Tag: Jesus

Posted on

Did Jesus Die on the Cross or Merely Faint?

John 19

28Jesus knew that everything was now finished, and to fulfill the Scriptures he said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of sour wine was sitting there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put it on a hyssop branch, and held it up to his lips. 30When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

31The Jewish leaders didn’t want the victims hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath at that, because it was the Passover), so they asked Pilate to hasten their deaths by ordering that their legs be broken. Then their bodies could be taken down. 32So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus. 33But when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was dead already, so they didn’t break his legs. 34One of the soldiers, however, pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out. 35This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account; it is presented so that you also can believe. 36These things happened in fulfillment of the Scriptures that say, “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37and “They will look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19:28-37, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Christianity stands or falls on one event – the resurrection.

Over the years, critics of Christianity have promoted a number of theories to argue that the resurrection never actually happened. If Jesus didn’t actually rise from the dead, Christianity is nothing more than another moral code.

One of the more novel theories to explain away a supernatural resurrection is the Swoon theory, which suggests that Jesus never actually died on the cross but merely fainted. Later, after he was buried, the cool air of the tomb revived him. He emerged from the tomb alive and people mistakenly believed that he had resurrected.

There are numerous problems with this theory.

First of all, if Jesus did indeed faint and then was revived, how is it that he had the strength to move a 2-ton boulder that covered the tomb entrance and then overcome the armed battalion that guarded the tomb?

Jesus was brutally whipped and scourged before he was even nailed to the cross. He was so weak from the lashes and the beating at the hands of the Roman soldiers that he wasn’t even able to carry his own cross to the crucifixion site.

He then hung on a cross for hours, which undoubtedly weakened him further. Even if he did not die, he was in critical condition. Yet this theory wants us to believe that a person in his condition was able to unravel himself from 75 pounds of grave clothes, then move a 2-ton boulder out of the way, fend off a contingency of elitely trained and armed Roman guards so that he could later appear to his followers and declare himself to be the resurrected Messiah. This would take more faith than believing in an actual resurrection.

Secondly, as C.S. Lewis has argued, if Jesus merely fainted and then emerged alive, declaring himself to be the resurrected Messiah, he would more aptly be compared to the devil than to God. Why is that?

In this scenario, Jesus would have foisted the greatest scam on people in the history of the world. Jesus, knowing he wasn’t God, would’ve had to have deceptively convinced people to give their lives for something that was a bold-faced lie.

As Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, this line of reasoning does not align with what we know about Jesus the man, namely that he was the greatest moral teacher the world has ever known.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Yet the Swoon theory forces us to believe that Jesus was not really a moral teacher as much as he was the best snake oil salesman who ever lived. He was so good, in fact, that most people still don’t realize they’ve been scammed.

Those are the philosophical reasons to reject the Swoon theory. However, there is evidence from this passage in John 19 that refutes the very basis of the Swoon theory.

The Swoon theory rests on the premise that Jesus didn’t actually die. Yet this passage provides convincing proof that Jesus indeed DID die.

How so?

Verse 31 tells us that the Jewish leaders didn’t want the crucified victims to be hanging on the cross during the Sabbath which was quickly approaching. The legs of crucifixion victims were often broken in order to hasten death. Essentially, the victims would no longer be able to push themselves up on the cross to inhale and they would suffocate rather quickly after their legs were broken. The text says that the soldiers broke the legs of the other two men who were crucified with Jesus. However, with Jesus, the soldiers saw that he was already dead, so there was no need to break his legs.

This is strong evidence that Jesus was already dead, contrary to those who might claim that he had only fainted or passed out.

There is another, even more convincing piece of evidence from this passage that demonstrates that Jesus was definitely dead when he came off that cross.

After the soldiers decided NOT to break Jesus’ legs, the text says that one of the soldiers took a spear and pierced Jesus’ side. There is no explanation as to why he decided to do that. What is interesting though is the description of what happened next. It says that “blood and water flowed out.”

The description of “blood and water” is significant. The author would not have had a medical understanding at that time that this was evidence of death. Blood and water would not have separated if Jesus were still alive but the fact that it WAS visibly separated PROVES that Jesus was dead.

Since this medical understanding was unknown in Jesus’ time, one cannot claim that the author deceptively described it this way in order to promote a false risen savior narrative.

One may still be unconvinced that Jesus resurrected, but one thing is certain, Jesus DID die. The idea that he fainted but then somehow emerged and declared himself to be the resurrected Messiah takes more faith than believing in the resurrection.

What this reveals is that for many, facts and rational explanations are not necessary in order to reject Jesus. All that’s necessary is a hardened heart.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Do you think the Swoon theory is an adequate explanation for Jesus’ death on the cross? Why or why not?

If Jesus did only faint on the cross instead of actually dying, how do you explain a) the soldiers not breaking his legs, b) the description of water and blood flowing from the pierced side, c) Jesus’ ability to move the stone that covered the entrance and d) his ability to fend off the armed soldiers who guarded the tomb?

Do you agree with C.S. Lewis, that Jesus could not be considered a good moral teacher if he in fact KNEW that he hadn’t died and had not resurrected but yet convinced people that he DID resurrect? How does Lewis’s argument bolster the case for a supernatural resurrection?

Why do you think someone would believe this alternate explanation which requires a number of logical leaps instead of just believing what the text claims, which is that Jesus was resurrected?

 

Photo by Nik Shuliahin 💛💙 on Unsplash

Posted on

Did Paul Predict an Apostasy in Which the Church Would be Completely Lost?

2 Thessalonians 2

1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

5Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-13, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Not long ago, I was engaged in an online conversation with a Mormon who was explaining the necessity and legitimacy of the Mormon church.

You can read about the larger context that prompted this discussion in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?”

If you’re not familiar with Mormonism, you should know that it is not just another of the many Christian denominations that exist. It is something entirely different from the traditional Christianity that is represented by the many mainline Christian denominations and traditions.

Mormonism was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who, according to his testimony, was confused by the many different Christian denominations in place at the time. He sought to determine which one was right so he could know which one he should follow.

Joseph Smith claims that he received a revelation directly from God the Father and Jesus, in which he was told that NONE of the denominations were correct and that he should not follow any of them.

Supposedly, Joseph Smith was later directed by an angel to some buried golden plates, which were subsequently translated into “The Book of Mormon”.  Not long after, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism) was formed as the re-establishment of the true church that had allegedly been lost ever since the original apostles died off.

Interestingly, Mormonism today seeks to be known as “Christian” even though all of the Christian denominations of today were apparently labeled by Jesus himself as wrong.

Naturally, most Christians today do not think that they’re wrong, nor do they believe that they have fallen off the path, as Joseph Smith maintains that Jesus told him.

Hence, there is genuine debate regarding the origins of Mormonism and the truthfulness of its claims.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

A key argument that Mormons make to support their claim that Jesus visited Joseph Smith is the assertion that the original New Testament church fell into apostasy and the original church teachings and church authority were lost….for nearly 1800 years!

