leave the faith.  There are some that would have you believe that you can’t leave the faith, but that would make Jesus’ words pretty foolish—why would He warn us against a situation that could never really happen?  In Mark 8:35 and Luke 9:24, Jesus said that if you saved your own life, then you would lose it, but if you lost your life for His sake (Mark 8:35 also says the Gospel’s), then you would save it.  I think that makes it clear that we should at least be prepared to surrender our lives for Jesus; I would like to think that most of us will never actually have to do that, but we should have our minds made up that we will, if the need arises.  In Luke 13:23-24, Jesus said that, to be saved, you must enter in at the strait gate (strait meaning narrow).  There are several places prior to the crucifixion that Jesus told people that their faith had saved them (Luke 7:50, Luke 18:42) but, after the crucifixion, He said that one had to believe and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16). 

In Mark 10, Jesus was approached by a man that is commonly referred to as The Rich Young Ruler, who asked what he must do to inherit eternal life.  Jesus reminded him of the commandments (He didn’t mention having only one God, I assume that was understood), which he affirmed he had kept from his youth.  Then Jesus told him that he lacked one thing: that he should sell all he had and give to the poor, and follow Jesus.   Now, I want to make it clear that Jesus never told anyone else to sell everything; I don’t believe that every Christian has to do that.  This man, however, was of a state of mind that Jesus knew that he wouldn’t be able to maintain his possessions and his walk with God.  After this man walked away, sorrowful, Jesus went on to tell his disciples that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.  Now, if all a rich man has to do is to believe in his heart and confess with his mouth, then why is that so difficult?  Of course, if anyone truly believes in their heart to the point of making a sincere confession with their mouth, then that person will seek to do the things which Jesus requires.  If you truly believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, then you are going to follow His commandments, because faith without works is dead.

If you stop to think about it, if the gift of salvation had no conditions, then what would be the point of even making a profession of faith?  If there are no conditions, then everyone is going to Heaven, whether they believe or not.  After all, Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, didn’t he?  It’s not God’s will that any should perish, right?  And yet, Jesus tells us that many are called, but few are chosen.  In other words, God would like to save everyone in the whole world, but most people are going to be too stubborn to accept His conditions.  I would also like to point out that the passage in Romans that I mentioned earlier ends by saying, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”  Of course, none of us could ever be righteous enough by our own strength or ability, but Jesus has given us a formula to obtain righteousness in Matthew 3.

The Baptist and the Thief

            I have a couple of things on my mind today, one of which is John the Baptist.  John was prophesied about in the Old Testament; In Isaiah he was referred to as the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, and in Malachi 3:1, it says, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.”  He was sent by God; his mission was to lay the foundation for the Lord Jesus Christ.  Of course, what John himself is known for is that he baptized people.  He apparently baptized lots of people.  The Bible tells us that he picked a spot on the Jordan River where there was a lot of water.  Now, it would seem to me that, if Jordan is a river, then there should be a sizable amount of water at any given place along its banks, but they tell me that in many places it is very shallow, so John must have been avoiding those places.  In any case, John had been sent to make sure that people were prepared for the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and to do that, he baptized people.  That raises the question, how did water baptism prepare the way for Jesus?

            Of course, we know that Jesus didn’t baptize anyone Himself, but His disciples baptized many people.  Should we assume that baptism was simply a habit that they picked up from John the Baptist, and that Jesus never took the time to correct them?  He was right there—if what they were doing was wrong, surely He would have explained it to them.  We know that Jesus taught baptism, even though He didn’t perform the rite Himself.  Some have said that Jesus wasn’t talking about water baptism, and, indeed, John the Baptist told the crowd that Jesus would baptize them with Holy Ghost.  Of course, Jesus can do that, the rest of us really can’t.  Interestingly enough, in Acts 10, Peter was preaching to a group of Romans , and the Holy Ghost fell on them, and they were spiritually baptized.  Peter then asked the question, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”  If spiritual baptism were enough, then why did Peter ask for water, and why did he command that they be baptized (again)?  The easy answer, of course, is that Peter was simply confused, but I have a hard time believing that.  Remember that Peter was hand-picked by Jesus, in fact, Jesus gave him the ‘keys to the kingdom.’  Certainly, Peter made mistakes, but God was aware, and God took care of those mistakes.  In Acts 10 in particular, we know that Peter had been praying hard, so I would expect him to be particularly receptive to the leading of the Holy Ghost.

