They shall walk with Me in white by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/white.html

They shall walk with Me in white

Jesus said to the church at Sardis: "You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels" (Revelation 3:4,5).
How glorious it will be, when this life is over, to walk with Christ in white!
To the lukewarm church at Laodicea, Jesus said: "I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed" (Revelation 3:18).
What does it mean to walk in white, and how can we 'buy' such garments?
White garments represent purity and glory. Jesus appeared in white when His majesty was revealed on the mountain: "As He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening" (Luke 9:29); "And He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light" (Matthew 17:2); "His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them" (Mark 9:3).
Angels wear white. "And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses" (Revelation 19:14). Of the Angel who rolled the stone from the tomb of Jesus, we read: "His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow" (Matthew 28:3). When Mary looked into the tomb, "she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain" (John 20:12). After Christ's ascension, we read: "And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel" (Acts 1:10).
Christ and His angels are dressed in white, showing their purity and majesty.
But how can we, sinful people, walk with Christ in white? It is possible only with God's help.
Priests under the old covenant were dressed in white (2 Chronicles 5:11,12). Only by grace could they stand before God in white. In a vision of Zechariah we read: "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. ... Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel. Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, 'Take away the filthy garments from him.' And to him He said, 'See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.' And I said, 'Let them put a clean turban on his head.' So they put a clean turban on his head, and they put the clothes on him. And the Angel of the LORD stood by" (Zechariah 3:1, 3-5).
After King David had repented of terrible sins, he prayed to God: "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Psalm 51:9).
God provides a means of cleansing for those who love Him and repent of their sins. He admonished His people: "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. 'Come now, and let us reason together,' Says the LORD, 'Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool'" (Isaiah 1:16-18).
We are now under the New Covenant. Jesus can make us clean. "For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:13,14).
If we are sanctified by the blood of Christ, and remain faithful until the end, we shall walk with Him in white. "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments" (Revelation 3:5). To overcome means to remain faithful until death (Revelation 2:10,11). Of the martyrs under the altar we read: "Then a white robe was given to each of them" (Revelation 6:11).
John sees a magnificent vision of the saints in the temple of God. "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'" (Revelation 7:9,10). "Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, 'Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?' And I said to him, 'Sir, you know.' So he said to me, 'These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes'" (Revelation 7:13-17).
Do you long to walk with Christ in white? You can. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 3:16; Acts 8:37,38), if you are sorry for your sins and turn to God (Luke 13:5), if you confess your faith in Jesus (Romans 10:10), and if you are baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38), they will be washed away by the blood of Christ (Acts 16:22), and you will rise from the waters of baptism in newness of life (Romans 6:4). Then if you faithfully serve Christ until death, you shall walk with Him in white. What a glorious prospect for the followers of Christ.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Killing the innocent (2) by Jim McGuiggan

https://web.archive.org/web/20160426090905/http://jimmcguiggan.com/nonbelievers2.asp?id=40

Killing the innocent (2)

There are non-believers and non-believers just as there are people that call themselves Christians and those that call themselves Christians. Shaped and graced by God some non-believers are willing to give the Bible a fair hearing and that’s the best we can and should expect for now. (Though they have no commitment to God he has a commitment to them—compare Isaiah 45:1-4.) Some non-believers couldn’t care less and just like to hear themselves talk. Some of us that profess faith are tarred with the same brush. This kind of people is all mouth, we have moral opinions on a million things we haven’t bothered to reflect on.