This passage in 2 Thessalonians is often used as one proof text to assert that Paul himself predicted that the church would fall into apostasy.

If the church indeed fell into apostasy and it can be demonstrated that even the apostles knew this would happen, then the idea that Jesus would appear at some point to someone to re-establish the true church seems at least plausible, if not inevitable.

Unfortunately, there are quite a number of problems with the Mormon teaching on this passage as it relates to their view of a universal and cataclysmic apostasy of the church.

First of all, how does one reconcile the Mormon view that the church fell into apostasy and was lost with Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16, in which he said that he would establish his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it? Jesus taught that nothing could ultimately eliminate his church. Yet Mormons teach that the gates of hell could prevail against Christ’s church and indeed DID prevail….for nearly 1800 years!

Secondly, if the church DID fall into apostasy and was completely lost (which we assert is not possible according to Jesus), why would Jesus wait 1800 years to re-establish His church? That’s an awfully long time with a lot of lost people who ultimately had no hope, given the complete absence of the church.

Third, Mormons make the interpretive error of eisegesis (reading their preferred interpretation into the text) when they assume that passages which warn of false teachers and ideologies are evidence of a universal apostasy in which the church would be lost. While Jesus and the apostles often warned of false teachers and frequently pointed to our sinful tendencies to pursue worldly desires at the expense of following Christ and obeying His Great Commission, there are NO passages where Jesus or any of his apostles predict that the universal church and its teachings would be completely lost.

Finally, this passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 is offered up as one of several primary passages that speak to this alleged apostasy. According to Mormon teaching, Jesus, Paul and others all KNEW that the church would fall into apostasy and spoke openly about it.

The problem for Mormons is that this passage says nothing about the church being lost, nor does it even hint that there would be a universal apostasy shortly after the apostles left the scene. In short, this passage doesn’t teach what Mormons say it teaches.

It’s clear from the very first verse of this chapter that Paul is speaking about the 2nd coming of Christ. Paul had taught the Thessalonians about this subject on many occasions, as he states in verse 5.

The Thessalonians were confused about the timing of the 2nd coming and were anxious because of false reports coming from would-be prophets and random itinerant preachers who claimed that the day of the Lord had already occurred.

The Thessalonians were worried that perhaps they had missed the big day and had been left behind. Paul assures them that the “day of the Lord”, which refers to the 2nd coming of Christ, had NOT happened yet and would not happen until certain visible and identifiable events had taken place.

Paul lists these events, including the “man of lawlessness” entering the temple and calling himself god.

This event clearly has not happened yet and when it does happen, it will not lead to an apostasy of the church as Mormons claim, but it will lead to the 2nd coming of Christ as is clear from verse 1.

Since it’s clear from the text that the events Paul is talking about are STILL future events, this passage cannot be legitimately offered up as evidence that the church was lost shortly after the apostles died off and therefore needed to be restored nearly 1800 years later.

The truth is, there is no evidence that the church of the New Testament was ever lost. Sure, there have been many within the church who have been led to follow a path of false teachings. That has always been the case. Even in the time of the apostles we see that there were many false teachers and many false teachings. We even see devout disciples who are led astray. But none of this proves that the church as a whole was fully and fundamentally lost.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the New Testament church’s teachings and structure resembled anything remotely mirroring the current Mormon church.

The New Testament documents are fairly well preserved and we can trace the traditions and the teachings of not only the apostles but the early church fathers. Historically, we can trace theological heresies as well as denominational splinter groups. We can compare all of it with the teachings of the New Testament to determine what is accurate and what is not.

Mormonism wants you to believe that Jesus told Joseph Smith that all the Christian denominations were wrong and that Mormonism is right.

The problem is that we cannot verify that Joseph Smith ever had a real encounter with Jesus, but we can evaluate Mormon teachings to those of Jesus and the New Testament apostles. By that metric, Mormonism fails because it teaches a gospel message that is in stark contrast to that which we know was taught by Jesus and his disciples.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Mormons claim that this passage teaches a universal apostasy of the church shortly after the apostles died off. Based on the plain reading of the text, do you agree that this is what Paul is teaching? Why or why not?

Mormons say that church authority and structure were lost when the church fell into apostasy. Yet Jesus taught that the gates of hell could not prevail against His church. How does one ultimately determine which view is correct? What standards or protocols do you think are needed to evaluate the veracity of each sides’ claims?

We have a record of Jesus’ teachings and the teachings of many of His disciples. We call this the New Testament. Do you think the New Testament has been accurately preserved? In other words, do you believe that the New Testament is an accurate reflection of the account of Jesus’ life and ministry as well as an accurate account of the New Testament church and its teachings? What are the reasons for the position you hold?

If the church did fall into apostasy and was completely lost as Mormons claim, when and where did the “man of lawlessness” event take place? To what is Paul referring to?

Paul says that “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work”? What is Paul referring to? What does that mean? Paul also says that “the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.” Who do you think is the one who now holds back the secret power of lawlessness?

 

Image created by Grok

Posted on

Did Jesus Teach that You Need to be Baptized to be Saved?

John 3

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

4“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” (John 3:1-21, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

A few weeks ago, I had an online encounter with a Mormon who, in his quest to explain the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

One of the passages he referenced to back up his claim was this passage from John 3, where Jesus has a conversation with Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to Jesus secretly at night.

I previously wrote on this same passage (John 3:1-8) in my blog post “The Born-Again Redundancy” but that post, while it expounded some on the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, never addressed the issue of baptism.

There’s a good reason why my previous post did not talk about the issue of baptism and that’s because neither the word nor the concept is found anywhere in the passage.

But since this passage was offered up as a proof text for the view that baptism by immersion with water (what I’ll from here on out refer to as “water baptism” or “baptismal regeneration”) is essential for salvation, it seems necessary and appropriate to comment on what Jesus is actually teaching in this passage.

If the words “baptism” and “baptize” are nowhere to be found within this passage, why would someone use this passage as “evidence” that Jesus taught baptism was necessary for salvation?

In short, I believe this passage is used as evidence by those who hold to the necessity of baptism for salvation simply because Jesus mentions water.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

As I conversed with this Mormon acquaintance online, he noted that Jesus himself said that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, one must be born of water and the Spirit. He argued that when Jesus mentioned being “born of water” he was referencing the ordinance of baptism.

This conclusion is actually a perfect example of the theological error known as eisegesis, which means “to read into the text.”

What exactly does that mean?

When we read and study the Bible, our goal should be to understand what the author meant when he wrote what he wrote. We do our best to place ourselves in the context of the person living at the time the text was written and seek to understand what it would have meant to a person living within that culture at that specific time. This is known as exegesis, or “drawing out of the text.”

When we understand what the author’s original intent was, we can then understand how the original hearer of the text would have understood what they were reading and hearing. That is the original message we want to capture, understand and apply to our own situation.

But eisegesis functions in the exact opposite way. Instead of seeking to understand what the text meant to the original audience, the person imports their preferred meaning into the text and then declares that to be the teaching.

