There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
For the planting of the Christian religion in the world and the setting up of the gospel-church, in spite of all the opposition of the powers of darkness.
I thank you that the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the command of the eternal God, and the gospel which has been made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, Romans 16:25-26(ESV) has divine power to destroy strongholds: 2 Corinthians 10:4(ESV) That the Lord worked with it and confirmed the message by accompanying signs, Mark 16:20(ESV) so that Satan fell like lightning from heaven. Luke 10:18(ESV)
That though the gospel was preached in the midst of much conflict, 1 Thessalonians 2:2(ESV) yet it continued to increase and prevail mightily, Acts 19:20(ESV) and multitudes turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven. 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10(ESV)
Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of God and the authority of his Christ have come: Revelation 12:10(ESV) And the exalted Redeemer rode forth with his bow and with his crown, conquering and to conquer, Revelation 6:2(ESV) and nations were brought forth in one moment. Isaiah 66:8(ESV)
Romans 8 This week’s lessons show that because we are united with Christ in His death and resurrection, we no longer stand under condemnation, and are therefore assured of an eternity in the presence of the Lord where sin will be no more.
Theme
No Condemnation
When I was talking about the third chapter of Romans, I pointed out that Romans 3 is the heart of the Bible. If that is true, Romans 8 is the Bible’s climax. It is a climax because it takes us from the matter of our deliverance from the penalty and power of sin to that final glorious consummation of our salvation when we are made free from sin in all respects and are brought into the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father forever.
We have a problem squeezing the scope of salvation from eternity past to eternity future into one message. Other expositors have also found difficulty with this. Donald Grey Barnhouse spent ten years teaching the Book of Romans on radio, and when he got to Romans 8 he spent 80 messages on just this one chapter! I used to think that was unusual until, in preparation for this study, I glanced over Martin Lloyd-Jones’s exposition of the same chapter and found that he took 77 chapters, or two and one-half volumes, in order to go through it. The reason is that this chapter covers the whole plan of God in salvation and therefore stretches our minds in all directions. There is no way to do justice to this chapter in one message.
If there were no other reason for loving this chapter and focusing attention on it, certainly the first verse would be enough. Romans 8:1 says, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” There should really be a period at this point. True, the verse goes on to explain why. But this is a statement that well deserves to stand by itself.
Some of you may be looking at this verse in the Authorized Version and will see there the additional words “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” This is one of those few but very clear cases where there has been a copyist’s error early in the history of the manuscript traditions. The earliest manuscripts did not have this phrase, though some early manuscripts do. The manuscripts from which the King James translation was made did have it, and so it was included in that version. But it does not really belong there. As a matter of fact, it is easy to see how it got there. If you look just a little further on in the chapter, to verse 4, you find the very same phrase: “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Somewhere in the early transmission of the text, a scribe, who was copying verse 1, allowed his eye to drop down accidentally to verse 4, picked up the last phrase, added it to verse 1, and then went on with the copying, including the last phrase of verse 4 again when he got to that.
So we have a repetition here, and the repetition has introduced an error. The text is not saying, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, if we continue to walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh,” but simply, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” In a certain sense, the remainder of the chapter goes on to explain why that is the case and why there is no condemnation. This is good news. And it is good news because apart from the work of God in Christ we do stand under condemnation.
Study Questions
Why could we say Romans 8 is the Bible’s climax?
Why can Paul say that Christians do not have to wait for the final judgment to hear God’s declaration of not being condemned, but possess it now?
Application
Application: Knowing that the future is secure, what are the practical implications for how you live in the present?
For Further Study: Listen to a free download of James Boice’s message, “The Woman Taken in Adultery.” (Discount will be applied at checkout.)
From Day 12-16 we are looking at verses that focus on Jesus as The Son. Yesterday we read the scripture from John 3:16, how God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son. Today we read how God was pleased with His Son whom He sent.
Jesus has been incarnated and ill-treated. (Herod’s aim to wipe Him out caused the cataclysmic genocide of all children in the region under the age of two).
While growing up, Jesus was obedient in all things to his earthly parents. God was pleased with this. Now is the time where Jesus emerges on mission to seek and save the lost. He is baptized by John.
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon Him; and a voice came from the heavens: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11).
Just think, a nexus point on earth where all three Persons of the Trinity were congregated, initiating the extraordinary plan of God to save His people.
And so begins the most incredible period of time on earth there ever was.
Further Reading
Gill’s Exposition: God is pleased in whom I am well pleased. Jehovah the Father took infinite delight and pleasure in him as his own Son, who lay in his bosom before all worlds; and was well pleased with him in his office relation, and capacity: he was both well pleased in him as his Son, and delighted in him as his servant, Isaiah 42:1 he was pleased with his assumption of human nature; with his whole obedience to the law; and with his bearing the penalty and curse of it, in the room and stead of his people: he was well pleased with and for his righteousness, sacrifice and atonement; whereby his law was fulfilled, and his justice satisfied. God is not only well pleased in, and with his Son, but with all his people, as considered in him; in him he loves them, takes delight in them, is pacified towards them, and graciously accepts of them.
Ligonier devotional (2-min read)The Baptism of Christ Matthew 3:13–17 records our Lord’s baptism by John in the Jordan River, and as we read the account we can relate to John’s confusion. In verse 14, John essentially asks Jesus why He needs to be baptized. Actually, John wanted to deny baptism to Him, and we have to admit that John was not entirely off-base.
John MacArthur sermon: The Commissioning of the King as we come to Matthew 3:13, we read the words, “Then cometh Jesus.” And really, for the first time, the Lord Jesus appears upon the stage. Up until this time it has been preparatory. Matthew has been commenting on various elements in the beginnings of Jesus: His birth, the things surrounding His birth, His forerunner, etc. But now, finally, Jesus steps onto the stage. Jesus takes the place of prominence.
The book of Acts is one of the most fascinating books of the Bible. No other book matches its level of historical corroboration from both internal and external sources. The abundant evidence, that we shall sample in this essay, of Luke’s credibility and meticulousness as a historian, indirectly supports the credibility of Luke’s gospel (which is widely acknowledged to be written by the same author).
Luke claims to have been a travelling companion of Paul for much of his travels (Acts 16-10-17 and later again from Acts 20:5, travelling with Paul as far as Rome). This places Luke in Jerusalem in Acts 21 when Paul visited the Jerusalem leaders. Luke tells us that “all the elders [including James] were present” (Acts 21:18). Luke also implies that he remained in proximity to Paul during his two-year imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima, since he presents himself as being with Paul both immediately before and immediately after this imprisonment. During this time, Luke would undoubtedly have had ample access to the many living witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, since Caesarea is only approximately 120 kilometers from Jerusalem, or about two to three days journey on foot (where many of the witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection resided). Luke’s acquaintance with the Jerusalem apostles thus puts him in a position to know what was being proclaimed concerning the nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. Luke’s demonstrated care and meticulousness as an historian (together with the fact that he put his own neck on the line for the gospel) also provides some reason to think that Luke is sincerely representing what he believes the apostles experienced. Furthermore, various specific aspects of Luke’s gospel can be historically corroborated, which confirms that Luke, more than merely having access to those eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, faithfully represented the testimony of those eyewitnesses. And yet, Luke represents the post-resurrection encounters as involving multiple sensory modes. Jesus appears to multiple individuals at once, and those encounters are not merely visual but are also auditory. Jesus engages the disciples in group conversation. The encounters are close-up and involve physical contact (Lk 24:39-40). At least one encounter involved passing Jesus a broiled fish (Lk 24:41-43). According to Acts 10:41, the disciples ate and drank with Jesus after his death. Jesus engages with Cleopas and his companion in an extended discourse, even participating with them in a study of the Scripture (Lk 24:27). Moreover, Acts indicates that the appearances were spread out over a forty-day time period – thus, the resurrection encounters were not one brief and confusing episode (Acts 1:3). Acts also contributes to the case that the disciples maintained an ongoing leadership role within the early church despite the hostile context of persecution (see my essay here for a fuller discussion of this subject). This evinces the sincerity of the apostles.
Moreover, given Luke’s access to Paul, together with his track-record of historical scrupulousness, this provides reason to think that Luke accurately represents Paul’s own testimony concerning his conversion and miracles. This argues strongly against the plausibility of Paul being sincerely mistaken. Indeed, Paul’s experience is alleged to have been multisensory — involving both a visual and auditory component (Acts 9:3-6, 22:6-10, 26:13-18; 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8). Moreover, it was intersubjective — affecting not only Paul, but also his travelling companions who were purportedly thrown to the ground, having heard the voice though seeing no one (Acts 9:7, 22:9; 26:14). Acts 22:9 indicates that Paul’s travelling companions nonetheless saw the light. Moreover, Paul was blinded by the experience for three days (Acts 9:8-9; 22:11) and later healed by Ananias who received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16).
Furthermore, Paul claims to have performed miracles. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he writes, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works,” (cf. Rom 15:18-19).[i] Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed. For example, Luke describes a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith) where Paul caused him to go blind on command, a feat apparently so convincing that it led to the conversion of the proconsul Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:9-12). Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), cast out a spirit of divination from a slave girl (Acts 16:16-18), experienced a miraculous jailbreak in Philippi (Acts 16:25-26), healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). As we shall see in this article, Luke was an incredibly scrupulous historian who had a high regard for historical accuracy. He also valued eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2). The most probable source for the alleged miracles in Acts (besides those that he might have witnessed himself) is Paul.
