Truth Magazine

By Jeffrey Asher

Very few realize there exists a special relationship between the shed blood of Jesus Christ and baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. That such a relationship exists was established by the apostle Paul in Romans chapter 6: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not I How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?”

Blood In God’s Redemption Plan

In God’s unfolding scheme or plan of redemption, blood has always had a special significance. In all dispensations, under all covenants, God has allowed blood to procure the expiation of sin, that is, release from the penalty due for sin. The Scripture says: “almost all things are by the law purged with blood: and without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). Blood has sin cleansing power because a sacrifice of blood is actually a sacrifice of life, and death is the penalty for sin; the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Moses commanded, “Only be sure that you eat not the blood: for the blood is the life, and you may not eat the life with the flesh” (Deut. 12:23). Now, not just any blood can expiate sin. Even the blood of the bulls and goats offered in sacrifice to God lacked real sin cleansing ability, “for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). No, these animal sacrifices were types or representations of the atoning sacrifice Christ would make. Only his blood can take away sins (Heb. 10: 18). In Scripture Jesus is called “the lamb of God” (John 1:29), “our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7,8), and “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth” (Rev. 13:8). Jesus is readily described by New Testament writers as our expiating sacrifice for sin.

Blood Must Be Applied

In order for the blood to “cleanse,” it was necessary that it be applied to the supplicant for whom the sacrifice was made. There are numerous Old Testament examples of this; however, let us consider only these three.

First, blood was applied to the house of Israel at the first Passover (Exod. 12:13). “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.” Observe, that it was essential that the blood be upon the houses. Those houses which did not have blood applied to their lintels and door posts would not be protected from the plague of the death of the first born. God only passed over those houses where he saw the blood.

Second, blood was applied to the house of Israel when God made his covenant with them (Exod. 24:6-8). “And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, all that the Lord has said will we do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words.” Here we see that before Israel could be God’s covenant people they had to be sanctified with the blood of the covenant. Their relationship to God was sealed with his blood.

Third, the priests of the Tabernacle worship were consecrated by the application of blood (Exod. 29:20). “Then you shall kill the ram, and take his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.” As before these individuals could not be set aside in the priesthood until they had the blood of the offering applied to them.

Water Baptism: When Jesus’ Blood Is Applied

These three illustrations should establish that there was always the application of the blood of the offering to those who offered the sacrifice. Even now the blood of Christ must be applied to sinners who seek the forgiveness of their sins today. “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, . . . purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:13,14)

Unlike the examples we have given from the Old Testament the application of the blood of Jesus is not a literal application. However, the Scriptures teach that saints are washed in this blood. “[Jesus Christ] loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Rev. 1:5). We must determine where and how the blood is applied to sinners in order to make them “clean.”

When we read the New Testament we find that just as the blood of the Passover was applied to the house of Israel, so the blood of our Passover, Christ, has been applied to God’s House, the church (1 Tim. 3:15). Paul told the Ephesian elders: “. . . shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Also, we read that just as Israel was sprinkled with the blood of Moses’ covenant before they were God’s people, so today, we are sprinkled with the blood of the New Covenant (Matt. 26:28). “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, . . . let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:19, 22). Finally, we noticed that priests were set aside for service by the blood. Today, Christians, God’s holy priesthood and kingdom of priests, are set aside by Jesus’ blood (1 Pet. 2:5; Rev. 1:5,6). “In as much as you know that you are not redeemed with corruptible things, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Somehow and somewhere the blood of Jesus is applied to sinners seeking salvation. I submit that the Scriptures teach the blood of Christ is applied to sinners in baptism, and that this is what the apostle Paul had in mind in Romans 6:3 when he said we are “baptized into [Christ’s] death.”

Baptism is designed to change our relationship to Christ. Baptism changes our relationship by bringing us into Christ. Before baptism we are aliens, outside of the realm of the blessings for the saved (Eph. 1:3), but after baptism we are in Christ where the blessings can be had. “For you are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27). Again, baptism changes our relationship by bringing us into the body of Christ from outside the body of Christ, which is the church (Col. 1:18). “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13).

