2 Kings 17

Gary Pollard

The king of Assyria took the Israelites out of Samaria and brought in other people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim. They took over Samaria and lived in the cities around it. When these people began to live in Samaria, they did not honor the LORD, so the LORD sent lions to attack them. The lions killed some of them. Some people said to the king of Assyria, “The people who you took away and put in the cities of Samaria don’t know the law of the god of that country. So that god sent lions to attack them. The lions killed them because they don’t know the law of the god of that country.”

So the king of Assyria gave this command: “You took some priests from Samaria. Send one of them who I captured back to Samaria. Let that priest go and live there. Then he can teach the people the law of the god of that country.” So one of the priests who the Assyrians had carried away from Samaria came to live in Bethel. He taught the people how they should honor the LORD. But all those people made gods of their own. They put them in the temples at the high places that the people of Samaria had made. They did this wherever they lived.

The people of Babylon made the false god Succoth Benoth.1 The people of Cuthah made the false god Nergal2. The people of Hamath made the false god Ashima.3 The people of Avva made the false gods Nibhaz and Tartak4. The people from Sepharvaim also burned their children in the fire to honor their false gods, Adrammelech and Anammelech5. But they also worshiped the LORD. They chose priests for the high places from among the people. These priests made sacrifices for the people in the temples at those places of worship. They were afraid6 of the LORD but also served their own gods, just as they did in their own countries.

Even today, they live the same way they did in the past. They don’t honor the LORD. They don’t obey the rules and commands of the Israelites. They don’t obey the law or the commands that the LORD gave to the children of Jacob. The LORD made an agreement with the Israelites. He commanded them, “You must not honor other gods. You must not worship them or serve them or offer sacrifices to them. But you must follow the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt. He used his great power to save you. You must worship him and make sacrifices to him. You must obey the rules, laws, teachings, and commands that he wrote for you. You must obey these things all the time. You must not be afraid of other gods. You must not forget the agreement that I made with you. You must not be afraid of other gods. No, you must be afraid only of the LORD your God. Then he will save you from all your enemies.”

But the Israelites did not listen. They kept on doing the same things they did before. So now those other nations were afraid of the LORD, but they also served their own idols. Their children and grandchildren did the same thing their ancestors did. They still do these things to this day.7

1 Sarpanitu, “the shining one,” was the goddess of fertility associated with the planet Venus and may have been analogous to Ishtar. She was worshiped as “mother goddess and chief consort of Marduk” (britishmuseum.org, Sarpanit). II Kgs calls Succoth Benoth a god, not a goddess. Either this was a jab (it could mean tents of daughters), a corruption over time of the original spelling, or actually a reference to Marduk/Enlil (ISBE: Sakut(h)ban’wat(h)), who was Jupiter.

2 Mars

3 Much uncertainty with this one. It could be related to the Hb word meaning “guilt” but that makes little sense to me. If any false deity in this list deserves to be ridiculed, why not one of the supreme Babylonian gods like Nergal?  Ashima/Ashimath was associated with Σειμιος, from “sign”. This god was associated with Tammuz, which helps us potentially identify who it is. According to ISBE, Tammuz was the same as Adhon of the Phoenicians (Syr. Adon), the god of vegetation, winter, life and death cycles. Tammuz was said to be the consort of Ishtar (Venus) and Adonis (the Greek version) of Aphrodite (Venus). Therefore, Tammuz/Ashima/Adon is likely Mars. At Baalbek, Seimos was worshipped with an ornate staff or pole, which was typical of Mars-figure worship all over the world.

4 The name Nibhaz appears to mean “sacrificial altar” and may not lend itself toward a singular meaning. Tartak has several potential meanings, but one possibility seems to fit this context best: Tarthakh was the Persian deity worshiped as the Hero of Darkness/Intense Darkness. The archetypal similarities between Tarthakh and other Mars figures are too many to be coincidence. Considering that many of the false gods in this list appear to be Mars figures, we could safely identify Tartak as the Avvite equivalent of Nergal-Mars. Perhaps Nibhaz was the altar used to sacrifice to this false god and — possibly related to the world pillar/mountain archetype — was itself deified by the Avvites.

5 This pair may be related to Nibhaz-Tartak and Milcom-Ashtoreth and Baal-Asherah. The child sacrifice element, the melech (king) ending, and one version’s association with the underworld (Malik) are consistent with this identification. Anammelech means Anu is king, and may suggest another interpretation. The Akkadian Anu (Gk. Ouranos) was considered “father of the gods” and has been traditionally associated with just the sky. But as Cardona has pointed out (I generally disagree with his views, but his work is meticulous and occasionally useful), “But that An, in his Akkadian version of Anu, was a radiating body in the sky is ascertained not only…by the cuneiform sign which designates him, the stylized picture of a star — * — but also by the allusion to the “terror of his splendour” radiating “in the midst of heaven” (Cardona, D. 2006. God star. Trafford Publishing. pp. 167-168). He makes a compelling case for Anu’s identification with Saturn. Adrammelech is likely Jupiter (via Adad, the thunderbolt-wielding storm god).

6 Hb yr, terror, fear, awesome, dread

7 Israel named a month in two calendars after Tammuz-Mars.

Baptism And Salvation: What Does The Bible Actually Teach

Today’s blog post is much longer than usual, but I believe it will be a resource that you will want to download and keep as a helpful tool to refer back to.

Carl Pollard

There are few subjects in Christianity that generate as much disagreement as baptism. Nearly everyone who professes to follow Jesus acknowledges that baptism is important. Most agree that Jesus commanded it, that the apostles practiced it, and that Christians should submit to it. The disagreement begins when we ask a much more specific question: What does baptism actually accomplish, and what relationship does it have to salvation?

Some believe baptism is an outward demonstration of a salvation that has already occurred. Others believe it is a symbolic testimony of faith, an ordinance that Christians obey after being saved. Still others teach that baptism is the moment at which God forgives sins, unites a believer with Christ, and brings that person into a new relationship with Him.

These positions can’t all be correct in every respect. They make different claims about what God does, when He does it, and what He requires of those who come to Him.

Our responsibility is to examine those claims in light of Scripture.

The question deserves more than a few isolated verses. We need to consider the teachings of Jesus, the preaching of the apostles, the conversions recorded in Acts, and the explanations of salvation found throughout the New Testament. We also need to understand how baptism relates to grace, faith, repentance, confession, the blood of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

And we must be willing to ask difficult questions of our own understanding.

If the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, we must accept that teaching regardless of how unpopular it becomes. If the Bible teaches that baptism merely follows salvation, we must accept that instead. Our convictions should be determined by the meaning of Scripture.

Jesus said in John 12:48 that His word will judge us on the last day. That makes the words of Christ and His inspired apostles the standard by which every teaching must be measured.

1. We Must Begin With the Authority of Jesus

Before considering what baptism accomplishes, we need to establish who has the authority to determine its purpose.

Following His resurrection, Jesus said, 

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:18–20)

Notice how Jesus introduces this command. He begins by declaring that all authority belongs to Him.

The command to baptize comes directly from the risen Lord, who possesses authority over heaven and earth. Baptism was therefore part of the mission Jesus entrusted to His apostles. They were commanded to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to obey everything He had commanded.

Mark records another statement of Jesus, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)

There is a textual issue worth acknowledging. Mark 16:9–20 is absent from some of the earliest Greek manuscripts, and many modern translations identify this passage as textually disputed. Consequently, our understanding of baptism should not depend exclusively on Mark 16:16.

Nevertheless, the relationship between faith, baptism, and salvation expressed in this verse is also addressed in undisputed New Testament passages.

Matthew 28 establishes that baptism is commanded by Jesus. Acts 2:38 connects baptism with forgiveness. Acts 22:16 connects it with the washing away of sins. Romans 6 connects it with participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Galatians 3 connects it with putting on Christ. First Peter 3:21 explicitly says that baptism saves.

The question is whether we will allow these passages to speak with their full force.

2. What Is Baptism?

The Greek word commonly translated baptize is baptizō, which frequently carries the meaning of immersing, dipping, or submerging. The word itself should be understood in its context, but the New Testament’s descriptions of Christian baptism strongly support immersion in water.

Consider what happened when Philip baptized the Ethiopian official, “And they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water…” (Acts 8:38–39)

Both men went into the water, and both came out afterward.

John 3:23 tells us that John the Baptist was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because “water was plentiful there.” While John’s baptism was preparatory and distinct from baptism into Christ, the description is consistent with immersion.

Paul’s language provides another important connection, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)

Paul describes baptism as a burial and resurrection.

Colossians 2:12 similarly speaks of believers being “buried with him in baptism” and raised with Him through faith in God’s powerful working.

Immersion provides a particularly fitting expression of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

The biblical pattern is a believer being immersed in water in response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament does not prescribe a particular river, pool, building, or baptistry. The significance lies in what Christ has commanded and what God promises to do.

3. Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins: Acts 2:38

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter preached to a Jewish audience in Jerusalem. He demonstrated from Scripture that Jesus was the promised Messiah and declared that the very Jesus they had crucified had been made both Lord and Christ. The audience was deeply convicted. “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?'” (Acts 2:37)

Their question was urgent. They recognized their guilt and wanted to know how to respond.

Peter answered:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

We should carefully observe several details.

First, Peter commanded repentance and baptism. Both were included in his answer.

Second, the command applied to “every one of you.” Peter did not describe baptism as an optional practice for particularly committed believers.

Third, Peter connected repentance and baptism with “the forgiveness of your sins.”

Fourth, he attached the promise of the Holy Spirit to this response.

The Greek phrase translated “for the forgiveness of your sins” is eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn. The preposition eis commonly indicates movement toward a goal or result, although its meaning depends on context.

The identical expression “for the forgiveness of sins” appears in Matthew 26:28, where Jesus says His blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins. In that passage, the phrase naturally expresses the purpose or result of His sacrifice.

The most straightforward reading of Acts 2:38 is that Peter commands his hearers to repent and be baptized with forgiveness of sins in view.

Some object that eis should be understood as “because of,” making baptism a response to forgiveness already received.

However, this interpretation faces difficulties.

Peter’s audience had just asked what they needed to do in response to their guilt. Peter’s answer directs them toward forgiveness. Nothing in the immediate context says their sins had already been forgiven.

Others point out that “repent” is grammatically plural while “be baptized” is singular. That distinction is true, but it does not establish that baptism is unrelated to forgiveness. The singular command distributes the action individually to each person, while the promise of forgiveness concerns the people being addressed.

The verse connects both repentance and baptism to the response Peter commands.

What happened next?

“So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41)

They heard the gospel, accepted Peter’s message, and were baptized.

The text never describes these people as having already received forgiveness and then being baptized simply to announce it publicly.

Instead, baptism is presented as part of their immediate response to the gospel.

If baptism had no connection to receiving forgiveness, why did Peter include it in his direct answer to people asking what they needed to do?

4. Saul of Tarsus: Why Was a Believing, Praying Man Told to Be Baptized?

The conversion of Saul is particularly important because Scripture provides several accounts of the same event.

In Acts 9, Saul encountered the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

He became convinced that Jesus was Lord. He obeyed the instruction to enter Damascus and wait for further direction.

For three days he was blind, neither eating nor drinking (Acts 9:9).

Acts 9:11 also tells us that Saul was praying.

Consider his condition. Saul believed that Jesus had risen. He recognized His authority. He obeyed His instruction. He was praying and fasting. Yet when Ananias came to him, he said, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

This statement creates a serious difficulty for the idea that sins are necessarily forgiven at the moment someone first believes.

Saul had already encountered Jesus, submitted to His instruction, and begun praying.

Nevertheless, Ananias told him to be baptized and wash away his sins.

The text associates baptism, the washing away of sins, and calling on the Lord’s name.

Of course, water itself cannot remove moral guilt. Scripture teaches that Christ’s blood provides redemption and forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7).

The question is how God has instructed believers to receive the benefits of that sacrifice. Acts 22:16 identifies baptism as part of Saul’s response.

Some argue that “wash away your sins” refers only to a symbolic demonstration of forgiveness Saul had already received.

But the text never states that Saul’s sins had already been forgiven. Ananias uses an imperative directed toward something Saul is to do.

Others point to the grammatical connection between “calling on his name” and washing away sins. Calling on the Lord is unquestionably important. Yet that observation does not remove baptism from the command. Ananias explicitly tells Saul to arise and be baptized.

In the account of Saul’s conversion, calling upon the Lord and baptism belong together.

This is especially significant when compared with Romans 10:13, “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Acts 22:16 provides an example of what calling upon the Lord involved in an actual conversion. Saul was instructed to call on the Lord’s name as he arose, was baptized, and had his sins washed away.

5. Baptism Into Christ: Romans 6:3–7

Romans 6 offers one of the deepest explanations of baptism in the New Testament. Paul writes, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:3)  Paul describes baptism as entering into union with Christ and His death.

He continues, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)

Notice the progression.

  • Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection
  • The saving work of Jesus
  • Baptized into Christ’s death
  • Buried with Him through baptism
  • Raised to walk in newness of life

Paul’s argument assumes that his readers have undergone a decisive change in their relationship with sin. He reminds them of their baptism because it represents their participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Verse 6 explains that the old self was crucified with Christ so that believers would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Verse 7 adds, “For one who has died has been set free from sin.”

Baptism is therefore deeply connected to the believer’s death to sin and new life in Christ.