When we consider the content of Paul’s testimony concerning his conversion experience on the Damascus road, together with his purported miracles, it seems to be difficult to account for on the supposition that he was sincerely mistaken — in particular, given that he was not already predisposed to expect an appearance from the raised Christ. The argument for the reliability of Acts is also relevant to our assessment of the plausibility that Paul was a deceiver. Given Paul’s willingness to endure dangers, hardships, sufferings, floggings, beatings, stoning, shipwrecks, imprisonment and martyrdom, over an extended period of time, on account of the gospel (as abundantly documented by Acts), this goes a long way towards establishing his sincerity.
In 1791, the English clergyman William Paley published a book titled Horae Paulinae, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced. Therein, he postulated a class of evidence that he called “undesigned coincidences,” which he applied principally to the historicity of the book of Acts and the authenticity of the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul. Paley summarized the argument as follows:
In examining, therefore, the agreement between ancient writings, the character of truth and originality is undesignedness; and this test applies to every supposition; for, whether we suppose the history to be true, but the letters spurious; or, the letters to be genuine, but the history false; or, lastly, falsehood to belong to both—the history to be a fable, and the letters fictitious: the same inference will result—that either there will be no agreement between them, or the agreement will be the effect of design. Nor will it elude the principle of this rule, to suppose the same person to have been the author of all the letters, or even the author both of the letters and the history; for no less design is necessary to produce coincidence between different parts of a man’s own writings, especially when they are made to take the different forms of a history and of original letters, than to adjust them to the circumstances found in any other writing. [ii]
Putting this into plainer language: When we look at how ancient writings line up with each other, the best evidence of their credibility is if the agreements between them appear to be incidental, casual, and unplanned. We have no less than thirteen letters attributed to the apostle Paul, which make contact with the history recorded in Acts at dozens of points. The epistles are, therefore, fertile ground for this type of analysis.
The focus of this article is the argument from undesigned coincidences, though recognizing that the examples provided in the text that follows are only a sample of the total that could be provided. In particular, I am limiting my dataset to only four of Paul’s letters — that is, his epistle to the Romans, his two epistles to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians. As we shall see, even with this very limited dataset, and excluding the various striking coincidences that exist between Acts and 1 Thessalonians, or Colossians, or Ephesians, or the Pastoral epistles, one can adduce no less than forty undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline corpus. The examples discussed below quite exhaustive of all those, of which I am aware, in those four letters. I have, however, excluded those coincidences that are relevant only to establishing the authenticity of epistles attributed to Paul (whether widely accepted or disputed) but which do not bear on the credibility of Acts. My hope is that this survey should give the reader a taste of just how extensive this class of evidence is in confirming the historicity of Acts.
Independence of Acts and the Epistles
The undesigned coincidences between Acts and Paul’s letters are even more evidentially significant than those between the gospels, since a strong case can be developed that Luke was not dependent upon the epistles (nor vice versa). Most likely, Luke had not read any of Paul’s letters. This means that, even in those instances where a coincidence is more direct than most of the cases to be discussed here, one may still have confidence that the coincidence is undesigned on the basis of the independence of the sources.
In this section, I shall lay out the evidence that Acts is independent from Romans, the Corinthian letters, and Galatians. One consideration that bears on the broad independence between Acts and these letters is that, though we can pinpoint quite precisely within Acts when these letters were composed (particularly Romans and the Corinthian epistles), Acts makes no mention whatever of Paul writing any epistles. In what follows, I will present a case for independence between Acts and each individual letter. Some of the points raised in this section will be repeated elsewhere in the article as they are of particular relevance to a given coincidence.
Galatians A particularly strong case can be mounted for the independence of Acts and Galatians. For example, from reading Acts 9:23-25, one might reasonably come away with the first impression that Paul spent the entire period, which Luke glosses over as “many days,” in Damascus. However, Galatians 1:17 indicates that this time, which Paul informs us was three years in duration, included a journey into Arabia (though we do not know for how long). As Paley observes,
Beside the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted. [iii]
Indeed, the omission in Acts concerning the journey into Arabia is quite surprising if the author of Acts was using Paul’s letter as a source. The accounts, though, are not mutually exclusive. The phrase “many days”, used by Luke in Acts 9:23 is most probably an idiomatic expression denoting an indefinite period of time. The equivalent phrase in Hebrew is used in 1 Kings 2:39, but the next verse indicates that those “many days” encompassed a three year period. It is also not particularly implausible that Luke simply was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or for some other reason chose not to write about it (perhaps it was too brief for Luke to consider it to be of significant note). Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between Acts and Galatians provides internal evidence of independence between the two sources. Paley offers another piece of evidence indicating independence:
The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the Epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction: so that, upon this supposition, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the Epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the Epistle; and that the insertion of it in the Epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so. [iv]
An additional reason for thinking that Acts and Galatians are independent is that Acts 9:27 indicates that, in Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Compare this to Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (emphasis added). On the surface, this appears to be a discrepancy. Of course, “the apostles” could be taken to refer to Peter and James (most scholars, including myself, are of the opinion that Galatians 1:19 identifies James the Lord’s brother as an apostle). We could also take it that Paul uses ‘saw’ to mean ‘conversed with’ or ‘met with,’ not that he did not even see any of the other apostles in a meeting, etc. We sometimes use ‘saw’ in this sense ourselves. One could imagine that perhaps Barnabas and Peter decided that they did not want to set Paul down in front of them like a tribunal and question him, so during that time he stayed, let us suppose, in someone’s home, met with James and Peter, and otherwise for those two weeks he was out talking and debating with Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28-29), and eventually was rushed away due to a plot to kill him. In any case, the surface tension between these texts adds additional support for the thesis of independence.
Romans Variations in name spelling between Acts and Romans suggest independence. For example, In Acts refers to Πρίσκιλλα (Acts 18:2, 18, 26), whereas Romans uses the form, Πρίσκα (Rom 16:3). Acts refers to Σώπατρος, identified as “son of Pyrrhus, a Berean” (Acts 20:4), whereas Romans calls this individual by the name Σωσίπατρος. Acts refers to a companion of Paul by the name of Σιλᾶς, whereas Romans 16:21 calls him Σιλουανός.
In Romans 15:24, Paul writes, “I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while.” Though Luke does mention Paul’s intention to visit Rome (Acts 19:21), there is no reference to his intention to visit Spain.
Romans 16:3-4 credits Priscilla and Aquila for risking their necks for Paul’s life, though there is no account in Acts of this episode, even though Priscilla and Aquila are significant figures in Acts 18.
In Romans 16:21-22, Paul sends greetings from those who are with him at the time: “Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.” These names only partially overlap with the list given in Acts 20:4: “Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus.” Moreover, Gaius of Derbe is most likely a different person from the Gaius mentioned in Romans, since the latter is described as Paul’s host, implying residence in Corinth or the surrounding region of Achaia. This Corinthian identification is strengthened by Paul’s note in 1 Corinthians 1:14 that he had baptized a Gaius there. Given that Gaius was among the most common Roman praenomina (first names), the duplication of the name is unsurprising. Yet this very fact supports the independence of Acts and Romans — had the author of Acts been drawing on Romans, it would be odd for him to list a Gaius from Derbe without connecting him to Corinth, where the Gaius of the epistle is clearly located. A later copyist, by contrast, would have been far more likely to harmonize the two figures by situating Gaius in Corinth rather than in Derbe.
Furthermore, a major theme in Romans, as well as the Corinthian letters, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem, which we shall discuss in more detail later in this article (Rom 15:25-27; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8:1-24; 2 Cor 9:1-15). Though Acts agrees with the implied order of travel, there is no explicit mention in Acts of fundraising as a purpose of Paul’s travels (though there is a cryptic allusion to it in Paul’s speech before Felix, in Acts 24:17: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings”). If Acts were using Romans, or the Corinthian epistles, as a source, one might expect the collection to be referred to more explicitly in Acts. The omission of any explicit reference to this collection evinces the independence of Acts from the epistles.
The Corinthian Epistles As mentioned previously, the collection for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem looms large in the Corinthian epistles, but is never explicitly referred to in Acts. 1 Corinthians, like Romans, uses the form Πρίσκα to refer to the individual whom Acts identifies as Πρίσκιλλα (1 Cor 16:19). Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, Paul stresses that he baptized only Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus. In Acts 18:8, Crispus is mentioned as a convert, though there is no reference to him being baptized by Paul. Apollos is a hugely significant figure in 1 Corinthians 1-4; 16:12, even causing factions within the church in Corinth, such that some were saying “I follow Paul”; others “I follow Apollos”; or “I follow Cephas”; and still others “I follow Christ.” But in Acts 18-24-19:1, Apollos appears only briefly as a learned Alexandrian who ministered in Corinth, though Acts does not mention the divisions he caused.
Various lines of evidence also converge to reveal that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent. For example, Titus is mentioned throughout 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), but is nowhere mentioned in Acts. Moreover, the list of Paul’s sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 cannot be readily correlated with Acts (though it is by no means mutually exclusive). For example, 2 Corinthians 11:25 indicates that Paul endured three shipwrecks prior to the beginning of Acts 20 (when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia). Acts does not record any of those shipwrecks, but instead narrates an entirely different one in chapter 27. This presents no problem for Acts, since the author is clearly selective in what events in Paul’s life he recounts. Indeed, As Paley notes, referring to Acts 18-20, “the history of a period of sixteen years is comprised in less than three chapters; and of these, a material part is taken up with discourses.”[v] Moreover, Paul’s time in Tarsus (comprising several years) is skipped almost entirely (Acts 9:29-30; 11:25-26). Paul’s lengthy stay in Iconium is also glossed over very briefly: “So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands,” (Acts 14:3). Lengthy periods in Antioch are also described only in passing (Acts 11:25-26; 14:27-28).