Baptism carries the believer to where remission of sins is found.

Baptism into Christ’s death enables us reach the blood of his cross (John 19:34). Baptism is God’s operation of washing us in the blood of the Lamb and cleansing us of our sins (Col. 2:12,13). “[You] were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses. . . . ” How much clearer can it be? God forgives men of their sins when they obey his command for baptism.

Let us examine one case of conversion and determine when and where God washed our sins in Jesus’ blood. In Acts chapter 9 we read of Saul’s conversion. On the road to Damascus the Lord Jesus appeared to him and said, “Go into the city and there it shall be told you what you must do. . . ” (Acts 9:6). There Saul fasted and prayed three days waiting to be told what to do. Finally, Ananias, a gospel preacher, came and asked him, “Saul, why are you waiting, get up and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Now, when was Saul washed in the blood of the lamb of God? When he got up and was baptized.

Friend, today you too can be saved from your sins. All you need do is come in faith, turning from your sins unto God, and be baptized. Christ will save you and God will add you to his church.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, pp. 460-461
August 6, 1987

By Ray Votaw

Yes, I know this is a very discouraging maze of material to read through but it will thrill you and motivate you. Please take the time to “wade through it.” For years those of us in South Africa who have stood against the encroaching apostasy of brethren in regard to the work and organization of the church have heard: “Yes, but this is only happening in the U.S.A.” For this reason my attitude toward these apostasies has always been, “what thou doest, do quickly” (Jn. 13:27) – so that “they which are approved may be made manifest” (1 Cor. 11:19). Now this blatant “take over” bid by the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, Texas in response to their fear of “Crossroadism” has presented sound brethren with a unique and thrilling situation for the gospel in Southern Africa. Brethren, for the sake of the cause of Christ in this part of the world Conrad Steyn and George Harris need your support – now! Although there are scores of faithful churches among all race groups here in the Traansvaal Province there are only 3 or 4 struggling groups in the whole of the Cape Province which is over twice the size of Texas. These two men who have completely and publicly renounced “liberalism” have had a hand in establishing and encouraging some 25 churches in the greater Cape Town metropolitan area. Already some 30 members are standing for the truth with these 2 preachers as the Constantia Church of Christ. Many South Africa churches have helped Conrad and George financially on a temporary basis. But the truth is that churches in this country are really pressed in the preacher support they are already providing and the benevolent work they are having to do because of the financial climate here – due to disinvestment, international boycotts, etc.

Conrad Steyn and George Harris need to be “on the road” right now in salvaging the souls of those who know them best. Brethren, if you know anything at all about me you should know my reluctance over the years to raise American support for South African preachers. This has got to be a special case for me to make this appeal. When Conrad saw that I was agonizing about this matter he said, “Don’t worry, my brother; they can grind me into dust and starve my family but I will never go back to this rubbish by way of apostasy.” I truly believe he meant what he said.

These men need around $2,000 each per month to enable them to freely do the work which needs to be done. Please examine your finances carefully and prayerfully and strive to help sound brethren in South Africa “strike while the iron is hot.” Any amount sent on a one time basis or regularly will be that much toward a very worthwhile goal in our part of the world.

I have in my possession tape recordings, transcripts, business meeting notes, etc. to well document all that you will find in this material. The repercussions have already begun here in South Africa and we already have more in contact with us about these matters than any of us have been able to follow up. Again, please help us keep these two good men in “harness.”

I have collaborated on this matter with the other sound preachers in this country – Doug Bauer, David Beckley, Basil Cass, Hendrick Joubert, Piet Joubert, Les Maydell, Eric Reed and Paul Williams – and they concur with me in this action. Also, I might mention in passing that both of these men, Conrad and George, from a strictly scholastic standpoint, hold Doctorate degrees.