The Hebrew word herem is often rendered "devoted" ("put under the ban", NEB) and it means that the thing under consideration (person, possessions or a people) is withdrawn from normal profane use. It comes exclusively under God’s direction. It’s often used in a war setting but in passages like Deuteronomy 7, 13, 20 and Leviticus 27:28-29 where God introduces this, we’re dealing with exceptional cases. In some cases all the inhabitants were "devoted" to destruction (Leviticus 28:29) and what couldn’t be destroyed (gold and silver, for example) was given to the Lord to deal with as he saw fit. Battles were not normally conducted to exterminate. You can see this by reading biblical texts and seeing that strict laws were laid out on how warfare was to be conducted (a sort of Geneva Convention millennia ahead of its time). For example Israel was forbidden to deforest an area or to abuse prisoners. All this you can read for yourself. But I mention it to make the point that strict rules of warfare sat alongside some awful acts of judgement (the ban). And bear in mind that the ban was an act of judgement by God. (It would take us too far afield to discuss exceptions to the ban, like Rahab and her family.)

Yes, but isn’t that the very point? What right has God to punish innocent children? But God does not punish innocent children! There is no suggestion in any of these texts that God called for or carried out the punishment of innocent children. That he put them to grief and had them killed is not the same as punishing them, because the Bible insists that God does not punish the innocent nor does he approve of it. Punishment is aimed at the guilty and the innocent children are not guilty! Joshua’s slaying of innocent children is not vicious cruelty, bitter vengefulness, gleeful sadism or "punishment". He carries out the will of God and that will stands or falls with God’s character and purposes. For some more discussion on this clickhere.

But what difference does it make to the little children that are killed whether they are being punished or simply being killed—they suffer the same fate. Well, the children may not be able to tell the difference but that doesn’t mean there is none. The difference between "punishment" and "suffering" is the difference between day and night. Children that suffer when a criminal parent is jailed are not being punished even though they hurt terribly just the same. See the further discussion elsewhere.

Moving on, look, what if there is such a thing as "sin" and what if it is a monstrous force/power/influence that threatens the entire human race, and even now ravages the entire human race? Many non-believers impatiently dismiss such talk but what if it’s true nonetheless? What if Jesus Christ really does underscore that truth? And what if the ban was one expression of God’s dealing with sin in a special way at a special time and under special circumstances for redeeming purposes?

A world of licentious and cruel idolatry, a world that worshiped gods that served only their lusts and pleasures and used humans only to glut their evil natures faced incoming Israel. (I dounderstand that gods didn’t exist and that they were the projections of morally skewed and crippled minds—but Canaan was absorbed with idolatry.) God took the view that these nations had forfeited the right to go on influencing the world and used Israel to carry out capital punishment. We might not agree with God’s assessment or his way of dealing with them. We might wonder if he was so concerned back then why he isn’t as concerned now. Maybe we don’t know as much as we think about what God is doing right now. We do understand that there are times when reasonable and patient people have taken the lives of serial killers. Whether we hold to capital punishment or not is another question but we need to admit that not all advocates of capital punishment are rabid or deranged beings. But in additional to all that, maybe there is more to the existential moment when God called for the ban than we’re able or willing to allow. Israel was always susceptible to wicked and unclean idolatry and the ban had a purpose to serve there also. Israel was to bring light and salvation to the entire world and their national origins took that into account.

I do understand that non-believers will not accept the notion of "sin" but what if is exists and is as cosmically destructive as the Scriptures teach it is? Accept that as true for the moment and see if it doesn’t make a difference as to how we view the biblical narrative. If we are going to sit in judgement on a biblical matter it won’t do to rip it out of its setting and test it in some foreign context.

Ask yourself this. What kind of book keeps a record of its leading character calling for the slaying of children? What kind of God would call for the killing of innocent children? Good question. What kind of God would call for the killing of witches? What kind of God would call for the killing of adulterers and sons and daughters who insist on making havoc of the home? What kind of God would call for the killing of anyone?