Some argue that Romans 6 refers only to a spiritual baptism that occurs at the moment of faith.

It is certainly true that the spiritual realities described in this passage are accomplished through God’s power. Yet Paul appeals to an event his readers would recognize as part of their conversion. His description also corresponds with the water baptisms repeatedly recorded in Acts.

The passage does not explicitly discuss the amount of water used, but its burial imagery supports immersion. Most importantly, Paul treats baptism as a meaningful participation in the saving work of Christ. If baptism merely announces a spiritual resurrection that has already occurred, we should ask why Paul describes the believer as being buried with Christ through baptism so that he may walk in newness of life.

6. How Does Someone Put On Christ? Galatians 3:26–27

Paul writes, “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”  These verses deserve to be read together. Verse 26 says believers become children of God through faith. Verse 27 explains that those baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Paul does not present faith and baptism as competing means of salvation. He connects them. Faith is essential. Baptism is the faith-filled response through which believers are described as putting on Christ.

Notice that Paul says “baptized into Christ.”

This language is similar to Romans 6:3.

We should also consider the spiritual blessings found in Christ. Ephesians 1:3 teaches that every spiritual blessing is in Christ. Ephesians 1:7 says redemption and forgiveness are found in Him. 2 Timothy 2:10 speaks of salvation “that is in Christ Jesus.”

Romans 8:1 declares that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Paul explicitly connects baptism with putting on Christ. A fair reading must also recognize that Paul emphasizes faith throughout Galatians. Baptism does not replace faith, and a person does not earn sonship through performing a ceremony.

Rather, Paul describes baptism within the experience of coming to Christ through faith.

The New Testament never requires us to choose between genuine faith and obedient baptism.

7. Does Baptism Actually Save? First Peter 3:21

Perhaps no passage states the relationship between baptism and salvation more directly than 1 Peter 3:21.

Peter writes, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” We must consider the entire statement. Peter begins by discussing Noah and the flood. Eight people were brought safely through water (1 Peter 3:20).

He then draws a correspondence between that event and Christian baptism.

Peter explicitly states that baptism now saves. But he immediately explains what he means. Baptism isn’t washing dirt from the body. The saving significance is spiritual, involving an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Greek term eperōtēma is sometimes translated “appeal” and sometimes understood as “pledge.” The precise nuance is debated. Both readings recognize that baptism has a spiritual significance extending beyond physical washing. Most importantly, Peter identifies the resurrection of Jesus as the basis of baptism’s saving significance.

Baptism possesses no independent power to save apart from Christ. It is effective because of what Jesus accomplished through His death and resurrection. An objection frequently raised is that Peter is only discussing an outward symbol of an inward salvation. Yet that explanation must account for the words “baptism … now saves you.”

Peter doesn’t say baptism merely represents salvation. He uses the language of salvation and then clarifies the source and nature of its effectiveness. The passage can’t responsibly be reduced to a statement about water physically removing sin. Peter explicitly rejects that idea. At the same time, it should not be reduced to a purely symbolic ceremony with no relationship to salvation.

Peter connects baptism, the appeal to God, the resurrection of Jesus, and salvation.

8. Baptism and the Work of God: Colossians 2:11–13

One of the most common objections to baptism concerns works.

The argument usually sounds something like this, “If baptism is something a person does, then requiring baptism for salvation means salvation is earned by human effort.”

Colossians 2 directly addresses the relationship between baptism, faith, and divine power. Paul writes, “Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:12)

Who performs the saving work in this passage? God does. Paul specifically identifies “the powerful working of God.”

The person being baptized places faith in God’s power. Verse 13, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses.” God makes the sinner alive. God forgives trespasses. God accomplishes the spiritual transformation. Baptism is the context in which Paul describes the believer being buried and raised with Christ through faith. A person can submit to something God commands without believing that his obedience earns salvation. When Naaman was instructed to wash seven times in the Jordan River, he was healed only after obeying the prophet’s instruction (2 Kings 5:10–14). The river didn’t possess miraculous healing power. Naaman’s actions didn’t earn a miracle. God healed him when he submitted to the command given through God’s prophet. This is an illustration of the relationship between obedient faith and divine grace, although Naaman’s cleansing is not itself a New Testament doctrine of Christian baptism. Similarly, Joshua and Israel marched around Jericho as God commanded (Joshua 6; Hebrews 11:30). The walls fell by God’s power. Obedience to a divine instruction does not automatically make the resulting blessing a wage earned.

The crucial distinction is between earning salvation and receiving salvation through the response God has commanded.

Colossians 2 describes baptism as an expression of faith in God’s powerful working.

9. Is Baptism a Work That Contradicts Salvation by Grace?

Ephesians 2:8–9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

This passage is central to understanding salvation. We are saved by grace. Salvation is God’s gift. No sinner can earn redemption through personal goodness, religious accomplishments, or obedience to a system of law. Romans 3:23 teaches that all have sinned. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, while eternal life is God’s gift in Christ Jesus. The blood of Christ is the basis of our forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22 emphasizes the necessity of blood for forgiveness, and Hebrews 9:26 describes Christ’s sacrifice as the means by which sin is put away. The question is whether submitting to baptism contradicts these truths. Consider the nature of faith itself.

In John 6:28–29, the crowd asked Jesus, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Jesus calls believing a “work” in response to their question, yet faith does not become a meritorious human achievement that earns salvation. This does not mean faith and baptism are identical. It demonstrates that merely identifying something as an action does not settle whether it constitutes the kind of works excluded by Ephesians 2:9. Repentance also requires a human response. Jesus said, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3) Paul declared that God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). If repentance is necessary, does repentance earn salvation? No. Repentance involves turning away from sin and toward God. It is a response to God’s gracious call.

Confession likewise involves action. Romans 10:9 speaks of confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in His resurrection. Yet Christians who affirm salvation by grace generally do not regard confession as an attempt to purchase forgiveness. We must apply the same careful reasoning to baptism. The issue is whether God has commanded it as part of the response of faith. Titus 3:5, “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” The identity of the “washing of regeneration” is debated. Many Christians understand it as a reference to baptism, while others understand it primarily as spiritual cleansing accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Regardless of that debate, Paul’s emphasis is unmistakable. Salvation comes from God’s mercy and renewing power.

If baptism is involved in this washing, it remains entirely consistent with salvation by mercy because God is the one who saves.

We should therefore reject two errors.

The first is the belief that water or human effort possesses the power to earn forgiveness. The second is the assumption that any action commanded by God must be a meritorious work. The New Testament consistently teaches that salvation is grounded in grace, received through faith, and accompanied by the obedience that genuine faith produces.

10. What About the Thief on the Cross?

One of the most frequently cited objections involves the criminal crucified beside Jesus.

Luke 23:42–43 records his request, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus responded, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

The thief was promised paradise, and Scripture never records his baptism.

Does this prove that baptism has no relationship to salvation? We need to consider several facts. First, the text does not tell us whether the thief had ever received John’s baptism. Large numbers of people had been baptized by John (Matthew 3:5–6). We cannot establish that this particular man had or had not been baptized. However, the strongest response does not depend on speculation about his past. Second, Jesus possessed authority to forgive sins during His earthly ministry. In Mark 2:5, Jesus told the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

The scribes questioned His authority, and Jesus demonstrated that the Son of Man had authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10).

Jesus could forgive the thief directly. Third, the thief died before Jesus’ resurrection and before the apostles began proclaiming the gospel under the Great Commission. Hebrews 9:15–17 discusses Christ’s death in connection with the inauguration of the new covenant, using the language of a covenant or will. The exact relationship between covenant inauguration and every individual command should be handled carefully. Nevertheless, the thief’s situation occurred before the post-resurrection commission of Matthew 28 and before the Pentecost preaching of Acts 2. The thief received a direct promise from Jesus during a unique historical moment. That event establishes the authority and mercy of Christ. It does not necessarily establish what people should do after the risen Lord commissioned His apostles to preach the gospel and baptize disciples. Even if we knew with certainty that the thief had never been baptized, his salvation would demonstrate that Jesus can save someone apart from the ordinary pattern of Christian conversion.

It would not, by itself, prove that Christians are free to disregard a command Jesus subsequently gave. We should learn from the thief’s trust in Christ without using his exceptional circumstances to dismiss the instructions Christ gave His church.

11. Why Did Paul Say Christ Did Not Send Him to Baptize?

First Corinthians 1:17 is another common objection. Paul writes, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”

Some reason that if baptism were connected to salvation, Paul could never have said Christ did not send him to baptize. The context is essential. The Corinthian congregation was divided over allegiance to different teachers. Some claimed to follow Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas, and others Christ (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul challenged this division, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13) His argument centers on the identity of the one to whom Christians belong.

They were baptized in the name of Christ.

Paul was relieved that he had personally baptized only a few of them because he did not want anyone claiming to have been baptized in his name. He specifically mentions baptizing Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14–16). Paul did baptize people. Furthermore, Acts 18:8 describes his ministry in Corinth:

“And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 distinguishes his primary commission to proclaim the gospel from personally performing every baptism.nPreaching was his central task. Others could administer baptism. This interpretation fits the context of a congregation struggling with personality-driven division. Paul’s words do not establish that baptism is unnecessary. In fact, his argument assumes that baptism into Christ was a recognized part of the Corinthians’ conversion. If the person performing the baptism had been spiritually decisive, their loyalty might have attached to that individual. Paul wanted their loyalty directed toward Christ. The passage teaches that the identity of the human administrator is unimportant compared with the Lord into whose name the person is baptized.

12. Does John 3:16 Prove That Faith Alone Saves?

John 3:16 is among the most familiar verses in Scripture. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

The verse clearly teaches that salvation is available through faith in Jesus Christ.

But does it teach that baptism is unnecessary? That conclusion requires adding a limitation the verse does not express. John 3:16 does not say that repentance is unnecessary. It does not say confession is unnecessary. It does not say obedience is unnecessary. The verse emphasizes faith as the means by which people receive life in Christ. We must interpret that emphasis alongside the rest of Scripture. Earlier in the same conversation, Jesus told Nicodemus, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) The interpretation of “water and the Spirit” has been debated throughout Christian history.

Some understand it as a reference to Christian baptism and the regenerating work of the Spirit. Others connect the language with Ezekiel 36:25–27, where cleansing water and God’s Spirit appear together in the promise of a renewed people. Still others propose a contrast between physical birth and spiritual birth. The passage should not be presented as though every interpretive question has been settled. Nevertheless, the connection between water, the Spirit, and entrance into God’s kingdom deserves consideration in light of the New Testament’s later teaching on baptism.

John 3:16 must also be read alongside John 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” The Greek verb translated “does not obey” is apeitheō, which can convey disobedience or refusal to believe. Its use underscores the close relationship between faith and responsiveness to God’s revelation. Biblical faith is more than agreeing that Jesus exists. James 2:19 observes that even demons believe certain truths about God. James 2:17 says faith without works is dead. James is discussing the active character of genuine faith, especially as demonstrated in a life of obedience and love. He is not specifically writing a treatise on baptism. Nevertheless, his teaching challenges the idea that saving faith can be separated from obedience to God.

The proper question is whether baptism belongs to the response Jesus commands of those who believe. The examples in Acts repeatedly answer that question by showing believers being baptized.

13. What About Romans 10:9–10?

Paul writes, “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

Verse 10 continues, “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Some argue that because Paul mentions belief and confession without mentioning baptism, baptism cannot be necessary. But we should examine the purpose of the passage.

Romans 10 addresses righteousness through faith and the accessibility of the gospel to Jews and Gentiles. Paul emphasizes that salvation is available to all who call upon the Lord. His purpose is not to provide a comprehensive chronological account of every element involved in conversion.

Consider that Romans 10:9 does not explicitly mention repentance. Yet Jesus commands repentance in Luke 13:3, and Paul commands it in Acts 17:30. Would we conclude that repentance is unnecessary simply because it is not mentioned in Romans 10:9?

Of course not. The omission of a command from one passage does not automatically cancel its presence in another. Furthermore, the same apostle who wrote Romans 10 also wrote Romans 6:3–4, where he connected baptism with being buried with Christ and walking in newness of life. We must interpret Paul’s statements consistently. Romans 10 teaches the necessity of faith in the risen Lord and the importance of confessing Him.

Romans 6 teaches the significance of baptism into Christ. Both passages belong to the same letter. The most coherent interpretation allows both to contribute to our understanding of salvation.

14. What About the Sinner’s Prayer?

Many people have been taught that salvation comes through repeating a prayer such as, 

“Lord Jesus, I know I’m a sinner. I believe You died for me. Come into my heart and save me.” There is nothing wrong with confessing sin, expressing faith in Christ, or asking God for mercy. Prayer is repeatedly encouraged throughout Scripture. The question is whether the New Testament teaches that an unbaptized sinner receives forgiveness simply by repeating a particular prayer.

There is no recorded conversion in Acts where the apostles instruct someone to repeat a sinner’s prayer as the means of receiving forgiveness. Instead, consider their responses. On Pentecost, Peter commanded repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

When the Ethiopian official believed, he was baptized (Acts 8:36–39). When Saul believed, Ananias commanded him to be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). When the Philippian jailer asked what he must do to be saved, Paul and Silas told him to believe in the Lord Jesus, taught him the word of the Lord, and baptized him that same night (Acts 16:30–33). We should also distinguish between an unbeliever seeking salvation and a Christian who has sinned.

