Regarding Lordship Salvation - Comments (0)

Category: Articles,Doctrine
Author: Jerod Santo
Date: 15th January, 2024 @ 04:21:19 PM

You can listen to an audio version of this article on our Enjoy The Bible podcast:

---

I recently heard a message from a radio preacher who answers questions from callers like this one:

It’s gonna be Randy from Dallas, Texas. Randy. Welcome.
What is lordship salvation? And what do you think of it? And I’ll hang up and listen to the radio.
Ok. Lordship salvation is just biblical salvation…

What follows is a common but well articulated defense of Lordship Salvation. Well, actually more of an attack on free grace than a defense of Lordship Salvation. I don’t think it’s a particularly good attack… it’s difficult to attack the truth… but like I said it was well articulated by a skilled orator so I thought I’d provide a response in defense of the truth: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And not of works, lest any man should boast.

Let’s get in to it.

Lordship salvation is just biblical salvation. But it has been labeled that as a pejorative by one group of theologians. It’s a very modern theological system. It just arose in the last 200 years. Prior to that all salvation in the Bible was seen as lordship salvation.

But a group called the dispensationalists arose who say no salvation is not, does not involve Christ’s lordship. And if you teach that it does, then you’re preaching a false gospel.

Let’s pause here for a brief moment. This refrain is parroted all too commonly by those who want to discredit dispensational thinking as if it’s some new idea invented by a witch and popularized by John Nelson Darby in the 1800s. It’s not. I don’t believe the Apostle Paul had even been acquainted with Darby when he wrote in the book of Ephesians about the dispensation committed to him, which implies the one prior, and the dispensation of the fulness of times, which is yet to come.

And if it’s good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me. But let’s get more into the meat of this Lordship argument.

Well, the truth is, of course, any gospel that says that it doesn’t involve Christ’s Lordship is itself a false gospel. What lordship salvation refers to when these people use that term is saying that if you embrace Christ as your Lord, you will be saved. If you do not embrace Christ as your Lord, you’ll not be saved.

This is a fuzzy representation of the Lordship doctrine, because it depends on what he means when he says ’embrace Christ as your Lord.’ If by ’embrace’ he means believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and yes Lord is part of that, then that isn’t Lordship Salvation: that’s good ole’ fashion Biblical salvation that comes by grace through faith.

But if by ’embrace Christ as your Lord’ he means serve Christ as your Lord and then you’ll be saved… that’s the Lordship doctrine and that’s works-based salvation and that’s no good news for any of us.

When the Philippians jailor asked Paul and Silas, what must I do to be saved? He said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you’ll be saved.

Well, Lord means Lord and Christ means anointed king.

Small nitpick: Christ means anointed one, not anointed king. Kings aren’t the only ones anointed. Aaron the high priest, for instance, was Christed as well.

So I mean, you have to, you have to embrace Christ as king. Now, the fact they said “believe on” Some people say, well, no, anyone who just believes in that Jesus existed meet those qualifications.

No, no, you have to believe he’s your Lord. You have to believe he’s the king. You have to… believing here is far more than just mentally assessing to it.

This is a straw man. He asserts that his opponents, the free grace dispensationalists, hold a position that they do not hold. How do I know this? I _am_ a free grace dispensationalist and I do not believe, nor does the Bible teach, that ‘anyone who just believes that Jesus existed meets those qualifications.’

Believing that Jesus existed puts you in the mainstream belief of all humanity ever since the books were written about him. Even most atheists believe that Jesus Christ existed. When Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailor that if he would believe in the Lord Jesus Christ then he would be saved, they followed that up with more information. As it says in the following verse, “then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.” (Acts 16:32)

What is the word of the Lord that was the primary focus of Paul’s missionary journeys? It was the resurrection of Jesus Christ and all that extends from it. Not that the man existed, but that he was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection out from the dead (Rom 1:4). An act, by the way, that no man in history has been able to accomplish by his own hand before or after Jesus Christ accomplished it.

What they did not say to the jailor in that crucial evangelical moment recorded in the scriptures for all history: was “make Jesus Christ the Lord of your life and you shall be saved.”

The devil mentally recognizes that Jesus is Lord and king, but he doesn’t, doesn’t embrace that. He doesn’t, you know, submit himself to that. You can’t believe that somebody is a king and think that it’s ok for you to rebel against him.