Well, we can understand him calling for the killing of murderers but the killing of innocent children? Yes, but why did he call for the killing of witches and rebellious kids and idolaters? We would expect some moral justification for the killing of anyone (even a developing human that’s in the womb?). In wartime, decisions are made and those who make them know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are going to be killing innocent people, including children. Yes, but these are the casualties of war; they aren’t viewed as enemies. [I'm not justifying war at this point; I'm simply saying that even those who engage in wat know the difference between "enemies" and "innocent bystanders". Do you think God thought babies were enemies when he put certain cities at certain times and under certain circumstances under the ban? Are we think God is do stupid that he doesn't know what we know? I know it can be difficult but even non-believers must credit to God (presuming there is one) some moral sensitivity if they are going to give the biblical witness a fair hearing. Remember, it's the Bible that tells us of these things so there must be more in it all than meets the eye. Think noble things of God, even if it's only for the sake of arguiment.

But the "ban" isn't the only difficulty believers face, you understand! What do we do with scores of texts where God says he sent drought and famine and pestilence on a nation? Do we think it’s easier to explain Joshua 6:21 and Deuteronomy 7:2-5 than Amos 4 or Habakkuk 1 or Jeremiah 4? Does it make any difference if God kills a child with a sword thrust or with thirst? Before we attempt to convince non-believers that God isn’t evil when he takes the life of an innocent child we need to persuade ourselves that he isn’t evil when he does that.

Believers bob and weave all over the place to try and get God out of the trouble they think he's in when he slays children and/or upright people. It's no surprise that non-believers criticize the biblical God in this realm when believers have their doubts about him when it comes to the death of innocents. The truth is, when it comes to personal statistics I come across more protest from non-believing believers than non-believers. But if we believers stumble at Joshua 6 we should fall flat on our faces at Deuteronomy 32, Isaiah 33, Ezekiel 9 and the book of Nahum.

Step By Step by Alfred Shannon Jr.

https://biblicalproof.wordpress.com/2011/06/page/3/

Step By Step

No one can absorb the entire bible in one reading, anymore than one can eat a full meal in one bite. To try to do so would choke us to death. We have to absorb the Word of God a little each day, and continue to grow, increasing in the knowledge of God. No one can remain a Christian without studying and learning the Word, anymore than we can stop eating altogether, and expect to live. We become a Christian step by step, and we remain a Christian step by step, walking by faith according to the Word of God.

Mt 13:20,21; Acts 17:11; Col 1:10; 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 2:15; 2 Pet 3:18; 2 Cor 12:18; 1Pet 2:21; Rom 1:17; 2 Cor 5:7; Hab 2:4;

Fireproof Faith Daniel (part 3) (by Ben Fronczek)

http://granvillenychurchofchrist.org/?p=1243

Fireproof Faith – Daniel (part 3)

Fireproof Faith Daniel (part 3)    (by Ben Fronczek)

One Sunday the minister of a particular congregation walked over to the pulpit and, before he gave his sermon he introduced a guest minister who was in the service that evening. In the introduction, he told the congregation that the minister, an old man now, was one of his dearest friends who he knew since he was a boy. He wanted the old preacher to take a few moments to greet the church and say a few words. With that, an elderly man stepped up to the pulpit and began to speak.

“A father, His son, and a the boy’s friend  were sailing off of the Pacific Coast,” He began, “When a fast approaching storm blocked any attempt to get back to shore. The waves were so high, that even though the father was an experienced sailor, he could not keep the boat upright and the three were swept into the ocean as the boat capsized. The old man hesitated for a moment, making eye contact with two teenagers who were, for the first time since the service began, looking somewhat interested in his story.

The aged minister continued with his story, “Grabbing a rescue line, the father had to make the most excruciating decision of his life: to which boy he would throw the other end of the lifeline. He only had seconds to make the decision. The father knew that his son was a Christian and he also knew that his son’s friend was not. He had to make a decision. “As the father yelled out, ‘I love you son!’ He threw out the lifeline to his son’s friend.