Some have also pointed out that Paul didn’t baptize, at least, not very often.  I’m not convinced of that; in 1 Corinthians 1, he wrote about divisions in the church, and he commented that he was glad that he hadn’t personally baptized in Corinth, because some might make a big deal about being baptized by Paul.  He corrects himself, though, and admits that he did baptize Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas.  He does go on to say that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.  Of course, if he preached the Gospel the way that Philip did, then people were getting baptized, even if Paul himself wasn’t performing the baptisms.

The other thing on my mind is the thief on the cross.  I have had a number of people want to talk to me about the thief.  They want to remind me that he was not baptized.  I am well aware that he was not baptized; quite frankly, it wouldn’t really make much difference whether he was or not; Jesus didn’t command baptism until after His death, burial, and resurrection.  Furthermore, Apostle Paul tells us in Romans (the Book of Romans has been called, “the book of salvation” by some) that the point of baptism is to spiritually take on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.  Clearly the thief couldn’t do that, since Jesus died only shortly before the thief, but, instead, he was actually crucified with Jesus—something that most of us would never be able to do.  Besides that, Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins, so He was able to erase the thief’s past in recognition of the sincerity of his heart without forcing him to wait until after the resurrection…

Born Again

            In John 3, Jesus talked to Nicodemus about being born again.  The idea confused Nicodemus, as is understandable.  To be honest, a lot of people today seem to be confused by the idea, and we have been given a much more conducive environment, since these words were spoken almost two thousand years ago.  In my younger days, there were a lot of people talking about being ‘born again’ and a lot of older people (even church people) that made fun of them.  I thought that was pretty odd then, I mean, if it’s Scripture, if it’s something Jesus said to do, then shouldn’t we do it?  People kept telling me that things were different then.  Well, they were, but the changes (at least, the changes in our religious perspectives) that have taken place since then have largely been because of what Jesus taught.

What exactly was Jesus talking about?  Nicodemus tried to pin Jesus down.  He asked him how a man could be born when he is old; further, can a man get back into his mother’s womb and be born again?  Jesus answered, “Unless a man be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”  He went on to talk about flesh being born of flesh, and spirit being born of spirit.  Now, some have said that when Jesus talked about water, He was talking about the amniotic fluid which nourishes and protects the fetus, and is allowed to flow out at birth.  Others have suggested that would imply that Jesus thought Nicodemus was stupid, and that He had to explain natural birth to him before he could explain spiritual birth.  To be honest, I can see both sides of that argument.  Nicodemus had just asked about being born again in terms of a natural birth; perhaps Jesus’ answer was intended to contrast the natural birth with the spiritual birth.  On the other hand, water is something that God has used over and over again as a purifying or separating agent.  In my last post, I mentioned Noah and the ark; God used water to separate Noah and his family from the people that refused to heed God.  Also, when the Children of Israel left Egypt, God used the water of the Red Sea to separate the Israelites from the Egyptians (and ensure that the Egyptians wouldn’t chase after the Israelites any more after that).  God even used water to signify the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

Apostle Paul wrote extensively in Romans 6.  He wrote that we are buried with Christ by baptism unto death, and that, having risen from that watery grave, we should walk in newness of life.  Wouldn’t a new life be the result of being born again?  It seems to me that it would be, but that raises the question, if Jesus meant that you had to be baptized in order to be born again, why didn’t he just tell Nicodemus that he needed to get baptized?  I can only suggest that Jesus didn’t tell Nicodemus to get baptized because being baptized by John the Baptist wouldn’t have been enough, and that, the baptism for remission of sins, being our way of taking on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, couldn’t exist until Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and was resurrected. 

Notice also, that, in the Book of Acts (the history of the actions of the early church), when they shared the Gospel with someone, then they baptized that person (or those people).  In Acts 2, after Peter preached his first sermon, they baptized three thousand people.  In Acts 8, Philip the evangelist shared with a number of people who had been deceived by a sorcerer named Simon, but they believed Philip, and he baptized them.  Then God led Philip out into the desert, where he shared with a eunuch, and baptized him.  In Acts 9, God sent Ananias to pray with and to share with Saul the Pharisee (who was called Paul the Christian after that), and Ananias also baptized Saul (Paul).  In Acts 10, a Roman named Cornelius was seeking God, and told to send for Peter; Peter went and preached the Gospel to Cornelius and his family, and then baptized them.  In Acts 16, Paul shared with a woman named Lydia, and then baptized her.  Also, later on in the same chapter, Paul and Silas told the jailer that if he believed in the Lord Jesus, then he would be saved; this jailer took them from the prison to his own house, in the middle of the night, and Paul and Silas shared with his family, and then baptized them.