So in our case, it looks like this:

Jesus had a conversation with Nicodemus about how one enters the kingdom of God and Jesus said that a person must be born of water and the Spirit.

Even though Jesus says nothing about baptism and it’s unclear at first glance what it means to be born of water and what it means to be born of the Spirit, the person who holds to baptismal regeneration has already concluded that the passage is talking about baptism.

Since the conclusion is already determined, reasons justifying that conclusion are then produced. In this case, the passage has the term water in it and baptism requires water so it is argued that this passage must be speaking about baptism.

This line of reasoning utterly fails.

Not only does Jesus not say baptism is necessary for salvation, he doesn’t even mention baptism in this interchange.

So then what is Jesus saying?

I explain this more fully in my blog post “The Born-Again Redundancy” but Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that just as a person is born physically which leads to physical life, so a person must be born spiritually in order to experience spiritual life, or life in the kingdom of God.

Jesus himself explains what is meant by the phrase “being born of water and the Spirit” when he says just a few verses later that “flesh gives birth to flesh but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

It’s clear that being born of water refers to physical birth while being born of the Spirit refers to a spiritual birth. According to Jesus, both are necessary for salvation. In reality, everyone who has ever existed has already experienced physical birth just by being born.

So then, what is necessary to enter the kingdom of God is to experience a spiritual birth. This is the entire point Jesus is making to Nicodemus – to enter the kingdom of God, you must experience a spiritual birth.

The natural question then is “how does one experience a spiritual birth?”

Notice that as Jesus continues his discourse with Nicodemus, he does not mention baptism as a condition for salvation (spiritual birth). In fact, baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the passage.

What Jesus DOES mention as necessary for salvation, multiple times in fact, is BELIEF.

Specifically, in verse 15, Jesus says “that everyone who believes in him [Jesus] may have eternal life.”

Again, in verse 16, one of the most famously quoted verses in the entire Bible, Jesus says “that whoever believes in him [Jesus] shall not perish but have eternal life.”

So what is the verdict?

Concerning the charge that Jesus taught that baptism was/is necessary for salvation, the charge is false. Jesus did not teach that in this passage. Instead, he taught that a spiritual birth is necessary in order to know God and experience life in his kingdom. Jesus, as well as the other New Testament authors, taught that this spiritual birth comes as a result of BELIEF in the person and the work of Jesus on the cross.

To examine this issue further, see the following related posts:

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What are some examples you have seen of eisegesis – when a person imports their doctrine or theological preference upon a text that doesn’t appear to be teaching that doctrine or idea at all?

If you believe that Jesus, in this passage, is talking about the importance of baptism to Nicodemus, what reasons do you have to support that interpretation?

Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God, a person must be “born again”. What do you think it means to be “born again?” How do you understand that phrase?

It’s clear that Nicodemus falsely understood Jesus’ term “born again” to be referring to a 2nd physical birth. Jesus corrects him and explains that he’s talking about a spiritual reality that must take place. Based on this passage, what does Jesus teach about how a person experiences this spiritual birth?

Have you personally experienced a spiritual birth? If not, what keeps you from taking that step?

If you want to learn more about experiencing a “spiritual birth” and experiencing eternal life and life in the kingdom of God, read my blog post “Four Points to Understand How to Experience Eternal Life.”

 

Photo by Daniel & Hannah Snipes: https://www.pexels.com/photo/outdoor-baptism-ceremony-in-south-carolina-30477080/

Posted on

What is Baptism?

Romans 6

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

This is the question I posed in a recent post of the same title.

My prompt for delving into this topic was a recent online conversation I had with a Mormon, who, in making his case for the legitimacy and necessity of the Mormon church, had made the claim that the Bible teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Mormons teach that a great apostasy occurred shortly after the apostles died and the authoritative line for administering baptisms was lost….for nearly 1800 years! (I’ll address this theological error in a different post.) But fortunately, according to Mormonism, Jesus supposedly restored the priestly line and authority for baptisms through Joseph Smith and the Mormon church.

I argued in my post “Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?” that those who hold to this view, that baptism is necessary for salvation, often have an inaccurate understanding of what baptism is.

Many have an understanding of baptism that is informed only by their own religious experience. Hence, they think that any time the word appears in the Bible, it must be referring to the act of immersing someone in water for some efficacious religious purpose, i.e. cleansing of their sins and completing the salvation process.

But the meaning of the word “baptism” is broader than our own religious experience dictates and is often used in the Bible in ways that have nothing to do with any kind of immersive water experience.

So what is baptism exactly?

This passage in Romans is one of the clearest in terms of helping us understand exactly what baptism is and how it was understood by the apostles.

Specifically, there are two parallel statements that give clarification regarding what baptism is.

Verse 3 says, “don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

But verse 5 says, “If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.”

Clearly, these two parallel verses demonstrate that to be “baptized into Christ and his death” is to be “united with Christ and His death.”

Hence, baptism is union with Christ.

This fits exactly with the broader biblical meaning of the word “baptize” which is identification. 

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Paul is saying that when one identifies with Christ, they are identified with His death. This is exactly what the gospel teaches. When a person receives Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they experience a change in identity. Instead of being a person who is alienated and separated from God, the new believer enters into a union with Christ that is characterized by a new family relationship – they are now a child of God – an adopted son or daughter.

This new identity takes place at the moment a person believes in Jesus. They receive forgiveness precisely because they are united with Jesus in His death. Simply put, when a person receives Jesus, they are indicating that they want Jesus’ death to pay for their sins instead of having to pay the penalty for their sins on their own, which leads to judgment and eternal death.

Jesus’ death now counts for the believer. His death pays for all their sins and as a result, they experience complete and total forgiveness.

Those who hold to baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation) might argue that this new identity doesn’t happen until a person is baptized with water by immersion.

But this contradicts what Scripture teaches, which is that a person is justified by faith alone and that believers receive the Holy Spirit (the sign that we are now members of God’s family) at the moment of belief, not at the moment of being baptized.

Furthermore, if the broader understanding of baptism is one of identification, then it makes sense that the purpose of water baptism is not to complete some salvation formula but is simply a way of identifying to the world in a physical way (being immersed in water) to a spiritual reality that has already taken place. The spiritual reality is that the person, based on their belief and trust in Jesus, now identifies with Jesus and Jesus’ death and is now a member of God’s family.

So what is baptism?

Baptism is a union with Jesus that takes place when we put our faith in Him and His death. At the very moment we do that, we become united with Jesus AND we become united with His death. Being united with His death means that His death now pays for my sins, which means I can experience forgiveness and I can escape the punishment I deserve for the sins I’ve committed.

This union with Christ means that I have a new identity – I’m a child of God!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What was your experience with baptism growing up? Were you baptized? If so, what meaning was attributed to this religious ceremony by your religious tradition?

What do you think it means to be united with Christ?

If you think baptism is a religious ceremony that completes the salvation process, what do you think was the reason and purpose for Jesus being baptized? (See my post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”)

If baptism was necessary for salvation, how do you explain Jesus’ words to the thief on the cross, who was never baptized, but was promised by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day?