Straw man! Whose position says that, “it’s ok for you to rebel against the Lord Jesus Christ?” I don’t hold that position. I don’t think it’s “ok” just like I don’t think it’s “ok” to sin. Neither did Paul, despite those who slanderously reported that he did (Rom 3:7).

And when it comes to kings, there’s only two ways you can react, you can rebel or you can submit a king by definition owns you, or at least the Lord, a lord owns his servants. A king has rightful command over you. And anyone who recognizes that there’s a Lord, that they have a Lord, then that person is a servant.

That’s why Jesus said, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord… And you don’t do what I say?”

It doesn’t make sense. If I’m your Lord, you’re my servant. Why don’t you obey?

On this point we agree! It doesn’t make any sense to confess that someone is your Lord and to not actually serve that person in your life. And yet all Christians have lived out this very contradiction. O wretched men that we are!

If you called Jesus Christ, which means king

No it doesn’t, it means anointed savior.

Why then would you not see an obligation to obey a king? And what is anything other than obedience to a king, but rebellion?

You’re not saved when you’re in rebellion against God and against Christ. That’s the very thing that makes people not saved. And what makes people saved is they stop being in rebellion against him and they embrace him in that role happily by faith.

And that’s salvation.

Here we begin to see how shaky this line of reasoning is. You’re not saved when you’re in rebellion against God, but you are saved when you embrace him in that role? So on good days when I’m serving the Lord… I’m saved? And on bad days when I’m serving sin instead… I’m not saved?

And does he also think that every person who is subject to a king or Lord is at all times embracing him in that role happily? My children believe that I’m their dad. They believe that I’m in charge in our house _and_ they believe that they should obey me. Does that snuff out every rebellion of their heart before it hits their lips, or worse, their deeds?

A rebellious child is still your child. Your approval of that child, your association to the child, your judgment of that child are all at stake when they rebel. But the familial relationship is not.

John 10:27 says,

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”

No man can pluck you out of your father’s hand. Not even yourself.

Likewise, a disobedient servant is still the Lord’s servant. His approval of that servant, his association to that servant, his judgment of that servant are all at stake when they disobey, but the Lord never calls his servants his enemies. He calls them what they are: wicked servants.

The Bible never separates salvation from the lordship of Jesus Christ. Now, the problem these people have is they want salvation to require nothing of the sinner. They want to just say, you know, just believing is all it takes. Anything else is works that if you have to do anything else, it’s works.

Well, where in the Bible does it say we’re not supposed to do good works?

At this point the speaker shows his arguments aren’t merely bad, they’re presented in bad-faith. And the audacity he will display in a moment when he turns to Ephesians 2 to back up this bad-faith ‘good works’ argument is outright offensive.

I mean in Ephesians 2:8 and 9, it says by faith, you have been by grace, you’ve been saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.

But it says, for you are created in Christ, Jesus unto good works or for good works, which has foreordained that you would walk in. And this is what the whole Bible teaches that we were saved to do good works.

How you can, in the same breath, quote the Bible saying you are saved by grace through faith and not by works… and just cruise right past that fact as if it’s a nothing to the part about good works… well, it’s astonishing. It’s agonizing, really, and it does despite to the gospel.

Of course we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works. We are born from above, by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and our purpose in that family is to do good works well pleasing to God. But the works follow the faith, and not necessarily as is evidenced by the life of Lot.

Lot, Abraham’s nephew, found the exact same imputed righteousness that Abraham did. The exact same righteousness that is described in Romans 4 when it says:

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

That’s how salvation came to Abraham, that’s how salvation came to Lot, and that’s how salvation comes to all people at all times. The difference between Abraham and Lot, though, is that Abraham lived his life by faith and Lot lived his life by sight.

There isn’t a single documented good work that Lot did in all the Scriptures. He was dragged out of Sodom kicking and screaming. He lost his wife and his kids to the world. He lived his final days in shame in a cave. And he begot, by his own daughters, two people groups that were perpetual enemies of God’s chosen ones.

There is on possible way that you can, with a straight face, claim that Lot served Christ as King and Lord.

And yet, because God’s grace comes by faith alone… and not of works! Lot is called just. Lot is called righteous. 2nd Peter 2 says that God,

“turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)”

Both Abraham and Lot received the gift of God by grace through faith. Both of them were declared righteous by God. He counted their faith to them as righteousness. Both of them were created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God had before ordained that they should walk in them.