 I will admit that there are some instances that it doesn’t specifically say that the person or people being shared with got baptized.  For example, in Acts 18, we are told that Paul shared with a man named Aquila, and his wife Priscilla, and then, later on, they shared with a man named Apollos.  This chapter doesn’t say anything about any of those three getting baptized, however, in 1 Corinthians 1, Paul indicates that a fairly large number of the Corinthians were baptized by Apollos.  That wouldn’t make sense unless Apollos were baptized first. The question than would be, who baptized Apollos?  Aquila and Priscilla were the ones that shared with him, so they must have been baptized in order to baptize him.  That, of course, means that Paul must have baptized them.

In conclusion, I think that it is clear that water baptism is, at the very least, an important part of becoming a Christian.  Otherwise, there would not have been nearly so much emphasis put on it in the Scriptures.  It is through baptism that we take on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; it is how we get born again.

The Great Commission

                I suspect that most of us are at least aware of the Great Commission.  For those of you that aren’t, these were the last words of Jesus prior to His ascension (after His death, burial and resurrection).  What many people don’t seem to realize is that there are three accounts of the great Commission, and each one is different.

                In Matthew 28, Jesus commanded the apostles to go, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  In Mark 16, He told them to go unto all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, and then He said that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.  He went on to talk about the signs that would follow them that believe:  They shall speak with new tongues, take up serpents, not be harmed by drinking deadly things, and they would heal the sick.  In Luke 24, He told the Apostles to tarry at Jerusalem until they be endued with power from on high, but also said that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.  It seems pretty clear that He wanted them to go, either to all nations, or unto all the world, and teach (or preach) the Gospel.  Interesting that two of these three accounts all mention baptism, although in a different sense each time. 

                Now, in Luke 24, He specifically told them to tarry at Jerusalem until they received power.  Luke continued his account of the Great Commission in the first chapter of Acts, and tells us that Jesus told them not to depart from Jerusalem, and also that the apostles would receive power after that the Holy Ghost came upon them.  In Acts chapter 2, the apostles are still in Jerusalem, and the Holy Ghost fell on all those that believed.  Now, there were present men from every nation.  So, they haven’t even left Jerusalem yet, but they are witnessing to every nation.  Further on, after Peter had preached his first sermon, these men asked, “What shall we do?”  Peter replied that they should repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.  So, in Luke 24, when Jesus talked about repentance and remission of sins, He was talking about baptism then, too. 

                Now, some have looked at Mark 16:16 and said, well, Jesus didn’t say that if you weren’t baptized that you were damned…  and that’s true.  I don’t want to say that one is more important than the other, but if you don’t believe, then it really doesn’t matter if you are baptized or not.  Furthermore, if Jesus didn’t mean that baptism was essential to salvation, then why did He even bring it up?  If all He was really talking about was faith, then He could have simply said, “He that believeth shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”  I have to believe that He talked about believing and being baptized to be saved because He meant that one has to believe and be baptized to be saved.

                On a slightly different subject, some have looked at 1 Peter 3:21, and said that it refers to baptism as a figure, or a picture.  They go on to say that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change, but it isn’t necessary to perform the outward sign in order to have the inward change.  Once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then you certainly may get baptized if you want to; it’s a good thing to do, but you don’t have to.  If we look at that with a little bit of context, though, we see that just before that passage, Peter was talking about Noah and the flood.  He actually says something that may strike you as odd:  He says that in the days of Noah, eight souls were saved by water.  Didn’t the ark save Noah and his family from the water?  What did the water save them from?  Looking at verse 21 again, though, it says, “…not the putting away of the filth of the flesh…”  So, Noah, being a righteous man, but surrounded be people that grieved God, was, in his ark, buoyed up by the water that destroyed the people that vexed his soul.  By the same token, baptism separates us from the sins of our past lives.  In other words, the figure, or picture, that Peter was talking about was not an outward sign of an inward change, but simply a comparison between the water of baptism and the water of Noah’s flood.  If that picture is accurate, though, that makes the water pretty necessary; Noah and his family holed up in an ark waiting for a flood that never came would have been pretty silly.  Peter’s comparison of baptism to the flood underscores the importance of water baptism.