By the time the father had pulled the friend back to the capsized boat, his son had disappeared beneath the raging swells into the black of the night. His body was never recovered.” By this time, the two teenagers were sitting up straight in the pew, anxiously waiting for the next words to come out of the old minister’s mouth. “The father,” he continued knew his son would step into eternity with Jesus but he could not bear the thought of his son’s friend stepping into eternity without Jesus.
Therefore, he sacrificed his son to save his son’s friend… With that the old man turned and sat back down in his chair as silence filled the room. Their minister again walked slowly to the pulpit and delivered a brief sermon…  I will finish the rest of this story at the end of my sermon.

This story, and the sermon today where we will see what Daniel’s friends did in Daniel 3, prompt me ask the question, ‘How much do I believe and trust in God? And how much do I believe in and trust in what the Bible says?’ Would I compromise my faith and what I believe about God, salvation and heaven in such a situation?

As Christians we are under constant pressure to compromise our beliefs in our culture. Often we are tempted to compromise our beliefs because of subtle pressures that come our way as we interact with others, or while watching TV or while in front of your computer. Or even when we are behind the steering wheel. How well do you stand up under pressure to do what everyone else is doing and ignore God’s will for us? It seems as though God’s people have always had this kind of pressure to compromise their faith. Today I would like to look at how Daniel’s Jewish companions in Babylon named Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego stood their ground and trusted God no matter what the consequence were.

Read Daniel 3  (Click on verse and read)

In Exodus 20:4-5 God commanded, “You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea.You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods.”

I think this story was more about how much Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego believed in God and His word than how they were saved. Here we see where their convictions lay; they would not bow down to that statue even if it meant death, because they believed it would displease our Lord God.

They probably recognized the fact that bowing down and worshipping idols was the very reason why God allowed the Jewish nation to fall to Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon in the first place.

I have been reading Jeremiah which was written when Nebuchadnezzar  was outside the gates of Jerusalem and about to destroy it. In desperation the Jewish people asked, ‘How come Lord?’ God answered them through the prophet Jeremiah. He told them it was because they turned away from Him the living God of Heaven. In Jer. 11 He says, “11 Therefore, this is what the Lordsays: I am going to bring calamity upon them, and they will not escape. Though they beg for mercy, I will not listen to their cries. 12 Then the people of Judah and Jerusalem will pray to their idols and burn incense before them. But the idols will not save them when disaster strikes! 13 Look now, people of Judah; you have as many gods as you have towns. You have as many altars of shame—altars for burning incense to your god Baal—as there are streets in Jerusalem.”

These three young men may have even heard Jeremiah preach these words and here they were with this king telling them to bow down before another graven image. They couldn’t do it. They would have rather died in obedience to God in that fire than do something that they knew would displease Him.

Later on Jesus would say, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mt. 10:28

What I see here is what I like to call ‘Fireproof faith’.  Fireproof faith is being completely submissive to God’s will no matter what the consequences.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s faith was not so much in their deliverance, but rather in their God. It was of the same kind as Job’s, who said, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.” They knew that if God deliver them, His name would be vindicated and honored. But they probably also believed that if they died, at least they did not compromise their faith.

Having faith like this involves trusting in God and His word, no matter what the situation and what the outcome.

Having Faith does not mean that we will know or understand what God is doing or the specific purpose of the trials we encounter. It involves being ready and willing to follow Him and His decrees, all the time, especially so when we don’t know why we are being tested.

In this miracle, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were delivered from the flames, or more accurately in the flames. They were set free in the flames.

 There is no suggestion here or anywhere else in Scripture that believers will not experience trouble and suffering. But the believer has an advantage; it is in times of suffering and trouble when the Lord is so much more present to help us or at least comfort us. So we just need to trust Him!

A fellow by the name of Rich Mullins wrote: “You meet the Lord in the furnace a long time before you’ll meet Him in the sky.”  Doesn’t it seem like we draw closer to God in times of trail more than any other time?

One of the early church fathers, John Chrysostom, lived in the late 4th and early 5th century. One day he was brought before the emperor and commanded to renounce Christ. The emperor threaten him saying if he would not renounce Christ he would be banished from the country forever—he would be separated from his father’s land for the rest of his life. John responded, “You cannot. The whole world is my Father’s land. You cannot banish me.”