Statement From Steyn and Harris

We would like to state as briefly and yet as fully as necessary that we have, unwittingly at times, been “caught up” in much error as regards the work and organization of the Lord’s church. We must state that much of our error has been by associations, yet we recognize now that our practice at many times did not measure up to our teaching. By this association we have espoused and promoted the “sponsoring church” arangement, “institutionalism” and certain aspects of the social gospel. After a recent traumatic experience with the blatant violation of our church automony here in Cape Town by the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, Texas, after much general soul searching, after much fervent prayer and after extensive study and discussion with brother Ray Votaw, our error is apparent and we freely acknowledge such. The “sponsoring church” practice violates New Testament teaching on local church autonomy. “Institutionalism” is a slap in the face to the sufficiency of God’s organization – the local church. True New Testament “fellowship” is a relation enjoyed by faithful brethren in accomplishing God’s eternal purpose in the church,. and this fellowship excludes church sponsored recreation and using the church’s money for those other than qualified needy saints.

Our beloved brethren, we have repented of any and all contributions we have made to those errors in our association and teaching and have asked God for forgiveness. We’re asking you as faithful brethren to forgive us, and we covet your prayers on our behalf that we might use the further years of our lives in proclaiming the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Conrad D. Steyn

P.O. Box 133, Rondebosch

Cape 7700

South Africa

Phone: (021) 65-7545

George Harris

P.O. Box 300,Steenberg

Cape 7947

South Africa

Phone: (021) 75-7262

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 464
August 6, 1987

By Mike Willis

The crucifixion of Jesus caused all of Jesus’ disciples to scatter like sheep without a shepherd. During these final days, two of the apostles were particularly affected. Judas betrayed Jesus, committed suicide and passed into eternal damnation. Jesus said, “Woe unto the man by whom he is betrayed” (Lk. 22:22). Simon Peter also fell during this period when he denied the Lord Jesus.

The Scripture’s comments regarding the sin of Peter are particularly instructive. By his circumstances, I am reminded of the constant danger which sin presents to my soul. Consider the sifting of Simon with me.

On the Thursday night of his betrayal, Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples, instituted the Lord’s supper, washed the saints’ feet, and prayed for them (Jn. 17); he spoke especially to Peter saying,

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me (Lk. 22:31-34).

From what happened to Peter, let us learn these lessons:

I. The Activity of Satan

Jesus said, “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat” (Lk. 22:31). To Jesus, Satan was no mythical creature. He is a real spiritual person working to destroy the souls of men. In Jesus’ own life, he confronted the Devil in the temptations (Matt. 4:1-11); he recognized Satan at work when Peter protested the prophecy of his death. He replied to Peter saying, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23).

Satan was the one who induced Adam and Eve to sin against God in eating of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2-3). He was the one who appeared before God making blasphemous charges against Job (Job 1-2). He has always been the great adversary of man, seeking to persuade him to disobey God.

In Peter’s case, the Lord revealed that Satan desired Simon – he wanted Simon for himself. He wanted to “sift” him as wheat, to see whether he was grain or chaff. No doubt Peter remembered Jesus’ words on this occasion when he wrote, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).

Just as the Devil was active in trying to destroy Peter’s soul, he is trying to destroy my soul. If someone sins against me, he will try to create a spirit of bitterness within me; if my loved one becomes sick and dies, he will try to convince me that God does not care about my circumstances or does not love me; he will try to seduce me with lasciviousness, persuading me to make one compromise after another until my soul is destroyed by worldliness; he will try to get me preoccupied with the cares of this world that he might root God out of my life. Yes, the Devil is working any and every way he can to destroy my soul. What happened to Job and Peter was not unique. The Devil is working in the same fashion with every other Christian.

Being reminded of his activities, let us be vigilant and sober. We face a cunning enemy and need every spiritual advantage to overcome him.

II. Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer For Peter

Jesus told Peter, “I have prayed for thee.” Indeed he had. In his intercessory prayer, he addressed the needs of the apostles.

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. . . . Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. . . . I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil (Jn. 17:9,11-12,15).

