A Matter Of Procedure

Recently a reader posted a comment on one of my blog entries from a couple of months ago, and although I replied there in the comments, the reply was getting long and I wanted to develop it into something more in its own post. The original comment (which oddly seemed to have little to do with the original blog entry) is:

Your verse in john 3:16 has a miss print "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved " there are plenty if others here's a couple mark 16:16 Jesu says it again ,acts 2:38 the whole bible is inspired by God not just what we edit for what ever reason Billy Gramm once said he don't preach baptism because he wouldn't have as many followers oops I give anyone $500 if they can prove you don't need baptized

My reply was as follows:

Acts 16:30-31 - the Philippian jailer asked "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas simply replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Although the jailer did ultimately get baptized, Paul and Silas, in a simple answer to a simple question, did NOT include it as a requirement. He was saved as soon as he believed in the Lord Jesus.

Romans 10:9 states the requirements for salvation this way: "...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." Again, no requirement of baptism is included.

I've matched your Mark 16:16 and your Acts 2:38, which seem to include baptism as a requirement, with two verses that absolutely do not include it as a requirement. Maybe the "misprint" you're talking about is in your two verses? I'm feeling pretty safe in saying that John 3:16, which is probably the most popular Scripture verse in the whole entire Bible, has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb any number of times. Do I get $500, or since I proved it twice do I get $1,000?

I don't expect to hear back from commenter "Mark" - at this writing I haven't. If I do, I expect it to be mostly an argument containing a lot of Theological hair-splitting. In fact, I can split some of those hairs myself... if you look at the two verses I cited, they say that if you believe in the Lord Jesus, you will be saved. It doesn't say you immediately are saved. So there's room for bullying people into getting baptized with those two Scriptures too, if you want. But I don't see things that way.

In 1 Samuel 16:7, it is recorded that God said to Samuel "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." God's not as interested with the procedures we follow as with what's in our hearts when we follow them. The Old Covenant provided tons of procedures that you could follow to bring you nearer to God, and I truly believe that if someone had been able to follow them perfectly, they would totally not have needed the salvation that Jesus brought. They would have been made righteous by the Law alone. The fact is, though, that until Jesus, nobody was able to do it. Everyone had the disadvantage that they were creatures hindered, let's say, as if by a birth defect. We couldn't walk straight, because we were born with a lame leg. No matter how hard we try, we simply are unable to live up to the rules and regulations which, if we had been able to live up to them, would have provided righteousness to us. That's what the Law was given to teach us: we just can't do it. Rules and regulations don't work for us. We needed someone to finish the work for us and give it to us as a gift. That person was Jesus.

Which brings me back around to my point. God spent thousands of years driving home His point that we are unable to obtain righteousness through performing the correct activities. Why would God turn around and load another activity on us as a requirement to come to Him? Wasn't Jesus' work sufficient? Didn't God tell Samuel that He looks at the heart, not on outward appearance? Baptism is an outward act, there to be a sign to other human beings. It's an "outward appearance" thing; it happens to your body, not within your heart.

I am a firm believer in baptism. I think baptism is a wonderful sign of the change that has happened to the believer. I do think that there is something spiritual that happens when you are baptized. But I do not think it is a requirement for Salvation. I just don't think God is looking for excuses to keep people out of Heaven. "Hello, Mr. Jones. I see here in the Book of Life that you believed in the Lord Jesus in your heart... very good, very good... and you even confessed Him as your Lord with your mouth, that's wonderful! Oh... oh no. Mr. Jones, I'm afraid you never were baptized. I'm sorry, but even though you made a heart decision to choose Jesus as your Savior and follow Him, because you did not get baptized, you're going to have to go to Hell instead of Heaven. Too bad for you." The idea just seems kind of ridiculous to me.

I've been baptized. I recommend that everyone who becomes a Christian get baptized. It's a very special, valuable experience. But I think that people become Christians immediately, as soon as they allow the Holy Spirit to change their hearts. I think Jesus did the job completely. I think he purchased the gift, wrapped it up and put a bow on it, and offered it to anyone who would accept it. I just don't think there's any extra requirement for Salvation after that.