In Acts 8:22, Peter instructed Simon, who had already believed and been baptized (Acts 8:13), to repent and pray for forgiveness.

First John 1:9 likewise speaks of confession and forgiveness within the Christian life.

These passages provide strong biblical grounds for prayer and confession by Christians seeking forgiveness. They do not establish a sinner’s prayer as a replacement for the conversion response described in Acts. If we want to teach people how to respond to the gospel, the clearest examples are the conversions recorded by the inspired apostles.

15. What About Cornelius Receiving the Holy Spirit Before Baptism?

Acts 10 presents one of the strongest objections to the view that baptism is necessary for salvation. Cornelius was a Gentile centurion who feared God, prayed, and gave generously. An angel instructed him to send for Peter. According to Acts 11:14, Peter would declare a message by which Cornelius and his household would be saved.

While Peter was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell on those who heard the word (Acts 10:44).

The Jewish believers accompanying Peter were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on Gentiles.

Peter then asked, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47) Verse 48 says, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” The obvious objection is this, If Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before baptism, was he not already saved?

This is a serious question and should not be dismissed. We should begin by recognizing the purpose of the event. Acts 10 and 11 emphasize God’s acceptance of Gentiles into the people of God. The extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit demonstrated to Jewish believers that God was extending the gospel to Gentiles. Peter later explained, “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.” (Acts 11:15)

He connected this event with the promise of baptism in the Holy Spirit and concluded that God had granted Gentiles repentance leading to life (Acts 11:16–18). The Spirit’s coming served as powerful divine confirmation that Gentiles were to be received. The question is whether this extraordinary manifestation necessarily proves that Cornelius had already received forgiveness before baptism.

That conclusion is possible within certain theological interpretations, but Acts does not explicitly state the precise moment at which Cornelius’s sins were forgiven. We should remember that miraculous activity and personal salvation are not always identical categories in Scripture. For example, Matthew 7:22–23 describes people claiming to have performed mighty works in Jesus’ name, yet Jesus declares that He never knew them. That passage does not directly settle Cornelius’s condition, but it cautions us against assuming that the presence of a miraculous manifestation automatically establishes every aspect of someone’s spiritual standing. Acts 10 does explicitly tell us that Peter commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized. Peter did not regard the Spirit’s coming as a reason to omit baptism. He treated it as evidence that water baptism should be administered. This account presents an extraordinary order of events for a particular purpose in salvation history. It should be studied alongside the broader conversion pattern in Acts.

We must acknowledge that Christians disagree over what the Spirit’s reception establishes about Cornelius’s salvation. The text clearly establishes God’s acceptance of Gentiles and the continuing command to baptize them; it does not provide a separate, explicit statement identifying the precise instant of forgiveness.

16. Why Are People Sometimes Said to Be Saved by Faith Without Baptism Being Mentioned?

Throughout the New Testament, salvation is described in different ways. We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1). We are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8). We are redeemed by Christ’s blood (Ephesians 1:7). We are saved through the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1–2).

We are saved through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). We are saved by baptism (1 Peter 3:21). These statements describe different aspects of salvation. They do not necessarily compete with one another. Suppose a doctor tells a patient that a particular treatment saved his life. The patient might also say the physician saved him. Someone else might say the medicine saved him.

Those statements identify different aspects of the same event. In a much greater way, Scripture can identify God’s grace as the source of salvation, Christ’s blood as its sacrificial basis, faith as the means of receiving it, and baptism as part of the commanded response through which a believer enters Christ. Of course, this illustration cannot establish the doctrine by itself. Scripture must determine whether baptism actually occupies that role. But the illustration shows why multiple statements about salvation do not automatically contradict each other. We should resist the temptation to treat every passage as though it must contain every element of conversion.

The proper approach is to gather all the relevant passages and determine how they fit together.

17. What Does the Book of Acts Actually Show?

The book of Acts provides the clearest narrative record of how people responded when the gospel was first preached.

The following table summarizes major conversion accounts. Several observations emerge. Baptism repeatedly occurs in direct connection with conversion.

The people in these accounts do not wait months or years before being baptized.

The Ethiopian official was baptized during his journey. The Philippian jailer was baptized during the night, after hearing the gospel.

The Corinthians were baptized as they responded to Paul’s preaching. If baptism were merely a public ceremony intended to demonstrate salvation before an assembled congregation, why did the jailer need to be baptized in the middle of the night?

Why did the Ethiopian official request baptism immediately upon encountering water? These accounts do not prove that public testimony is never associated with baptism. Baptism often occurs in the presence of others. But they demonstrate that the New Testament does not require a scheduled church service, a large audience, or a lengthy waiting period. The emphasis falls on responding to the gospel.

18. Does the Ethiopian Official’s Conversion Prove Baptism Was Part of Preaching Jesus?

Acts 8 records Philip’s encounter with an Ethiopian official who was reading Isaiah 53.

The man asked whom the prophet was describing. Luke writes, “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.” (Acts 8:35) Immediately afterward, as they traveled, they came to water. The official said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36) This raises an interesting question. If Philip had been preaching Jesus, why did the Ethiopian official suddenly ask about baptism?

Luke does not provide a transcript of Philip’s sermon. We cannot quote Philip as having said specific words about baptism that Luke did not record. However, the narrative strongly suggests that baptism was included in Philip’s explanation of the gospel or was otherwise understood by the official as the appropriate response. The official’s immediate request is difficult to explain if baptism had no connection to the message he had just heard. Philip baptized him, and the official went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:38–39). The joy follows his response to the gospel. This account reinforces the connection between hearing Christ proclaimed, believing His message, and submitting to baptism. A textual note is also appropriate. Acts 8:37, which contains an explicit confession of faith in some Bible translations, is absent from many early manuscripts and is generally regarded as a later addition to the text. The surrounding narrative, however, remains clear without it.

19. What About the Philippian Jailer Being Told Simply to Believe?

In Acts 16:30, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31) Some stop reading there and conclude that belief alone, without baptism, is all that was required.

But Luke continues, “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” (Acts 16:32) The jailer needed to hear the gospel so that he could believe.

Then Luke writes, “And he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” (Acts 16:33)

This happened during the same night.

Verse 34 says the jailer rejoiced because he had believed in God, along with his entire household. Notice how Luke summarizes the conversion. He says the jailer believed.

Yet the fuller narrative shows that the jailer’s response included hearing the word and being baptized. This is an important example of how the New Testament can use “believe” to summarize a conversion that also includes baptism.The same principle helps explain why some passages emphasize faith without separately mentioning every aspect of the response.

20. Is Baptism Merely an Outward Sign of an Inward Change?

This is probably the most widespread explanation of baptism in contemporary evangelical Christianity. The argument is that a person is saved internally by faith, and baptism subsequently displays that salvation outwardly. There is truth in recognizing baptism’s visible, symbolic character.

Romans 6 associates baptism with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

Baptism visibly expresses identification with Christ. It can also function as a public declaration of allegiance to Him.

The question is whether Scripture limits baptism to those functions.

Acts 2:38 connects baptism with forgiveness.

Acts 22:16 connects it with washing away sins. Romans 6:3–4 connects it with being baptized into Christ’s death and walking in newness of life. Galatians 3:27 connects it with putting on Christ. Colossians 2:12 connects it with burial and resurrection through faith in God’s power. First Peter 3:21 connects it with salvation through Christ’s resurrection. The New Testament uses language that goes beyond public symbolism. Someone who believes baptism is exclusively symbolic must explain why the apostles repeatedly describe it in connection with forgiveness, union with Christ, spiritual cleansing, and salvation. A symbol can certainly be meaningful. But calling baptism a symbol does not settle whether God also uses it as part of His appointed means of bringing a believer into Christ. The issue is whether we should reduce baptism to symbolism when Scripture assigns it a broader spiritual significance.

21. Can Someone Be Baptized Without Being Saved? Yes. The New Testament gives us reason to recognize that merely undergoing a physical ceremony does not guarantee salvation. Consider Simon in Acts 8.

He believed Philip’s preaching and was baptized (Acts 8:13). Later, however, he attempted to purchase the ability to impart the Holy Spirit. Peter rebuked him severely, “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23)

Peter instructed Simon to repent and pray for forgiveness. The account shows that baptism does not eliminate the need for continued faithfulness. It also raises questions about the sincerity and character of Simon’s faith.

First Peter 3:21 specifically distinguishes saving baptism from merely washing the body. Colossians 2:12 connects baptism with faith in God’s powerful working. A person who enters the water without faith, repentance, or genuine submission to Christ has not demonstrated the response described in these passages. This matters because baptism should never be treated as a mechanical ritual. God is not obligated to save someone merely because that person has undergone a physical action while rejecting the gospel. Baptism belongs to a response of faith and repentance. It cannot be separated from the heart’s submission to Christ.

22. What About Infant Baptism?

Infant baptism is practiced by several major Christian traditions. Those who defend it often appeal to God’s covenant promises, the inclusion of children in believing households, and the relationship between baptism and circumcision. Some understand baptism as a sign of covenant membership that should be administered to the children of believers.

Others emphasize baptism as a means of grace through which God acts even before a child can consciously profess faith.

These arguments deserve accurate representation. Nevertheless, when we examine the explicit conversion accounts in Acts, a recurring pattern appears. People hear the gospel, believe, repent, and are baptized. Acts 8:12 says, “But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” The text explicitly connects baptism with personal belief. Acts 18:8 likewise records Corinthians hearing, believing, and being baptized.

The New Testament also records household baptisms, including Lydia’s household, the jailer’s household, and the household of Stephanas. These passages do not explicitly identify the ages of every household member.

Consequently, they cannot establish with certainty that infants were present.

Nor should we claim that every household baptism explicitly states that no infants were present. The strongest argument for believer’s baptism is the repeated connection between baptism and personal response to the gospel. The New Testament does not contain an unambiguous example of an infant being baptized. It also does not provide an explicit command instructing Christians to baptize infants. The burden of proof therefore rests on establishing infant baptism from broader covenant theology rather than from a direct New Testament command or an unmistakable example. From the perspective of the conversion accounts in Acts, baptism is administered to people who respond to the message of Christ.

23. Does Baptism Have to Be Performed by a Preacher or Elder?

The New Testament does not establish a requirement that only an ordained minister, preacher, or elder can administer baptism.

Philip baptized the Ethiopian official (Acts 8).

Ananias was sent to Saul, who was then baptized (Acts 9). Paul baptized some of the Corinthians, while others were apparently baptized through the work of his fellow laborers (1 Corinthians 1:14–17). The New Testament’s emphasis falls on Christ, the gospel, and the response of the person being baptized. There is no passage stating that baptism becomes invalid because the administrator lacks a particular ecclesiastical title. The authority for baptism comes from Jesus Christ. The person administering it acts in obedience to His command. This also explains why the physical location is not decisive. Baptism may occur wherever sufficient water is available for the action described in Scripture.

24. Must Someone Understand the Purpose of Baptism?

This question is especially important when considering people who were baptized as children or in religious traditions that taught baptism was merely symbolic. How much must a person understand for baptism to be valid? The New Testament does not provide a detailed examination that every candidate must pass. It does, however, establish that baptism belongs to a response of faith in Jesus Christ. Acts 8:12 connects belief and baptism. Colossians 2:12 connects baptism with faith in God’s powerful working. Romans 6 connects baptism with participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. Acts 2:38 connects it with repentance and forgiveness.

We should distinguish between incomplete understanding and a fundamentally different understanding of the action being performed.

No new Christian understands every implication of baptism. Even mature Christians continue learning about the richness of union with Christ. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to require perfect theological knowledge before baptism.

But there is a legitimate question when someone undergoes baptism while explicitly believing that it has no relationship to receiving forgiveness and that salvation was fully completed beforehand. Does that person’s misunderstanding invalidate the baptism? Christians who affirm baptism for the forgiveness of sins disagree on how to answer that question. Acts 19:1–5 is relevant because Paul encountered disciples who had received John’s baptism. After learning more about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The fullest biblical teaching should be presented so that the person understands baptism’s connection with forgiveness, union with Christ, and new life.

25. What If Someone Believes but Dies Before Being Baptized?

This is one of the most emotionally difficult questions in the entire discussion. Suppose someone hears the gospel, believes in Christ, repents, and sincerely intends to be baptized.

Before baptism can occur, the person dies.

What happens to that individual? We must distinguish between what God has revealed as the ordinary response to the gospel and what God may do in circumstances Scripture does not explicitly address. The New Testament commands baptism. It connects baptism with forgiveness and salvation.

It records converts being baptized without unnecessary delay. Those teachings should guide our actions. However, Scripture does not provide a direct account of a post-Pentecost believer who sincerely intended to be baptized, died before the opportunity, and then had his eternal destiny revealed.

Consequently, we should be careful about making absolute claims concerning that hypothetical individual. Genesis 18:25 asks, 

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” God is perfectly just. He knows the heart, the circumstances, and the intentions of every person. We can trust His judgment without claiming authority to make exceptions to His commands. The uncertainty surrounding an extraordinary situation does not justify disregarding what Scripture clearly instructs us to do when baptism is available.

A person who sincerely wants to obey Christ should be encouraged to do so without delay.

The repeated urgency of baptism in Acts is worth following.

26. What About Someone Who Was Never Taught the Truth About Baptism?

Many sincere people have been taught that baptism has nothing to do with receiving forgiveness. They love Jesus, study the Bible, pray, serve others, and strive to live godly lives. How should we think about them? We should begin by recognizing that sincerity is meaningful, but sincerity alone does not determine whether a belief is correct.