 

Photo by Logan Gutierrez on Unsplash

Posted on

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

Luke 3

15Everyone was expecting the Messiah to come soon, and they were eager to know whether John might be the Messiah. 16John answered their questions by saying, “I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17He is ready to separate the chaff from the grain with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, storing the grain in his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire.” 18John used many such warnings as he announced the Good News to the people.

19John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done. 20So Herod put John in prison, adding this sin to his many others.

21One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. And a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son, and I am fully pleased with you.” (Luke 3:15-22, NLT)

Acts 1

1Dear Theophilus:

In my first book I told you about everything Jesus began to do and teach 2until the day he ascended to heaven after giving his chosen apostles further instructions from the Holy Spirit. 3During the forty days after his crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time and proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive. On these occasions he talked to them about the Kingdom of God.

4In one of these meetings as he was eating a meal with them, he told them, “Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you what he promised. Remember, I have told you about this before. 5John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:1-6, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Some Christians will whole-heartedly say “YES”, while many Catholics might also agree.

I’ve engaged with others over this question many times before but was recently re-introduced to this debate from an unexpected source.

You may recall that around the beginning of June (2026) there was some controversy surrounding the government and the Mormon church. I’ve shared some details about that in my blog post “Should People Take the Mormon Challenge?” but the summary is that the Department of Defense, in an effort to simplify the job of military chaplains, decided to reduce the number of codes that identify the different religious affiliations that troop members might align with from over 200 down to about 30.

These codes included a number of different “Christian” affiliations, such as “Christian-Baptist” and “Christian-Presbyterian”. However, when identifying the Mormon church, the code was listed simply as “Latter Day Saint”.

This had a number of Mormons objecting that the government did not identify the Mormon church as a subset of  Christianity.

In the ensuing online debate, I ended up engaging with a Mormon who was attempting to explain the legitimacy of the Mormon church to those who were suggesting that Mormons aren’t Christians.

One of the points this person made was that the Mormon church had re-established the priesthood, which Mormonism claims had been lost by the church for nearly 1800 years, and that this “restored” priesthood now allowed for legitimate baptisms. This is important, according to Mormons, because since baptism is necessary for salvation (in their view), the church needs a legitimate priesthood in order to administer baptisms and thus “save” people.

There’s a lot of Mormon theology that could be debated here but for this post, I want to look strictly at the assertion this Mormon made that baptism is necessary for salvation.

As luck would have it, that next day, two of the chapters in my daily Bible reading were the two chapters listed above, both of which talk about baptism.

An exhaustive discussion of whether baptism is necessary for salvation would likely take more room to unpack than just this blog post but these two passages do give us some insight into the issue.

First of all, if water baptism is necessary for salvation, one has to wonder why Jesus was baptized. Did Jesus need to be saved?

Clearly, Jesus didn’t need to be saved so there must be a different reason for His baptism. This alone tells us that baptism is not always associated with salvation. I wrote about this issue in my blog post “Why Was Jesus Baptized?”

A second observation from these passages is the fact that there are clearly different kinds of baptism mentioned.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

Note that John the Baptist himself said that he baptized with water but someone would come after Him (Jesus) who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. John makes a point to say that this person who would come after him (Jesus) was greater than he was. This implies also that the baptism of Jesus was greater, better and more important than the baptism of John.

Jesus confirms this in the Acts passage when he reminds his disciples what they had been taught before, that John would baptize with water but He (Jesus) would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus then told them that this baptism with the Holy Spirit would take place “in just a few days”.

It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus was referencing the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit descended upon these early believers and came to indwell them. It’s at this moment that the church was born.

So for the person who believes that water baptism is essential for salvation, the question they must ask is: why does Jesus emphasize His baptism of the Spirit over the water baptism that John the Baptist performed?

One thing is absolutely clear from these two passages: Jesus’ baptism is different from the baptism of John the Baptist. While John the Baptist baptized people with water, Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit.

If we’re going to have any chance of resolving the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation, we have to come to an understanding of what it means when Jesus said he would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

The problem that too many people experience when they’re faced with this issue is one of familiarity.

What I mean by that is that most people, when they hear the word “baptize”, immediately conjure up an image in their mind based on their own understanding of the word, which is primarily shaped by their own experience with baptism.

For most people, their only association with the word is that they’ve seen many people who have been baptized with water, either by sprinkling in the Catholic church and various Protestant traditions or by immersion in many evangelical traditions.

If your only exposure to the word “baptize” is seeing someone who has been baptized with water, then you naturally will assume that whenever you see the word, it must refer to being sprinkled or immersed with water.

But as these two texts above demonstrate, baptism is not always associated with water. Therefore, the idea that one must be sprinkled or immersed in water as a part of the salvation process is already in doubt. And since both John the Baptist and Jesus affirm that the baptism Jesus would bring was NOT water baptism, then there is virtually no reason to believe that being baptized with water is anything more than symbolism.

A more careful study of the word “baptize” reveals that this is exactly the case.

The more broad meaning of the word “baptize” is “to identify with.”

Hence, people who were baptized by John the Baptist were identifying with him. As a way to demonstrate publicly that they agreed with John’s preaching, they took the step to be baptized by him, thus identifying themselves with his core message of repentance. One might think of it as an initiation.

Jesus’ baptism is not one that is associated with water but the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit means that the person now identifies with the Holy Spirit and thus is now a member of God’s family.

The apostles were all first identified with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. They were “baptized” by the Spirit and “initiated” into the body of Christ, the family of God.

The question for us is when is the believer first associated with the Holy Spirit? Is it at the moment of being baptized with water, as Mormons and some Protestants claim? If that is the case, then we can affirm that water baptism is indeed necessary for salvation.

But Scripture tells us otherwise. Most notably, Paul, in Ephesians 1:13, says that the Holy Spirit is given to the Christian as a seal at the moment of belief, NOT at the moment of being immersed in water. I wrote about this aspect of the Holy Spirit in my blog post, “The Holy Spirit as a Seal.”

So then, if water baptism is not essential for savlation, what is the purpose? Why do it?

Like a lot of things in Scripture, water baptism is a physical representation of a spiritual reality.

In Scripture, water is often a symbol of the Holy Spirit. In John 7:37-39, Jesus addresses the crowds and tells them that if anyone is thirsty, they should come to Him and drink and streams of living water would flow from within them. The text follows by explaining that Jesus was talking about the Holy Spirit.

So the act of being baptized with water is simply an act whereby the believer is attesting to the fact that they now identify with Jesus and are a part of His family. The qualifying characteristic of being a part of the family of Jesus is that you must have the Holy Spirit. The believer, in being baptized with water, is making a declaration of faith – that they now have placed their trust in Christ and as a result, they have received the promised Holy Spirit and have been placed into the family of God.

So let’s circle back to our original question: “Is baptism necessary for salvation?” The answer is that it depends on what you’re referring to when you talk about baptism.

If you are asking whether a person needs to be baptized with water in order to be saved, the answer from Scripture is clearly NO.