What's in the Bible? #5: Israel Gets a King! (First & Second Samuel)

What's in the Bible? #5: Israel Gets a King! DVD

It's been a while since I blogged about the "What's In The Bible" DVD series for kids (and adults!). Video #5, Israel Gets a King! will be in stores very soon, and I'm pumped! Here's a teaser for ya:



You can find some more clips from the video here. These videos are crammed full of songs, puppets, cartoons, and sometimes popsicle sticks. Oh, and LOTS of information about the Bible. And not just the names of the books and major characters, either... these videos go quite in depth as to what major themes are there on the pages. This ain't some two-bit puppet show that the youth group from the church down the street made up in their spare time; these shows are well-researched, well-written, and performed with a Kermit-and-Piggy-inspired gusto that will keep your kids (and probably their parents!) riveted. And when the credits roll, I can almost guarantee that everyone in the room, kids and parents alike, will have learned something. And I don't say that lightly. It's seldom that someone manages to create something for kids that is simultaneously so filled with information that it almost makes your head swim if you think about it, and also so interesting and fun that you don't want to look away. That's what these videos are like.

My kids are ages 3½ and 11. My 3-year-old girl calls them "the puppet show" and asks for them periodically; my 11-year-old is too big and manly to ASK to watch them, but I don't see him walking out of the room to get away from it, either. They both watch and learn and have a great time. Your kids will too! You can order a copy from ChristianBook.com or pick it up at your favorite Christian bookstore, but you could also enter a contest to win one of five copies right here (I did)!

Prequel

It was spring of 2005, and we were planning my son's fifth birthday party.

He (and every other little boy, apparently) was "into" Star Wars that year, so we were planning a knock-down-drag-out Star Wars party for him. And it also turned out that he was the luckiest kid alive that year, because his birthday happened roughly a month before the final prequel movie, Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, was coming out. Why did that make him lucky? Because a week or so before his birthday, which we had themed around the movies, the new toy line based on Sith came out! By the end of the day he was absolutely drowning in Star Wars toys. I even dressed up like a Wookiee for one part of the party. It was epic!

But we weren't quite sure if we would be able to let him see the movie itself at his age. We knew that at some point, Anakin, who we had watched grow from an innocent little boy into an angsty, troubled teenager in the other movies, was going to get burned beyond recognition, and we weren't sure how violent those images were going to be. So when the movie came out, my wife and I left him with Grandma and went to see it without him to preview it.

My reaction to the movie was unexpected. I knew basically what was going to happen. Anakin was turning bad... really bad. He was going to turn against the Jedi order and have the Jedi all executed. He was going to battle with Obi-Wan and lose. He was going to catch on fire somehow and be left for dead. Then, of course, Palpatine was going to somehow install him into that iconic black suit by the end of the movie. What I was unprepared for was the rush of genuine emotion that was going to occur in me as the movie filled in some of the blanks that had been left by the original trilogy, finally connecting the dots. So this is what turned Anakin into Darth Vader. This is how innocence is twisted into evil... by tainting genuine love with selfishness. Many fans of the original trilogy dislike the prequels very much, but I was genuinely moved by the final chapter in the story of Anakin Skywalker.

That's how I've felt at several times this year as I've been reading straight through the Old Testament for the first time. I already knew the main stories, of course... Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, David & Goliath, Samson & Delilah, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and dozens more. I've even read considerable portions of the Old Testament before, including all of Genesis and Exodus, Psalms & Proverbs, and big hunks of other books like Joshua and Judges. What I didn't know was how it all fit together. I had no concept of the length of time between, say, Moses and David, or what exactly happened to make it so that Daniel was in Babylon. The full arc of Old Testament Israelite history had eluded me. The dots weren't connected.

But now many of them are! I understand things about the Old Testament that I never understood before. I understand things about familiar Bible characters that I never understood before. I'm still a long way from being finished, but I'm through the historical books and I think I've got a basic grasp of how the ancient history of the Hebrew people goes.

But the most important part of this whole exercise is that it's not just the history of the Hebrew people... it's the history of God's people. People of faith. Christianity, after all, did spring from the Jewish religion. Jesus and His disciples were all Jewish, as were most everybody around them. And the people of Jesus' day, as I understand it, had a knowledge of the Scriptures that today would be considered quite scholarly. How can we even begin to understand the things that those people said or did in the New Testament without the context of the Old Testament? How can we have a genuine understanding of Jesus' teachings unless we understand the teachings of Moses? When Jesus in the Gospels says "it is written" or even "you have heard that it is said," or when Paul quotes from Psalms or Isaiah, unless you understand something about the way they understood those passages, you can't fully understand the New Testament passage, either.

Now when I watch Darth Vader die in Return of the Jedi, I understand something I didn't before. I understand his love for his wife and family, masked for all those years by rage and hatred. I understand that Darth Vader is a tragic figure, a victim, although he has also been a perpetrator of evil all those years. When the original movies came out, seeing Darth Vader without his helmet was a shock. There really was a human man in there all along! The Anakin that we saw in that brief death scene is actually the return of the Anakin we later met in the prequels. Now we know that. And now that I've gotten familiar with the beginning of the story that is completed in the Gospels, I understand all kinds of things about Jesus' life and death, and the behavior of His followers during His life and after His resurrection.