Abraham walked in those good works and he received an accolade for it. He was called the Friend of God. Lot did not walk in his good works and he suffered loss.

As it says in 1st Corinthians 3:

“Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

Lordship Salvation is a prime example of God’s servants failing to do what we’re exhorted to do in 2nd Timothy 2:15, where it says: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Lumping together the Bible’s teaching about the free gift of God that comes by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone with the Bible’s distinctly different (and entirely additive) teaching about serving the Lord Jesus Christ by walking in the works that he has prepared for us is a grave error and does immense damage to the body of Christ.

Don’t fall pray to Lordship Salvation teaching. Don’t let the assurance of your salvation, that you received by the grace of God and not by works, be destroyed by men who wrestle with the scriptures and by their own works-based salvation logic, must conclude Lot to be unsaved when the scriptures clearly and boldly calls him righteous.

There is a doctrine of good works for us Christians, but it’s not Lordship Salvation.

“A Mystery.” - Comments (3)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 14th March, 2018 @ 08:39:53 AM

There are many mysteries in Scripture. Just remember that a “mystery” is a secret, and a disclosed secret at that.

Look at one of them, from Matthew 13, the key chapter to the key book of the New Testament, where seven mysteries line up.

Matthew 13:44
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.”

This secret is 5th in a sequence of seven, the purpose of this writing is not the systematic teaching of these seven that each disclose a secret in the unfolding of the kingdom of the heavens.

(For that full treatment, see the free audio messages.

But here we have:
– a hidden treasure,
– a field
– a man who finds & hides the treasure
– who, for joy, sells ALL
who buys THE FIELD.

When we think of a treasure hidden in a field, for which a man buys the field, paying a precious price, our minds may well run to the instance of the death of Sarah, and the dealings around that death by Abraham.

The transaction we are looking at is the purchase by Abraham of a chosen field, owned by Ephron of Zohar of the children of Heth, in which was the cave of Machpelah.

This transaction covers the entire chapter 23 of Genesis, and is well worth reading.

Yet it isn’t until chapter 49 of Genesis, well beyond Abraham’s own death, that the significance of that purchase is known, in the words of Joseph, Abraham’s great grandson, the favorite son of Jacob:

Genesis 49:29-32
“And he (Jacob) charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite,

In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite for a possession of a burying place.

There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife; and there I buried Leah.

The purchase of the field and of the cave that is therein was from the children of Heth.”

Especially look at v. 31 which described who is buried in that cave:
I-saac
S-arah
R-ebekah
A-braham
L-eah
And lastly, Israel himself, whose name was formed by the acrostic.

The name of Israel himself hidden in that cave, as it were, a treasure – Israel – hidden in the field, which, as the previous (2nd) parable clearly taught, is the world.

This makes Abraham a type of Jesus Christ in his purchase, as Jesus Christ is the man Who “sold all he had” at the cross, and purchased the field – the world – in order to secure for himself his special treasure, Israel.

By the way, not that nation over there today, formed and abiding in unbelief. When Jesus Christ hides his treasure, it remains hidden.

Herein, we learn one of the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, and it is concerning Israel.

Today, the Israel of God is a remnant “according to the election of grace (Romans 11:5),” hidden in the )field) world so that it will survive.

Today is yet the day of grace where God commands all men everywhere – Jew and Gentile alike – to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

My Wife Karen - Comments (4)

Category: Articles,My Life
Author: John Malone
Date: 11th February, 2018 @ 06:55:19 PM

Ephesians 5:25
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it “

As a Christian in a local church, I suppose one can take for granted the love Christ has for his assembly, continually giving His wonderful blessings.

Such love is above and beyond His and our Father’s love for the world.

In Jesus Christ, you find One Who always loves you better.

And it is a blessed man who finds a woman who always loves you more, always loves you better. Karen always loved me better, and no one ever loved me as much.

I could speak of my love for her. It is measured by my broken heart today. I am loving the thoughts I have of her as I write this.

But she always loved me better. And if you were close enough to her, you discovered she loved you better, too.

Karen was a spring of life and happiness. Though she could no longer bear, she still gave herself to continual motherhood, becoming a grandmother before age 40, and still nurturing her children and many, many grandchildren to her final hours.