Saul of Tarsus sincerely believed he was serving God when he persecuted Christians.

In Acts 23:1, he said that he had lived before God in good conscience. Yet he later acknowledged that he had acted ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13). His sincerity did not make his actions right. Likewise, Apollos was described as eloquent, competent in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, and accurate in teaching about Jesus, though he knew only John’s baptism (Acts 18:24–25). Priscilla and Aquila explained the way of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26). The appropriate response to incomplete understanding was further instruction. We should treat sincere believers with the same concern and patience. We can recognize their devotion while carefully examining whether their understanding agrees with Scripture.

We should avoid assuming that everyone who disagrees is dishonest or deliberately rebellious. At the same time, sincerity should never become a reason to ignore a biblical command. Our goal should be to teach the whole counsel of God and encourage every person to follow Christ as faithfully as possible.

27. Does Baptism Replace the Blood of Christ?

Absolutely not. This objection misunderstands the claim that baptism is connected to salvation. The New Testament consistently teaches that forgiveness comes through Christ’s sacrifice. Ephesians 1:7 says, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.”

First Peter 1:18–19 explains that Christians were redeemed through the precious blood of Christ. Revelation 1:5 praises Jesus, who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood. Hebrews 9:14 teaches that Christ’s blood purifies the conscience. Nothing in Scripture suggests that ordinary water possesses the power to forgive sin independently of Jesus. The question concerns the relationship between His saving blood and the believer’s response.

Romans 6:3 says believers are baptized into Christ’s death. It was in His death that Christ shed His blood. Colossians 2:12 connects baptism with faith in God’s power. First Peter 3:21 connects baptism’s saving significance with Christ’s resurrection. These passages consistently direct attention to Jesus. A person who believes baptism earns salvation through human effort has misunderstood grace. A person who believes water itself possesses independent saving power has misunderstood Christ’s sacrifice. The biblical case for baptism’s necessity rests on God’s promise to act through the response He has commanded. Christ provides the salvation. The believer submits to Christ. The saving power belongs entirely to God.

28. Is Baptism Part of the Gospel?

First Corinthians 15:1–4 identifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the central historical events of the gospel.

Paul emphasizes that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day.

Those events are the foundation of Christian salvation. Baptism does not add another saving sacrifice to the gospel. Instead, Romans 6 describes baptism in relation to those very events. The believer is buried with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life.

Acts 8:35–36 also demonstrates that preaching Jesus led directly to a request for baptism. Acts 16 shows that preaching the word of the Lord led to immediate baptism.

The Great Commission places baptism within the task of making disciples. We should therefore distinguish between the saving events that constitute the heart of the gospel and the response Christ commands when that gospel is preached. Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish salvation. Faithful gospel preaching calls people to respond to Him. The New Testament repeatedly includes baptism in that response.

29. Does the Bible Teach Faith Alone?

This question requires precision because Christians use the expression “faith alone” in different ways. Many Protestant theologians use it to mean that sinners are justified by faith apart from meritorious works, with genuine faith necessarily producing obedience. Others use the phrase to mean that a person receives salvation at the instant of belief, before baptism, and that baptism has no role in receiving forgiveness. Those claims are not identical. Scripture clearly teaches that sinners cannot earn justification through their own works. Romans 3:28 says, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Paul’s argument excludes reliance upon law-keeping as the basis of justification. But we must also consider James 2:24, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

James is addressing a faith that claims to exist while producing no corresponding action. His examples include Abraham and Rahab, whose faith was demonstrated through obedience. Paul and James address different errors. Paul opposes reliance on works as the basis for justification. James opposes a lifeless profession of faith that produces no obedience. Neither passage should be isolated from the rest of Scripture.

Hebrews 11 repeatedly describes faith expressing itself through action. Noah prepared an ark by faith. Abraham obeyed when called to leave his home. The Israelites crossed the Red Sea by faith. Faith trusts God enough to respond to His word. That principle is directly relevant to baptism.

When someone believes in Christ and submits to baptism because Christ commanded it, that person is expressing trust in God’s promise. Colossians 2:12 explicitly connects baptism with faith in God’s powerful working. The biblical question is therefore whether baptism is among the actions Christ has instructed believers to undertake in coming to Him. The teaching of Acts, Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and First Peter provides substantial evidence that it is.

30. What Does It Mean to Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ?

Acts 2:38 commands baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 8:16 speaks of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48 likewise describes baptism in Jesus’ name.

Matthew 28:19 commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Do these passages contradict one another?

No. The phrase “in the name of” frequently expresses authority, identification, or allegiance. To be baptized in the name of Jesus is to submit to His authority and identify with Him as Lord. Matthew 28:19 gives the Trinitarian language of Jesus’ commission. Acts emphasizes that baptism is performed under the authority of the risen Christ. The New Testament does not provide a detailed transcript of the exact words spoken during every baptism. Therefore, we should be cautious about claiming that baptism is invalid merely because the administrator used one biblical expression rather than another. The essential concern is whether the baptism is performed in submission to Christ and in accordance with His command. The words spoken by the administrator are not presented as a magical formula that independently produces salvation.

31. Does Baptism Automatically Guarantee Eternal Salvation?

No. The New Testament repeatedly warns Christians against abandoning their faith.

Jesus said, “The one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24:13) Paul warned believers in Romans 11:20–22 to continue in God’s kindness. Galatians 5:4 speaks of people who have fallen away from grace through seeking justification by law.

Hebrews 3:12 warns against an evil, unbelieving heart that leads someone to fall away from the living God. 2 Peter 2:20–22 describes the danger of returning to corruption after escaping the defilements of the world. Christians interpret some of these warning passages differently regarding the possibility of losing salvation. Nevertheless, they agree that Scripture calls believers to persevering faithfulness. Baptism is the beginning of a life of discipleship. Matthew 28:20 commands the apostles to teach baptized disciples to observe everything Jesus commanded. Romans 6 emphasizes that those baptized into Christ must no longer live as slaves to sin. A person who has been baptized should continue growing in faith, holiness, love, repentance, and obedience. Baptism is never presented as permission to live in deliberate rebellion against God.

32. Can Baptism Be Repeated?

The New Testament does not present Christian baptism as a ritual that must be repeated whenever a believer sins.

Ephesians 4:5 speaks of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Acts 8:22 instructs Simon, who had already been baptized, to repent and pray for forgiveness. 1 John 1:7–9 emphasizes continuing fellowship with God through walking in the light and confessing sins. The normal New Testament pattern is one baptism into Christ followed by a life of repentance and faithfulness. Acts 19:1–5 provides an important exception involving people who had received John’s baptism.

After Paul explained the fuller revelation of Jesus Christ, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. That account demonstrates that not every religious washing is equivalent to Christian baptism.

Someone who has only undergone an infant ceremony, a non-Christian ritual, or John’s preparatory baptism faces a different question from a Christian who has already been baptized into Christ and subsequently sins. Whether a person baptized under an incomplete theological understanding should be baptized again requires careful examination of the original baptism, the person’s faith, and the biblical purpose of baptism. The goal should be obedience to Scripture, free from both careless assumptions and unnecessary fear.

33. Does the Order of Salvation Matter?

The New Testament gives several commands and descriptions connected to salvation.

We should avoid turning them into a rigid mechanical formula in which every conversion must be described using exactly the same words. Nevertheless, the broad pattern is clear. People hear the gospel (Romans 10:17). They believe in Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Acts 16:31). They are called to repent (Acts 2:38; 17:30). They confess Christ (Romans 10:9–10). They are baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3–4; Galatians 3:27).

They continue in faithful discipleship (Matthew 28:20; Colossians 1:23).

These responses should be understood as belonging together. The New Testament does not teach that someone can earn salvation by completing a checklist. Nor does it encourage us to separate faith from the obedience Christ commands. The central question is what God promises to those who respond to His gospel. When Peter was asked what to do, he commanded repentance and baptism for forgiveness (Acts 2:38). When Saul was instructed, he was told to be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). When Paul explained baptism, he described burial and resurrection with Christ through faith in God’s power (Colossians 2:12). When Peter explained baptism, he said it saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21). These statements form a consistent pattern.

34. Why Does This Subject Matter So Much?

It matters because Jesus commands baptism. It matters because the apostles included baptism in their preaching.

It matters because the New Testament repeatedly connects baptism with forgiveness, union with Christ, and new life.

It matters because we should never encourage people to disregard something God has commanded. But there is another reason this subject matters. How we approach baptism reveals something about how we approach Scripture itself. Are we willing to reconsider a belief when a passage challenges us? Will we read the surrounding context? Will we examine every relevant passage, including those that complicate our position? Will we distinguish what Scripture explicitly teaches from what we have inferred? And will we extend patience to people who are sincerely trying to understand God’s word? 2 Timothy 2:24–25 says that the Lord’s servant must be kind, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, and correcting opponents with gentleness. A biblical conviction should produce both courage and humility. We should be confident enough to teach what Scripture says and humble enough to admit when a passage raises questions we cannot completely resolve.

This is especially important when discussing baptism with people who have spent their entire lives in religious traditions that understand it differently. Our responsibility is to reason from Scripture with patience and love. The goal is to help people follow Jesus.

35. Bringing the Evidence Together

When all the passages are considered, several conclusions emerge. The New Testament teaches unequivocally that salvation is made possible by the grace of God through the saving work of Jesus Christ.

His death and resurrection are the foundation of redemption. Faith is indispensable. Repentance is commanded. Confession of Christ is significant. And baptism is repeatedly presented as part of the response to the gospel. Peter commands baptism for the forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38.

Ananias tells Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins in Acts 22:16. Paul describes baptism into Christ’s death in Romans 6:3–4.

He connects baptism with putting on Christ in Galatians 3:27. He describes baptism as burial and resurrection with Christ through faith in God’s power in Colossians 2:12.

Peter states that baptism now saves through the resurrection of Jesus Christ in 1 Peter 3:21. These are substantial biblical statements. They deserve more than an explanation that baptism is simply an optional symbol of a salvation already completed. At the same time, none of these passages teaches that water possesses independent saving power or that human obedience earns forgiveness. God saves.

Christ’s blood redeems. The Spirit renews.

Faith trusts God’s promises. Baptism is presented as an obedient response to the gospel, intimately connected with receiving the blessings accomplished by Christ. There are legitimate interpretive disagreements about particular passages, including John 3:5, Cornelius’s reception of the Spirit, and the precise relationship between faith, regeneration, and baptism. Those disagreements should be acknowledged rather than ignored. But the cumulative evidence of the New Testament strongly supports the conclusion that baptism is an integral part of the conversion response commanded by Jesus and preached by His apostles.

Why Would We Separate What Scripture Joins Together?

Imagine standing in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. You have just heard Peter declare that Jesus, whom your nation crucified, is both Lord and Christ. You recognize your guilt. Your heart is pierced. You ask the apostles what you must do. Peter answers, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) Would you have understood baptism to be an unnecessary ceremony that could be postponed indefinitely? Would you have concluded that forgiveness had already occurred before you responded? Would you have told Peter that baptism was a work and therefore could have no connection to salvation? The people who heard his message did something remarkably simple. They received the word. They were baptized. About three thousand souls were added that day. Throughout Acts, we encounter people from different backgrounds. Jews and Gentiles. Religious people and pagans. Wealthy people and prisoners. Men and women. Individuals and households. They heard the same gospel of Jesus Christ. They responded in faith.

And baptism repeatedly accompanied their conversion. We should not make baptism more than Scripture makes it. We should not make it less than Scripture makes it. We should never place our confidence in the water, the person administering the baptism, or the goodness of the individual being baptized. Our confidence belongs in Jesus Christ, whose blood makes forgiveness possible and whose resurrection gives us the hope of eternal life. But trusting Jesus also means taking His words seriously.

He commanded baptism. His apostles preached it. The early Christians practiced it.

And the inspired writers repeatedly connected it with the saving work of God.

The most important question is not what our parents believed, what our favorite preacher teaches, or what religious tradition we inherited. The question is what Scripture says. If Jesus has told us what to do, why would we hesitate to obey Him? And if the apostles taught that baptism is connected with forgiveness, union with Christ, and newness of life, why would we teach people that it has no relationship to receiving those blessings? The invitation of the gospel is an invitation to trust Christ completely. To believe His promises. To turn away from sin.

To confess Him as Lord. To be baptized into His death. And to rise to walk in newness of life. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27) That is a promise worthy of our confidence, because it rests on the authority of Jesus Christ.

Free workshop at the Cumberland Trace church of Christ, 4/22-4/25, 2027

The Sermon Jesus Never Finished

Carl Pollard

Have you ever wondered what it would’ve been like to hear Jesus preach? Imagine sitting in a synagogue, listening to the Son of God open the Scriptures and explain their meaning.

In Luke 4, we get a glimpse of that very thing. Jesus returned to Nazareth, the town where He grew up. On the Sabbath, He entered the synagogue, stood up to read, and was handed the scroll of Isaiah.

He found the passage we know as Isaiah 61 and began reading about the One who would bring good news to the poor, proclaim liberty to captives, give sight to the blind, and set the oppressed free.

Then, Jesus rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. Luke tells us that every eye in the synagogue was fixed on Him.

Can you imagine the silence in that room?

Then Jesus said, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21).