Moreover, 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV in the plot to assassinate Paul in Damascus (but mentions no Jewish involvement), whereas Acts 9:23-25 emphasizes instead the involvement of the Jews (but makes no mention of Aretas). Presumably, the conspiracy involved both parties — nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between these sources points to their independence. Taken cumulatively, it seems near certain that Luke did not use 2 Corinthians as a source for the composition of Acts.
Undesigned Coincidences
In what follows, I shall present no less than forty undesigned coincidences between Acts and these four epistles.
1. Changing Ministry Model
In Acts 18:1-4, Luke tells us that Paul worked during the week with his own hands as a tent-maker with Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day to reason with Jews and Greeks. In response to Silas and Timothy’s arrival from Macedonia, he is prompted to change his ministry model. The text says that Paul συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ, literally, was wholly absorbed in preaching. What prompted this change? It apparently had something to do with Silas’ and Timothy’s arrival from Macedonia. 2 Corinthians 11:7-9 indicates that the brothers who arrived from Macedonia brought with them financial aid (this is further corroborated by Philippians 4:14-16). This apparently enabled him to devote himself more fully to ministry. Again, the accounts fit together in a casual way, that supports the historicity of Acts.
Undesigned coincidences between Acts and 2 Corinthians, such as the one given above, are further strengthened by the observation that there are several reasons to believe, as discussed earlier in this article, that these two sources are independent of one another. As Paley notes, “Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.”[vi]
2. Baptism of Crispus and Gaius
In 1 Corinthians 1:14-16, Paul writes, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” Why did Paul baptize, by his own hands, Crispus and Gaius? William Paley notes that “It may be expected that those whom the apostle baptised with his own hands, were converts distinguished from the rest by some circumstance, either of eminence, or of connection with him.”[vii] As we saw in the preceding discussion, Romans 16:23 indicates that Gaius provided hospitality for Paul and the church — and so had a particularly close connection with Paul. Moreover, according to 1 Corinthians 16:15, “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia.” Thus, Paul’s letters confirm a special relationship with the two individuals Gaius and Stephanas. But what about Crispus? Acts 18:8 indicates that, while in Corinth, “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” Thus, we learn that Crispus was indeed someone of eminence, being the ruler of the synagogue. This illuminates why his household was one of only three households whom Paul baptized by his own hands.
3. Sending Timothy to Corinth
Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians while in Ephesus, in around 53 C.E. In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul writes, “That is why I sent (ἔπεμψα) you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ…” The verb πέμπω is in the aorist (past) tense, indicating that Timothy has already been sent to Corinth from Ephesus at the time of Paul’s writing. In the account in Acts, however, we read that Timothy was sent, along with Erastus, into Macedonia, though the account in Acts makes no mention of Timothy’s intended destination being Corinth: “Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome.’ And having sent into Macedonia two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in Asia for a while.”
Given Paul’s stated intention to pass through the province of Achaia (where Corinth was the capital), it is a reasonable inference that this was ultimately Timothy’s intended destination, as shown on the map below. Macedonia was on the overland route to Corinth from Ephesus.
However, Acts only records Timothy being sent into Macedonia, since this was his immediate province to which he was directed. Nonetheless, as Paley explains, “One thing at least concerning it is certain: that if this passage of St. Paul’s history had been taken from his letter, it would have sent Timothy to Corinth by name, or expressly however into Achaia.”[viii]
That Timothy went to Macedonia on route to Corinth (and apparently was joined by Paul prior to their going to Corinth) is also supported by 2 Corinthians 1:1, which indicates that Paul and Timothy were co-authors of this second epistle (which, as we shall see later in this article, we have independent reason to believe was written from Macedonia). That Timothy did, in fact, make it to Corinth is also confirmed in an indirect way by Acts 20:4, which lists Timothy as one of those companions who were with Paul upon his departure from Greece.
4. If Timothy Comes
In 1 Corinthians 16:10, we read, “When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you…” The conjunction Ἐὰν introduces the subjunctive mood (literally, “if Timothy comes…”). Even though Paul has already sent Timothy at the time of his writing (indicated by 1 Cor 4:17, as discussed in the preceding section), this indicates that Paul nonetheless expects his letter will arrive first. Timothy must, therefore, have taken a route from Ephesus to Corinth that is less direct than that taken by the letter. The most direct way for Paul to send the letter would be across the Aegean sea, and we would thus infer that Timothy must have gone the indirect, overland route, up through Macedonia (meanwhile Paul remained behind in Ephesus to write 1 Corinthians), as depicted in the map shown previously.
Acts 19:21-22 indicates that Timothy was, in fact, sent from Ephesus to Macedonia, precisely the route we might predict given those subtle clues in 1 Corinthians.
5. Erastus of Corinth
It is also noteworthy to observe that Paul’s travelling companion up through Macedonia, according to Acts 19:22, was Erastus. According to Romans 16:23, Erastus was the city treasurer of the city that Paul was writing from, which we have established on independent grounds to be Corinth. There is even an archaeological discovery, shown below, which confirms the historicity of Erastus — a pavement slab that was recovered from the ruins of ancient Corinth, which bears the inscription in Latin, “Erastus, in return for his aedileship, laid (the pavement) at his own expense.”
The identification of this Erastus with the individual mentioned in the New Testament is disputed, particularly since the inscription calls Erastus aedile, a Roman civic office, whereas the New Testament describes him as the city treasurer. It is plausible, however, that while the inscription commemorates Erastus as aedile, Paul’s epistle reflects him at a later stage of his career, serving as the treasurer of Corinth. Erastus was also not an especially rare name in the Greco-Roman world. Regardless, the primary point I am driving at here does not depend on the identification of the Erastus from the inscription. It is sufficient for our purpose that the epistle to the Romans identifies Erastus as being the city treasurer of Corinth, and hence someone from the city.
How fitting, then, that on his way up through Macedonia with the intention of going to Corinth, Timothy is said to be travelling with an individual whom we know independently was a resident of Corinth.
6. Paul’s Intention to Visit Rome
In his epistle to the Romans, Paul speaks more than once of his desire to visit Rome: “I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles,” (Rom 1:13). Again, “But now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions, and since I have longed for many years to come to you, I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain, and to be helped on my journey there by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a while…When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you,” (Rom 15:23-24, 28). Compare this text to Acts 19:21: “Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome.’” Paley remarks,
Let it be observed that our epistle purports to have been written at the conclusion of St. Paul’s second journey into Greece: that the quotation from the Acts contains words said to have been spoken by St. Paul at Ephesus, some time before he set forwards upon that journey. Now I contend that it is impossible that two independent fictions should have attributed to St. Paul the same purpose,—especially a purpose so specific and particular as this, which was not merely a general design of visiting Rome after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, and after he had performed a voyage from these countries to Jerusalem. The conformity between the history and the epistle is perfect.[ix]
In the book of Romans, Paul indicates that he has intended often for many years to come visit Rome. In Acts 19:21, we find Paul expressing his desire to visit Rome a considerable time before the composition of this epistle (probably about a year or so prior). Paley further argues that the author of Acts does not appear to have based his account on the epistle to the Romans. In particular,
“If the passage in the epistle was taken from that in the Acts, why was Spain put in? If the passage in the Acts was taken from that in the epistle, why was Spain left out? If the two passages were unknown to each other, nothing can account for their conformity but truth.”[x]
7. The Collection for the Relief of the Saints in Jerusalem
A major theme in Romans and the Corinthian epistles is the collection for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. The absence of references to this collection in Acts is a major line of evidence that Acts is not textually dependent on these letters. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, Paul writes, “Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” In 16:5ff, Paul indicates that he plans to go to Macedonia and, from there, to travel to the Roman province of Achaia (of which Corinth was the capital city). Paul instructs the Corinthians to have their portion of the collection ready for his arrival.
Paul also mentions this collection in another epistle composed not long before Romans, while in Macedonia: “We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints…” (2 Cor 8:1-4). Thus, at the time of the writing of 2 Corinthians, Paul was apparently in Macedonia, having collected money, and was intending to travel to Corinth from there. We saw previously that 1 Corinthians was composed in Acts 19:22, when Paul remained in Ephesus after sending Timothy through Macedonia. Now we are able to also situate the writing of 2 Corinthians in Acts 20:1, when Paul was in Macedonia. In the following chapter in this letter, he further adds (2 Cor 9:1-5),
“Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the ministry for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year. And your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I am sending the brothers so that our boasting about you may not prove empty in this matter, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be. Otherwise, if some Macedonians come with me and find that you are not ready, we would be humiliated – to say nothing of you – for being so confident. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction.”
Thus, Paul advises the Corinthians that he has been bragging about them to the Macedonians, and that he intends to bring some people from Macedonia with him to Corinth — and he would not want them to be ashamed by not having their portion of the offering ready for his arrival.