Karen was a person who constantly thought of others, and who moved my mind to follow along in her giving ways. She arranged herself for the benefit of others. This is the very definition of kindness.

Karen was kind to a fault. She even provided food for squirrels & rabbits & birds. And cats.

But her lap was always open to the many children who carry her traits.

Karen never wanted things. Except for the kids and their kids. She believed we were a wasteful society. Therefore, she was going to privately non-conform. When it came to things for us, I was the one pulling her into any spending.

Karen did some things you probably don’t know about.

She was the first Nebraska “Home School Grandma,” graduating from homeschool our oldest granddaughter, mom being a homeschool graduate.

Karen also founded the Warrior sports program. She never wanted that credit, but I wanted it for her. You see, that is how she was, so modest.

I took Karen out of that program, and other such life endeavors, because I needed her in our Africa adventures.

Without ever wanting it, Karen enjoyed a life of true adventure, always inside the faith. She visited China, spending weeks in fabulous places, in 1991.

She enjoyed a spectacular visit to the UAE, hosted especially by an oil sheik and the Regional Chef of the Intercontinental Hotels.

Karen sparkled in such settings. So pretty!

In Kenya, East Africa, Karen and I found especially romantic places, together with some difficult and hard work.

But we always took time to revisit a special and simple place called the Kentmere Club, just as we – with me pulling her – visited the fabulous Mount Kenya Safari Club, the ‘Ol Pejeta Ranch, Sweetwater Tented Camp, and even a tent on sticks in the midst of the waters of Lake Naivasha, amongst hundreds of hippos. We rode an ATV together through the Masai Mara, and saw each of the Big Five game animals.

Karen’s favorite adventure times were riding: once on a horse in the midst of so many animals, including elephants, and another time she rode a camel.

My wife Karen was an exciting woman, I can certify, and she thrilled me to my bones. The thoughts of these amazing rendezvous we arranged in our lives are both keeping me from and making me cry.

I realize the Scriptures teach is to “judge not.” And to “judge nothing before the time.”

But please allow me to reflect.

Because I have written about a few things out of an entire life, and even then only a slight reference.

Karen’s life was marked by much sorrow. She just took it so well that she wouldn’t let it bother anyone else. She actually called me to cheer me up in 2007 when she discovered she had the cancer that finally killed her.

She suffered in very many ways often at the hands of physicians.

This was part of the way of the cross in Karen’s life. That way that we don’t like to talk about.

She didn’t talk about it either. “I’m not a whiner,” she would say. On her death bed, she saw me in tears. “Don’t be a wimp,” she said, “You have to hold everything together.”

Because the glue of our amazing family was leaving us.

So my assessment is not what matters, the Lord will judge us all at the judgment seat of Christ, and that’s where I’ll see and be with Karen, and most likely some of you.

But in my assessment, Karen’s was a triumphant life, one well-lived because she loved us so well.

Good night, lover.

What’s Wrong with this Picture? - Comments (1)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 5th October, 2015 @ 02:42:26 AM

At first look, nothing wrong, it’s attractive.

It’s pretty. Perhaps inspiring.
Certainly it is intended to bring one’s thought to the empty tomb of Jesus Christ, and therefore to remind one of His resurrection out from the dead, by which he was declared to be the {Son of God with power.|Rom 1:4}

The problem with the picture is its inconsistency with the Scriptural account of Jesus empty tomb as presented to Peter and John, described in the Gospel  of John.

In John 19:40, we read, “Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

We need to inspect the phrase “wound it in linen.” We should understand the process for the burial was to take strips of linen, dip them in the mixture of myrrh and aloes customarily used for burial by the Jews, and then wind the limbs and torso of the dead.

There was a cocoon shell encasing the dead body.

In the case of Jesus’ burial, the compound of myrrh and aloes {weighed about 100 pounds |Jo 19:39}. The linen, becomes very heavy when soaked in the “spices” used for the burial.

In the account of the entrance of Peter and John to the empty tomb of Jesus, the supposed picture of which is above, they saw nothing like it.

Here is the compelling account (John 20:3-8)

3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

John, referring to himself in third person, says in verse 8 that what he saw caused him to believe. The translation here – “linen clothes lying” – obscures what he saw.  That translation probably causes the artist of the picture above to get this wrong.What the speedier of the two apostles – not necessarily younger – saw first was the grave clothes as they were. That is, he saw them in the cocoon shape, yet empty, and the soudarion (napkin) that was previously draped over the windings folded neatly in a separate place.