Harmless as Doves

            I normally make it a point not to attack anyone, or anyone’s views, or any given religion.  Lately, though, I have become more and more frustrated with people that call themselves Christians who seem to go out of their way to promote a negative view of Christianity.  As an example, there is a “church” in Topeka, Kansas that has made quite a name for itself by picketing funerals.  Another example would be so-called “Christians” that want to tell everybody else how to live, but then when it is pointed out to them that they do the things that tell others not to do, they defend themselves by saying that their sins are covered by the blood of Jesus.  In other words, they believe that once you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then it doesn’t matter what you do, because it’s all covered by the blood.  They don’t seem to understand that, if that were true, then the obverse would also be true:  If you haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior, then it really doesn’t matter what you do, because you could never be good enough to make it to Heaven without the blood of Christ applied to your life.  But, they say that the law is made for the lawless …

            I guess I understand why it is that of all the people that Jesus dealt with when He walked the earth, the ones that He had the hardest time dealing with were the Pharisees.  For those of you that don’t know who the Pharisees were, they were the religious leaders of the time.  Did you ever notice that Jesus didn’t generally hang out with religious people?  Oh, granted, Nicodemus came to Him by night, and there was a Pharisee that invited Jesus to dinner once, but, generally, they bad-mouthed Jesus for being “a friend to publicans and sinners.”  Publicans were tax collectors, and, I may be mistaken about this, but it’s my understanding that publicans didn’t have a lot of oversight.  If Joseph the carpenter owed ten shekels in tax, but the publican could persuade (and by persuade I mean browbeat him or threaten him into acquiescence) good old Joe into paying twelve shekels, then the publican could pocket the extra two shekels and no one would be the wiser.  As far as the supervisor was concerned, Joe owed ten, the publican collected ten, ten is what went into the treasury.  From Joe’s perspective, the publican said he owed twelve, so he paid twelve, and, as far as he knew, twelve went into the treasury.  Of course, most people knew about the practice, but nobody knew for sure if they were actually victims.  Clearly, not all publicans defrauded the citizenry:  When Jesus met with Zacchaeus, Zack protested that he never did those things, and that on every occasion that he found that he had accidently overcharged someone on their tax, that he made full restitution according to Mosaic Law.  If Zacchaeus had lied, Jesus would have known, just as He knew the thoughts of the scribes in Matthew 9.

            The bottom line is, John 3:16 says that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.  The Bible also says that we love Him because He first loved us.  It even says that, while we were yet in sin, He gave Himself for us.  I don’t see anywhere where it says to attack people outside the faith.  It isn’t a question of what they are doing wrong (or even what they are doing right, but it never hurts to comment favorably on such to encourage them), because, as long as they are on the outside, it just doesn’t matter.  I don’t see anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus (our perfect example) ever criticized someone outside the faith for living as though they were outside the faith.  I do see where He criticized the religious people for hypocrisy, and occasionally even His own disciples for their lack of faith.  So, there is a standard of living for those of us that claim to be righteous (although most of us never come nearly close enough), but those that do not should simply be encouraged to learn about the love that He has for us, and then encouraged to make a decision to call on His name.  Telling them how wrong they are only serves to push them away, particularly if it is done in a hateful manner.  Telling them how right they can be may just get them interested.  The most important thing is that they know that Jesus loves them, even as they are, but that He wants so much better for them.

Peter and Paul

Two of the most prominent leaders of the early church were Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul.  Both of them were strong leaders, and yet, they were very different men.  Paul was a Pharisee prior to his conversion; Peter was a fisherman.  Paul was, by the nature of his position, a very educated man; Peter, being a fisherman, most likely had minimal learning.  On the other hand, Peter spent three years learning directly from the Master, while Paul spent most of his life, up until his conversion, learning from ‘masters’ that couldn’t recognize the fulfillment of prophecy when it unfolded right in front of them. 

Peter and Paul each had at least one life-changing experience with God after the Ascension.  Peter, who had been given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus, had a vision that extended salvation to the Gentiles.  Paul, on the road to Damascus, was knocked to the ground, struck blind, and told directly by God that he was not following the right path.  So, Peter did not have a complete understanding about who he should be sharing the Gospel with, but Paul had a major misunderstanding about what the Gospel was.