While in Macedonia, Paul wrote to the Romans: “At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material blessings,” (Rom 15:25-27). Paul apparently wrote this letter when he had finished gathering a collection from Macedonia and Achaia and was intending to deliver the funds to Jerusalem. Thus, we can situate the writing of Romans to Acts 20:3, when Paul spent three months in Corinth (in Achaia). In 1 Corinthians, Paul is not sure whether he himself will be in charge of escorting the money to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:4), though this matter appears to have been resolved by the time he wrote Romans (Rom 15:25).
This order of travel adduced from Romans and the Corinthian epistles comports perfectly with the order of travel reported by Acts, though fund raising is not mentioned there as the purpose of Paul’s journey. Paul’s intended itinerary is given in Acts 19:21: “Now after these events Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, ‘After I have been there, I must also see Rome.’” Notice that all of the placements of the letters within Acts are adduced from clues that relate to the collection Paul is gathering, which is never explicitly mentioned in the book of Acts. According to Acts 21:17ff, Paul arrived in Jerusalem, and Paul was taken into custody by Roman soldiers and imprisoned (v. 27ff). While giving a speech before the Roman procurator of Judea, Felix, Paul makes a cryptic and indirect allusion to this collection: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings.”
8. Representatives of the Gentile Churches
Relating to the preceding example, let us now turn to Acts 20:1-4, which provides the longest list in the book of Acts of companions of Paul all traveling somewhere at the same time:
After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. 2 When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. 3 There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus.
The respective locations of the individuals listed here are very carefully noted together with their names. It is quite plausible that these various individuals are intended as representatives of the various gentile churches who were contributing to the collection that Paul was gathering at this time for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. We see throughout Paul’s letters that he desires that everyone know that he is blameless about money and has no agenda of extorting people. This is a major theme in the Corinthian epistles in particular. In 1 Corinthians 16:3-4, Paul writes concerning the gathered collection, “And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.” In other words, Paul suggests that someone else, rather than himself, accompany the Corinthians’ contribution to Jerusalem — he will go only if it seems appropriate. It seems likely, therefore, that Paul was accompanied from Greece to Jerusalem by this large group to demonstrate that he had not absconded with any of the collection and to provide more security as he made the journey. Acts never mentions the collection at all, except in Paul’s cryptic allusion to bringing alms to his nation in his speech before Felix in Acts 24:17.
9. Paul’s Companions in Corinth
In Romans 16:21-23, Paul provides a list of his companions in Corinth: “Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.” Strikingly, Sopater and Timothy are two names also listed among Paul’s travelling companions in Acts 20:4. As discussed previously, Gaius of Derbe is probably a different individual from the Gaius mentioned in Romans, since the latter individual is said to be Paul’s host, implying he lived in Corinth or nearby Achaia. This is likely the same Gaius as the one baptized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:14, suggesting a strong Corinthian connection. Gaius was, in fact, one of the most common Roman praenomina (first names) in antiquity. This also supports the independence of Acts and Romans — if the author of Acts were using the epistle to the Romans as a source for the composition of his own narrative, it is peculiar that he listed an individual by the same name as the figure mentioned in Romans, even though these are separate individuals. A copyist would be more likely to link an individual bearing the name of Gaius to Corinth rather than Derbe.
Note that Sopater (Σώπατρος), which was a much less frequent name, is a shortened or contracted form of Sosipater (Σωσίπατρος), functioning much like a nickname. This slight difference in spelling between Acts and Romans again indicates that Luke is probably not using Romans as a source for the composition of his narrative (nor vice versa). Further supporting this is that the names only partially overlap between Acts and Romans. Moreover, of the remaining five names given in Acts, three are mentioned in Paul’s prison epistles, which were composed in Rome — namely, Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20), Aristarchus (Col 4:10, Philem 24), and Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12). Thus, these three individuals apparently ended up travelling with Paul as far as Rome.
10. As I Directed the Churches of Galatia
In 1 Corinthians 16:1, Paul writes, “Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do.” According to Acts, the last churches visited by Paul prior to his coming to Ephesus were in Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23). Thus, it makes sense that he left those instructions there. That visit was a couple of years prior to his writing 1 Corinthians. However, there is no indication that Paul had visited any other churches in the interim. Thus, Galatians remained the last place where he had delivered these instructions. This is further confirmed by a passing comment in Galatians 2:10 that Paul was eager to “remember the poor,” suggesting that he had in fact spoken on this subject in Galatia.
11. All the Way Around to Illyricum
In Romans 15:18-20, Paul writes, “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience – by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God – so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ.” As shown on the map below, Illyricum was a province to the northwest of Macedonia.
Paul goes on to talk about how he hopes to visit Rome and ultimately travel to Spain, which was still further west than either Rome or Illyricum. Paul appears to be giving an eastern and northwestern reference point concerning the geographical sleep of his ministry up to this point, followed by his anticipation of travelling even further west, to Rome and Spain.
For reasons discussed previously, we can pinpoint the writing of Romans to Acts 20:3, when Paul spent three months in Corinth, in Greece. Just prior to this point, there would have been opportunity for Paul to have journeyed as far northwest as Illyricum. Indeed, this journey through Macedonia is described by Acts 20:2 in general terms: “When he had gone through these regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece.” The Greek here, παρακαλέσας αὐτοὺς λόγῳ πολλῷ, literally means “having exhorted them with many words.” It is quite plausible, then, that Paul traveled around in Macedonia and reached as far as the northwestern border with Illyricum. However, in the earlier journey to Macedonia (recounted in Acts 16:9-17:14) , there would have been no such opportunity. Indeed, Paul’s journey is charted along the eastern border of Macedonia, with the cities precisely named as Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, and Berea. Paley summarizes, “It must have been…upon that second visit [to Macedonia], if at all, that he approached Illyricum; and this visit, we know, almost immediately preceded the writing of the epistle. It was natural that the apostle should refer to a journey which was fresh in his thoughts.”[xi]
This coincidence that the epistle to the Romans appears to have been written during Paul’s three month stint in Greece in Acts 20:3 with the fact that Acts 20:2 allows for travel as far northwest as Illyricum is unlikely to be the result of clever contrivance, particularly since we inferred when, within Acts, the epistle to the Romans was written on entirely independent grounds. Moreover, the province of Illyricum is never explicitly mentioned in Acts at all.
12. Divisions in Corinth
In 1 Corinthians 1:10-12, Paul addresses divisions within the Corinthian church:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”
What was the cause of these factions among the Corinthians? A clue as to Paul’s meaning is provided by 1 Corinthians 1:17: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” Another clue is provided by 2 Corinthians 10:9-10, in which Paul writes, “I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account.’” Apparently Paul, though a gifted writer, was not a great orator. In 2 Corinthians 11:5-6, moreover, Paul adds, “Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.” This suggests that the factions at Corinth may have been a result of the superiority of Apollos and Cephas as public speakers. This makes sense since Corinth, as a Greek city, was naturally impressed by flashy rhetoric and persuasive speeches. When we turn over to Acts 18:24-28, we discover that Apollos was, in fact, a gifted orator, consistent with those clues in 1 Corinthians:
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus (1 Corinthians 18:24-28).
The text indicates that Apollos was known at Corinth for his skills as a public speaker and debater. The casual consistency between 2 Corinthians and Acts supports the historicity of Acts.
13. Silas’ and Timothy’s Preaching in Corinth
According to Acts 18:1,5: “After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth…When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus.” Compare this with 2 Corinthians 1:19: “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes.” As discussed earlier, Paul wrote this epistle from Macedonia. The reference to Silvanus (i.e., Silas) and Timothy, therefore, matches the history. Though this coincidence is more direct than many of those discussed in this article, it must be remembered (as has previously been established) that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent sources. Furthermore, Acts and 2 Corinthians use a different spelling for the name. 2 Corinthians calls him by the name Σιλουανός, whereas Acts uses the contracted name Σιλας. Paley remarks,
“The similitude of these two names, if they were the names of different persons, is greater than could easily have proceeded from accident; I mean that it is not probable, that two persons placed in situations so much alike should bear names so nearly resembling each other. On the other hand, the difference of the name in the two passages negatives the supposition of the passages, or the account contained in them, being transcribed either from the other.”[xii]
It may also be observed that Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians indicates that it was sent by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). This further confirms that they were the same person, since we know from Acts that Silas and Timothy were involved in Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1,10,15). This actually constitutes another undesigned coincidence, since Acts 17:1,10 only says explicitly that Paul & Silas were involved in Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica. It is only in Acts 17:14-15, when we are told that Silas & Timothy remained behind in Berea, that it is implied that presumably Timothy had been there the whole time, even though he went unmentioned in connection to Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica. 1 Thessalonians also further supports Acts’ connection with 2 Corinthians, as discussed above, since we have independent grounds for thinking that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians from Corinth, at a time when Timothy had recently returned from Macedonia with a report on the spiritual wellbeing of the Thessalonian Christians (1 Thess 3:1-5), which correlates with the arrival of Silas and Timothy in Corinth from Macedonia in Acts 18:5.