I need to remember that Jesus desires my salvation just as much as he desired the salvation of Peter. He is not watching to catch me in sin so that he can get some kind of sadistic glee from casting me into hell. He loves me and desires my salvation.

Heaven only knows the spiritual battles which have been fought for my soul. Satan wants to sift me as wheat. Jesus pleads my case before God. The deciding factor is whether or not my faith fails.

III. Peter’s Sin

A number of things need to be said about Peter’s sin that night. Please consider these with me:

1. Peter’s sin demonstrates the danger of over confidence. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny knowing him that night, Peter affirmed his loyalty. Later in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter slept when Jesus admonished him to watch and pray that he enter not into temptation (Lk. 22:40,45). Peter is an example of the danger of which Paul warned: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

2. Peter’s sin demonstrates the possibility of a Christian failing into sin. Whatever the creeds may say to the contrary, Peter’s sin demonstrates that a child of God may fall into sin. The doctrine of “Christian perfection” or “entire sanctification” as taught by Wesleyan groups is false. The Methodist creed teaches that man’s inherited sinful nature is renewed by the Holy Ghost “whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in his Holy commandments blameless” (Discipline of the Methodist Church 1940, “Of Sanctification”). Regardless of what the creed may read, Peter’s “sanctification” had not and never did progress to the point that he was not tempted to sin; from time to time, he stumbled into sin. Unlike some Wesleyans who say that they go years without sinning, Peter fell into sin. He was not so sanctified that he could not or would not sin. Christians need to remember that the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification is just as dangerous as the Calvinist doctrine of impossibility of apostasy.

3. Peter’s sin demonstrates the possibility of apostasy. Whatever the creeds may say to the contrary, Peter’s sin demonstrates that a child of God can fall from grace. The Calvinist creeds teach that once a child of God is in grace, he is always in grace. Nevertheless, Peter’s sin brought him into disgrace and in danger of eternal damnation. He denied knowing the Lord (Lk. 22:34,57,57,60). Jesus said, “But whosoever (Peter was included in whosoever) shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:28). Peter’s sin, had he not repented of it, would have resulted in Jesus’ denial of him before the Father. One can also see the condition of Peter’s soul by Jesus’ comment: “and when thou art converted” (Lk. 22:32). What kind of soul needs “converted”? A soul which is saved does not need converting. Hence, this statement implies that Peter’s soul was alienated from God, full of guilt, and separated from him by his sin.

4. Peter’s sin demonstrates that sins of weakness bring one’s soul into a state of alienation from God. Peter’s sin was not that of high-handed rebellion. Peter’s intentions were good. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny him before that night was over, Peter protested saying, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death” (Lk. 22:33). That he was sincere is seen by the fact that Peter drew his sword and tried to kill Malchus (Jn. 18:10). Peter knew that he could not overcome the entire band of soldiers sent to arrest Jesus. He was ready to die for him. Yet, later that night when Jesus was being tried, Peter became afraid for his own life and denied knowing Jesus. His was a sin of weakness, not a sin of high-handed rebellion. Nevertheless, his sin alienated him from God.

IV. Peter’s Restoration

Two apostles sinned on the night of Jesus’ betrayal. Judas betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Jews and Peter denied knowing him. Judas was exceedingly sorrowful and, in his deep grief, committed suicide. Peter, on the other hand, exhibited a godly sorrow which brought him to repentance.

At his third denial of Jesus, the cock crowed. From the place where he was standing, he could see Jesus on trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin. When Peter denied him the third time, “the Lord turned, and looked at Peter” (Lk. 22:61). “And Peter remember the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (Lk. 22:61-62). Can you imagine how Peter must have felt when his eyes met the eyes of his Lord?

His sorrow was not a sorrow unto death; rather it was godly sorrow that brought him to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10). Rather than driving him away from God, Peter’s grief for his sin drove him back to God. Consequently, he was anxious to see the resurrected Jesus (Jn. 20:1ff); no doubt, he had a few things he wanted to say to the Lord Jesus. God grant us, when our footsteps slip, the heart to weep such tears as his!