But if you understand baptism to be an identification and union with the Holy Spirit, then the answer is YES, you absolutely must be SPIRITUALLY baptized in order to be saved, for one cannot be saved unless they become a member of the family of God and the prerequisite to becoming a member of the family of God IS receiving the Holy Spirit, which, according to Scripture, occurs the moment a person puts their faith in Jesus.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What has been your experience with baptism? What comes to your mind when you hear the word “baptize”?

What do you think is the purpose of baptism? If you have been baptized, how did you interpret that experience in terms of its meaning?

Would you agree that Jesus’ baptism is greater than and more important than John’s baptism? 

If Jesus’ baptism is more important that John’s baptism, then they must be different in some way. What do you think are the differences between these two kinds of baptism?

If the purpose of water baptism is to save people, then why do you think Jesus was baptized by John? Clearly Jesus didn’t need to be saved.

 

Photo by Paul Ndayambaje: https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-man-in-a-blue-dress-is-in-the-water-28181227/

Posted on

What is the Significance of the “Sign of Jonah?”

Luke 11

29As the crowd pressed in on Jesus, he said, “These are evil times, and this evil generation keeps asking me to show them a miraculous sign. But the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah. 30What happened to him was a sign to the people of Nineveh that God had sent him. What happens to me will be a sign that God has sent me, the Son of Man, to these people.

31“The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here—and you refuse to listen to him. 32The people of Nineveh, too, will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. And now someone greater than Jonah is here—and you refuse to repent. (Luke 11:29-32, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In this passage of Scripture, Jesus is responding to “others” from Luke 11:16 who were trying to test Jesus by asking “for a miraculous sign from heaven to see if he was from God.”

A similar incident occurs in Matthew 16, which I wrote about here. The summary in that passage as in this passage, is that Jesus says that those who demand a sign are evil. This is because all of the evidence needed to determine that Jesus is from God has already been given. I unpack this more in my blog post “When Someone DEMANDS Evidence!”

What’s interesting to me about this passage in Luke is what Jesus says about Jonah that is not in the Matthew passage.

Jesus says that “What happened to him [Jonah] was a sign to the people of Nineveh that God had sent him.”

I’ve read this statement from Jesus hundreds of times without realizing the significance of what Jesus is saying here.

So what’s he saying? Why is this significant?

Coincidentally, my men’s group just recently went through a short Bible study on the book of Jonah, which is only 4 chapters long with a total of 48 verses.

Click here to see a A Comprehensive List of Blog Posts Based on Bible Passage Reference

The summary of Jonah is as follows:

God tells Jonah to go to Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire, and announce God’s judgment against the city.

Jonah rebels against God’s directive and flees by getting on a ship that is headed in the opposite direction from Nineveh.

God gets Jonah’s attention by causing a great storm that threatens the safety of those on the ship and Jonah gets thrown overboard by the other passengers as a way to quell the storm and save themselves.

As a result of the storm abating, these passengers, who all worshiped pagan gods, end up worshipping Yahweh and making vows to Him.

Jonah gets saved from drowning by being swallowed by a big fish. He’s in the belly of the fish for 3 days before being spit up on some unknown beach.

Some time after this (we don’t know how long exactly), God tells Jonah once again to go to Nineveh and announce God’s judgment against the city.

This time Jonah complies.

When he gets to Nineveh, Jonah once again announces God’s judgment with a very brief message.

The text of Jonah 3 says that the whole city repented, including the king. I’ve always thought their response was interesting and out of character given the haughty and braggadocious attitude of the Assyrians. At the time, the Assyrians were the biggest baddest dudes on the block and were  not afraid of any foreign deities or any other regional powers.

2 Kings 18 gives the account of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, in which Sennacherib’s representative said:

“Listen to this message from the great king of Assyria! 29This is what the king says: Don’t let King Hezekiah deceive you. He will never be able to rescue you from my power. 30Don’t let him fool you into trusting in the LORD by saying, ‘The LORD will rescue us! This city will never be handed over to the Assyrian king.’

. . . .

“Don’t listen to Hezekiah when he tries to mislead you by saying, ‘The LORD will rescue us!’ 33Have the gods of any other nations ever saved their people from the king of Assyria? 34What happened to the gods of Hamath and Arpad? And what about the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Did they rescue Samaria from my power? 35What god of any nation has ever been able to save its people from my power? Name just one! So what makes you think that the LORD can rescue Jerusalem?” (2 Kings 18:28-30, 32-35, NLT)

The Assyrians were certainly NOT afraid of the God of Israel. To them, Yahweh was as weak as every other regional deity.

So how is it that in the account of Jonah, the Assyrians are so quick to repent?

Jesus’ words in Luke 11 give us additional insight as Jesus says that what happened to Jonah was a sign to the people of Nineveh that God had sent him.

Did you catch that?

The Assyrians had already heard of what happened to Jonah by the time he arrives with his message of impending doom. Somehow, the ordeal on the boat, in which Jonah’s God, Yahweh, had immediately calmed the storm, got back to the Assyrians. It seems most likely that the other passengers on that boat, the ones who ended up worshipping Yahweh and making vows to Him, told their story and the word quickly spread.

This scenario reminds me of the Israelite’s deliverance from slavery to the Egyptians, in which God not only demonstrated His power and sovereignty through the various plagues, but who also delivered the Israelites by parting the Red Sea while destroying the Egyptian army who attempted to follow.

When the Israelites finally arrived at the edge of the promised land, the multiple nations they would eventually displace had all heard of God’s great acts of deliverance, causing the Israelites to be greatly feared.

Tha Assyrians had gotten word about this powerful God, so much so that when Jonah finally arrives on the scene, he needs no introduction and barely has to say a word to convince the Assyrians that God means business.

The result is that this world empire that had seen themselves as invincible, were now on their knees begging the God of the universe not to bring impending disaster upon them.

Jonah’s rebellion led to a divine encounter for a group of pagan seafarers, whose story got back to the very nation Jonah was supposed to warn. So when Jonah finally gets to the destination to which God had sent him, the people are amazingly ready to respond.

Jesus’ message to those who want a sign is this: the Assyrians heard about Jonah so that when Jonah showed up, they knew he had been sent by God.

In the same way, what happened to Jesus would be THE sign that Jesus was sent by God.

What was it that happened to Jesus?

He was crucified and dramatically rose from the dead.

If the resurrection is not enough evidence for someone who demands a sign to know if Jesus really was sent by God, then no amount of evidence will do.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Are you a person who needs evidence, or a sign that Jesus is God? If so, what evidence would convince you?

Why do you think Jesus says that people who require a sign are part of “this evil generation?”

Many people have a hard time believing the story of Jonah, particularly the part where he is swallowed by a great fish. How does Jesus mentioning Jonah in this Luke passage add credibility to the story of Jonah?

Jesus says that He is greater than Jonah and yet people refuse to listen to Him. Why do you think people refuse to listen to Jesus? What steps can you take to ensure that you don’t stop listening to Jesus?