For centuries, Israel had waited for the promised Messiah. Generations had read those words, prayed for their fulfillment, and longed for the day when God would send His Anointed One.

And now, sitting in their synagogue, was the fulfillment of everything Isaiah had written.

Initially, the people marveled at His gracious words. But their amazement quickly turned into questions. They knew His family, and they knew where He’d grown up. They couldn’t understand how someone so familiar could make such an extraordinary claim.

Jesus continued by reminding them of two Old Testament accounts. During a terrible famine, God sent Elijah to a widow in Sidon. During Elisha’s ministry, Naaman the Syrian was cleansed of leprosy.

Both examples showed that God’s mercy had reached people outside Israel, and His blessings weren’t limited by the expectations of those listening.

In that moment, everything changed. Luke 4:28 says, “When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.”

The congregation became so furious that they drove Jesus out of town and attempted to throw Him off a cliff. The people who had gathered to hear God’s Word became angry when God’s Word challenged them.

That’s a very real possibility for us, too! We can spend years attending worship, studying Scripture, and listening to sermons. We can become familiar with the language of faith and still struggle when the Bible exposes something in our own hearts.

The people of Nazareth had an incredible opportunity. Jesus was standing right in front of them, opening the Scriptures and revealing God’s purpose. Yet their familiarity with Him and their unwillingness to accept His message kept them from receiving what He offered.

Jesus eventually passed through their midst and went away. Luke never records the rest of what Jesus might’ve taught that day. The sermon was interrupted by the anger of the people listening.

So that forces us to ask, when Scripture challenges something we’ve always believed, something we’ve always practiced, or something we don’t want to change, how do we respond?

The people of Nazareth remind us how dangerous it is to become so comfortable with our understanding of God that we stop allowing His Word to correct us.

May we always have hearts willing to listen, even when what God says is difficult to hear.

Acts 19

Gary Pollard

Afterward Paul felt compelled by the Spirit to go over to Macedonia and Achaia before going to Jerusalem. “And after that,” he said, “I must go on to Rome!” He sent his two assistants, Timothy and Erastus, ahead to Macedonia while he stayed awhile longer in the province of Asia. About that time, serious trouble developed in Ephesus concerning the Way. It began with Demetrius, a silversmith who had a large business manufacturing silver shrines of the Greek goddess Artemis. He kept many craftsmen busy. He called them together, along with others employed in similar trades, and addressed them as follows: “Gentlemen, you know that our wealth comes from this business. But as you have seen and heard, this man Paul has persuaded many people that handmade gods aren’t really gods at all. And he’s done this not only here in Ephesus but throughout the entire province! Of course, I’m not just talking about the loss of public respect for our business. I’m also concerned that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will lose its influence and that Artemis—this magnificent goddess worshiped throughout the province of Asia and all around the world—will be robbed of her great prestige!”1

At this their anger boiled, and they began shouting, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Soon the whole city was filled with confusion. Everyone rushed to the amphitheater, dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, who were Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia. Paul wanted to go in, too, but the believers wouldn’t let him. Some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, also sent a message to him, begging him not to risk his life by entering the amphitheater. Inside, the people were all shouting, some one thing and some another. Everything was in confusion. In fact, most of them didn’t even know why they were there. The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander forward and told him to explain the situation. He motioned for silence and tried to speak. But when the crowd realized he was a Jew, they started shouting again and kept it up for about two hours: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians! Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

At last the mayor was able to quiet them down enough to speak. “Citizens of Ephesus,” he said. “Everyone knows that Ephesus is the official guardian of the temple of the great Artemis, whose image fell down to us from heaven.2 Since this is an undeniable fact, you should stay calm and not do anything rash. You have brought these men here, but they have stolen nothing from the temple and have not spoken against our goddess. If Demetrius and the craftsmen have a case against them, the courts are in session and the officials can hear the case at once. Let them make formal charges. And if there are complaints about other matters, they can be settled in a legal assembly. I am afraid we are in danger of being charged with rioting by the Roman government, since there is no cause for all this commotion. And if Rome demands an explanation, we won’t know what to say.” Then he dismissed them, and they dispersed.

1 The planet Venus was worshiped as Artemis, and many, many other names all over the world. Demetrius clearly had financial motives, but he knew the people were sincere (sincerely wrong) in their belief in Artemis. The peoples’ anger was not over the threat to Demetrius’s business — they were likely afraid of the “consequences” of disrespecting or abandoning this universally deified planet. This was the same false goddess worshiped by the Israelites as the Queen of Heaven. When Aaron made the golden calf, they “celebrated with feasting and drinking, and indulged in pagan revelry” (Ex 32.6). The image he chose and the way they worshiped it strongly suggest it was Hathor. Herodotus, Plutarch, Strabo, and Diodorus Siculus all identified Hathor with Aphrodite/Venus. This is a very small sample of the long list of false deities associated with Venus. Whether they were worshipping personified representations of the planet or were using the beautiful morning star as an excuse to do naughty things is not crystal clear. The universal nature of this false deity’s worship makes the typical explanation (syncretism alone) seem inadequate. No one will argue that it wasn’t done at all (c.f. interpretatio graeca), but this does not explain why the same false deity was worshiped in the Americas or China or anywhere else too far from Greek and Roman culture to have been influenced by them or by each other.

2 Διοπετης, i.e. Jupiter/Zeus. The image of Artemis was a meteorite. These were often worshiped as images of the planetary false gods, a practice as ancient as writing itself. Moses strictly warned against this practice in Deut 4.19 and 17.3 and in Ex 20.4.  

“Each Man Must Remain In That Condition In Which He Was Called”

Neal Pollard

Yesterday, as part of a Bible class on 1 Corinthians, it fell my lot to teach chapter seven. This tends to be a controversial chapter, one in which too many teachers, preachers, elders, and other church leaders have misled people and asserted a doctrine known as “The Pauline Privilege.” Among the arguments used to defend this position, people say:

  • “Not under bondage” (15). If an unbeliever departs, the believing mate who is abandoned is free to remarry.
  • “God has called us to peace” (15). Peace includes the idea that the abandoned is free to remarry (this is not seriously or widely taught as credible).
  • “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called” (18-24).

We spent our time in class dealing with the main argument, the first argument concerning “not under bondage” (watch class here). This position cannot be right, as it has Paul contradicting himself (see 7:10-11) and, in doing so, contradicting Jesus (see Matthew 19:1-9). “Under bondage” means enslaved and is never used in the New Testament as the marriage bond. Paul uses a different word for the marriage bond (cf. Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:27,39). Paul is saying one is not enslaved to his or her unbelieving spouse, and the Christian should not choose the spouse over Christ. Paul had said not to leave the non-Christian mate (12-14), but if divorce occurred he had already given the two options available in verses 10-11: “remain unmarried…or be reconciled.”

One other matter that is often used in arguing a broader acceptance of divorce and remarriage than Jesus taught in Matthew 5 and 19. The argument is made that a person is allowed to stay in whatever condition they are in when they obey the gospel. So, if one has been married and divorce multiple times when they become a Christian, Paul is saying it is acceptable to stay in that situation. He compares it to circumcision and slavery, so the argument goes.

The central problem with this is that it also makes Paul contradict himself and Jesus in the explicit teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Remember that after Jesus states His authoritative position, the apostles lament that if such was the case it would be better not to marry. No one would conclude this of this position.

It also misunderstands the point Paul is making. It is a summary of the position he set forth in verses 12-14. If you become a Christian and are married to a non-Christian, don’t dissolve the marriage. Under the Old Law, “mixed marriages” were forbidden (Exodus 34:16) and those that were formed had to be dissolved (Ezra 10, Nehemiah 9). These new Christians may have been influenced by such teaching and wondered if that applied to them. Whatever they may have thought, Paul makes clear that they should stay married.

Without a doubt, sorting through and untangling the real-life circumstances of people’s marriages is among the hardest challenges to face in being faithful to Jesus and His will. Our task is to show the compassion of Christ and lovingly minister to all who are confronted with challenges and struggles. While our hearts break for difficult situations, we are not at liberty to pick and choose which commands and teachings of His to teach and which to ignore or change.

Saying Yes To Our Stewardship

Neal Pollard

There’s a word found less than 20 times in the New Testament that means “to entrust something to someone with the intention of preservation. This word can indicate putting something in front of someone…it can also be used of entrusting something to someone” (Lexham Theological Wordbook, np). While several of the occurrences have to do with setting food before someone to eat (Mark 8:6-7; Luke 9:16; Luke 10:8; Acts 16:34; 1 Corinthians 10:27), it has at least three other uses. They have to do with what we have been given to manage and care for. Ultimately, it’s correctly handling what comes from God or belongs to God. And it concerns way more than money!

Entrust. Jesus entrusted His spirit to God as He was dying (Luke 23:46). When elders were appointed, they were “commended to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23). Paul entrusted commands to Timothy to help him fight the good fight of faith (1 Timothy 1:18). Paul also wanted Timothy to entrust what Paul had taught him to faithful men who could teach others (2 Timothy 2:2). Saints who suffered could entrust their souls to a faithful Creator, no matter what happened to them (1 Peter 4:19). This is the idea of putting something into the hands of others to care for or protect it. We can put our souls in God’s care, but God puts the Word in our hands in order to help other people know that care and protection. Just as I can trust God to take care of me and to save me, God’s trusting me to faithfully share His message to all those people out there that He loves and cares about.

Demonstrate. When revealing about Paul’s work among the Jews in the synagogues of Thessalonica, Luke tells us that “for three Sabbaths [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead” (Acts 17:2-3). Used in this context, the original word (παρατιθέμενος) means “to provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one’s behavior, attitude, or external attributes” (Brannan, 2020, np). What does it take to be able to give evidence for our beliefs? Time, work, and persistence. Paul drew his evidence from the Scriptures, suggesting the vital importance of always growing our base of sacred knowledge. In other words, we must become better Bible students. The better we know the Book, the better we can prove it. But noticing the definition, our life must also become a Bible for others to read. We can’t afford to nullify the truth of Scripture by a poorly-lived life. A synonym for παρατιθέμενος (paritathemenos), συνίστημι (synestemi), means to commend our lives for others to inspect or imitate (Romans 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 4:2; 6:4; 10:12; 12:11). Are we faithfully preparing ourselves to prove Christ, then faithfully presenting ourselves as evidence of what Christ looks like in His followers’ lives?

Propose. Twice, Matthew uses this word in the sense of bringing something forward for consideration. Both times, Jesus is setting forth parables (Matthew 13:24, 31). He is using these stories to help people understand what the Kingdom of heaven is like (the parable of the tares and the wheat and the parable of the mustard seed). Of course, Jesus is the source of truth (John 14:6). He originated it. But He gave it to us to share with others. He expects us to make His word lives in people’s lives. We do this by sharing His word with them, being thoughtful and prepared enough to make this practical and useful.

Paul told Corinth, “it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy” (1 Corinthians 4:2b). Can we apply that principle to money? It’s certainly true that God gives us everything, and we should handle all resources responsibly. Yet, isn’t it interesting that none of the passages regarding stewardship in the New Testament is talking, contextually, about material things? Steward the gospel and steward your soul, then all of you will belong to God. Not only that, but you will give people much more than silver and gold! You will give them the opportunity to have everything God promises those who yield their lives to Him!

The Liar Everyone Believes and the Savior Everyone Doubts

Brent Pollard

Two men stand in the background of a single verse. One wrote a proverb about liars. The other rose from the dead. Guess which one the world finds easier to believe.

The Apostle Paul quotes a man often regarded as semi-mythical, believed to have lived roughly 650 years before Paul’s letter to Titus. In Titus 1.12-13, Paul mentions that this man, Epimenides, gave a truthful statement when he said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (NASB95). The irony is that, although considered semi-legendary, most people accept Epimenides’ existence without question. In contrast, the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whom Paul urged Titus to teach about faithfully, is often doubted despite the wealth of textual evidence supporting His existence.

Why? The reason for this is likely the difference in the moral implications of Epimenides’ and Jesus Christ’s existence. The former makes no spiritual demands of the one accepting his existence. The latter, of course, purports to be the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. In other words, the reality of Jesus has a far greater impact on the life of the individual than the reality of Epimenides.

Historical Evidence for Jesus Is Not the Real Obstacle

No scholar loses sleep over Epimenides. He costs nothing. A Cretan poet who called his own countrymen liars demands neither repentance nor worship; he asks only for a footnote. Jesus asks for everything. Paul understood this. Standing before Agrippa, he could insist that “this has not been done in a corner” (Acts 26.26). Luke opened his Gospel by anchoring the story to named emperors, governors, and a census (Luke 2.1-2; 3.1), because he wrote for a man who wanted certainty, not myth. Why, then, does a person weigh the same kind of evidence, accept the poet, and refuse the Lord? Jesus told us. “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil” (John 3.19). Unbelief rarely arrives as an intellectual conclusion. It usually arrives as a moral preference wearing a scholar’s gown.

Cost of Believing in Christ

Consider the mechanics of the heart. Admit Epimenides existed, and you may go on eating, sleeping, and sinning exactly as before. Admit that Jesus existed—truly existed, did what the Gospels record, rose as the apostles swore He did—and the floor tilts. Every appetite must answer to Him. Every ambition must kneel. Peter’s hearers felt that tilt on Pentecost when the word “pierced” them, and they cried, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2.37). Note the sequence: the fact came first, then the demand. Peter offered no philosophy to admire; he preached a Lord to obey, and three thousand submitted to baptism that day (Acts 2.38, 41). Belief that costs nothing changes nothing. James reminds us that even the demons believe and shudder (James 2.19). The demons hold better theology than the skeptic and worse obedience than a child.