14. Letters of Recommendation
In 2 Corinthians 3:1, Paul writes, “Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?” (emphasis added). Compare this to Acts 18:27: “And when he [Apollos] wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him.” Recall that Corinth is the capital of Achaia. McGrew remarks,
“This comment dovetails with the statement in Acts that, when Apollos first went to Corinth, he was sent with letters of recommendation from the believers at Ephesus. It is possible that Paul does not have Apollos personally in mind when writing this in II Corinthians. In that case, the verse fits with Acts by alluding to letters of recommendation as a practice in the early church. But there is also plausibility to the suggestion that some in the Corinthian church were still comparing Paul with Apollos and that Paul, though not wishing to attack Apollos, nonetheless in his frustration alludes to the fact that he, unlike ‘some,’ does not need such letters to commend himself.”[xiii]
15. Paul and Apollos at Corinth
In 1 Corinthians 3:6, Paul writes, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” Paul’s wording implies that Apollos came and ministered at Corinth only after Paul’s departure from Achaia, but before the composition of 1 Corinthians. This comports with the timeline supplied in Acts (18:1,24-28; 19:1). As discussed previously, we have strong independent grounds for thinking that 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus, in Acts 19:22, after Paul had sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. Thus, Acts and 1 Corinthians correlate quite precisely. The two writings, however, refer to Apollos in entirely different contexts and for unrelated purposes. It is, therefore, very unlikely that one text was borrowing from the other. In Acts, Apollos is noted for knowing only John’s baptism and for his association with Aquila and Priscilla, while in the epistle he is mentioned only in connection with divisions at Corinth and then in the statement, “I planted, Apollos watered.” That second phrase unintentionally reflects the true chronological order of events recorded in Acts, but Paul introduces it solely to make a theological point that growth ultimately comes from God.
[xiii] Lydia McGrew, Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard Publishing Company, 2017), 140.
Recommended Resources:
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
J. Warner and Melissa Dougherty discuss how New Age ideas such as the law of attraction, toxic positivity, and self-empowerment are subtly influencing Christian beliefs and practices. They highlight the need for biblical discernment and proper hermeneutics, warning that true Christianity must address suffering realistically and resist any teaching that denies the role of hardship in spiritual growth.
9:6 “Wonderful, Counselor” is actually one name instead of two. Government was considered a burden and thus was often described as being borne on the back or shoulders. “Mighty God” (˒el gibbor, Heb.) is literally “God Hero,” i.e., “an heroic God,” an emphasis upon the deity of the Messiah. The word “Father” describes the relationship God is to have with His people (63:16; Ps. 103:13), while “Everlasting” defines the type of fatherhood, forever guarding and sustaining. He establishes a peace beyond the temporary cessation of warfare. Taken together, the four names of the coming Messiah are an extension of the name “Immanuel.” They are not names in the modern sense but rather attributes of the One to whom they are given (cf. 7:14, note).
Criswell, W. A., Patterson, P., Clendenen, E. R., Akin, D. L., Chamberlin, M., Patterson, D. K., & Pogue, J., eds. (1991). Believer’s Study Bible (electronic ed., Is 9:6). Thomas Nelson.
9:6 child … son. The good news is the birth of Jesus Christ. The four royal names express His divine and human qualities, giving assurance that He is indeed “Immanuel” (7:14).
born … given. The verbs are consistent with His humanity and deity respectively.
Mighty God. As a warrior, God protects His people (10:21; Deut. 10:17; Jer. 32:18).
Everlasting Father. The Father and King cares for His subjects (40:9–11; 65:17–25; Matt. 18:12–14; 23:9–12; Rom. 8:15–17).
Prince of Peace. His government brings peace (2:4; 11:6–9; Ps. 72:7; Zech. 9:10; Luke 2:14).
Sproul, R. C., ed. (2005). The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (p. 963). Ligonier Ministries.
9:6 a son has been given to us The promise of hope through a future Davidic king. Attempts to connect this promise to a ruler of Isaiah’s day usually focus on Hezekiah, son and successor of Ahaz, the king to whom Isaiah delivered his warnings and who rejected his offer to provide a sign in Isa 7:12.
The sign provided in 7:14 and the prediction of a future ideal Davidic ruler point ultimately to the Messiah, but immediate hopes for Judah’s future would have been directed at the Davidic line, continued through Hezekiah. However, Hezekiah was likely already born during the Syro-Ephraimite conflict that forms the historical backdrop of this part of Isaiah.
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God This list of titles or attributes for the future king include divine titles that would be unusual if referring to a human Davidic king. For example, “Mighty God” clearly refers to Yahweh Himself in 10:21.
Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (Is 9:6). Lexham Press.
9:6 to us. A gift of divine grace to sinners. a child … a son. This is the invincible figure striding across the world stage, taking gracious command, according to vv. 4–5 (cf. Ps. 2:7–9; Luke 1:32). Isaiah presents the events as if it were the time of the child’s arrival, with an expectation of what he will achieve (Isa. 9:7). Wonderful Counselor. A “counselor” is one who is able to make wise plans (cf. 11:2). He is a ruler whose wisdom is beyond merely human capabilities, unlike intelligent but foolish Ahaz (cf. 28:29). Mighty God. A title of the Lord himself (10:20–21; Deut. 10:17; Neh. 9:32; Jer. 32:18). Everlasting Father. A “father” here is a benevolent protector (cf. Isa. 22:21; Job 29:16), which is the task of the ideal king and is also the way God himself cares for his people (cf. Isa. 63:16; 64:8; Ps. 103:13). (That is, this is not using the Trinitarian title “Father” for the Messiah; rather, it is portraying him as a king.) Prince of Peace. He is the ruler whose reign will bring about peace because the nations will rely on his just decisions in their disputes (cf. Isa. 2:4; 11:6–9; 42:4; 49:7; 52:15). This kind of king contrasts with even the best of the Davidic line that Judah has experienced so far, because these titles show that this king will be divine. Thus this cannot refer to, say, Hezekiah (whose father Ahaz was king at the time), who for all his piety was nevertheless flawed (cf. 39:5–8) and only human.
9:6 The Messiah is both human (from the line of David) and divine (see John 1:14; Col. 2:9).
Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1257). Crossway Bibles.
9:6 child … son. These terms elaborate further on Immanuel, the child to be born to the virgin (7:14). The virgin’s child will also be the royal Son of David, with rights to the Davidic throne (9:7; cf. Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31–33; 2:7, 11). government. In fulfillment of this verse and Ps 2:9, the Son will rule the nations of the world (Rev 2:27; 19:15). Wonderful Counselor. In contrast to Ahaz, this King will implement supernatural wisdom in discharging His office (cf. 2Sa 16:23; 1Ki 3:28). Mighty God. As a powerful warrior, the Messiah will accomplish the military exploits mentioned in 9:3–5 (cf. 10:21; Dt 10:17; Ne 9:32). Eternal Father. The Messiah will be a Father to His people eternally. As Davidic King, He will compassionately care for and discipline them (40:11; 63:16; 64:8; Pss 68:5, 6; 103:13; Pr 3:12). Prince of Peace. The government of Immanuel will procure and perpetuate peace among the nations of the world (2:4; 11:6–9; Mic 4:3).
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. (Is 9:6). Thomas Nelson Publishers.
9:6 child … son. The reason for joy. This was the child prophesied in 7:14, the sign scorned by Ahaz but fulfilled by Christ. a son is given. Signifies the accession of a new king (cf Ps 2:7). upon His shoulder. His strength upholds the nation. His name … Prince of Peace. Throne names describe the power and authority of the new king. Ps 72 defines what these characteristics mean for the Davidic king. Jesus, from David’s kingly line (Lk 2:4), fulfills all of these promises and with the Kingdom brings all of these gifts for people (cf Mk 1:15). While these titles might apply, in part, to an earthly king, in their fullness they belong only to God. Luth: “In the kingdom of Christ there is grace, comfort, forgiveness of sins, joy, peace. He does not deal with the transgressor in sternness, but as a father. The forgiveness of sins is justification, and peace follows justification. This peace is not only peace of mind but also plenty and soundness of mind and good health of the body. Such is the reign of Christ: It is extended by killing; it is fertilized by the blood of the believers; and the more distress there is, the more peace grows in the heart” (AE 16:101). Ath: “His Only-begotten Son might … be called ‘Father’ by His Father.… [He] is at once Father of the coming age, and mighty God, and Ruler. And it is shown clearly all things whatsoever the Father has are His” (NPNF 2 4:89).
Engelbrecht, E. A. (2009). The Lutheran Study Bible (p. 1105). Concordia Publishing House.
9:6 Born speaks of the Child’s humanity and given of His deity. Wonderful, Counselor is one name, meaning “wonderful divine Counselor” (11:1–5). Mighty God indicates that the Lord is a powerful Warrior (10:21). Everlasting Father describes a King and Father who provides for and protects His people forever (40:9–11; Matt. 11:27–30). Thus the word Father is used here of the Savior’s role as an ideal king. Prince of Peace is the climactic title (2:4; 11:6–9; 53:5; Luke 2:14; Rom. 5:1). The Child is the true Prince—the One who has the right to reign and who will usher in peace. The four double names combine aspects of Jesus’ deity and His humanity. Together, these four double names assert the dual nature of the Savior: He is God become man.
Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (pp. 818–819). T. Nelson Publishers.
9:6 The First Advent is described in verse 6a: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given.” The first clause speaks of His humanity, the second of His deity. The next part of the verse points forward to the Second Advent:
the government will be upon His shoulder—He will reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. The rest of the verse describes His personal glories:
His name will be called Wonderful—this name is a noun, not an adjective, and speaks of His Person and work.
Counselor—His wisdom in government.
Mighty God—the omnipotent, supreme Ruler.
Everlasting Father—or better, the Father (or “Source”) of eternity. Eternal Himself, He confers eternal life on those who believe in Him. Vine comments: “There is a twofold revelation in this: (1) He inhabits and possesses eternity (57:15); (2) He is loving, tender, compassionate, an all wise Instructor, Trainer, and Provider.”