The evidence John saw was persuasive. Jesus had passed through the shell of the grave clothes, unlike Lazarus, who came from his tomb yet bound in them, the {soudarion binding his face.|Jo 11:44}

Unlike Lazarus – raised by Jesus – no one needed to cut him loose from the clothes or the face wrap.

Here was powerful enough evidence for two of the “pillar” apostles to believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Social Oppression, Truth Suppression At Applebee’s. - Comments (1)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 14th August, 2015 @ 11:57:27 PM

Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness;

So, Village Inn closed down temporarily, and I suggested Applebee’s for after the Wednesday night Bible study. No free pie, but half-priced appetizers.

Two of my grandsons and their friend – ever the hungry teenagers – decided to go, too.

While we are chomping down cheeseburger sliders and boneless wings, the boys are ordering three full appetizers each across the restaurant.

There were two men in their mid-twenties – let’s call them Matt and Chris – seated at the table adjacent to my grandsons, and their friend. Let’s call him Jay.

Matt and Chris, speaking loudly enough to be easily overheard, were discussing what the boys thought were unsavory things. Jay decided to engage them about their comments.

One thing led to another, and Jay sat down to talk to Matt and Chris, mainly Chris. Jay took up the subject of the free gift of God of eternal life by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Interestingly and importantly, he did not take up the subject of homosexual sin, a practice which both Matt and Chris had been discussing openly.

Chris became quite interested in his discussion with Jay, while Matt apparently listened with his back turned: at one point Matt said, “If God is coming back soon, I’m in trouble.” The waitress for both tables apparently took a hostile interest in the polite conversation between the two that was taking place. She found ways to “hang around” the tables. At one point, she asked the older fellows, Chris and Matt, if they were being bothered. They did not say they wee, probably to her chagrin.

At one point, Chris said to Jay, “You have a lot of courage speaking up as you are. Most people wouldn’t do it. I respect you for that.” Later, the waitress would claim that Chris had tears in his eyes. There is a later to this story.

The Manager at Applebee’s – let’s call him Manager Chris – came over to Jay and asked him to quit speaking to the other fellows. Jay asked him why, and told him no one had any complaint. Despite being a teenager, and Manager Chris being somewhere in his mid to late thirties, Jay said he felt he held authority in the exchange.

At that point, Chris and Matt decided to leave without dessert.

I learned of this incident later, when the boys cam to our table across the way, told us about it briefly, and went their way. The details I have described above I got later.

I only knew that the boys had been asked by Manager Chris to stop their discussion when I went to take the matter up with him in person. He came out, we shook hands, and when I began to ask him why he felt compelled to break up a conversation between two will customers, he said that Matt had come to him complaining that they were being bothered. I have reason today to doubt that ever happened. In fact, after reflecting on the vents I’v yet to describe, I’m pretty sure the “complaint” came from the waitress the boys generously tipped!

I conclude this today, because, as I was discussing why Manager Chris decided to do what he did, two waitresses decide to hover around our conversation, just as one of them decided to hover around the one jay was having.

And she just couldn’t keep her mouth shut. “This is just gender discrimination!” she said angrily. I said, “Gender discrimination? How is that possible? They were all men?” Then she said something that, I guess, I am supposed to think about. “Two of those guys were homosexuals,” she said. So, apparently, to this generation of “Millennial,” there has become a proliferation of “genders.” No more can one treat a homosexual as a man, I suppose no longer can one treat a lesbian as a woman.

I answered her that she needed to believe on Jesus Christ. Somewhat to my surprise, as she nearly ran away, she threw back at me, “I do.” This could be, for no one is as much trouble as an apostate. No one.

And apparently, no longer can a manager at a chain restaurant regulate the rude conduct of his employees, but CAN regulate the polite conduct of his patrons.

I asked Chris if the subject matter of the conversation entered into his decision to break it up. He wouldn’t answer. He had such an obviously bad conscience, he almost couldn’t answer. I did tell him he would be judged by God Almighty for what he had done, and that i was pretty sure he knew that.

It was this very same employee, the waitress, who, while I was discussing this matter with Manager Chris, told her associate in the hearing of another patron, one of my friends, that “no matter what their attitude is, they (me and my table) need to get their #&%@ing %$#es out of here.”