Until you've read the "prequel," don't assume you understand the "movie"!

Cover Versions

In 1983, I sat in a movie theater and wondered something. I looked at the space station on the screen and wondered why the Empire would think that their design was so great that, even though the Rebellion had destroyed the first version, they should try to build another one. Didn't they have any other ideas? Didn't the guy who wrote the story have any other ideas?

I wonder how many times "Big Yellow Taxi" has been recorded. Never mind, Google, don't tell me... I don't want to know. I'm afraid I can't count that high! I personally can think of at least three or four versions off the top of my head, and I know there have got to be dozens more. What about "Heard It Through The Grapevine"? Of course, everybody knows the old Gladys Knight version and the CCR version, but what about the California Raisins' version? What about that one, huh? Hey, what about "Knockin' On Heavens Door?" Bob Dylan, Guns 'N' Roses, and tons more. A few months ago I learned to my surprise that Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog" was a rework of an older song by Big Mama Thornton. When someone else records an already-recorded song, the new recording is called a "cover" of the original. Often, these are not very different from the original versions. But sometimes they become more well-known than the originals (like "Hound Dog"), and sometimes both the original and the cover become ridiculously well-known (like "With A Little Help From My Friends", which was originally recorded by The Beatles and then covered with a completely different arrangement at Woodstock by Joe Cocker). Sometimes an artist even reworks his own song (Eric Clapton's two radically different takes on "Layla"). We just finished watching a movie whose soundtrack, for no apparent reason, consisted largely of cover versions of Beatles songs. Too strange.

I never realized how many cover songs there are in the Bible until I got into my "read the Bible in a year" project this year. Psalm 53, for example, is a revision of Psalm 14. The Psalm that David sang in 2 Samuel 22 is presented in a slightly modified form in Psalm 18. The song in 1 Chronicles 16:8–36 is reworked from pieces of Psalm 105, Psalm 96, and Psalm 106. And Psalm 136 has the earmarks of being a heavily reworked version of Psalm 135. There are many other examples of repetition of individual verses or verse clusters in the Psalms.

There are lots of Death Star-style examples of narrative being repeated, too. Take The Ten Commandments, for example: they appear in Exodus 20, and they appear again in Deuteronomy 5. Of course, a lot of the book of Deuteronomy is a repetition of material from Leviticus. Most of 1 and 2 Chronicles is derived from 1 and 2 Kings, and anyone who has spent any amount of time in the Gospels knows that some of the stories about Jesus appear as many as four times, once in each Gospel account. In a few spots in the Bible, whole passages are repeated: take, for example, 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-38.

Why all the repetition? There's no one answer for all of the examples. I've been learning some of the reasons, though; Deuteronomy repeats Leviticus to teach a new generation of Israelites about God's law. The Chronicles are a retelling of the Kings for a different audience: the books of Kings were written before Israel had been taken into captivity in Babylon, and the Chronicles were written after they had returned. Some of the Psalms seem to have been repeated because different versions were intended for different uses. But it's fun to think that maybe years after Psalm 14 was written, some guy picked up his psaltery and recorded his cover version, which hit the charts as Psalm 53. Hey, why not? And if the writer of 1 Chronicles can piece together several existing Psalms to create a new one, then it's OK for me to use Bible language and thoughts in my own songs.

Restoring the Kingdom

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
(Acts 1:6-8 ESV)

It seems like every time Jesus turned around, His disciples were trying to get Him to lead some kind of revolt against the Romans. They even argued about which one of them was better than the others, and who would be Jesus' second in command when He was king. I imagine they kept thinking back to the glory days of the Kingdom of Israel, when David and then Solomon were king and Israel was a superpower in the ancient world. Jesus was the promised heir of David's throne, and they all believed it meant that He would overthrow the Roman empire and once again make Israel a political force to be reckoned with. Jesus kept shutting them down, telling them that His Kingdom was "not of this world" (meaning, maybe, that it wasn't the kind of kingdom this world produces?) but that it was a kingdom that is "of Heaven" and "among you." It wasn't the kind of political kingdom they were expecting, and it wasn't the kind of political kingdom that was in their nation's history. In fact, if they had thought about it, they would have realized that the kind of kingdom that was in Israel's past was the result of their own human desires, not what God desired (God himself said that they had "rejected [Him, God] as their king"). Eventually the disciples got it... but it took them a while!