Why the Demands of Jesus Are Good News

Here, the Cretan proverb turns a corner. Paul agreed with Epimenides: the Cretans lied and gorged themselves. Then he told Titus to reprove them “so that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1.13). Diagnosis served as a cure. The demands of Christ do not tax the reluctant; they trace the shape of the life He died to give. “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2.11-12). Grace instructs. Grace does not merely excuse the glutton; it feeds him on something better until the old husks lose their savor. The man who fears Jesus’ claims has the matter backward. He guards his little kingdom of appetites as though God came to rob him, when God came to enlarge him. Every demand of Christ invites us into a joy the Cretan never tasted: “In Your presence is fullness of joy” (Psalm 16.11).

Faithful Christian Living Begins with Honest Belief

So examine what you actually believe. Not what you affirm on a Sunday morning, but what governs you when you’re not assembled with the church. If Jesus remains a historical curiosity to you, you have received Him as the world receives Epimenides: acknowledged, cataloged, ignored. If He is the risen Son of God, then Paul’s charge to Titus becomes your charge: teach sound doctrine, adorn it with sound living (Titus 2.1, 10), and let no appetite call itself master. The evidence was never the problem. The throne was the problem. Surrender the throne, and the gluttons of Crete—and of your own heart—become “a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2.14). Believe Him. Then obey Him. The world may keep its comfortable poets. We will keep our costly Christ.

Ephraim’s Man-Eating Forest

Dale Pollard

“The forest devoured more people that day than the sword” (2 Samuel 18.8).

David’s son, Absalom, rebelled. He’s amassed an army and David’s been on the run. Finally, it all comes to a head and the battle spread over the face of all the country. In total, twenty thousand of Absalom’s followers are killed—but the bulk of the casualties fell in the forest of Ephraim. Wait, no, they didn’t fall. The text says that they were devoured.

Is it possible that thousands of men were eaten by trees?

Some of the oldest legends of man-eating trees come from Central and South America. According to local legends, the tree would lie perfectly still until an unsuspecting person walked over its roots. The tendrils would snap upward, wrap around the victim, and squeeze them to death. The tree’s leaves were said to be lined with sharp, tooth-like spines that pierced the skin to drain the victim’s blood

Similarly, British explorers returning from central Africa told tales of giant trees that produced a super-adhesive sap that coated their low-hanging branches. If a human brushed against the branch, they became completely glued to it. They would become helplessly stuck, and the tree would eventually absorb them.

The Greeks and Romans had several myths of trees being cut, bleeding real human blood, and screaming in agony. Specifically, the association of ancient oaks and terebinths with human sacrifice is deeply documented. The premier Roman historian Tacitus wrote extensively in the 1st century AD about how the Germanic tribes viewed some of these oak groves. In his work Germania, he describes the Semnones tribe, who spoke of a forest that nobody could enter unless bound with chains.

“At a stated period, all the tribes of the same blood gather by their delegations in a wood consecrated by the auguries of their forefathers and by ancient awe. There they publicly sacrifice a human being, celebrating the horrific opening of their barbarous worship” (Tacitus, Germania, Chapter 39).

Lucan describes a sacred grove near Massilia that Julius Caesar ordered his men to chop down. The Romans were paralyzed with fear because of the rumors of human blood feeding the ancient oaks

“There was a grove which from earliest times had never been violated… No woodland nymphs or Pan resided here, instead there were savage rites and barbarous worship, massive upright stones used as horrible altars; every tree was made sacred with human blood… Crude effigies of gods fashioned from fallen trunks were all around” (Lucan, Pharsalia, Book III, line 399ff).

Josephus records that the tree that Abraham met the three angels by (Gen. 18.1-2) was a terebinth that had stood there since the creation of the world. He noted that locals venerated it. The exact location of this encounter was identified as Ramat El-Khalil, just north of modern-day Hebron. For thousands of years, a single massive tree stood at this site drawing millions of pilgrims. Well, then came Constantine.

By the Roman era, Jews, Christians, and Pagans were all holding joint festivals at the tree, offering sacrifices, and pouring drinks down Abraham’s well. The Emperor Constantine was disturbed by these pagan rituals that he ordered the altars destroyed and built a massive Christian Basilica directly over the roots of the tree to claim it.

None of this proves that trees ate thousands of soldiers in the forest of Ephriam, but it does prove that the concept isn’t a new one. Trees were considered dark, holy, hungry, and special for some reason or another. However, at least one tree played a part in the death of a man, though. Following the verse describing a forest devouring people we read:

“…Absalom was riding his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak, and his head caught fast in the oak, and he was suspended between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on” (2 Sam. 18.9).

Joab and ten others would stab him and beat him to death while he hung from the tree. 

The Observations About Self-Righteousness

Neal Pollard

The word “self-righteous” does not appear in scripture.  The dictionary defines the word as “filled with a conviction of being morally superior to others; smugly virtuous.”  That attitude is certainly found and discussed in scripture.  Jesus told a parable “to some who  trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt” (Luke 18:9; the NIV has “confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else”).  In Luke 16, Jesus tells the Pharisees, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men” (15).  Much of what Jesus says in Matthew 23 is devoted to confronting the scribes and Pharisees’ feelings of moral superiority.

There are some common traits among the self-righteous.  It is not a question of one’s sincerity or conviction, but of how one behaves under the guise of either.  None of us should want to fall into the category of the self-righteous.

First, the self-righteous often see others’ failings, but not their own.  Such a one could fill a book with what the other one is doing wrong, but spend very little time in meaningful self-examination (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).  Self-righteousness can display itself in constant criticism or hypercriticism of others.  It is easier to pick apart the actions of others than to be self-aware.  Yet, reminding ourselves that all sin will add humility to the way we handle their perceived faults and flaws.

Also, self-righteousness is not true righteousness.  There is a big difference.  True righteousness can be classified with goodness and truth (Eph. 5:9), but self-righteousness is neither good nor true.  True righteousness is coupled with peace and joy, but self-righteousness works against both (Rom. 14:17).  True righteousness can be mentioned in the same breath with self-control (Acts 24:25), but self-righteousness is often devoid of it.  That is the irony of self-righteousness.  It really is not righteous at all.

Further, self-righteousness is often  a product of pride.  It is often a byproduct of one elevating his or her judgments, opinions, and feelings to the level of law.  One’s own preference can become what all should do.  One’s conviction can become the best or the only way.  If we are not careful, conviction and preference can become self-righteousness.

God wants His people righteous.  There is too much worldliness and embracing of sin among even children of God.  This is unrighteousness and no one should aspire to that.  Yet, let us be careful to place our trust in God’s rather than our own righteousness.

Two Faces

Neal Pollard

Recently, I witnessed something I have seen before but that never gets easier to watch.  A person who on several occasions has had something negative and disparaging to say about another person when he was not around was speaking to him, using sweet, flattering and complimentary words.  The same person has used similar words in speaking to me.  It left me cold, certain that I cannot trust the kind words this person directs my way.

By definition, one is two-faced who is “marked by deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another” (Princeton University, Wordnet).  One etymology source says the first recorded use of “two face” was in 1619, though nothing more is said of that record (www.etymonline.com).  But, many scholars see the origin of the concept in Roman mythology and the god Janus for whom the month January is named.  He is said, as a symbol of change, to see into the past with one face and into the future with another face.  His faces pointed in the opposite direction (en.academic.ru).  Apparently, the concept morphed from looking two directions to showing two sets of feelings, being duplicitous, deceitful, and hypocritical.

When you do a New Testament word study, the word most closely akin to “two faced” is “hypocrisy.”  In fact, the word itself is simply a transliteration (writing or printing out a letter or word using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language) of the Greek word.  The original word first was theatrical language meaning “playacting.”  Thus, the verb form of the word, found in Luke 20:20, is used to describe how the scribes and high priests pretended to be sincere in order to trap Jesus.

Such a practice is dishonest, for it makes the subject of the hypocrisy think you feel or believe one way when in reality you do not (cf. Mt. 23:28).  Such a practice is harmful to influence, because in showing others your “second face” you reveal yourself as not genuine, trustworthy, or honorable (cf. Gal. 2:13).  Such a practice is sinful and, thus spiritual darkness.  Peter says to “put it aside” (1 Pet. 2:1).

Let us be careful that we do not confuse attempted tact and diplomacy with dishonesty, evil influence, and sin.  Let us keep our ethics aboveboard and our integrity intact.  Let us have one face, the same face, for everyone wherever we are and to whomever we speak.

Turn The Other Cheek

Carl Pollard

Few statements of Jesus have been misunderstood more than Matthew 5:39, “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” 

Some have tried to soften Jesus’ words until they mean almost the opposite of what He said. But we need to allow the context to determine the meaning.

Jesus is addressing personal retaliation. Just before this, He quotes the Old Testament principle, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Matthew 5:38). That command was originally given as a standard of justice (Exodus 21:23–25). The punishment was to fit the crime. It wasn’t permission for an individual to take revenge.

By Jesus’ day, however, people could use that principle to justify getting even, “You hurt me, so I have the right to hurt you.”

Jesus says His followers must live differently. The slap on the right cheek is important. For a right-handed person to strike someone on the right cheek would most naturally involve a backhanded slap. In that culture, this could function as an insult and humiliation. Jesus describes someone attacking your dignity and says essentially, you don’t have to answer every insult with another insult.

That doesn’t mean Christians can never protect themselves, protect their families or flee from danger. Scripture recognizes the legitimate role of civil authorities in punishing wrongdoing (Romans 13:1–4). Jesus Himself sometimes withdrew from those seeking to harm Him (John 8:59). Paul appealed to his legal rights when he was mistreated (Acts 22:25).

Matthew 5:39 is about revenge, retaliation, and the heart that demands payback.

Peter explains it perfectly. When Jesus, “was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten” (1 Peter 2:23).

Jesus isn’t teaching cowardice. He’s teaching extraordinary self-control. Anybody can return insult for insult. Anybody can strike back when their pride has been wounded. Anybody can demand the last word.

Jesus calls His followers to something harder. When someone insults you, you don’t have to destroy them. When someone embarrasses you, you don’t have to embarrass them. When someone wrongs you, vengeance doesn’t belong to you.

Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean pretending evil is good. It means refusing to become evil because someone was evil to you.

THE ALTAR OF NOAH AND GOBEKLI TEPE

Dale Pollard

 There’s a theory that Göbekli Tepe—said to be the world’s oldest known megalithic site—is the altar built by Noah immediately after exiting the Ark.

Located in southeastern Turkey, the site aligns very well with the geographical and cultural transition that’s described in Genesis. Here’s some of the best supporting evidence. 

Evidence Supporting the Altar Theory

Perfect Proximity: Genesis states that the Ark came to rest on the “mountains of Ararat” in ancient Armenia/eastern Anatolia. Göbekli Tepe is situated in southeastern Turkey, directly down-mountain from the Ararat and Judi massifs. It sits at the exact gateway where a descending population would first enter the fertile plains of Mesopotamia.

Cool Carvings: The limestone pillars of Göbekli Tepe are famous for their high-relief carvings of animals, including foxes, boars, cranes, ducks, leopards, snakes, and scorpions. Proponents argue this serves as a permanent, stone-carved catalog of the diverse fauna released from the Ark, explicitly commemorating the beasts.

Suspected Sacrifice: Archaeologists have unearthed hundreds of thousands of butchered animal bones (primarily wild gazelle, aurochs, and birds) mixed into the soil filling the stone enclosures. This aligns with Genesis 8:20, which states that Noah “took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.”

From Ark to Agriculture: DNA sequencing traces the origin of all modern cultivated wheat directly to the Karacadağ mountains which are located just twenty miles from Göbekli Tepe. Genesis notes that immediately after the flood, Noah became a “man of the soil” and planted a vineyard—putting the agricultural rebirth of humanity at this exact geographical ground zero.

Funny Lookin’ Figures: The massive, T-shaped pillars are abstract, stylized human forms with carved arms and belts. These pillars might represent the patriarchal figures or the specific families of Noah’s sons establishing a monumental place of worship. The first altar mentioned after the flood is Noah’s, and the significance that the site would hold for future generations makes sense.

Caged Creatures: The circular, high-walled enclosures could have been constructed to temporarily keep, sort, or protect the vast multitudes of animals immediately after they descend from the Ark. Even among the secular opinions, this seems to be a popular position to hold. We’ll touch on that more.

The towering T-shaped pillars inside the circles are heavily carved with specific animals—foxes, boars, birds, and snakes. Under this theory, each circular enclosure may have been dedicated to holding a specific class or category of beast, with the stone reliefs serving as a permanent signpost of what was penned inside.

Fury Funnels: The sunken design and narrow entrances could have functioned logistically to funnel animals down into the center for Noah’s post-flood sacrifices.

The secular view claims that Göbekli Tepe’s round, stone structures were not built to save or domesticate animals, but to trap, corral, and slaughter massive quantities of wild animals. This still aligns with the Bible. In Genesis 7.2 we read that God told Noah to, “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals… and a pair of the unclean.” After Noah left the ark, he built an altar and sacrificed some of every clean animal and bird and offered them as a sacrifice to the Lord (Gen. 8.20).