I came back in to tell Manager Chris about this remark, and as I left, fielded insulting remarks from other employees.

I at once pity and am envious of what faces today’s youngest generation of Christians. On the one hand, they are facing persecution on every side, even as patrons in a restaurant.

On the other hand, there is this:

1st Peter 4:13-14
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you:on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

Facts of the Crucifixion: More than Three Crosses. - Comments (5)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 25th December, 2014 @ 11:14:48 PM

 

Lately I have been seeing a lot of traditional pictures of three crosses in a row at sunset, the middle one elevated.

Pictures almost invariably mislead Christian believers, and the one with three crosses presumably at Mount Calvary just do not reconcile with Bible accounts.

You might think most people would say, “What difference does it make?” In fact, however, that is not my experience. When I suggest to folks that, according to the Bible account, there seems to need to be at least five crosses, they challenge me to explain with facts, and then – not surprisingly – completely reject the argument.

That’s what happened to me when I wrote a lengthy explanation of Facebook, and subsequently got kicked out of the forum for writing it, losing all my writing. That is one of the cruel aspects of FaceBook, so, by request, I am rewriting it here in this account, where angry readers cannot delete it.

I find, for this discussion, that a good place to start is in John’s gospel, where we are arrested by the dramatic action recorded in:

John 19:31-37
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

While it is not the main point of this passage (the piercing of he Lord’s side a necessary element of Christ’s second coming, among other truths), we can see that the Roman soldiers broke the legs of one, then another, and then CAME TO JESUS. Immediately, one would think they were walking down a row, and not skipping past Jesus, and then coming back to Him, which, if there were only three crosses, they would have to do, He being in the middle.

So, let’s look at the other accounts, and see how this “lines up.” We have references in the synoptic gospels to those crucified with him, being described as thieves, and malefactors, at least to each. If these are only two each, and if it turns out that the thief is the malefactor, then and only then do we come to three crosses. Otherwise, we will come to more, and John 19:32-33 will also make better sense to us.

Matthew’s Account.

{Matthew 27:26-54|Mat 27:26-54} encompasses that gospel’s account of Jesus’ crucifixion from the time Barabbas is released in His stead, to the time of His death and the events that immediately followed causing a centurion to believe that He is the Son of God. My subject here, however, does not call for the exegesis of the whole passage, instead drawing attention to:

The Crucifixion and Location of the Thieves.

Matt 27:38 – “Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.” THEN means after He refused the vinegar and gall, after He was placed on the cross, after they parted His garments, and after they placed the signification “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” accusation above His head. It was THEN that two THIEVES were crucified on either side of him. Right-hand side, left-hand side.

The Behavior of the Thieves.

As passers-by took up the mockeries of their religious leaders, hurling scornful and hostile epithets, engaging in the mockery and disgrace intended upon Him by His enemies, we read verse 44:

44 “The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.”

So, it is the thieves – both of them (1+1) – who hurled insults at Him. Did one of these change his mind on his cross, and articulate the more salutary opinion of Him, thereby becoming the all-so-remembered “thief on the cross?”

Mark’s Account.

The portion of the gospel of Mark covering this same action as Matthew 27 adds some precision to our already elucidated facts. The {passage is Mark  15:20-39: Mar 15:20-39}.

We see the time frame covered is the 3rd hour to the 6th hour, followed by three hours of darkness until the ninth hour. Those six hours thereby cover the time from 9.a.m. to 3 p.m. Israel time. Before the sixth hour, as the last recorded event, is the crucifixion of the thieves:

27 “And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.”

We then learn, as they hang from no earlier than some time after 9 am., and no later than noon, passers-by threw their epithets, and, just as Matthew records:

32 “… And they that were crucified with him reviled him.”

Luke’s Account.

{Luke’s account|Lu 23:32-45} gives us our information about the MALEFACTORS, and the resins why we know they are not the same as the thieves. First off, a thief is a malefactor, but a malefactor is not necessarily a thief. A generally malevolent person – a malefactor – can be other than a thief. He can be a brigand, or one who assaults, or any number of things that are not thievery, but are seriously wicked.

Here’s our introduction to them:

Luke 23:32 – “And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.”

The Crucifixion of the Malefactors.

These appear to us sooner in the dramatic action than the thieves. Sure, they COULD still be the same, but one must notice this difference. A different name – malefactor – and a different entrance into the account. They are being led to Golgotha with him. There’s more.