The emperor then said, “Then I will take away all of your property and treasures.” John replied, “You cannot, for all my true treasures are in heaven.”

The emperor then said, “I will send you to a place of absolute solitude where there is not one friend for you to talk to.” John said, “You cannot, for I have a friend that is closer than a brother to me. He is my elder brother, Jesus Christ, who has promised to be with me always—to the very end of the age.”            

In anger the emperor then said, “I will then take your life.” John said, “You cannot. For my life is forever hidden in Christ with God.”

Chrysostom was of the same spirit as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

I am not sure if we will ever be called upon to die in a fiery furnace or if we’ll be martyred if we follow Christ. My guess would be, we will not. But we are called out to act and live like a Christian on all occasions no matter what the consequences. .

Otherwise we compromise our faith. Are there pressures and situations that make living life for Christ difficult and sometimes costly? Yes, but hopefully it is during those times that we are identified as disciples of Jesus.In times of testing, God’s people must fight fire with faith.

APPLICATION: How fireproof is your faith? Is your belief and faith in Christ strong enough to meet the challenge of a personal tragedy? Of unanswered prayer? Of criticism? Of personal threats? Of a loss of health? Of loss of possessions? Of persecution? Or loss of a family member? Let these three young men be an example an example for us and an encouragement to fight fire with faith.

NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY:

‘After the worship service was over and the preacher finished up his sermon the two teenagers went up and sat at the old man’s side. “That was a nice story,” the boys politely said., “But we don’t think it was realistic for a father to give up his son’s life in hopes that the other boy would become a Christian.”                 

“Well, you’ve got a point there,” the old man replied glancing down at the worn Bible. A big smile broadened his narrow face, he once again looked up at the boys and said, “It sure isn’t realistic, is it? But I’m standing today to tell you that the story gives me a glimpse of what it must have been like for God to give up His only son for me.                       You see…    I was the father in my story and your Preacher here was my son’s friend.’

You see that old minister believed God and His word. He had no doubt that his son was in heaven He trusted God’s word. He had what all of us as Christians should have and that is an unshakeable faith.

For more lessons click on the following link: http://granvillenychurchofchrist.org/?page_id=566

The Thief on the Cross by Trevor Bowen

http://insearchoftruth.org/articles/thief.html

The Thief on the Cross

INTRODUCTION

The example of the thief's conversion on the cross is often used as a basis for discrediting the necessity of baptism.  However, the Bible teaches that his example is irrelevant for two reasons:  First, the thief lived under a different covenant than us, and second, the thief was the fortunate recipient of unpromised grace and mercy.  Now, let us first examine who this thief was and the Bible account of his conversion.  Then, we will be prepared to consider its relevancy.

WHO WAS THE "THIEF ON THE CROSS" ?

The thief was one of two robbers crucified on either side of Jesus.  The Scripture gives the following account of his conversion:

Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left.  And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads.  ...  Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.  Matthew 27:38-39,44

However, we learn later that one of the thieves must have had a change of heart...

Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?  And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." Luke 23:39-43

The penitent thief was obviously saved by Jesus - and without baptism!  His salvation cannot be questioned, because it Jesus asserted that the thief would enjoy Paradise with Jesus.  But, a logical question would be, "If baptism was not necessary for the thief, then is it necessary for me?"  The Biblical answer is "yes".  There are two fundamental problems with assuming that baptism is not necessary for us, just because the thief was saved without it.

DIFFERENT COVENANT AND TESTAMENT

The first point that should be observed is that the thief lived and was converted under a different covenant than us.  Please recall the following passage from our study of the differences between the Old and New Testaments:

Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.  And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. ... So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.  Colossians 2:12-17

So, the Old Testament was done away when Christ died upon the cross - "having nailed it to the cross."  A result of it being removed was the removal of the Old Testament's authority.  Therefore, the old law's commandments about "food", "drink", and "regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths" are no longer bound upon people.  However, today we live under the New Covenant which commands us to be baptized.  That being demonstrated, we may wonder, "Under which covenant did the thief live?