The extra clean animals were provided so Noah would have enough for food, survival, and the large sacrifice after leaving the ark.

One writer claimed, “Recent studies estimate the total number of living and extinct kinds of land animals and flying creatures to be 1,398. With our “worst-case” scenario approach to calculating the number of animals on the ark, this would mean that Noah cared for 6,744 animals” (arkencounter.com/HowManyAnimalsontheArk).

This would make the ark’s cargo feasible for its size described in scripture but also provides an idea of the scale of sacrifice made by Noah after landing in the post-flood world.

Gobekli Tepe and its theoretical connection to Noah’s altar is a fun hypothesis. Maybe something from the site will be excavated in the future, and more conclusive evidence will be found. 

Note: The author has no strong opinions about this site and any possible Biblical connections.  

Wounds Without a Cause

Brent Pollard

Solomon buries a strange phrase inside a warning about strong drink, and most readers hurry past it.

“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long over wine…” (Proverbs 23.29–30 NASB95)

Wounds without cause. The phrase arrests me.

Recently, I found myself thinking about those words after developing a painful hematoma. There had been no fall, no bump into a table, no memorable injury. It simply appeared. As someone taking blood thinners, I know there is a medical explanation, even if I cannot point to a particular moment and say, “That is when it happened.” Even so, Solomon’s phrase echoed in my mind for days. Somewhere in my body, a small vessel failed. I never felt it. I only saw the aftermath.

That experience sent me back to the proverb, and the proverb sent me somewhere I did not expect to go.

What Proverbs 23.29–30 Actually Describes

Solomon was not writing about medication or fragile capillaries. He was sketching a portrait of the drunkard who wakes bruised, battered, and unable to account for his injuries. The wounds are not genuinely causeless. The man cannot trace them, because the wine that battered him also stole his judgment, his awareness, and his memory.

Read the end of the chapter, and you hear him speak for himself: “They struck me, but I did not become ill; They beat me, but I did not know it. When shall I awake? I will seek another drink” (Proverbs 23.35). There is the horror of it. Sin anesthetizes the very faculty that would identify sin as the culprit. It leaves scars and then erases the fingerprints.

Every generation invents new anesthetics. The substance changes; the mechanism does not. Whatever dulls conscience will eventually dull the ability to name what has gone wrong. That is why the wise man begs us to stay awake.

When Suffering Has No Explanation: Job and the Man Born Blind

But the phrase carries a second freight, and Scripture will not let us set it down.

Sometimes life wounds us in ways we cannot explain, and no moral arithmetic will balance the ledger.

Job’s friends tried the arithmetic. They reasoned that extraordinary suffering must indicate extraordinary sin, and they pressed that logic on a shattered man for chapter after chapter. God’s verdict on their theology was withering: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has” (Job 42.7). They defended God with arguments God rejected. Zeal did not excuse them.

Centuries later, the disciples made the same mistake with a beggar’s face before them. “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9.2–3). He refused the question as framed. He did not assign blame; He gave sight.

Jesus dismantled the same reasoning again when men brought Him news of Galileans slaughtered at their sacrifices and eighteen crushed beneath a falling tower. Were they worse offenders than everyone else in Jerusalem? “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13.5). Tragedy is not a scoreboard. Tragedy is a summons.

Why Christians Must Not Invent Reasons for Pain

Here is the practical discipline this demands of us.

Christians should be careful not to invent explanations where God has revealed none. A diagnosis is not necessarily divine punishment. An accident is not always the consequence of poor decisions. A chronic illness is not proof of weak faith. We live in a fallen creation where bodies weaken, diseases develop, blood vessels rupture, bones break, and hearts fail. These realities are not always traceable to a specific personal failing.

When we manufacture a reason for another believer’s affliction, we are not comforting them. We are prosecuting them. And we do it, usually, because their unexplained pain unsettles our tidy assumptions about how God runs the world. Silence feels like weakness, so we fill it with explanation.

Note what Job’s friends did right before they did everything wrong. They sat with him on the ground seven days and seven nights, “and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his pain was very great” (Job 2.13). That week was ministry. The speeches were not.

Sit down. Bring food. Say less. Weep with those who weep (Romans 12.15). You are not required to explain the wound to bind it.

A Groaning Creation and the Redemption of the Body

That does not mean God is absent.

Paul teaches that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now, and that we ourselves groan within, “waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8.22–23). Every unexplained ache, every mysterious diagnosis, every wound that seems to appear from nowhere testifies that this world is not the one God originally intended and not the one He will finally leave us in. Groaning is not faithlessness. Groaning is the sound of hope straining forward.

So Paul can look straight at a wasting body and call the affliction momentary and light, because he weighs it against an eternal weight of glory and fixes his eyes on what cannot be seen (2 Corinthians 4.16–18). That is not denial. That is accurate accounting. He also carried a thorn he never had explained to him, only answered: “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12.9). God gave him Himself instead of information, and Paul counted it the better bargain.

We are pilgrims desiring a better country (Hebrews 11.16). Pilgrims do not demand that the road make sense. They keep walking because they trust the One who mapped it.

Trusting the Great Physician Until Every Wound Is Healed

One day the Great Physician will complete His work. There will be no unexplained bruises, mysterious illnesses, failing lungs, aching joints, or wounded hearts. “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain” (Revelation 21.4). Every effect of sin and death will finally be undone, and the undoing will be thorough.

Until then, entrust your soul to a faithful Creator in doing what is right (1 Peter 4.19). Not in understanding what is right. In doing it. Worship on Sunday with a body that hurts. Serve someone whose suffering makes less sense than yours. Refuse bitterness the way you would refuse a drink that promised to make you forget.

Some wounds will still seem to come without a cause. They may puzzle us, inconvenience us, or frighten us. They are never outside the knowledge of our heavenly Father.

We may not always understand our wounds, but we can always trust the One who does.

Why Doesn’t God Just Kill The Devil?

Carl Pollard

This is a question that has been asked for centuries. If God is all powerful, why doesn’t He just kill Satan? In order to adequately answer this question we will need to look at a few different aspects of the Devil himself, as well as the attributes of God.

It’s not hard to find evidence of a world filled with sin, and logically it would make sense for God to just destroy the source of the problem…or would it? Let’s notice a few things about Satan.

Where did he come from? In Genesis 1:31, God sees His creation and it says, “everything was very good.” All of God’s work was perfect. From this we can conclude that Satan started off as good and became evil. While Scripture doesn’t reveal his exact origin, it says enough for us to draw a logical conclusion. For example, 2 Peter 2:4, Matthew 12:24, and 25:41 point to Satan as the leader of a groups of angels that have abandoned heaven. So we have to ask, why was Satan cast out of Heaven?

Based on the previous verses and what we read in Jude 6, the angels were created with free choice. And Peter explains that the angels sinned (2 Peter 2:4). We read the phrase “The Devil and HIS angels” so Satan was most likely the leader and instigator of this rebellion in heaven. Satan tried to rebel against God and failed miserably and will face the consequences of his actions (Revelation 20:1-3). Since Satan cannot win against God, he now wants to get payback by taking his anger out on God’s creation.

So why doesn’t God destroy Satan? Aside from the fact that he’s an angel and killing him would be different from killing a human, we run into another issue.

Even if Satan were destroyed, man would still sin. James 1:14 tells us that as humans we are carried away by our OWN desires, and these desires lead to spiritual death. Satan doesn’t cause everyone to sin, at every location on earth, because he doesn’t have this kind of power. Even if God destroyed Satan, there would still be sin on earth.

There is one other aspect we must look at in order to answer this question; What is the definition of good? Without evil, how can good exist? If God is good, then evil must exist. Without darkness, how can we recognize light? There is balance and perfection in everything.

We are given free will, and if there were no other choice except faith in God, we would not have faith by choice. We would have faith by force. I think about when I was younger and got in a fight with my siblings. Mom would force us to hug each other. That hug was not done out of love, but by mom telling us to get it done. Do you prefer to be loved by choice or by force?

Satan will get what he deserves, but God is defined as a God of love. If God took away our free choice (either to serve Him or sin) then He would be a God of Force. God has the power to destroy Satan, but in doing so we would still be in a fallen world filled with sin. God loves us enough that He wants us to come to Him by choice. This is something each one of us should strive to do.

Never Assume Someone Is Beyond Saving

Brent Pollard

Never assume someone is beyond saving.

The Deadliest Single-Aircraft Accident in History

On August 12, 1985, on the eve of Japan’s Obon holiday—when millions travel to their hometowns to honor departed loved ones—524 people, many of them families, boarded Japan Airlines Flight 123 from Tokyo’s Haneda Airport bound for Osaka. Seven years earlier, an improper structural repair to the aircraft’s rear pressure bulkhead had unknowingly planted the seeds of disaster. After more than 12,000 pressurization cycles, the weakened bulkhead failed just 12 minutes into the flight at an altitude of 24,000 feet. The aircraft’s vertical stabilizer tore away, all four hydraulic systems were destroyed, and the pilots had almost no means of controlling the airplane.

For the next 32 minutes, the crew fought to keep Flight 123 airborne as it oscillated in a violent Dutch roll while repeatedly climbing and diving in what aviators call a phugoid cycle. The aircraft lurched through the sky in a terrifying, three-dimensional motion that made it nearly impossible to maintain a steady heading. At 6:56 PM, it slammed into Mount Osutaka in Gunma Prefecture. Only four people survived. To this day, Flight 123 remains the deadliest single-aircraft accident in aviation history.

At first glance, this sounds like nothing more than another aviation disaster. It wasn’t. It is also a story about what can happen when people conclude there is no one left to rescue.

A Tragedy That Hits Close to Home

This tragedy also strikes an oddly personal note for me. Mount Osutaka lies in Gunma Prefecture, the birthplace of my late Aunt Maki Mitchell (née Iishi). Her hometown is only about sixty-six miles from the crash site. Since she married a U.S. Air Force airman stationed in Japan, other parts of this story resonate personally as well.

When Rescuers Concluded No One Was Left to Rescue

Survivors of the Flight 123 crash were seated in the back, as the front absorbed most of the impact with the mountain, acting as a crumple zone that reduced G-forces at the rear. One survivor was off-duty stewardess Yumi Ochiai, who noted that there were more survivors initially. Some believe that additional lives were lost because the JSDF helicopter reported seeing no signs of life from the air, reducing the perceived urgency of the rescue. The principal rescue force spent the night approximately thirty-nine miles from the crash site and did not reach the wreckage until daylight.

The tragedy worsened as the U.S. Air Force, based in Western Tokyo’s Tama Area, monitored the doomed flight on radar. Unaware of the damage, they offered their 11,000-foot runway for a landing. After the crash, a C-130 located the wreckage in 20 minutes and, at 7:17 PM, informed Japanese authorities and Yokota, triggering the deployment of a rescue helicopter. By 8:30 PM, a Marine helicopter arrived to lower two pararescuemen. The crew searched for a drop site with searchlights. At 9:15 PM, Japanese authorities claimed full jurisdiction over the incident, and at 9:20 PM, U.S. personnel were ordered to leave despite their willingness to assist.

Spiritually, we can make the same mistake by looking at someone’s life and concluding there is no one left to rescue.

Waving in the Darkness

Meanwhile, Yumi Ochiai lay on the ground. She had heard the helicopters and could see the probing lights. Yet she was too pained to yell loudly, so she waved her hand, hoping to attract their attention. Other survivors called out to the lights in the sky above, all in vain. The helicopter hovered over the canopy, and the engine noise kept U.S. personnel from hearing their cries. Personally, I cannot imagine what the poor souls lying on the mountain below must have thought when they were suddenly left in darkness again.

Imagine waving with what little strength you have left while those sent to help cannot see you. There are people around us who are doing the spiritual equivalent every day.

As Long as There Is Breath, There Is Hope

Eight-year-old survivor Mikiko Yoshizaki and her mother, 34-year-old Hiroko Yoshizaki, took turns yelling at each other to stay awake during the 14 hours they waited for rescuers. Sadly, Hiroko’s husband and two other children seated beside them had perished in the crash. Twelve-year-old Keiko Kawakami spoke to her father and sister in the wreckage before they finally grew cold and quiet in the early morning.

As long as there was breath in their lungs, there was hope. As long as a sinner is alive, there is hope.

The Great Physician Never Gives Up on a Soul

Jesus never assumed anyone was beyond saving. He sought tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, thieves, and even the persecutor Saul of Tarsus. While others saw hopeless cases, our Lord saw souls worth rescuing. “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19.10).

The heartbreaking part is that this may not have been inevitable. A Japanese physician whose identity remained anonymous said that dozens of victims did not suffer fatal internal trauma from the impact itself. They died from hypovolemic shock (severe blood loss) and extreme hypothermia caused by the cold, damp mountain air at 5,135 feet. He said that if rescuers had arrived only ten hours earlier, they could have saved more lives.

Let us not end with the thoughts of one physician, but the teachings of the Great Physician.

Seek the Lost and Leave the Results to God

Every congregation has someone others have quietly given up on.

Every family has someone everyone assumes will never change.

Every community has people whose lives appear beyond repair.

Yet as long as there is breath, there is hope. As long as a sinner lives, the gospel still has work to do.

Christians have never been commissioned to decide who is salvageable. We have been commanded to seek the lost (Luke 15.4ff), proclaim the gospel (Matthew 28.19–20), and leave the results to God (1 Corinthians 3.6; Isaiah 55.11).