Now, it would make sense to me that Peter, having unlocked the door of salvation for those of us who were not born Jewish, would be heavily involved in ministering to the Gentiles from that point on.  Paul, on the other hand, with all of his knowledge of Old Testament Scriptures and Prophecy, was uniquely qualified to counter any arguments that any of the Pharisees could use to come against the Church.  That is not the way that God chose to use them, though.  In fact, at one point Paul criticized Peter for his dealings with Jews and Gentiles.  Later, Paul pronounced judgment against the Jews, and announced that he would concentrate on the Gentiles.

You may have heard it said that whom God calls, He qualifies.  It is also true that, frequently, God will use people that would seem to be poorly qualified to do whatever it is that He has called them to do.  That way, when people try to find fault, they have to at least consider that this person is doing something that they shouldn’t be able to do.  Some people don’t let that bother them.  When Moses, under God’s direction, pronounced judgment against Korah, the earth opened up and swallowed up Korah and his family.  That was a new thing; nothing like that had ever happened before.  The very next day, though, there were people accusing Moses of murder, as if Moses could orchestrate an earthquake by himself.  Some people will attribute miracles to any supernatural power they can imagine, rather than acknowledge God.

The point of all of this is that God will frequently do things that don’t make sense to the natural mind, even the minds of people that are very smart, but He does it so that He will be glorified.  He doesn’t want us to get all egotistical about what we can do, as if we could actually accomplish something on our own.  That’s why Jesus told us to let our light so shine, that others would see our good works and glorify the Father in Heaven.  People that are paying attention will know that we just aren’t good enough to do the things that we do.  We should be grateful for this because, if people thought that we could actually do those things that only God can do, then they will look to us for answers and solutions that they should be looking to God for; believe me, you don’t want that kind of responsibility.

A Little History

            Occasionally, you may hear a reference to the nation of Palestine.  This country, as you may well know, was almost directly between Middle-Earth and Narnia, deep in the area commonly referred to as the Twilight Zone.  There has never been a nation called Palestine on this planet.  There was an ancient kingdom of Philistines, but not Palestine.  There was once a British colony called Palestine, which was created in 1922, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, for the express purpose of creating a homeland for Jews.  There was actually a written mandate from the League of Nations, directing England to do exactly that.  Under British rule, the area was home to both Jews, Arabs, and Europeans.

During Hitler’s rule of the Third Reich, he engaged Mufti Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (or Al-Husayni engaged Hitler), who was strongly anti-Semitic, to broadcast radio messages into the Middle East, propaganda in support of Nazi Germany, and calling for their aid in exterminating the Jews.  Now, Al-Husayni was a resident of the British colony of Palestine, and he did not like the idea of Palestine becoming the Jewish homeland.  Quite frankly, judging by the way the British dragged their feet in carrying out their mandate, they weren’t overly thrilled with it, either.  But here we have a mufti broadcasting anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda into the Middle East.  Traditionally, Jews and Muslims had gotten along reasonably well, but by taking certain verses of the Koran out of context to support Hitler’s agenda (or, perhaps simply his own desire to make Palestine an Arab country), Al-Husayni was able to turn a lot of Muslims against the Jews. 

            After World War II, the Allies decided that they should move quickly to establish the Jewish homeland.  If there had been a Jewish homeland prior to Hitler’s regime, perhaps there would not have been as many Jews in Nazi-controlled territories.  It’s difficult to say.  I think that it’s safe to say that Hitler was well aware that there was a fair amount of anti-Semitism in Germany when he became chancellor, and German Jews controlled a disproportionate amount of the wealth in Germany, so it was easy for him to portray them as greedy outsiders who were cheating good honest Germans out of their hard-earned money…  You get the idea.  Perhaps if there had been fewer Jews controlling a smaller portion of the German economy, the Nazis would not have felt the need to try to exterminate them.  Also, if there had been a Jewish homeland ready to defend the rights and well-being of Jews living in Germany, perhaps the Nazis would have been more reluctant to take such drastic measures to rid themselves of these ‘undesirables.’

            So, the Holocaust triggered a ramping up of the long overdue creation of a Jewish homeland.  Unfortunately, a large number of Arab people were living in the land that had been set aside for this new nation (I have no way of knowing how many ‘Palestinians’ were previously Ottomans, and how many were Arabs that emigrated from other parts of the Mideast after the fall of the empire).  Many of them were perfectly willing to move somewhere else (a fair percentage of the people currently living in Jordan identify themselves as Palestinians, in spite of the fact that considerably more time has passed since the colony of Palestine ceased to exist than the amount of time that passed while Palestine existed).  In any case, Israel came into existence, and found themselves in a situation very similar to what King David wrote many years before, “Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies.”