Prince of Peace (Sar-Shālôm)—the One who will at last bring peace to this troubled world.
MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments (A. Farstad, Ed.; p. 947). Thomas Nelson.
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them. (Psalm 119:165)
Yes, a true love for the great Book will bring us great peace from the great God and be a great protection to us. Let us live constantly in the society of the law of the Lord, and it will breed in our hearts a restfulness such as nothing else can. The Holy Spirit acts as a Comforter through the Word and sheds abroad those benign influences which calm the tempests of the soul.
Nothing is a stumbling block to the man who has the Word of God dwelling in him richly. He takes up his daily cross, and it becomes a delight. For the fiery trial he is prepared and counts it not strange, so as to be utterly cast down by it. He is neither stumbled by prosperity—as so many are—nor crushed by adversity—as others have been—for he lives beyond the changing circumstances of external life. When his Lord puts before him some great mystery of the faith which makes others cry, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” the believer accepts it without question; for his intellectual difficulties are overcome by his reverent awe of the law of the Lord, which is to him the supreme authority to which he joyfully bows. Lord, work in us this love, this peace, this rest, this day.
“It is by far the most amazing miracle in the whole Bible – far more amazing than the resurrection and more amazing than the creation of the universe. The fact that the infinite, omnipotent, eternal Son of God could become man and join Himself to a human nature forever, so that infinite God became one person with finite man, will remain for eternity the most profound miracle and the most profound mystery in all the universe.”1
Original airdate: 12/12/24:Mary welcomes back Carl Kerby of Reasons for Hope Ministries, an apologetics ministry that covers many different areas and ways to contend for the faith. In these days of moral ambiguity and outright amorality, the porn industry is one of the most insidious, soul trashing industries under the sun. Statistics regarding the popularity of this pursuit are stunning, having increased tremendously over just the last few years. It is estimated that 28,258 users watch porn every second and 35% of all internet downloads are related to porn; 64% of the 18-24 demographic seek it out on a weekly basis. When you add human trafficking as a supplier, there is clearly no lack of demand and it may never go the other direction. We chat about what families can do to keep it far from their homes and thus honor God in this matter as we are commanded. In the 2nd half, we will talk about a book series from Reasons for Hope that are certainly family friendly and edifying, their “Fascinating Facts” series, and how they would make a great Christmas gift. Homeschooling has enjoyed a wonderful renaissance due to Covid, and ministries have truly stepped up with great resources, Reasons for Hope is no exception.
Q: How can believers grow in discernment without becoming cynical?
We live in a time marked by confusion, compromise, and widespread false teaching. In this environment, Christians often drift toward extremes. Some lack discernment and are easily swayed by every new idea. Others become so alert to danger that they grow suspicious of nearly everyone. Scripture offers a better path, one shaped by wisdom, humility, and love. Here is how believers can grow in discernment while guarding their hearts against cynicism.
1. Let Scripture shape your discernment, not suspicion
True discernment flows from biblical clarity, not from a skeptical spirit. Hebrews 5:14 tells us that mature believers have their discernment “trained by constant practice” through the Word of God. Cynicism assumes the worst about people. Discernment tests everything by Scripture. One looks inward and grows bitter. The other looks to God and grows wise.
2. Keep your heart rooted in love for God and His people
The goal of discernment is not to win arguments but to protect the truth and build up the church. Paul reminds us that “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Discernment without love leads to harshness. Discernment with love produces humility, patience, and compassion.
3. Remember that not every mistake is heresy
There are levels of seriousness in theological error. Some issues must be confronted directly. Others require patient instruction. Still others fall into the category of disagreement among faithful believers. Cynicism treats every disagreement as a crisis.
Wisdom knows the difference between:
false gospels.
immature believers.
doctrinal differences among Christians.
Not every situation requires the same response.
4. Examine your own heart first
Jesus instructs us to deal with the log in our own eye before addressing the speck in someone else’s
(Matthew 7:3 to 5). Discernment begins with humility and repentance. The most discerning Christians are the most aware of their own need for grace. Pride grows cynicism. Humility brings clarity.
5. Stay anchored in the gospel, not in controversies
Discernment becomes unhealthy when it centers more on error than on Christ. Healthy discernment flows
from a growing love for the gospel, deeper joy in Christ, and a sincere desire to walk in holiness. If your discernment leads to fear, agitation, or constant anger, you are feeding on the wrong things. Gospel shaped discernment brings peace because it is rooted in truth.
6. Walk closely with wise and godly believers
Proverbs 13:20 says, “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise.” Isolation encourages cynicism. Community brings balance, gentleness, and patience. Faithful companions help keep our hearts steady.
Friend, biblical discernment is not the same as distrust. It is a Spirit enabled ability to recognize truth and error, cling to what is good, and reject what is false, while keeping joy, compassion, and humility intact.
Grow in Scripture. Grow in love. Grow in humility. Grow in community. And keep your eyes fixed on Christ, the source of all wisdom. He will keep your discernment sharp and your heart soft.
For more from Contending for the Word Q&A please visit our page at Servants of Grace or at our YouTube.
In this teaching, Ethan explores one of the most foundational yet misunderstood attributes of God — His aseity, or self-existence. Does God need us? Is He dependent on anything outside Himself? What do passages like Exodus 3:14 (“I AM WHO I AM”) and John 1 reveal about the nature of God and the full divinity of Jesus Christ?
He also clarifies difficult passages like Philippians 2 (“did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped”) and addresses common modern misunderstandings about Jesus, evangelism, and God’s sovereignty.
I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, (12:1a)
Urge is from parakaleō, which has the basic meaning of calling alongside in order to help or give aid. It later came to connote exhorting, admonishing, or encouraging. In His Upper Room discourse, shortly before His betrayal and arrest, Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as the Paraklētos, our divine Helper (also translated Comforter, Counselor, Advocate). He would be “another Helper,” who in this present life takes the place of the incarnate Lord (John 14:16; cf. v. 26; 15:26; 16:7). Paul is speaking as a human helper or counselor to his Christian brethren in Rome. His admonition is a command that carries the full weight of his apostleship. It is not optional. Yet he also wanted to come alongside those brethren as a fellow believer, to lovingly encourage them to fulfill what already was the true inner desire and bent of their new hearts—to dedicate themselves without reservation to the Lord who had redeemed them. He reflects the same humble tenderness seen in his admonition to Philemon, to whom he wrote, “Though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do that which is proper, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you” (Philem. 8–9). The gentle command [urge] that Paul proceeds to give can only be obeyed by brethren, by those who already belong to God’s family. No other offering is acceptable to God unless we have first offered Him our souls. For Christians, that first element of “a living and holy sacrifice” has already been presented to God. The unregenerate person cannot give God his body, his mind, or his will, because He has not given God himself. Because he has no saving relationship to God, “a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor. 2:14). Only the redeemed can present a living sacrifice to God, because only the redeemed have spiritual life. And only believers are priests who can come before God with an offering. “For what will a man be profited,” Jesus said, “if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26). The soul is the inner, invisible part of man that is the very essence of his being. Therefore, until a man’s soul belongs to God, nothing else matters or has any spiritual significance. The loving generosity of the Macedonian churches was made possible and was acceptable to God and praised by Paul because the believers in those churches “first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God” (2 Cor. 8:5). Before anything else worthwhile and acceptable can be given to God, the self must be given to Him in saving faith toward Jesus Christ for regeneration. Earlier in the epistle Paul has made clear that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). No matter what his personal feelings might be, the unredeemed person cannot worship God, cannot make an acceptable offering to God, cannot please God in any way with any offering. That is analogous to what Paul meant when he said, “And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor. 13:3). If a person does not possess the love of God, all of his offerings, no matter how costly, are worthless to Him. Because an unbeliever’s soul has not been offered to God, he cannot make any other sacrifice that is acceptable to Him. The unredeemed cannot present their bodies to God as living sacrifices because they have not presented themselves to God to receive spiritual life. Therefore refers back to the glorious doxology just given in the previous four verses (11:33–36). It is because “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things,” that to Him belongs “the glory forever.” We can only glorify the Lord—we can only want to glorify the Lord—if we have been saved by the mercies of God. As noted above, God already “has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). The mercies of God of which Paul speaks here include the many gracious blessings, or grace gifts (cf. 11:29), that he has discussed in the first eleven chapters of Romans. Perhaps the two most precious mercies of God are His love and His grace. In Christ, we are the “beloved of God” (Rom. 1:7; cf. Rom. 5:5; Rom. 8:35, Rom. 8:39), and, like the apostle, we all “have received grace” through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 1:6–7; Rom. 3:24; Rom. 5:2, Rom. 5:20–21; Rom. 6:15). The mercies of God are reflected in His power of salvation (Rom. 1:16) and in His great kindness toward those He saves (2:4; 11:22). His mercies in Christ bring us the forgiveness and propitiation of our sins (3:25; 4:7–8) and also freedom from them (6:18; 7:6). We have received reconciliation with Him (5:10), justification (2:13; 3:4; etc.) before Him, conformation to His Son (8:29), glorification (8:30) in His very likeness, eternal life (5:21; 6:22–23) in His very presence, and the resurrection of our bodies (8:11) to serve Him in His everlasting kingdom. We have received the mercies of divine sonship (8:14–17) and of the Holy Spirit—who personally indwells us (Rom. 8:9, 11), who intercedes for us (8:26), and through whom “the love of God has been poured out within our hearts” (5:5). In Christ we also have received the mercies of faith (mentioned thirty times in Romans 1–11), peace (1:7; 2:10; 5:1; 8:6), hope (5:2; 20 21). God’s mercies include His shared righteousness (3:21–22; 4:6, 11, 13; 5:17, 19, 21; etc.) and even His shared glory (Rom. 2:10; 5:2; 8:18; 9:23) and honor (2:10; cf. 9:21). And, of course, the mercies of God include His sovereign mercy (9:15–16, 18; 11:30–32). Such soul-saving mercies should motivate believers to complete dedication. The New Testament gives many warnings about God’s chastisement of unfaithful and disobedient believers. “The one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8), and “Those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives” (Heb. 12:6). One day “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10). But the most compelling motivation for faithful, obedient living should not be the threat of discipline or loss of reward but overflowing and unceasing gratitude for the marvelous mercies of God.