Never assume someone is beyond saving.

Many Will Say to Me, “Lord, Lord”

Carl Pollard

Few passages in Scripture are as sobering as Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:21–23. Throughout the Bible we find warnings like, “Depart from Me,” “The door was shut,” and “You fool! This night your soul is required of you.” But perhaps the most unsettling is Jesus describing people who fully expected to enter paradise only to hear, “I never knew you; depart from Me.”

These weren’t atheists or people who openly rejected Christ. They called Him “Lord.” They believed they belonged to Him and even pointed to a lifetime of religious accomplishments. Their confidence was real, but it was misplaced.

Jesus spoke these words at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount. After teaching about anger, purity, prayer, generosity, worry, and judgment, He ends with a series of contrasts: two gates, two roads, two trees, two builders, and ultimately two kinds of disciples. His message is that appearances can be deceiving. The road to destruction can look remarkably religious.

From Matthew 7:21-23 we learn first that saying the right words isn’t enough. Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Calling Jesus “Lord” means recognizing His authority. But many want the comfort of calling Him Savior without submitting to Him as Master. As Jesus asked in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” Genuine faith is demonstrated when we surrender our will to His, especially when obedience is difficult.

Second, religious activity isn’t enough. Those standing before Jesus had an impressive spiritual résumé. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed mighty works in His name. Today, someone might point to years of church attendance, teaching Bible classes, preaching sermons, or serving in leadership. None of those things are wrong, but none of them save us. Religion becomes dangerous when our confidence rests in what we’ve done rather than in Christ. It’s possible to preach about prayer without praying or teach God’s Word while neglecting to obey it! As a preacher, this scripture is a needed reminder to me. 

Jesus’ statement, “I never knew you,” reveals the heart of the issue. Scripture often uses the word “know” to describe a relationship. These people knew about Jesus, but they never truly belonged to Him. Outward religion had hidden lives that were never genuinely surrendered to God’s will. On the Day of Judgment, appearances will disappear, and only reality will remain.

Jesus tells us what separates the true disciple from the false one, “The one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Obedience doesn’t earn salvation, but it reveals genuine faith. Christians aren’t perfect. We stumble, repent, and depend daily on God’s grace. The difference is between a heart that struggles to obey and a heart that refuses to obey.

This truth is reinforced immediately afterward in the parable of the wise and foolish builders. Both heard Jesus’ words, but only one obeyed them. Before the storm, both houses looked secure. Only when the storm came was the foundation revealed. Judgment Day will expose what our confidence has truly been built upon.

Matthew 7 challenges every one of us to examine the foundation of our assurance. Our confidence can’t rest on feelings, family heritage, years in the church, or even a list of good works. It has got to rest on Christ alone as we walk in obedient faith. The question Jesus leaves us with is simple but essential. Does my life match my confession? If I call Him Lord, does He truly have authority over my life? Genuine assurance doesn’t belong to the ones with the most impressive résumé, but to those who trust Christ, submit to His rule, and faithfully follow Him.

Sharing The Filling Fulness Of Christ

Gary Pollard

Some phrases in the Bible are simple to read, but very difficult to comprehend. In this article, I’d like to walk through a process together in an attempt to make sense of a difficult phrase (thanks, Paul). One of those is in Ephesians 1.23: “…the fullness of him who fills all in all.” This is a description of Jesus, specifically as it relates to His being the head of the church. But what does that phrase mean? 

I will not pretend to have the answer, but I would like to make a couple of suggestions. Firstly, “fullness” appears to describe the church. In my limited knowledge of Greek, it seems to be grammatically tied to “body.” The church – His body – is His fullness. Both are nominative, both are the subject of the sentence. 

Secondly, Jesus fills all in all. It’s that last phrase that’s so hard for me to comprehend. What does it mean, that “He fills all in all?” Based on the fact that some form of “fullness” is used three times in a single phrase, it appears to have reference to his nature. He is not confined by time or space and is present everywhere. 

If the church is His fullness (the word is possessive in Greek), and He is omnipresent (or, creation is full of Him), then the church must be extremely important. Again, I am not a scholar, I may be mistaken. 

I would, though, like to attempt to make application from this difficult phrase. If the church is, ideally, representative of the very nature of Christ, are we living up to it? Is our passion for the lost like His was/is? Is our love for each other as strong as His is for the church? Do we treat the church as if it were the body of Christ (because it is)? Do we keep in mind, as we interact with each other, that we all answer to Him? Are we trying to mold culture to His image, or are we being molded to culture? 

We really have to think about this one to try to make sense of it. Comprehending this phrase is anything but easy (at least for me!). But the church – which is one distinct unit, not a series of denominations – is supposed to represent Jesus. Our values, our demeanor, our goals, our mission, our attitudes, our behavior, and our purpose should scream to others, “We are not of this world.” If these do not, we are not representing Jesus. No one will do this perfectly, but the standard is high. 

When we begin to understand this phrase a little more, it shifts from being hard to understand to being hard to hear. We have a huge responsibility, but we also have a global family to support us. The standard is high, but our Head is also our Savior. We’re not just Christians to be good people, we’re Christians to show the world who Jesus is.

Serving The Living God

Carl Pollard

I know I’m not old enough to say this, but when I was younger I used to lay in bed at night and try to imagine what God looked like. I would try to put a face to Him, I’d wonder what He was doing, and I would ask myself if God knew that I was thinking about Him. I still ask those same questions to this day. I’m sure that most if not all of you who are reading this believe that there is a God, and that He does see and hear all that we say. So the question I’d like to ask is, “since there is a God that has all power, why do we sometimes have difficulty following the commands that we find in the Bible?” I’d like to look at a verse that may help us realize the importance of following what God has told us to do as Christians.

Jeremiah 10:12 says, “It is He who made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom; and by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.”

God has ALL power. There isn’t an area that He is lacking power in. He controls the weather, He created us, and, as Jeremiah 10:12 said, He made this earth that we live on. I believe that we sometimes forget just how powerful God truly is. Since God has all power, shouldn’t we be following what the Creator of everything has told us to do? In seven days He thought of everything we see around us. Think of it this way. We’ve never had an original thought. For example, I could say that I’m the only person to have ever thought about a pink Aardvark. But before I thought of pink Aardvarks, there was such thing as the color pink, and there were Aardvarks before I thought of them. So what I’m actually doing is taking two things that God created and putting them together. God has given us specific commands to do as Christians. Since God has given us rules on how to live, we shouldn’t have a problem following them. They may be difficult, but God knows how to take care of His creation. The thought of the God of the universe watching out and guiding me through life is a great comfort to me!

But what if we aren’t following what God has told us to do? There’s a saying that we all have heard that says, “Actions speak louder than words.” Our actions are a direct window to how we truly feel. If I don’t do what God has commanded, then that’s like us saying to God, “I don’t truly believe that there are consequences to my actions.” But that is a deadly place for us to be, because God IS real and there ARE consequences to our actions. God is real and the consequences of our actions are very real! In the end, it comes down to this: Not obeying what God has said is a reflection of how real we make God out to be. If we truly believe He is real, then we shouldn’t have a problem doing what He tells us to do. As Christians, we serve the one true God, and He is very real. I pray that this fact will push us to obey the commands He has given us because our God is alive and we all have an eternity with Him if we do what He tells us to do.

Looking back at when I was younger, I’ve realized that I asked the right question, but the most important part of those questions is how I answer them. Will I show through my actions that I truly believe He is alive? Or do I doubt the reality of God by not taking His commands seriously? Let’s try to always prove God is alive by following what He has told us to do!

The Sanhedrin

Neal Pollard

Did they trace their origin to the time of the wilderness wandering, where God tells Moses to appoint 70 elders to help in a specific situation (Num. 11:16-25)? Throughout the Old Testament, we find elders in Israel gathered for specific purposes, but the formal body of administrators, civic and religious instructors, arbitrators, and rulers are not found until less than a century before the birth of Christ. Josephus records friction and hostility between Herod and the Sanhedrin (Antiq. 14:167-180; see more information in the Mishnah, Mishnah). They are a fully-formed authoritative body during the ministry of Jesus. Most English translations do not have the word “Sanhedrin,” but translate the word “Council” (the Greek word is SYNEDRION). 

After Jesus begins His public ministry, teaching and performing miracles and clashing with the religious rulers throughout the nation, they convene to determine how to handle His mounting influence and popularity. In John 11:47-53, they enumerate their concerns: (1) This man is performing many signs, (2) If we let Him go on, all men will believe in Him, and (3) the Romans will take away their place and their nation. Their solution was destined to be unjust, since their conclusion was that “from that day on they planned together to kill Him” (53). Sure enough, they arrest and try Jesus (Matthew 26:47,57-27:2), actively try to pin guilt on Him (Mark 14:55), and bring Him to Pilate (Luke 22:66). Their hands are stained with the guilt of His blood! Later, they will use their influence to try and stop His church from growing (Acts 4-5). They are kindred spirits with all the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, lawyers, chief priests, and elders, and they certainly work together with a single purpose to try to discredit and destroy Jesus. Ironically, it was all in the name of pious religion.

While they were Jewish, practitioners of the Old Law, and first century contemporaries, human nature is not restricted to one race, religion, or realm. Their spirit lives on today. What lessons do they teach us? What warnings do they give us?

  • If you have to do wrong to “do right,” you have missed it somewhere. Whether it was false witnesses, deceitfulness, entrapment, lying, or any other sin, they broke their beloved law in their blind hatred of Jesus. 
  • Bible knowledge does not equate to true faithfulness. These men were considered experts, caretakers of God’s Word. Yet, Jesus lays out their wickedness in great detail (Matthew 23). 
  • Pride can blind us to the truth. Pride can’t be corrected, taught, reasoned with, open-minded, fair, or circumspect. All of these dispositions are necessary for the discovery of truth.
  • Religious position and status can become more important than honest character and humble study. The end of John 11 shows that their overriding concern was losing their influence and sway. This mindset was infectious (John 12:42-43). 
  • Never let your love of tradition outweigh your reverence for God and proper treatment of your brethren. Jesus’ answer about the greatest commandments, applauded even by one of their law experts (Mark 12:28-34), is contrasted with their own conduct and character. 
  • Envy yields ironic, yet destructive, results. Even a profane pagan like Pilate could see this (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10)
  • Don’t choose the superficial (appearances, men’s praise, etc.) over godly ethics and righteousness. Jesus warned against the shallow righteousness of these men (Matthew 5:18) and even illustrated it (Matthew 6:1-18) in teaching like the Sermon on the Mount. He will condemn it later, in Matthew 23. 
  • Do not begin with a desired outcome and look for evidence to support it. It is a tendency, in and out of the church, to arrive at a position and then hunt down, manipulate, twist, and dishonestly handle Scripture to defend it (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). That is not only backward; it is immoral!
  • We can back ourselves into a corner. How hardhearted were these men? They ignored Jesus’ teaching, His miracles, and the empty tomb. Despite overwhelming evidence, they tried to suppress incontrovertible evidence (Matthew 28:11-15). 

Substituting A Pound Of Arsenic For A Pinch Of Salt

Neal Pollard

You go into a hardware store, walk down an aisle, and walk up to a bin, looking for a 1/2″ X 6″ zinc-plated hex lag bolt or a 1/2″ sheet of birch plywood or a 3/4″ galvanized malleable iron tee coupling. Each of these is in a different department, serves a different purpose, has a different look and feel, and has a different value. For each, the size, material, and thickness matters. If you know about home improvement projects, you don’t even think about these things. You know that you wouldn’t build a cabinet with CDX plywood or use a tee coupling as a brake caliper or use a lag bolt as a paint brush. Why? We live in a world of order, with rules, physics, logic, and common sense. 

The same principles apply to aerodynamics, the medical field, architecture, and truly every discipline there is. We expect precision, pattern, and predictable outcomes. This is true in every walk of life, but, somehow, regarding the only part of us that is not material and mortal, we are sometimes told to throw rules, logic, and common sense out the window! 

  • Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but it means you can be saved by faith without doing either of these.
  • Ephesians 5:19 specifies singing, but you can “do” church music however you prefer.
  • 1 Timothy 2:11-12 forbids a woman to teach or have authority over a man in God’s household, the church (3:15), but if the culture or church leadership permits she can preach, serve as an elder, or teach a Bible class.
  • Matthew 19:9 restricts divorce and remarriage to the exception of fornication (sexual immorality), but we can reinterpret or rationalize away Jesus’ plain teaching on the matter.
  • 1 Corinthians 5 (among other passages) calls for church discipline in the case of unrepentant sins like fornication, abuse, drunkenness, and financial impropriety, but we can handle things a different way (or, more commonly, not handle it at all).
  • 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (Titus 1:5-11) call for specific men to serve as shepherds and overseers of a local church, but people reject that plan for some alternative form of church leadership.
  • Ephesians 5:22-6:4 tell us how the home is to function, with the roles of husband/father, wife/mother, and children, but we can let culture, preference, or self-will replace or alter it.

Truly, as many commands as can be found in scripture, man has the capacity and audacity to twist, change, and pervert it. To do so is to act without divine permission and authority. It is to supplant and replace the ultimate authority with a fatal alternative. God has given us a myriad of illustrations from every corner of our world, to see that where something must be done a specific way we are not at liberty to change that. As truly as three inches does not equal a thousand yards, “x” will not suffice when God’s Word calls for “y.”