Please recall this second passage from our study on the two covenants.  In it Paul uses the analogy of a woman bound to her husband through marriage to illustrate the transition between the two covenants.

For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another -- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."  Romans 7:2-4

First, this passage teaches that the old covenant ended when Jesus died, which was after the thief's repentance and forgiveness by Jesus.  Second, recall that baptism symbolizes our selfish desires having "died with Christ" (please read Romans 6:1-10).  So, how could the thief have possibly been baptized into Christ’s death when Christ had not even died yet?  Baptism by Jesus’ name was not commanded until after His death. It was first commanded in Jesus’ great commission, which occurred after the resurrection (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).   Therefore, the thief's example is irrelevant to us because he was saved under a different law, the old law, when baptism had not even been commanded yet.  But, there is a little more to this story.

UNPROMISED MERCY

The observant student may recognize that this sinful robber (Matthew 27:44) had not met the requirements for atonement of sins under the old law either.  Under the Old Law, the thief would have died condemned because he had not offered the appropriate sacrifices (Leviticus 1-7).  In fact, he should have been stoned for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:11-16).  We might ask, "So, how was the thief saved?"  He was saved through the unpromised mercy of Jesus.

We know that Jesus had the power to forgive sins while He was on the earth.  He forgave the sins of both the paralyzed man and the adulterous woman (Luke 5:18-26; 7:36-50), and He even miraculously healed the paralytic just to prove His deity and power to forgive sins.  Jesus was able, and justified in doing this because He is the one who will actually judge us on Judgment Day (John 5:22-30; James 4:10-12).

We may continue to ask, "But, what does this all mean?  What is the application?  Can a person live a sinful life, call out to God at the last minute in repentance, and be saved?"

It is clear that the thief was mercifully forgiven of his sins by Jesus, just as all of God’s people are mercifully forgiven.  But, there is a key difference between him and us, even besides the old covenant.  God does not promise mercy for such people!  He has promised that all who are baptized will be saved (Mark 16:15-16; I Peter 3:21).  However, no where in the Bible does God say that one can pray for forgiveness and receive it.  It's just not there.  But, what is there is the commandment for baptism and a fearful promise of wrath for those who do not obey God.  Please recall the example of King Saul and the following statement by Jesus, which teach us that God expects us to follow His pattern in all things:

Example of King Saul:

"So Samuel said: 'Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?  Behold to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.  Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king.'" I Samuel 15:22-23

Statement by Jesus:

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who work iniquity.' " Matthew 7:21-23

The simple truth is that no where in the Bible does God promise that the "sinner's prayer" will bring forgiveness of sins.  Moreover, the only promise we have on the matter is the one above where Jesus promises that calling out to God without obedience is not enough. The sinner's prayer alone will only result in condemnation.

CONCLUSION

The example of thief is irrelevant for two fundamental reasons.  First, under the old covenant, he was not subject to the commandment of baptism to which we are subject.  Second, he was an exceptional case that involved unpromised mercy from the Judge of all men, Jesus.  Since Jesus Christ is the Judge, it is His prerogative and right to grant mercy where He has not promised to do so.  But, just because He made a exception, that does not mandate that He will do so for us on Judgment Day.  Moreover, both the Old and New Testament examples of people who did not follow God’s pattern teach us of God’s wrath that fell upon those who willfully disobeyed God, even with the best of motives.

Therefore, the concluding questions for us are these, "Will you and I presume not to be baptized, ignoring all the Scripture's teaching on the essential role of baptism?"  "What does the Bible say that God has promised for those who are guilty of willful disobedience?"  Or, "Will we follow the simple instructions for salvation?" There is only one clear answer for which God has promised, "he shall be saved" (Mark 16:15-16). Have you met the conditions of this promise?