 

Photo by Francesco Ungaro: https://www.pexels.com/photo/majestic-whale-tail-above-ocean-waters-34392859/

Posted on

How Can Other “Christians” be Enemies?

Ezra 4

1The enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard that the exiles were rebuilding a Temple to the LORD, the God of Israel. 2So they approached Zerubbabel and the other leaders and said, “Let us build with you, for we worship your God just as you do. We have sacrificed to him ever since King Esarhaddon of Assyria brought us here.”

3But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the other leaders of Israel replied, “You may have no part in this work, for we have nothing in common. We alone will build the Temple for the LORD, the God of Israel, just as King Cyrus of Persia commanded us.”

4Then the local residents tried to discourage and frighten the people of Judah to keep them from their work. 5They bribed agents to work against them and to frustrate their aims. This went on during the entire reign of King Cyrus of Persia and lasted until King Darius of Persia took the throne. (Ezra 4:1-5, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

This passage in Ezra 4 describes an interesting scenario. Some locals who claim to worship the same God as the Israelites do come to the leaders in charge of rebuilding the temple and offer to help. Yet the first verse describes them as “enemies” of Judah and Benjamin.

What in the world is going on?

Can’t we all just get along?

For the sake of unity and harmony, shouldn’t we agree to partner with those who claim allegiance to the same God we do?

On the surface, it makes logical sense to affirm those who invoke the name of Jesus or who claim that they worship the same God we do.

The problem though is that invoking the name of Jesus or saying that we affirm the same God doesn’t mean that our beliefs are in alignment. In fact, it’s possible, even likely, that they aren’t.

In this passage, we learn that the Jewish exiles were in the process of rebuilding the Temple.

To understand what is really happening, let’s take a moment to review how the Israelites got to this particular moment in time.

The Israelites had been warned by God over and over again that disobedience to Him and continued idolatry would incur severe consequences in the form of being conquered by rival nations.

God made due on His promise as the Israelites, the Northern Kingdom, were conquered and subdued by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. Likewise, Judah, the Southern Kingdom, was conquered and exiled by the Babylonians in 586 BC.

What happened when a nation like Israel was conquered was a systematic process of acculturation. Large numbers of the conquered nations’ citizens were typically transported to the conqueror’s country, where they were dispersed and expected to assimilate into the dominant culture of the conquering nation. In this case, large numbers of Jews were transported to Assyria, where they became exiles living in a foreign land.

At the same time, citizens of the conquering nation were encouraged to relocate into the land of the conquered nation, thus bringing that culture into the new province of the conquering nation. In this scenario, Assyrian citizens were relocated to Israel, where they brought their customs and their religious beliefs.

The net result was the slow erasure of the conquered nation’s culture in favor of the conquering nation’s culture.

So when Israelite exiles were finally allowed to return to their homeland, they find it populated with Assyrians who had moved there to occupy the land. These Assyrians were not worshipers of Yahweh, at least not exclusively.

So when Ezra references, “the enemies of Judah and Benjamin”, he’s talking about these Assyrian transplants who have been living in the land but who are not native to the area, and who do not reflect Jewish culture.

But don’t these Assyrians worship Yahweh now? After all, don’t they “worship your God just as you do”?

This is the claim, right? They claim that they worship Yahweh and that they also sacrifice to Him. Doesn’t that make them fellow God-fearers? What would be the harm then in partnering with them to rebuild the temple? Shouldn’t we work with those who share our interests?

Notice that in the first verse, these Assyrians are described as “enemies of Judah and Benjamin”.

Here’s the important point: just because someone says they worship the same God as you doesn’t mean that their views are in alignment with yours. Additionally, it doesn’t mean that their intentions and their ultimate allegiance is the same as yours.

This is extremely relevant in our own culture, where the label “Christian” gets thrown around so much that it’s almost cliche.

Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn’t mean that their understanding of what it means to be a Christian is biblical. Furthermore, just because a person says they believe, or “respect” Jesus, doesn’t mean that their view of Jesus is biblical and in alignment with what the Christian church has traditionally believed and taught.

We are seeing this play out first hand in Texas, where a young congressman, James Talarico, is running for U.S. Senate. Talarico claims to be a Christian but when you evaluate his theological positions, it’s clear that his version of Christianity is progressive, not orthodox.

What that means is that even though he identifies as Christian, and he says that he follows the teachings of Jesus, it’s clear that his understanding of Christianity and Jesus is not in alignment with traditional, biblical teachings.

Talarico has made a number of statements that demonstrate that his version of Christianity is actually not Christian at all. Foremost is his belief that Jesus is not the only way to salvation and that other religions are equally valid representations of God.

I don’t mean to pick on Talarico. He is just a prominent example of a growing strain of Christianity that is not actually Christian. This ideology has hijacked the name and terms of Christianity to promote its own evil, anti-biblical views in an effort to mainstream them within the culture.

Progressive Christianity is just one example of an ideology that uses the names and terms of Christianity in ways that aren’t actually Christian.

So when someone says they are a Christian, or they say that they like Jesus or even that they follow Jesus, that doesn’t automatically mean they believe what the Bible teaches on these matters. It could simply mean that they have adopted the culture’s views of Jesus and Christianity.

We would be wise to explore their views further before aligning ourselves with those who are actually opposed to the work of God. We might find, just as Ezra did, that when it comes to the work of God, “we have nothing in common.”

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What clues from this passage affirm the fact that these Assyrians truly were “enemies of Judah and Benjamin”?

If these Assyrians living in Jerusalem truly did worship and sacrifice to Yahweh, why do you think they would try to frustrate the building of the Temple?

What are some examples in your own experience where someone claims to have the same views and values as you regarding Jesus, the Bible and Christianity, but it becomes clear from their actions that they are actually “enemies of God.”

Are there any circumstances where we as Christians might align ourselves and partner with those who are not Christians? What guidelines or principles might help you determine when and when not to partner with those who don’t share your faith?

 

“Image by Grok / xAI”
Posted on

What Does it Mean to Bear Fruit that Lasts?

John 15

16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit]—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:16-17, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Lately I’ve been giving a lot of thought to what makes a ministry effective – what it means to bear fruit.

Within our own ministry with Cru and certainly within the church where we’re involved, there’s a lot of ministry activity. Meetings, events, campaigns and lots of talk of growth and numbers. Statistics. Charts.

It’s all good stuff. I’m not complaining. I know that for every number, there’s a person whose life has been impacted. It’s good and appropriate to celebrate success and all that the Lord has done.

However, I sometimes wonder if Jesus’ own ministry might be considered an abject failure when evaluated by modern church growth strategies and metrics.

After all, though Jesus preached to the masses, he had a relatively small following of just over 100 men (and some women too), with only 12 men in his inner circle.

One of those 12 men betrayed Jesus, leading to His arrest and crucifixion, while the rest of His disciples ALL deserted Him when He was in His darkest hour.

I’m not sure Jesus’ ministry looked “fruitful” to the modern evangelical church.