THE BODY MUST BE GIVEN TO GOD
to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. (12:1b)
The second and consequent element of presenting ourselves to God is that of offering Him our bodies. After it is implied that believers have given their souls to God through faith in Jesus Christ, they are specifically called to present their bodies to Him as a living and holy sacrifice. In the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), paristēmi (to present) was often used as a technical term for a priest’s placing an offering on the altar. It therefore carried the general idea of surrendering or yielding up. As members of God’s present “holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5), Christians are here exhorted to perform what is essentially a priestly act of worship. Because the verb is in the imperative, the exhortation carries the weight of a command. The first thing we are commanded to present to God is our bodies. Because our souls belong to God through salvation, He already has the inner man. But He also wants the outer man, in which the inner man dwells. Our bodies, however, are more than physical shells that house our souls. They are also where our old, unredeemed humanness resides. In fact, our humanness is a part of our bodies, whereas our souls are not. Our bodies incorporate our humanness, our humanness incorporates our flesh, and our flesh incorporates our sin, as Romans 6 and 7 so clearly explain. Our bodies therefore encompass not only our physical being but also the evil longings of our mind, emotions, and will. “For while we were in the flesh,” Paul informs us, “the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death” (Rom 7:5). Long after he was saved, however, the apostle confessed, “For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7:22–23). In other words, the redeemed soul must reside in a body of flesh that is still the beachhead of sin, a place that can readily be given to unholy thoughts and longings. It is that powerful force within our “mortal bodies” that tempts and lures us to do evil. When they succumb to the impulses of the fleshly mind, our “mortal bodies” again become instruments of sin and unrighteousness. It is a fearful thing to consider that, if we allow them to, our fallen and unredeemed bodies are still able to thwart the impulses of our redeemed and eternal souls. The body is still the center of sinful desires, emotional depression, and spiritual doubts. Paul gives insight into that sobering reality when he said, “I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27). In order to maintain a holy life and testimony and to minister effectively, even the great apostle had to exert himself strongly and continually in order to control the human and sinful part of himself that persistently wanted to rule and corrupt his life and his work for the Lord. In Romans 8, we learned that he had to kill the flesh. Paul also said that God had given him a “thorn,” or a stake, on which to impale his otherwise proud flesh (2 Cor. 12:7). It is helpful to understand that dualistic Greek philosophy still dominated the Roman world in New Testament times. This pagan ideology considered the spirit, or soul, to be inherently good and the body to be inherently evil. And because the body was deemed worthless and would eventually die anyway, what was done to it or with it did not matter. For obvious reasons, that view opened the door to every sort of immorality. Tragically, many believers in the early church, who have many counterparts in the church today, found it easy to fall back into the immoral practices of their former lives, justifying their sin by the false and heretical idea that what the body did could not harm the soul and had no spiritual or eternal significance. Much as in our own day, because immorality was so pervasive, many Christians who did not themselves lead immoral lives became tolerant of sin in fellow believers, thinking it merely was the flesh doing what it naturally did, completely apart from the soul’s influence or responsibility. Yet Paul clearly taught that the body can be controlled by the redeemed soul. He told the sinful Corinthians that the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body” (1 Cor. 6:11–13). Scripture makes clear that God created the body as good (Genesis), and that, despite their continuing corruption by sin, the bodies of redeemed souls will also one day be redeemed and sanctified. Even now, our unredeemed bodies can and should be made slaves to the power of our redeemed souls. As with our souls, the Lord created our bodies for Himself, and, in this life, He cannot work through us without in some way working through our bodies. If we speak for Him, it must be through our mouths. If we read His Word, it must be with our eyes (or hands for those who are blind). If we hear His Word it must be through our ears. If we go to do His work, we must use our feet, and if we help others in His name, it must be with our hands. And if we think for Him, it must be with our minds, which now reside in our bodies. There can be no sanctification, no holy living, apart from our bodies. That is why Paul prayed, “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). It is because our bodies are yet unredeemed that they must be yielded continually to the Lord. It was also for that reason that Paul warned, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts” (Rom. 6:12). Paul then gave a positive admonition similar to the one found in our text (12:1), preceded by its negative counterpart: “Do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Rom. 6:13). Under God’s control, our unredeemed bodies can and should become instruments of righteousness. Paul rhetorically asked the believers at Corinth, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor. 6:19). In other words, our unredeemed bodies are temporarily the home of God! It is because our bodies are still mortal and sinful that, “having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). Our spiritual “citizenship is in heaven,” Paul explained to the Philippians, “from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself” (Phil. 3:20–21). We cannot prevent the remnants of sin from persisting in our mortal bodies. But we are able, with the Lord’s power, to keep that sin from ruling our bodies. Since we are given a new, Spirit-indwelt nature through Christ, sin cannot reign in our souls. And it should not reign in our bodies (Rom. 8:11). Sin will not reign “if by the Spirit [we] are putting to death the deeds of the body” (Rom. 8:13; cf. 6:16). (For a complete discussion of Romans 6–8, see the Romans 1–8 volume in this commentary series.) Paul admonishes us, by God’s mercies, to offer our imperfect but useful bodies to the Lord as a living and holy sacrifice. As noted above, Paul uses the language of the Old Testament ritual offerings in the Tabernacle and Temple, the language of the Levitical priesthood. According to the Law, a Jew would bring his offering of an animal to the priest, who would take it, slay it, and place it on the altar in behalf of the person who brought it. But the sacrifices required by the Law are no longer of any effect, not even symbolic effect, because, “When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11–12). Sacrifices of dead animals are no longer acceptable to God. Because the Lamb of God was sacrificed in their place, the redeemed of the Lord are now to offer themselves, all that they are and have, as living sacrifices. The only acceptable worship under the New Covenant is the offering of oneself to God. From the very beginning, God’s first and most important requirement for acceptable worship has been a faithful and obedient heart. It was because of his faith, not because of his material offering, that “Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). It is because God’s first desire is for a faithful and obedient heart that Samuel rebuked King Saul for not completely destroying the Amalekites and their animals and for allowing the Israelites to sacrifice some of those animals to the Lord at Gilgal. The prophet said, “Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22). David, Saul’s successor to the throne, understood that truth. When confronted by the prophet Nathan concerning his adultery with Bathsheba, David did not offer an animal sacrifice but rather confessed, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). David offered God his repentant heart as a living sacrifice—apart from outward, visible ceremony—and he was forgiven (2 Sam. 12:13). A helpful illustration of the difference between a dead and a living sacrifice is the story of Abraham and Isaac. Isaac was the son of promise, the only heir through whom God’s covenant with Abraham could be fulfilled. He was miraculously conceived after Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was far past childbearing age. It could only be from Isaac that God’s chosen nation, whose citizens would be as numberless as the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the seashore (Gen. 15:5; 22:17), could descend. But when Isaac was a young man, probably in his late teens, God commanded Abraham, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you” (Gen. 22:2). Without question or hesitation, Abraham immediately began to obey. After reaching Moriah and having tied Isaac to the altar, Abraham was ready to plunge the knife into his beloved son’s heart. Had he carried out that sacrifice, Isaac would have been a dead offering, just like the sheep and rams that later would be offered on the Temple altar by the priests of Israel. Abraham would have been a living sacrifice, as it were, saying to God in effect, “I will obey you even if it means that I will live without my son, without my heir, without the hope of your covenant promise being fulfilled.” But Isaac, the son of promise, would have been a dead sacrifice. Hebrews 11:19 makes clear that Abraham was willing to slay Isaac because he was certain that God could raise him from the dead if necessary to keep His promise. Abraham was willing to commit absolutely everything to God and to trust Him, no matter how great the demand and how devastating the sacrifice, because God would be faithful. God did not require either father or son to carry out the intended sacrifice. Both men already had offered the real sacrifice that God wanted—their willingness to give to Him everything they held dear. The living sacrifice we are to offer to the Lord who died for us is the willingness to surrender to Him all our hopes, plans, and everything that is precious to us, all that is humanly important to us, all that we find fulfilling. Like Paul, we should in that sense “die daily” (1 Cor. 15:31), because for us “to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). For the sake of his Lord and for the sake of those to whom he ministered, the apostle later testified, “Even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all” (Phil. 2:17). Because Jesus Christ has already made the only dead sacrifice the New Covenant requires—the only sacrifice that has power to save men from eternal death—all that remains for worshipers today is the presentation of themselves as living sacrifices. The story is told of a Chinese Christian who was moved with compassion when many of his countrymen were taken to work as coolies in South African mines. In order to be able to witness to his fellow Chinese, this prominent man sold himself to the mining company to work as a coolie for five years. He died there, still a slave, but not until he had won more than 200 men to Christ. He was a living sacrifice in the fullest sense. In the mid-seventeenth century, a somewhat well-known Englishman was captured by Algerian pirates and made a slave. While a slave, he founded a church. When his brother arranged his release, he refused freedom, having vowed to remain a slave until he died in order to continue serving the church he had founded. Today a plaque in an Algerian church bears his name. David Livingstone, the renowned and noble missionary to Africa, wrote in his journal,