33: “And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.”

They are also left and right. But pairs of crosses could be added left and right ad infinitum, and this language would stay the same. This is not proof of our case that there at least five crosses at Calvary, but neither does this language say otherwise.

It is further down in the account that His accusation of being King of the Jews is referenced:

38: “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, this is the King of the Jews.”

After that superscription was hung, the thieves were crucified, left and right. An outer pair to the malefactor inner-pair.

Some may say, “You are assuming Luke is a consecutive account.” I am. It is {Luke’s gospel itself|Lu 1:1-4}that demands that we understand we are always reading consecutively. The Bible is written to inform us, not to mislead us.

And, this account now makes overall sense to us.

The Behavior of the Malefactors.

39: “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

I’m tempted to correct much error instead of my subject here, especially as to what the Lord actually said to this MALEFACTOR, but my central point is that this interaction is with the “malefactor on the cross, not the thief.” This colloquy among the three who were crucified at the same time may have been in the hearing of the thieves, may not have been, but was with someone that was not them.

So, if we were to picture Calvary (Golgotha) from afar at that time, we should see at least five crosses. Most of the pictures you see – especially those of the Lord Himself – are wrong.

Faith is not sight, faith is in God’s Word, and from God’s Word. And grace is through faith.

Net Neutrality: What is Morally Fair. - Comments (0)

Category: Articles
Author: John Malone
Date: 12th November, 2014 @ 01:18:57 PM

Perhaps it’s time for me to weigh-in on “Net Neutrality,” and once again explain why I am not a Republican. (You may look elsewhere to see why I am not a Democrat.)

Why A Christian Should Care
I am a Christian. I am the salt of the earth. My little faith allows me to move mountains, and the Bible seems to tell me that mountains are representative of governments. I gather this from Daniel Chapter 2, and the final destruction of the image outlining Gentile power, where Jesus Christ is pictured as a Rock that, in his millennial day yet future,  smashes the image, and the Rock then becomes a mountain to fill the hole earth. Maranatha.

“Net Neutrality” is what we have right now with respect to Internet service, excluding the fact that Monopolist Comcast shook down Netflix not long ago for special fees. I pay (way to much) for Internet pipes, as do content providers. What goes on between my pipe and their pipe is not the provider’s business, the charge is for the pipe.

I’m more conservative than Ted Cruz I guess, and he is showing that he is a Republican in this matter, and not a “People’s representative.” Jesus Christ is always for the people, so I judge that Ted Cruz, openly my brother in Christ, is on the wrong side in this matter.

We are already paying for pipes on the Internet. Because Cruz claims “Net Neutrality” is about the government coming in to regulate, he strikes a responsive chord in me, and other believers as well. And of course, there IS a danger on this side of the issue. What he is talking about is ALSO a real threat, and I will get to it. But let me deal with the clear and present danger first.

Basic Economics under Competition.
I will draw upon the “dismal science” of economics, with which my young, impressionable mind was disciplined by well-educated men in my college days. I do have a college Major in Economics, and a second one in Journalism, to which I now allude for those who will not let the clarity of my thoughts here stand on their own merits. (I do have a stash of snobbery to use as needed.)

In economics, we learn a basic principle that, CETERIS PARIBUS (all things being equal, which we do find in this analog universe to be universally never quite true), pricing is formed at the intersection of supply and demand. This CETERIS PARIBUS condition includes the facts that suppliers can readily enter a marketplace, among other things. In the case of Internet service providers, there are public resources allocated by government to them, and therefore there is NOT ready entry for competitors to enter the marketplace.

Therefore, because of this violation of CETERIS PARIBUS, we know a priori that a form of monopoly – with a few players instead of only one – called “oligopoly” will results, just as it has. In the world of Internet service providers, a few major players now dominate the marketplace, and the entry of new competitors is not permitted due government entities allocating public resources to them: airwaves, government-sponsored land access (easement ways), etc. In economics, therefore, we have a supply-side issue.

“Demand curves” are made up of the theoretically infinite points of individuals’ willingness to pay a price for a good or service. SOME ARE WILLING TO PAY MORE THAN OTHERS. This is why some people will pay $35 for a cheeseburger at the 49’ers new Levi’s Stadium, while I will buy two-for-$3.50 double cheeseburgers at Hardees. Let’s take a “free (fair) market,” as an example, and see how it is supposed to work.

