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.