However, in John 15:16, Jesus said to his disciples,

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last.”

It seems that “fruit” is evaluated not by its immediate result, but its lasting impact.

A few months back, I took a trip to Northern California to visit friends and ministry partners, many of whom are former students from our many years of campus ministry.

One of my first meet-ups was with Eric and Lane, two friends and former students from our early years at San Jose State.

Lane (left) and Eric (center) were a part of small groups I led way back in my early years with Cru at San Jose State University.

Eric was one of the first students I ever met when I arrived at San Jose State University as a new Campus Crusdae for Christ staff member. He wasn’t a believer but soon placed his faith in Christ and, like Lane, has been on a trajectory of growth for the last 37 years. Both of these men are exhibiting enduring faith, walking with Christ even in the midst of unbelievably challenging life circumstances.

Mike got involved with Cru at UC Davis when we were just starting out and maybe had 5 students.He was a gifted leader and an amazing guitar player who had a heart for worship.

Mike was one of the first few students to get involved with Cru when we started the ministry at UC Davis nearly 30 years ago

Mike had a crazy vision to put a worship band together when we had only 15 students. It didn’t make sense to me at the time, but we went with it and that act of faith was highly “instrumental” (do you see what I did there?) in our ability to attract students and expose them to our vision.

That launched us on a growth trajectory that helped us grow our ministry from those original 5 students to over 300 in a decade. The fruit from those years is still having an impact today.

Now, almost 30 years later, Mike is still walking with Christ and leading worship at his church while exhibiting enduring faith.

At the close of my trip, I met with Sean, another one of those early students at UC Davis when we were just starting out.

Sean was one of our first students involved with Cru at UC Davis when we started the ministry there. After graduating, he spent 20+ years as a missionary in the Middle East before returning recently to the states with his family.

Sean was one of the first students from our ministry to heed the call to missionary service, spending 20+ years as a missionary to the Middle East before recently being called to return home with his family.

Sean, like these other men, is an example of the lasting fruit that Jesus referenced in John 15:16.

In a culture where so many are deconstructing their faith, leaving the church, or inventing a “new and enlightened” path wrapped in a thin Christian veneer, enduring faith is a faith that keeps going year after year, trial after trial, faithfully serving, trusting, staying true to the gospel and impacting others in small and often unnoticed ways.

This is fruit that lasts!

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

The post takes the position that “fruit that lasts” is enduring faith. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not? If you disagree, how would you define or describe “fruit that lasts”?

What are some examples in your own life of “fruit that lasts”?

If Jesus has appointed us to bear fruit that lasts, which is likened to faith that endures trials, struggles and the demands of life over time, what practical implications does that have for the way we do ministry and the way we evaluate fruitfulness?

What do you think the church (people) should do or could do in order to ensure that we are bearing fruit that lasts? In other words, if we’re called to bear fruit that lasts, how do you think we (the church) do that? 

 

Photo by jose alfonso sierra on Unsplash

Posted on

Can Christians Pray Directly to Jesus or Only God the Father?

Acts 7

51“You stubborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit? But your ancestors did, and so do you! 52Name one prophet your ancestors didn’t persecute! They even killed the ones who predicted the coming of the Righteous One—the Messiah whom you betrayed and murdered. 53You deliberately disobeyed God’s law, though you received it from the hands of angels. ”

54The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists in rage. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 56And he told them, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!”

57Then they put their hands over their ears, and drowning out his voice with their shouts, they rushed at him. 58They dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. The official witnesses took off their coats and laid them at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59And as they stoned him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60And he fell to his knees, shouting, “Lord, don’t charge them with this sin!” And with that, he died. (Acts 7:51-60, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Last week on X (formerly Twitter), I saw an exchange that made me think. A pastor with a very large following was calling out a well-known politician who claims to be a Christian for the way he prayed.

Attached to the post was a screenshot of the text of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6, along with the following admonition:

Someone should tell (name of politician) that Christians don’t pray to Jesus. We pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus.

My first thought was disappointment at the realization that we now appear to have an online Prayer Police force that is monitoring our actions over the internet.

My second thought was, “Wait, I pray to Jesus all the time. Have I been doing it wrong all these years? Have I been participating in a doctrinally dubious practice?”

It’s a valid question. How exactly are we to pray? Is there a right and wrong format? What are God’s expectations of us as we seek to engage with Him in the practice of prayer?

I’ve been a Christian for a looooong time and I’ve honestly never thought that a person could NOT pray directly to Jesus. After all, when I first heard the gospel as a young boy, I was told that Jesus was standing at the door of my heart and he was knocking (Revelation 3:20). If I was listening to his voice and if I opened the door, he would come into my life! In short, if I responded to Jesus, IN PRAYER, and invited him in, I would become a Christian and receive the gift of eternal life.

I’ve heard many prayers over the years where Jesus was addressed directly and I’ve never, even once, seen or heard someone be corrected for directing their prayers to Jesus, if this is indeed a wrong practice.

I suppose that’s why this post on X, from a pastor with a large following, and a PhD no less, seemed to be coming out of left field.

Disregarding the tone and posture of the tweet, which came off as more sanctimonious rebuke than loving correction, I found myself asking the question, “is he correct?”

The disciples had asked Jesus to teach them to pray. Jesus responded by telling them:

9“Pray, then, in this way:

‘Our Father who is in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

10‘Your kingdom come.

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven.

11‘Give us this day our daily bread.

12‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

13‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.]’ (Matthew 6:9-13, NASB)

I decided to survey the prayers in the New Testament that I was aware of, mostly from the book of Acts.

What I found is that most of the prayers ARE directed to God the Father and NOT Jesus, EXCEPT this one example that we find from Stephen in our passage today.

We first meet Stephen in Acts 6 when he is selected, along with six other men, for the special task of meeting a critical need in the early church. These seven men were the first deacons of the church. The text says that Stephen was a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit. He was not a man of marginal commitment or questionable devotion. He walked with God.

By the end of chapter 6, Stephen is no longer serving as an administrator in the church’s food distribution program, but instead, he is having a major impact as an evangelistic preacher. Stephen’s influence had increased significantly and he was now a major leader in the early church movement.

One day, Stephen gets into a debate with some Jews and the text says that:

None of them was able to stand against the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke. (Acts 6:10, NLT)

They couldn’t defeat his arguments so they found some people to lie about him and he was arrested by the religious rulers and brought before the high council. The Council leaders ask Stephen to respond to the charges that had been brought against him. His response is recorded in Acts 7, which is a lengthy discourse on the history of the Jewish people, including their long-standing pattern of rebelling against God and resisting God’s appointed messengers (His prophets).

For brevity, I haven’t included the full text of that response (Acts 7 in its entirety), but it’s worth the read. For our purposes, I’ve included the relevant part at the end of Acts 7 where Stephen shifts his response from explaining the history of the nation of Israel to his indictment on its leaders for their pride and rebellion.

You can see that the Council leaders and its members don’t take too kindly to Stephen’s accusation and the result is that they dragged Stephen out of the city and stoned him.