In such a marketplace, you have this “curve” of demand where, even Joe Blow is willing to pay $35 for a cheeseburger, some cheapskate vegan will only pay a penny for it because he likes the bun and the pickles. In between you have the rest of the universe of cheeseburger buyers who are willing to pay everything in between. As Wikipedia states, “the demand curve is the graph depicting the relationship between the price of a certain commodity and the amount of it that consumers are willing and able to purchase at that given price.”

It ends up looking something like this:

Our subject is cheeseburgers, so you see from the above graph that 55 people are wiling to pay $1 for a cheeseburger, while only 10 are willing to pay $5 for one. Now, we will add a supply curve top the drawing.

 

Our suppliers of cheeseburgers are willing to supply only 10 cheeseburgers at $1, but are willing to supply 40 cheeseburgers for $2, and 60 cheeseburgers for $3. Where supply and demand meet is called the “equilibrium price,” or “market price,” which in a fair market is a fair price. $2 per cheeseburger. Anyone not willing to pay $2 isn’t going to get a cheeseburger. Everyone willing to pay MORE than $2 is going to get a break in price over what they are actually willing to pay. That “break,” is called the “consumer surplus,” and is a benefit to society. And why can’t the supplier “make” the 10 guys willing to pay $5 per cheeseburger pay what they are willing to pay? Because SOMEONE ELSE is willing to offer them that cheeseburger for $2.

Those Thieving Monopolists!

 = Fair Market Revenue to Supplier
||| = Consumer Surplus to Public

Now, when the marketplace becomes such that the “someone else” can’t enter the market to supply, the monopolist – or pack of oligopolists – begin to look at this demand curve in their own especially jaundiced way. They say, in the case of oligopolists, “Let’s find a way to get that $5 from those ten guys, and $4 from those next 5 guys, and $3 from the next 10 guys, and so forth. Instead of having to maximize profit in competitive world, they seek to maximize REVENUE in a non-competitive world, and they trace this demand curve the best they can, and gobble up the consumer surplus for themselves.

In the context of the Internet, this is EXACTLY what the oligopolists want to do. having already sold bandwidth uploading and downloading quantities to Internet users, they now want to discover those who are paying less than they are willing to pay – those individuals “benefitting” from the consumer surplus – and, using market differentiation tactics, grabbing these revenues to themselves. The competition that would not let them do this is not present, because entry into this market is not open due to the government licensing involved. So, someone other than a competitor needs to bring the stick a competitor otherwise would.

The Proper Role of Government
It is pretty well established that government has an economic role, in a capitalist society, to keep competition fair when it creates or discovers a monopoly. Teddy Roosevelt, who “spoke softly and carried a big stick,” used that stick to bust trusts. In short, it is the role of government to assure the consumer surplus to the public.

From a public policy point of view, “Net Neutrality,” – to an extent, “what we have now” – is a slogan by those who anticipate that oligopolists have their eyes on the consumer surplus, and will try – as oligopolists always do – to eat the surplus due to the public. Net neutrality is a right thought.

The Problem of Usurpation
Historically in our country, we have adhered to the slogan of “the government which governs least, governs best.” Obviously it has to be the government that insures that oligopolists in the Internet service market place do not use consumer differentiation tactics to grab the surplus. However, there is also that tendency of government to usurp power reserved to the people as it conducts even its rightful business.

It occurs to me this is exactly what brother Cruz is talking about. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, as long as doubt exists, that he fears the solution to monopoly power might be as bad or worse than the monopoly power. And it could very well be is government does its job poorly, and, for instance, attempts to grab the surplus for itself, or for the “right people” who support a present regime. The fact is, however, that in the case of public utilities, government has, at least in the past, functioned well in its regulation, and even provision of services.

I live in a public power state: Nebraska. State corporations generate the power here, supply water, and distribute natural gas. Historically, these three commodities have been provisioned by our state more cheaply than private industry has supplied them elsewhere, where they function as government licensed and regulated monopolies. In the legacy of George Norris, Nebraska has done a reasonably good job of maintaining the consumer surplus in these markets for the consumers. So it CAN be done.

I can well understand Senator Cruz’s concern and skepticism about the Federal Government handling this task well. But he is wrong on this issue, and I hope this means he is mistaken, and that it’s not just his Republican roots showing through.