Author: Trevor Bowen

Erin Go Bragh! by EE Healy

http://www.eehealy.com/commentary/a-erin.jpg

The Order of the Lord’s Supper by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=470

The Order of the Lord’s Supper

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In Matthew (26:26-27) and Mark’s (14:22-23) record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus blessed the bread first and then the cup. However, Luke seems to give the opposite order with the cup mentioned first (22:17-19). Is this difference a discrepancy in which the inspired writers contradict each other?

It is certainly the case that Jesus only instituted the Lord’s Supper one time. He either blessed the bread first or He blessed the cup first. He did not do it both ways. So can we make sense of the text in such a way that the Bible is not discredited, recognizing that Jesus did not do it both ways? On that lone night so long ago, when He instituted the Lord’s Supper, which way did He do it? Bread then cup, or cup then bread?

It is clearly the case that Bible writers do not always claim to be representing a particular event in chronological sequence. Luke could have easily been treating the Passover and Lord’s Supper incident topically. In such a case, no contradiction would exist. However, in this particular instance, a different explanation presents itself.

Read carefully Luke’s reporting of the event:

Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.” …When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (22:7-21, emp. added).

Observe carefully that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the tail end of the observance of the Jewish Passover. One must be careful to distinguish between the two, particularly since the same emblems were used for both, and since the former typifies the latter. The killing of the Passover lamb under Judaism anticipated the death of Jesus Who, in turn, became “our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Luke, more than Matthew and Mark, demonstrates this close parallelism.¹

Luke actually has two allusions to “cup”—one in verse 17 and the other in verse 20. The first “cup” was taken during the Passover and the second “cup” was part of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.²Hence, Luke does not differ from Matthew and Mark in specifying the same order for partaking of the Lord’s Supper, i.e., first the bread and then the cup. Luke’s use in verse 21 of “likewise” refers back to “He took bread,” and “after supper” refers both to the bread and the cup of the Lord’s Supper.

This fact is further supported by Paul in his recounting of the occasion in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Observe the indications of sequence he portrays—

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body (emp. added).

Observe that Paul goes out of his way to emphasize the order that Jesus instigated—bread/cup and eat/drink. He even clarified that the cup that is part of the Lord’s Supper was done “after supper,” i.e., after the Passover meal. So the “cup” of Luke 22:17-18 was the cup that was associated with the Passover meal—not the Lord’s Supper cup which is noted in verse 20 after the Passover meal and after the bread of the Lord’s Supper.

Another consideration pertains to the fact that Luke 22:17-20 constitutes a textual variant. However, the Committee for the UBS Greek text concluded that the cup-bread-cup sequence is authentic based on “the overwhelming preponderance of external evidence.”³ Further, Sir Frederick Kenyon and S.C.E. Legg offer the only plausible explanation for the existence of variants by noting:

The first cup given to the disciples to divide among themselves should be taken in connection with the previous verse (ver. 16) as referring to the eating of the Passover with them at the reunion in Heaven. This is followed by the institution of the Sacrament, to be repeated continually on earth in memory of Him. This gives an intelligible meaning to the whole, while at the same time it is easy to see that it would occasion difficulties of interpretation, which would give rise to the attempts at revision that appear in various forms of the shorter version.⁴

Hence, the first allusion to “cup” in verse 17 links back with the eating and drinking of the Passover meal in verses 15-16, while the second allusion to “cup” refers to the Lord’s Supper. Luke agrees with Matthew and Mark that, when Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He first took the bread and then took the cup. There is no contradiction.

REFERENCES

¹ See J.W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Foundation), p. 646.

² Ibid, p. 658. See also J.W. McGarvey (1910),Short Essays in Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company), pp. 342-343.

³ Bruce Metzger (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies), p. 176.

⁴ Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S.C.E. Legg (1937), “The Textual Data” in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. Roderic Dunkerley (London: SCM), pp. 285-286.