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.” 

Divorce?

I was recently placed in the rather uncomfortable position of having to defend some of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church.  I’m afraid I didn’t do a very good job of it.  I am not, and never have been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but I have some understanding of their doctrine; sometimes I think I understand the doctrine better than most Romans I know.  There are many things in their doctrine that I don’t agree with; don’t misunderstand me, I know that there are many good people in the Roman Catholic Church, but I have doctrinal issues with that denomination.

One of my co-workers was griping that a Roman Catholic priest advised her to get a divorce.  Don’t misunderstand, she wanted the divorce; she just felt that the advice was contrary to the doctrine that this priest was supposed to be upholding.  I asked her if she was Catholic; she is.  I asked if her husband was Catholic; he was not.  Well, now I understand the priest’s position.  I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand.  I tried to explain that little “loophole,” and, in retrospect, I realize that I shouldn’t have used the term loophole.  I should have just asked her if she would have taken offense if the priest had advised her to “stop living in sin.”  I feel reasonably certain that her response would have been something to the effect that she wasn’t living in sin, and I would have agreed with her on that point.  I was able to successfully point out to her that “The Church” did not recognize her marriage, since her husband did not share her faith. 

I can understand religions teaching that inter-faith relationships are wrong, or at the very least, a very bad idea.  If nothing else, think of the children; the offspring from a Catholic-Baptist coupling are going to have a hard time finding acceptance in either church (the fact that the children should not be blamed for their parents’ decision notwithstanding); children from a Jewish-Hindu marriage even more so.  It can also lead to a great deal of confusion and emotional turmoil in the children’s upbringing; what is a child to do when daddy’s church teaches that mommy’s church is wrong, and mommy’s church teaches that anyone who attends daddy’s church is a vile sinner (and don’t try to tell me that it doesn’t happen)?

So, the upshot of all of this is, that, since the Catholic Church did not recognize her marriage, as far as that priest was concerned, her marriage was, in effect, “living in sin.”  So her “divorce” was nothing of the kind; it was an act of penance.  In the eyes of our government, she was married, and she got divorced.  In the eyes of her church, she was living in sin, but she repented, and went through the necessary formalities so that the state would no longer recognize the marriage that “The Church” never acknowledged.

Now, to my mind, the proper religious viewpoint should have been to attempt to proselytize the unbelieving husband, which may have been impossible, but, failing that, to continue the relationship, unless the husband decided that he wanted to end it, or he became abusive or unfaithful to her.  In 1 Corinthians 7, Apostle Paul talks at some length about the faithful wife (or husband) sanctifying the unbelieving spouse, and also that if the unbelieving spouse chooses to end the relationship, the believer is not bound to that person.  I understand that there are sometimes circumstances that require a separation.  I don’t think Paul was advocating that a wife stay in a relationship where her physical well-being was being threatened, whether by violence or by sexually-transmitted diseases that her husband could potentially be bringing home, but, for the most part, if you find yourself in a marriage with someone who doesn’t share your faith, you should expend every effort to try to make that marriage work.

Excuses

            There are a lot of adages about excuses; my favorite would have to be:  “Excuses are like armpits.  Most people have them, and they generally stink.”  Scripturally, excuses seem to go back almost as long as sin does.  When God confronted Adam about eating the forbidden fruit, Adam’s response was, “The woman that you gave me …” and Eve said, “The serpent …”  A guy that I used to work for would chant, whenever he sensed an excuse coming, “My wife she; my dog he; my car it…” because most of the excuses he heard started with one of those three phrases.  Adam’s excuse isn’t much different; for that matter, neither is Eve’s.  This may also be the original example of ‘Chutzpah,’ Adam trying to tell God that his sin was because of the woman that God had given him (isn’t Adam basically saying that the sin was God’s fault?).

            When Abraham got caught telling a lie (well, okay, it was a half-truth, but let’s face it, a half truth is still a lie), his response was, “Because I thought …”  Notice he did not say, “Because God directed me to…” or, “I was commanded to…”  He just decided in and of himself that this was the proper course of action, and went with it.  As if that were not enough, years earlier he had gotten caught telling the same lie!  If it didn’t fly the first time, what made him think it would work the second time?

            When God told Moses to go lead Israel out of Egypt, Moses was full of excuses.  He couldn’t speak well; he didn’t know how to tell the Israelites who had sent him…  For somebody who was supposed to be meek, he sure did talk back to God a lot.  Of course, I understand that he felt more comfortable talking to God than he did to Pharaoh.  He understood his relationship with God, but he wasn’t sure that Pharaoh wouldn’t kill him on sight, and a meek man like Moses really didn’t want to go to Pharaoh with something that he had a pretty good idea would be received as bad news.

            When Saul was made king over all Israel, he made a lot of mistakes, and he made a lot of excuses.  At one point he even tried to blame “the people.” As king, ultimately, he was responsible for the people anyway; if they weren’t following his orders, he should be making sure that they were dealt with accordingly.  The king doesn’t just have power and authority over the people; he also has responsibility for the people.

            When David became king, he showed himself to be one of the rare individuals who didn’t make excuses.  When David made mistakes, he owned up to them, he took responsibility.  When Nathan confronted David about Bathsheba, the widow of Uriah the Hittite, David immediately confessed.  I’m sure that there were many excuses he could have come up with, and maybe several that he had used to justify himself in his own mind, but once that he knew without a doubt that he was caught, he let those excuses go.  Later on, David numbered Israel, against Joab’s counsel; then, he confessed his sin.  To be honest, it may very well be that, this time, he simply had no excuse:  Joab had already asked why the king would even care how many men were in Israel; God could defend Israel with only a few, provided that those few (and their king) were faithful.

God didn’t expect David to be perfect; He doesn’t expect any of us to be perfect.  He made us; He knows what we are capable of.  It occurs to me, though, that these men were four of the most prominent leaders of God’s chosen people in ancient times.  I don’t mean to denigrate the other three, but it’s pretty clear to me why David is the one said to be a man after God’s own heart.  To be honest, I would be kidding myself to even try to compare myself to any of those four men (well, maybe Saul), but I think that, if I could be like one of them, I would most like to be like David.