As a result of his own experience, Peter could identify with the sorrow which a penitent erring child of God experiences. He knew exactly what to tell the erring child of God to do in order to obtain the forgiveness of his sin. He did not say, “You need not worry about your sins of weakness because the grace of God continuously cleanses you from all sin.” Rather, when he confronted the young Christian Simon (the sorcerer) who stumbled into sin, Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). I need to follow his example, telling erring Christians to meet the same conditions in order to be forgiven, whether their sins be committed in ignorance, weakness, or high-handed rebellion.

Conclusion

My soul is threatened by the assaults of Satan in the same manner as Peter’s soul was. I sometimes fall into sin just as he did. My faith needs to drive me back in penitence to the Lord to seek his forgiveness, even as Peter’s did. When it does, I will obtain the same forgiveness which Peter found in the grace of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 482, 502-503
August 20, 1987

By Wayne Greeson

James 1:27 each Christian is instructed “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Unfortunately, some have abused this passage in an attempt to justify the church contributing to human benevolent organizations. An even greater problem is the attitude that has resulted from this practice. How many have dropped a dollar in the collection plate thinking, “I have visited those in need,” when they have failed to fulfill the most basic element of “visiting.”

The translation of James’ instruction from the original Greek to English has lost its full meaning and force. When you say today “I’m going to visit,” you usually mean you are going to see someone and chat awhile. But the Greek word episkeptomai, translated “visit” in English, means much more. In Greek to “visit” is “to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes; . . . in order to see how he is, i.e. to visit, go see one: Acts 7:23; 15:36 (Judg. 15:1); the poor and afflicted, Jas. 1:27; the sick, Mt. 25:36, 43 . . . b. Hebraistically, to look upon in order to help or benefit; e.g. to look after, have a care for, provide for. . .” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Henry Thayer, p. 242). “Visit” in Greek is related to the Greek word “overseer,” so to “visit” includes “to look upon, care for, exercise oversight” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, p. 1213).

There are three elements required by episkeptomai, “to visit”:

1. Personal contact – Going to the needy.

2. Personal examination – Seeing their needs.

3. Personal provision – Providing for their needs.

The word “visit” occurs ten times in the New Testament and every use demands the three elements of personal contact, examination and provision. Christ’s “visit” was not just to chat awhile or the sending of a representative angel. “The Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace. . . . For He has visited and redeemed His people” (Lk. 1:78-79, 68). Christ’s visit to men was God’s personal contact and inspection to oversee our great need for salvation from sin and He personally provided the redemption price to meet that need.

Likewise, Jesus emphasized the individual duty of His followers to personally visit the less fortunate, “For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you visited me” (Mt. 25:35-36).

Thus the command to “visit” the less fortunate is intensely personal and practical for each and every Christian. Greek authority Marvin Vincent writes of “visit” in James 1:27, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 736).

Those churches which unscripturally send money to human benevolent organizations cannot find support for their error in James 1:27, by the very definition of “visit.” The apostle James is clearly instructing individual Christians to assist those in need. James is teaching pure religion is individual and personal, not institutional and impersonal. Those who give money to the church, for the church to give to a human benevolent organization, for the human organization to give to those in need are twice removed from truly “visiting” the fatherless and widows in their affliction! Where is the personal going? Where is the personal oversight? Where is the personal assistance? Compare the biblical concept of “visiting” with the practice of church contributions to human organizations.

“To Visit” – (Episkeptomai)	Church Contributions To Human Organizations
1. Personal contact – You go to the needy.	1. No personal contact – The organization goes to the needy.
2. Personal examination – You oversee their needs.	2. No personal examination – The organization oversees needs.
3. Personal provision – You provide for their needs.	3. No personal provision – The organization provides their needs.

God demands personal religion not proxy religion. You cannot visit the sick and needy by putting money into the collection plate at church. The preacher cannot do the visiting that you are commanded to do, nor the elders, not even the church. Jesus promised, “inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 467
August 6, 1987