I was thinking about all that this morning, and suddenly the present day came into sharp focus. The founding fathers of the United States of America were, history tells us fairly clearly, believers in God and in the Bible. They were highly moral people, and principles from the Word of God guided their work in founding this nation. In recent decades there has been a significant hybrid political/religious push to force certain issues into the forefront of politics; call it the "moral majority" or the "religious right" or the "evangelical movement" or whatever you like. Now please don't get me wrong; I believe morality should be at the forefront of every law we make, and the Bible is the place to find your moral compass. But Jesus clearly wasn't training His disciples to become political leaders in the world's system of "kingdoms." Jesus was teaching His disciples to bring people into the Kingdom of God, which exists right in the middle of all of the kingdoms of this World. When you change the hearts of the people, the kingdoms of this world automatically begin to become more like the Kingdom of God. Israel didn't need a new David or Solomon as king, and maybe we don't need a new George Washington. Maybe we need to transform the hearts of the people, and when that happens, Godliness will begin to show up in lots of unexpected places!

One day, “The kingdom of the world [will] become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” Until then, we have our rights as citizens of this nation to be active politically, and as Christians we will act according to what we believe the Bible teaches about fairness and morality, but when we are doing that, we are not necessarily doing the work of God's Kingdom. The Bible teaches us to pray for our leaders, and that authority is given to them by God. And if your God-appointed vocation is to be involved in politics, or if you enjoy it and want to be involved, that's wonderful and important. My vocation is programming computers. I do my job as unto the Lord, but at my job, I am not building the Kingdom of Heaven... I'm building computer programs. Political leaders should not see themselves as building kingdoms for God - Jesus could have obtained a chariot and horses and an army and approached His ministry using the political tools of the day. He didn't do that, because He wasn't building a kingdom of the kind the World builds. Jesus, our example, built His kingdom on foot, right in the middle of huge crowds of people, teaching them about God, laying hands on them and healing them. Maybe as Christians we should look on ourselves the same way - we live in two worlds, one of Earth and one of Heaven. Our vocation and our politics are of the kingdoms of Earth. Those kingdoms need building, and we should be interested and involved in that process. But our ministry to others is of the Kingdom of Heaven. We need to make sure we don't think we're building God's Kingdom when we are actually building a kingdom of this World, because when it all comes down to it, every kingdom of this World (including the United States of America) will one day dissolve and be no more, but God's Kingdom is forever.

Deleted Scenes

A few nights ago we had just finished watching a DVD, including some fun "bonus materials", when I went into my room to do my daily Bible reading. I was a day behind, so with six chapters a day I had chapters 19-24 of 2 Samuel (the last in the book) to read. Chapter 19 is David's return to Jerusalem after the long narrative of how he was almost dethroned by his own son Absalom, and chapter 20 describes one final brief rebellion after that (this rebellion was stamped out pretty quickly). It's pretty clear that things are winding down, and at the end of chapter 20 there is a clear note of finality in the story.

After that, though, there are four more very interesting chapters; they take place totally out of the time line of the story, and seem to have only a very tenuous connection with the continuing narrative. The first part is a story of David executing some of Saul's descendants in order to stop a drought. This incident could possibly be the reason Shimei cursed David for spilling "the blood of the house of Saul" in chapter 16, and if that is a true assumption, then this happened much earlier than it is reported in the story. Regardless of the exact order of events, it seems pretty clear that chapter 21 is not chronologically taking place after chapter 20.

The last few verses of chapter 21 report some anecdotes about some of David's soldiers, specifically about them beating Philistines in battle. Chapter 22 is a psalm that David wrote (actually, it is pretty much duplicated in Psalm 18) "...on the day the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul." Saul's death is reported in the final chapter of first Samuel, so clearly, again, outside of the timeline of the book.

Chapter 23 begins with another psalm, "the last words of David." David's death does not occur until the second chapter of the next book, 1 Kings. It ends with the exploits of David's "mighty men," including a list of their names. The last name is "Uriah the Hittite," and David had made quite sure that Uriah was stone dead way back in chapter 11. Only chapter 24 appears to me to be within the main flow of the narrative; David takes a census of his fighting men, angering God and causing a plague which kills a whole bunch of Israelites.

So I was reading this and thinking, why is all of this stuff stuck at the end of this book instead of right in the narrative? Certainly 2 Samuel sometimes doubles back on itself, telling part of a story and then cutting away to another mini-story happening somewhere else and then returning to where it started, but this stuff seems almost random at the end. Then I realized something. The author of 2 Samuel invented the Deleted Scene! Who knew that one of the most popular features on DVDs was actually invented a thousand years before the birth of Christ?

;)