What is interesting about this text is that Stephen, as he is being stoned, looks up toward heaven and he prays!

What does he pray?

“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59)

Stephen, a man who the text says was filled with the Spirit, prayed to Jesus, not the Father.

To me, this provided indisputable proof that it must be ok to direct our prayers to Jesus and not God the Father only.

So I responded to the pastor’s post on X by saying that praying to Jesus must be ok because we have an example in the New Testament with Stephen praying directly to Jesus.

The pastor replied to my response, doubling down by saying:

That was descriptive, not prescriptive.

What does that mean?

He’s actually correct. What that means is that the book of Acts is historical narrative, not didactic teaching. That means that Luke (the author of Acts) was simply recording things that happened. Just because he recorded an event does not mean that what is recorded is supposed to be the normal pattern for all believers.

But Jesus’ words in Matthew 6 are direct teaching. He is instructing us in what to do and how to do it.

So what this pastor was saying in his reply is that just because Stephen is recorded as praying to Jesus doesn’t mean we are supposed to, especially since Jesus’ prayer instruction shows the prayer addressing “our Father”.

So yes, it’s true. Jesus’ teaching is prescriptive, explaining to his disciples how we should pray. And the example of Stephen is descriptive. It’s part of a larger narrative that just describes an event. It’s not part of a passage that is teaching us how to pray.

Does that mean that the pastor’s assertion that we are only to pray to God the Father is correct? Is that the end of the discussion?

Not exactly.

While Jesus teaches the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6 (and Luke 11), his teaching is not an exhaustive discourse on the subject of prayer. In other words, even though Jesus gives some teaching on prayer in these passages, what he says is not ALL there is to know and learn about prayer.

To make a determination of whether it’s ok to pray to Jesus directly, consider the following:

    • Jesus tells his disciples to pray “in this way”, and then he shares the Lord’s prayer. Does this mean that ALL prayers must repeat these words exactly? If so, why do we never see this exact prayer repeated in the New Testament?
    • Jesus gives his disciples a model, or example of how to pray, which includes addressing “our Father”. Does this mean that a person can never pray to Jesus? What about the Holy Spirit? Can you call on the Holy Spirit?
    • If we are not allowed to pray to Jesus, how are we supposed to respond to Him if he is at the door of our heart knocking? How exactly do we invite Him in?
    • If Jesus promises to come in and dine with us and have fellowship with us, how exactly do we have fellowship with someone we are not supposed to talk (pray) to directly?
    • It’s clear that Jesus is our High priest. The role of a priest is a mediator. Jesus is the mediator between us and holy God. It’s because of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the cross that we are able to boldly approach the throne of grace and enter the presence of God the Father. Are we really supposed to believe that Jesus is the mediator between man and God but we are not allowed to talk to him directly?

The whole premise seems a bit absurd. Based on all of the relevant data, it seems clear that while Jesus does instruct his followers to pray to God the Father, there is never a prohibition for believers to address Jesus directly.

It seems clear that because Jesus is our mediator and he is the one knocking at the door of our heart, wanting to come into our lives, that we CAN address him directly.

Furthermore, we have a documented case where a godly, Spirit-filled leader of the early church  (Stephen) addresses Jesus directly. There is no indication, anywhere in scripture, that this is somehow wrong.

One last item is worth mentioning. In the final words of the New Testament, John, in the book of Revelation, pens these words:

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20, NLT)

If the apostle John finds that it’s ok to pray to Jesus, inviting him to “come”, then I’d say that it’s ok for any of us to address our prayers to Jesus as well.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

What would your response have been to this pastor who posted on X? How would you have either affirmed his position or argued against it?

What has been your pattern in prayer? Do you think it’s ok to pray directly to Jesus or should Christians pray ONLY to God the Father? What is the reasoning for your answer?

How have you used the Lord’s Prayer in your walk with Christ? Do you believe that Jesus taught that the Lord’s prayer was THE way to pray – that it is the ONLY pattern for praying? 

What do you think it means that Jesus is our high priest? What is the role of a priest? How do we interact with a priest or mediator?

 

Photo by Brian Lundquist on Unsplash

Posted on

What Does it Mean to Have Eternal Life?

John 17

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.  2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

An overwhelming number of people in the U.S. believe in an afterlife. According to a major Pew research study in 2023-24 and released in 2025, 70% of Americans believe there is, or there probably is an afterlife.

If there really is an afterlife, what does it look like and, more importantly, how do we experience it?

Christianity teaches that after people die physically, they experience either eternal life or eternal death.

But what exactly is eternal life?

I’ve asked hundreds, if not thousands of people that exact question over the course of my years in ministry and the most common answer I received is that eternal life is “living forever after you die”.

Now that’s obvious isn’t it? The word “eternal” means “forever” and “life” is the opposite of “death” so it kind of seems obvious that “eternal life” must be “living forever” because that’s exactly what the words mean.

Many people are surprised to learn, however, that Jesus actually defined eternal life and his definition doesn’t exactly line up with our traditional understanding of the term.

Most people think of eternal life as something you receive AFTER you die, like going to heaven.

But Jesus defined eternal life as something you can have NOW and then it continues on into eternity.

In John 17:3, Jesus defined eternal life as knowing God – having a relationship with Him. Hence, eternal life is beginning a relationship with Jesus now, on earth, so that when you die, you will live with Him for eternity.

This distinction might seem insignificant but it’s actually quite important.

If eternal life is just going to heaven when I die, then it’s not necessarily something I need to worry about until later in life.

But if eternal life is a relationship with God – something I can experience NOW, then waiting to receive eternal life will result in me missing out on a relationship with God.

Jesus didn’t go to the cross and die for us just so we could go to heaven after we die. Jesus died on the cross to give us LIFE….NOW!

Jesus wants us to know Him and that’s something we can begin to experience now in this life. Knowing Jesus simply means responding to the invitation of forgiveness that He offers through His death on the cross for us.

When we respond to Jesus’ invitation, Jesus comes into our lives and we become adopted sons and daughters in His family.

At that moment, our real life begins. This relationship with Jesus is permanent and never-ending.

Do you want to experience eternal life? You don’t have to wait until you die to experience it. You can experience eternal life right now, simply by entering into a relationship with Jesus, which simply requires that you put your trust in Him.

For more information on what it means to begin a relationship with Jesus, read the short article “FOUR POINTS TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO EXPERIENCE ETERNAL LIFE”.

 

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

 

Reflection

Before reading this short post, what was your understanding of “eternal life”? How did you define it?

Most people think of eternal life as going to heaven after you die. But Jesus defined eternal life as knowing God and having a relationship with Jesus? How does this difference impact you? In what ways does this change or impact your desire to have eternal life?

On a scale of 0-100 (0 being no desire and 100 being the highest level of desire possible), how would you rate your desire to know God? What factors caused you to choose the number that you did?

On that same scale of 0-100, what do you think is God’s desire for you to know Him?

What would keep you from putting your faith in Jesus and beginning a relationship with Him?

 

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash