Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. And it came to pass as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mk. 3:13-17).

The call of Levi or Matthew contains several lessons for us which remind us of our need for humility and consciousness of our own sins as we work to bring others to Christ. Let us study these lessons.

The Conversion of Matthew

Matthew was a publican, from among a group who were notoriously unscrupulous in the collection of taxes. John the Baptist had singled out the publicans as one group of the “generation of vipers” who were called to repentance. Luke relates this about John’s charge to the publicans, “Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you” (Lk. 3:12-13). The publicans were notorious for over-taxing the people and pocketing what was in excess of the amount the state demanded.

Because of their extortion and position as agents of Rome, the publicans were socially rejected, religiously excommunicated, and politically viewed as traitors. Nevertheless, their job was lucrative. When Jesus called Matthew, saying “Follow me,” he forsook his lucrative position to become the Lord’s disciple. What a contrast he makes with the rich young ruler who rejected Christ to cling to his possessions (Matt. 19:16-22). How many of us would walk away from a high-paying job to be the Lord’s disciple?

Becoming a disciple of Christ meant new pursuits, new goals, new morals, and new friends. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Certainly this was true for Matthew.

Having seen what Jesus had done for him, Matthew used his influence to introduce others to Christ. He invited his friends to a feast in honor of Jesus that they too might become acquainted with him. Matthew’s example of using his influence to bring others to Christ should be instructive to each of us. How many of us have opened our home to our neighbors and friends to introduce them to the Christ? When a new family visits where you worship, do you open your home to them to conduct a Bible study?

The Charge Against Jesus

When the Pharisees saw Jesus attend Matthew’s feast with publicans and sinners, they charged Jesus with sin saying he “eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners. ” The charge indicts Jesus with condoning sin and participating with sinners. Had Jesus joined with sinners in their conduct or bid them godspeed by his action, he certainly would have been guilty of sin (2 Jn. 9-11). However, that was not his purpose for being there. Some had placed the worst possible construction on Jesus’ actions. Some always will.

The truth is that Jesus was working with the publicans and sinners to bring them to repentance. Jesus did not turn his back on the social outcasts. He preached the gospel to the poor (Matt. 11:5) and ministered to the down and out. He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory” (Matt. 12:20). He had interest in the soul of the Samaritan woman who had five precious husbands and was living with one who was not her husband (Jn. 4). He saw the value of every soul; it was worth more than all of the world (Matt. 16:26).

We must never forget the preciousness of one soul, regardless of how marred and despicable it may have become because of the defilement of sin. The homosexual, with his incurable disease of AIDS, is still a soul in need of God’s salvation. A few years ago, I drove down a street in Nashville, Tennessee where I saw a “street person.” The woman was at least 50-60 years old, her gray hair was long and matted; she obviously was in need of a bath. Though her appearance was repulsive and still lingers in my memory, I remind myself that she has a soul even as I do and that she needs the Lord’s salvation just the same as does the banker in our community.

We need to be careful not to allow our view of such people to fall to the level of that of the Pharisees who saw such men as contemptible sinners. Jesus says these people are sinsick and in need of healing; the Pharisees only saw contemptible, unclean sinners which could not be touched without contaminating one’s self.

They That Are Whole Have No Need Of A Physician

Jesus’ response to those who condemned him for eating with “publicans and sinners” was this: “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Mk. 2:17). Who are “they that are whole” who have no need of a physician? The physician is Christ and the healing is forgiveness of sins. The Scriptures teach that none is whole and without need of a physician (Rom. 3:23).

However, there are some who imagine themselves to be so righteous that they do not think they have need of a physician (cf. Rev. 3:17). In the context, these were the Pharisees who condemned Jesus for associating with “publicans and sinners.” The great Physician cannot heal the man who does not recognize that he is sick and in need of healing.

Jesus Came To Call Sinners To Repentance

The calling of Jesus is a call for sinners to repent. There is a mistaken understanding of the ministry of Jesus manifested among some who labor tirelessly among the social outcasts. Some who work among the vilest of sinners issue no call to repentance. They conceive of the gospel as a ministry to the physical suffering of drunks, drug addicts, and prostitutes. They hand out food, treat drunkenness, provide housing, and pay for medical help. But they do little for the soul! Without denying the physical suffering of these sin sick souls, I remind you that the gospel is not aimed at ministering to physical needs, but to spiritual needs. Some have confused those who want help with those who want a hand-out.

The Lord came to call sinners to repentance! The gospel is not a “come as you are” party. Those who promise grace without repentance misunderstand the gospel’s call. Jesus condemned the man who showed up at the wedding feast without white garments (Matt. 22:11-14), condemning those who do not clothe themselves in righteousness.

What this means for mankind is this: homosexuals (even those with AIDS) can come to Christ, but they must quit committing homosexual acts; adulterers (even those who have violated their marriage vows by committing fornication against their mates) and fornicators (even those with VD) can come to Christ, but they must quit committing sexual immorality; alcoholics can come to Christ, but they must cease drinking; drug addicts can come to Christ, but they must quit using drugs. The call of the gospel is a call to repentance!

Conclusion

 

The gospel invitation is extended to every man. It gives each of us the opportunity to begin anew, to have every sin which we have committed washed away by the blood of Christ. Regardless of what wicked deeds we may have committed, we can be born again (Jn. 3:5), sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26), that we might be without “spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27). If God could save those “publicans and sinners” of the first century, there is reason to believe that he can save me!

 

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 130, 150
March 1, 1990

By Jady W. Copeland

One meaning of the word “lost” is, “not used to good purpose.” Thus we may say, “He lost time.” Therefore in this article, I don’t mean we have lost our Bible (though I think this often happens), but I mean we have not put the word of God to good use. We have not used it for the purpose God intended.

Josiah began reigning over Judah at the young age of eight years, and in his eighteenth year as king he ordered Shaphan, the scribe, to the house of the Lord in order to tell the high priest Hilkiah to “sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord” which had been gathered by the people for the repair of the temple. When Hilkiah did this, he found the book of the law in the house and gave it to Shaphan who read it, and took it to the king. When Josiah read it, he rent his clothes and told Hilkiah the priest to “go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of his book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us” (2 Kgs. 22:13). This book may have been the original of the covenant renewed by Moses in the plains of Moab which he ordered to be put beside the ark (Deut. 31:26). At any rate the book had been lost and the nation of Judah under the two previous kings had become very wicked, having left the commandments of the Lord. While there were other circumstances involved in the apostasy of the nation, the fact remains that the book of God was lost. Josiah said, for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us” (2 Kgs. 22:13). Josiah knew that without the words of God there was no way for the people to be guided by the Lord.

God’s word was lost to the Jews in the days of Christ on earth because of man’s traditions (Mk. 7:5-9). By this time the Jews had decided that their traditions were as important, or more so, as the Scriptures themselves. Jesus said, “Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.” His example was that the money they should have used to take care of their parents had been “given to God” (Corban). Thus they voided the word of God because of traditions of men.

Tradition of itself is not wrong. In fact the word is used in a good sense in 1 Corinthians 11:2 where Paul wrote, “Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” “Tradition” simply means “a handing down or on” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. IV, p. 147). But Paul told us where he received that which he “handed down” – from the Lord himself (Gal. 1:11- 12). Even man’s traditions are not necessarily wrong unless we make them “law” – either by word or practice. I am afraid we have come very close to making some of our practices “law,” however.

Let me illustrate with a simple illustration. It has been my observation in some congregations that we have almost “deified” Wednesday night. During a meeting, people will come on Wednesday night but not on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday or Friday. Why? I believe one should take advantage of Sunday night and Wednesday night worship opportunities. The one who does not come indicates a lack of zeal, spiritual maturity and desire to know more of God’s word, to say nothing of the opportunity to encourage others and enjoy their fellowship. The same can be said to some degree of taking advantage of meetings in other communities, though we may not have the same obligation there. So just to come to the meeting house on Wednesday night because we are “supposed to” is not good enough reason, and looks very much like one may be coming out of tradition.

God’s word is “lost ” to some due to ignorance. They cannot make best use of it because they do not know what it says. We surely pray often enough that we listen to the lesson “that we may apply it to our lives.” But even so, it is to me amazing how much ignorance there is among us. There is of course, no magic way to getting knowledge; we must study and “give diligence.” We surely do an injustice to 2 Timothy 2:15 when we think “study” (King James Version) means no more than reading a few verses just before we fall asleep so that, perhaps, we can say we are a “daily Bible reader.” The American Standard Version says “give diligence.” The Revised Standard Version says “Do your best to present yourself approved.” This brings up another major problem in our generation, we are too busy.

In our society we have to “keep up with the Joneses” and that necessitates the husband working two jobs often, and putting the wife to work, often at night, or even on Sunday. This not only prevents them from taking advantage of worship opportunities with the brethren, but also makes them so tired that they do not want to study in the home; even if they have time after this; selfish people grapple for the things of this life to make them more comfortable. If these “faithful” ones do manage to make it to services on Sunday and perhaps Wednesday, they have been so “busy” in work and watching TV that they have not prepared their lessons. Of course, this all boils down to the sad fact that they do not have their priorities right (Matt. 6:33).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 129, 151
March 1, 1990

By Jefferson David Tant

Introduction

Since the Bible teaches that baptism is an essential part of my relationship with Christ (Mk. 16:16; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3-5, etc.), then it behooves me to make sure that my baptism is pleasing to the one who has given the ordinance. I cannot please myself, my family, my church. I can only strive to please the Lord. “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

The Bible teaches also that there is now but one baptism (Eph. 4:5). The religious world now offers eight or more, from immersion in water to the sprinkling of rose petals to baptism in behalf of one’s dead ancestors. Therefore, a decision and choice needs to be made concerning this.

Other factors that have a bearing include not only mode of baptism, but also the purpose, the proper subjects, as well as the element in which baptism takes place. These need to be considered, but the purpose of this study is an inquiry into the manner or mode of baptism, whether it shall be by immersion in water, or by other means.

To the best of my knowledge, all of the scholars, historians and others quoted herein are those who practice the sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism. I have purposely sought out no author (though there are thousands of reputable men) who practices immersion. The reason for this is that the understanding of those who practice sprinkling or pouring might effectively contradict their own practices. In other words, their understanding of what the Scriptures teach shows the inconsistency of their practice. Furthermore, their words in support of immersion cannot be dismissed as the words of those who may be prejudiced by some church doctrine, or whatever, in favor of the practice of immersion.

This study is offered with the sincere desire that it may help us to a more perfect understanding of the Will of God.

The Testimony of the Biblical Context

John came, who baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mk. 1:4-5).

Note 1: They came to the Jordan River. Such would hardly have been necessary if the baptism were done by sprinkling or pouring. It would have been an inconvenience wholly without reason.

Note 2: The text says they were baptized of John in the river Jordan. It does not say at, but in.

Jesus . . . was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water. . . (Mk. 1:9-10).

Note: If he came up out of the water, it is obvious that he first went down into the water. Why did he do this, unless the practice was immersion?

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there, and they came, and were baptized (Jn. 3:23).

Note: If the Scripture is not referring to immersion, then why the necessity of much water? Wouldn’t a few drops of water do just as well? It says he was baptizing there because there was much water. The presence of the much water was not incidental or accidental.

And he (eunuch) commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip (Acts 8:38-39).

Note: It is obvious that immersion is implied in this passage, considering the going down into and the coming up out of the water.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16).

Note: Here the washing of the flesh symbolizes the washing of the soul. Which best represents the washing of the flesh -immersion, sprinkling or pouring?

We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).

Note 1: Which best represents a burial – sprinkling, pouring, dropping of rose petals, or immersion?

Note 2: Which best represents a resurrection – having water sprinkled on the head, or coming up from an immersion in water?

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ (Gal. 3:27).

Note: In the figure given, we clothe ourselves with Christ, putting him on, as we would a garment. Since this is done in baptism, which best represents the surrounding of ourselves with Christ – putting him on – immersion, sprinkling or pouring?

One Lord, one faith, one baptism . . . (Eph. 4:5).

Note: If there is only one baptism now, which shall we choose of the three that are most popularly offered -immersion, sprinkling or pouring?

Having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him the dead (Col. 2:12).

Note: See comments on Romans 6:4.

The Testimony of the Greek Lexicons, Dictionaries, Etc.

Baptizo: 1. to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge. . . 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water. . . 3. to overwhelm. . . (Grimm’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated, Revised and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, D.D., a standard reference work recognized both in Europe and America to be an outstanding work).

Baptizo: to dip, immerse, sink; 1. to overwhelm. . . 2. to perform ablutions, wash oneself, bathe. . . 3. Of ablution, immersion, as a religious rite, to baptize. . . (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, G. Abbott-Smith, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D.).

Baptizo: to dip, immerse, or plunge in water (Parkhurst).

Baptizo: to immerse, to sink (Robinson).

Baptizo: to dip repeatedly (Liddell and Scott).

Baptisma: 3. of Christian baptism; this, according to the view of the apostles, is a rite of a sacred immersion, commanded by Christ, by which men confessing their sins and professing their faith in Christ are born again by the Holy Spirit into a new life, come into the fellowship of Christ and the church (I Co. xii. 13), and are made partakers of eternal salvation (Grimm’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, op. cit.).

Comment: Of literally scores of such authoritative works, Greek dictionaries, lexicons, etc., I have never heard of even one that defines baptizo (baptize) or baptisma (baptism) as sprinkling or pouring. Indeed, there are other words in the Greek language that denote these actions. The word rantizo means “to sprinkle,” and the words cheo and ballo may be translated as “to pour,” but these words are never used in reference to baptism in water in the New Testament.

It is of more than passing interest to note that in Luke 16:24, the rich man asked if Lazarus might “dip the tip of his finger in water.” The word “dip” there is translated from the Greek bapto, the root form from which we get “baptize.” Would one be led to think that the rich man simply asked for Lazarus to sprinkle some water on his finger, or for Lazarus to immerse the end portion of his finger in water, that it might give some relief to the parched mouth of the rich man? I think that latter would be obvious, and so did the translators.

The Testimony of the Encyclopedias

“Baptism: . . . When in the ceremony the candidate for baptism is submerged under the water, he is thereby buried with Christ and dies with him; i.e., this submersion in water is for the Apostles, not merely a symbol of purification, nor only a symbol of being buried, but a real act of wonderful effect. The candidate for baptism experiences actually and genuinely the death of Jesus in his own body, and is likewise actually laid in the grave, as Jesus lay in the grave. . . When he emerges again from the water, the resurrection of Christ becomes his” (Encyclopedia Britannica, “Baptism”).

“Baptistery: . . . The round church of Santa Costanza, in Rome, built, probably, as a tomb for the daughter of Constantine, was also used, in early times, as a baptistery. Following this tradition, baptisteries, throughout the early Church, were separate buildings, circular or polygonal in plan, up to the 9th or 10th century. When the change from immersion to sprinkling as the method of baptism rendered large baptisteries unnecessary, the baptistery became a mere chapel within a church. ( Encyclopedia Britannica, “Baptistery”).

“Baptism – that is, dipping, immersion, from the Greek word baptizo” (Encyclopedia Americana, “Baptism”).

“The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: Pope Stephen 11, being driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time before, had usurped the crown of France.

“While he remained there the Monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted him whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of the infant would be lawful.

“Stephen replied that it would, yet pouring and sprinkling were not allowed except in cases of necessity.

“It was not till the year 1311 that the legislature, in a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent.

“In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced, in ordinary cases, till after the Reformation – about the middle of the 16th century.

“From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the Established Church” (Edinburg Encyclopedia, “Baptism”).

Comment: The Encyclopedias note the original practice of immersion. Please keep in mind that the ordinance authorizing the change was granted by the Pope in Rome, not Jesus Christ.

A little known fact of history (yet documented) is that the Church of England (1534), the Presbyterian (c. 1540) and the Congregational church (soon after) all practiced immersion for about 100 years, or until the Wesminster assembly in 1643. At that time, a number of bishops, seeing how much more convenient sprinkling was, came before parliament, insisting that “the devil of immersion ought to be legislated out of the realm, it is so troublesome.”

“The Westminster assembly convened July 1, 1643. Very naturally the question was brought before this august body of divines, ‘shall we continue the practice of immersion, or shall we adopt sprinkling instead?’ When it came to a vote, twenty-four voted to continue the ancient and apostolic practice, and twenty-four voted in favor of sprinkling. Dr. Lightfoot was chairman, and it was his duty to give the deciding vote. He cast his vote in favor of sprinkling” (Edinburg Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 236).

In 1644 parliament acted upon this, repealing laws enjoining immersion, enacting, in their place, laws enjoining sprinkling. Those who were not sprinkled were to be treated as outlaws.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 112-114
February 15, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Does 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 apply to physical fitness, in that we should exercise regularly and eat healthy foods?

Reply: Each passage should be understood in the relation to its actual language and the context in which it appears. The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). Then follows in the text a listing of numerous different kinds of sinners: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. Some of the Corinthians had been guilty of such sins. However, they had been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11).

Then the apostle draws an analogy. Foods (meats) are made for the alimentary canal (belly) and the latter is designed for ingestion of foods. Both the foods and the alimentary canal are designed to enable the digestive process to occur properly so as to make continuation of life and health possible. But both are perishable and will decay as God planned it. In a like manner, the body was not designed for fornication. It was for the Lord that the body was designed and the Lord came to redeem the body from its corruption (1 Cor. 6:13-14).

It is then pointed out that those who have been washed, sanctified, and justified are members of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15). To join one’s self to a harlot in the sin of fornication is, therefore, completely inconsistent for “shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid” (1 Cor. 6:15). The reason for this is that one who is joined to a harlot is one body, “for two, saith he, shall be one flesh” (1 Cor. 6:16). Sexual union is that which makes them one body or one flesh as Genesis 2:24 says. However, the person that is joined to the Lord is one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). It follows, therefore, that one who is Christ’s must flee fornication (1 Cor. 6:18).

Every sin except the sin of fornication is without the identification of body as one flesh (1 Cor. 6:18). Therefore, the person who commits fornication sins against the body, that is against the entire purpose and design of the body that is the house of the spirit that is one with the Lord. Since we know that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in us and whom we have of God and we are not our own, having been bought with a price, we are to glorify God in our bodies and our spirits that belong to God (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Glorify means to extol, magnify, or praise. In this context, the idea is to have the body extol the virtues of God. It cannot do this joined to a harlot. What one permits his body to do should morally and spiritually be consistent with the character and nature of God. In this particular passage, physical exercise and the eating of health giving foods is not under consideration. The sin of gluttony would be included. Certainly, the body should be cared for because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Exercise is good for the body and profits a little (1 Tim. 4:8). Godliness is the important issue and this is what is under consideration in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. Godliness is that which shows in one’s acts respect for the law of God.

Question: Is over eating a sin? How much is too much (gluttony)?

Reply: A study of the two words used in the Greek text of the New Testament will help us to understand what gluttony is and, therefore, assist in the answering of these two questions. Gaster, according to Joseph Henry Thayer in his lexicon, has two basic meanings in the New Testament: uterus or the womb and the stomach. In the latter sense, “by synecdoche a glutton, gormandizer, a man who is as it were all stomach. . . Ti. 1: 12. ” This passage is the only time it is used in this sense. The passage literally says Cretans are idle bellies or as some translations put it “slow bellies.” The idea is that in their idleness they spend their time filling their stomachs. Phagos means, according to Thayer, a voracious man, a glutton. The word is used twice in the New Testament (Matt. 11: 19; Lk. 7:34). Jesus said they who opposed him charged him with being gluttonous. He was not, of course.

Is gluttony a sin? Yes, the uses of the words to designate it in the New Testament are in the context of its being a sin. How much over eating is too much (gluttony)? One cannot answer this question with finite terms of ounces of either solid or fluid food. Further, the size and physical condition of the person eating would also affect how much is too much. When one is insatiable in appetite or consumes food to the discomfort of the body by distending the stomach, the point of gluttony has been reached. If one eats to maintain proper weight without adding tat and without discomfort, one eats in moderation. If this is the disposition and intention, the point of gluttony will not be reached.

Question: Here is another question related to the life of Paul. “I am quoting from a religious magazine I receive each month. ‘Paul was chosen to preach; he could not be unfaithful to the heavenly vision’ (Acts 26:29). ” Does this mean Paul had no choice to obey or not. “He did say, ‘Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.'”

Reply: Acts 26:19 is a part of a straightforward narrative account which is made up principally of declarative statements of fact. The passage in point is one of these: “Whereupon O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Disobedient in this passage is from apeitho, which means to be not persuaded. He was persuaded by what he saw and heard to the point that he was convinced that Jesus Christ indeed spoke to him. Being thus persuaded that Jesus was the Messiah, he obeyed what he told him to do.

The issue of whether he could or could not make a choice is not the point of the passage; he is simply stating what he decided or chose to do. Surely, he could have rebelled. But being convinced that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, it would have been completely inconsistent for him to have disobeyed. Therefore, he did not. In this context, one might make the statement, “he could not be unfaithful to the heavenly vision.” Could not in this context would mean that it would be totally inconsistent to disobey the Lord, having been convinced that he in fact was the Messiah. In this sense, he could not disobey consistent with his conviction.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 5, pp. 133-134
March 1, 1990