People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called sacrifice which is simply paid back as a small part of the great debt owing to our God, which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice which brings its own reward of healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and bright hope of a glorious destiny hereafter? … Away with such a word, such a view, and such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering or danger now and then, with a foregoing of the common conveniences and charities of this life, may make us pause and cause the spirit to waver and sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall hereafter be revealed in and for us. I never made a sacrifice. Of this we ought not talk when we remember the great sacrifice which He made who left His Father’s throne on high to give Himself for us. (Livingstone’s Private Journal: 1851–53, ed. I. Schapera [London: Chatto & Windus, 1960], pp. 108, 132)
Like Livingstone, Christians who offer a living sacrifice of themselves usually do not consider it to be a sacrifice. And it is not a sacrifice in the common sense of losing something valuable. The only things we entirely give up for God—to be removed and destroyed—are sin and sinful things, which only bring us injury and death. But when we offer God the living sacrifice of ourselves, He does not destroy what we give Him but refines it and purifies it, not only for His glory but for our present and eternal good. Our living sacrifice also is to be holy. Hagios (holy) has the literal sense of being set apart for a special purpose. In secular and pagan Greek society the word carried no idea of moral or spiritual purity. The man-made gods were as sinful and degraded as the men who made them, and there simply was no need for a word that represented righteousness. Like the Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), Christianity sanctified the term, using it to describe God, godly people, and godly things. Under the Old Covenant, a sacrificial animal was to be without spot or blemish. That physical purity symbolized the spiritual and moral purity that God required of the offerer himself. Like that worshiper who was to come to God with “clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps. 24:4), the offering of a Christian’s body not only should be a living but also a holy sacrifice. Through Malachi, the Lord rebuked those who sacrificed animals that were blind and otherwise impaired. “When you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Why not offer it to your governor? Would he be pleased with you? Or would he receive you kindly?” (Mal. 1:8). Those people were willing to give a second-rate offering to the Lord that they would not think of presenting as a gift or tax payment to a government official. They feared men more than God. Although we have been counted righteous and are being made righteous because of salvation in Jesus Christ, we are not yet perfected in righteousness. It is therefore the Lord’s purpose for His church to “sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:25–27). That was also Paul’s purpose for those to whom he ministered. “I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy,” he told the Corinthian Christians; “for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin” (2 Cor. 11:2). Sadly, like those in Malachi’s day, many people today are perfectly willing to give God second best, the leftovers that mean little to them—and mean even less to Him. Only a living and holy sacrifice, the giving of ourselves and the giving of our best, is acceptable to God. Only in that way can we give Him our spiritual service of worship. Logikos (spiritual) is the term from which we get logic and logical. Our offerings to God are certainly to be spiritual, but that is not what Paul is speaking about at this point. Logikos also can be translated reasonable, as in the King James Version. The apostle is saying that, in light of “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” and of His “unsearchable … judgments and unfathomable … ways”; and because “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Rom. 11:33, 36), including His immeasurable “mercies” that we already have received (12:1a), our only reasonable—and by implication, spiritual—service of worship is to present God with all that we are and all that we have. Service of worship translates the single Greek word latreia, which refers to service of any kind, the context giving it the added meaning of worship. Like paristēmi and hagios (mentioned above), latreia was used in the Greek Old Testament to speak of worshiping God according to the prescribed Levitical ceremonies, and it became part of the priestly, sacrificial language. The priestly service was an integral part of Old Testament worship. The writer of Hebrews uses latreia to describe the “divine worship” (9:6 NASB), or “service of God” (KJV), performed by Old Testament priests. True worship does not consist of elaborate and impressive prayers, intricate liturgy, stained-glass windows, lighted candles, flowing robes, incense, and classical sacred music. It does not require great talent, skill, or leadership ability. Many of those things can be a part of the outward forms of genuine worship, but they are acceptable to God only if the heart and mind of the worshiper is focused on Him. The only spiritual service of worship that honors and pleases God is the sincere, loving, thoughtful, and heartfelt devotion and praise of His children. During a conference in which I was preaching on the difference between true and false believers, a man came to me with tears running down his cheeks, lamenting, “I believe I’m a sham Christian.” I replied, “Let me ask you something. What is the deepest desire of your heart? What weighs heaviest on your heart? What occupies your mind and thoughts more than anything else?” He answered, “My greatest desire is to give all I am and have to Jesus Christ.” I said, “Friend, that is not the desire of a sham Christian. That is the Spirit-prompted desire of a redeemed soul to become a living sacrifice.”
MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1991). Romans (Vol. 2, pp. 139–149). Moody Press.
Dying, We Live
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.
I do not like the word paradox used in reference to Christian teachings, because to most people the word refers to something that is self-contradictory or false. Christianity is not false. But the dictionary also defines paradox as a statement that seems to be contradictory yet may be true in fact, and in that sense there are paradoxes in Christianity. The most obvious is the doctrine of the Trinity. We speak of one God, but we also say that God exists in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We know the doctrine of the Trinity is true because God has revealed it to be true, but we are foolish if we think we can understand or explain it fully. One of the great paradoxes of Christianity concerns the Christian life: We must die in order to live. We find this teaching many places in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, but the basic, foundational statement is by Jesus, who said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it” (Luke 9:23–24). It was these words that inspired this well-known prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi:
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much
Seek to be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.
For it is by giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is by dying that we are born to eternal life.
I would not vouch for the theology implied in each of those impassioned sentences, but as a statement of principles governing the Christian life they are helpful. More important, they are an expression of what Paul sets down at the start of Romans 12 as a first principle for learning to live the Christian life—self-sacrifice. “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.” In Paul’s culture a sacrifice was always an animal that was presented to a priest to be killed. So Paul is saying by this striking metaphor that the Christian life begins by offering ourselves to God for death. The paradox is that by offering ourselves to God we are enabled to live for him. Therefore, it is by dying that we are enabled to live, period. For as Jesus said, trying to live, if it is living for ourselves, is actually death, while dying to self is actually the way to full living. What should we call this paradox? I call it “life-by-dying” or, as I have titled this study, “Dying, We Live.”
Bought at a Price
This principle is so foundational to the doctrine of the Christian life that we must be very careful to lay it out correctly. After that we will go on to look at (1) the specific nature of this sacrifice, that it is an offering of our bodies presented to God as something holy and pleasing to him and (2) the specific motive for this sacrifice—why we should make it. The first truth of this foundational teaching is that we are not our own but rather belong to Jesus, if we are truly Christians. Here is the way Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Again, just a chapter later, he says: “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men” (1 Cor. 7:23). Then, if we ask what that price is, well, the apostle Peter tells us in his first letter: “You know that it was not with perishable things such as silver and gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18–19). In that passage Peter uses the important word redemption, which means to buy back or to be bought again. It is one of the key words for describing what the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished for us by his death on the cross. Since redemption refers to buying something or someone, the image is of a slave market in which we who are sinners are being offered to whomever will bid the highest price for us. The world is ready to bid, of course, particularly if we are attractive or in some other way seen as valuable. The world bids the world’s currency. It bids fame. Some people sell their souls to be famous; they will do almost anything to become well-known. It bids wealth. Millions think that making money is the most important thing any person can do; they think that money will buy anything. It bids power. Masses of people are on a power trip. They will wheel and deal and cheat and even trample on others to get to the top of the pyramid. It bids sex. Many have lost nearly everything of value in life for just a moment’s indulgence. But into the midst of this vast marketplace Jesus comes, and the price he bids to rescue enslaved sinners is his blood. He offers to die for them. God, who controls this auction, says, “Sold to the Lord Jesus Christ for the price of his blood.” As a result we become Jesus’ purchased possession and must live for him rather than ourselves, as Paul and Peter indicate. The great preacher and biblical theologian John Calvin said rightly and precisely, “We are redeemed by the Lord for the purpose of consecrating ourselves and all our members to him.” We need to remember that we are in the application section of Romans. Redemption was introduced earlier in the book, in chapter 3 (v. 24). So what we are finding here is an example of the truth that doctrine is practical and that practical material must be doctrinal if it is to be of any help at all. We are dealing with the practical question of “How should we then live?” But the very first thing to be said to explain how we should live is the meaning and implication of redemption. In other words, we cannot have true Christian living without the gospel.
Death to Our Past
Redemption from sin by Christ is not the only doctrine the Christian life of self-sacrifice is built on, however. A second truth is that we have died to the past by becoming new creatures in Christ, if we are truly converted. We studied this teaching in Romans 6, where Paul argued that because we have “died to sin” we are unable to “live in it any longer” (v. 2). Therefore, instead of offering the parts of our bodies “to sin, as instruments of wickedness,” as we used to do, we must instead offer ourselves “to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and … the parts of [our] bodies to him as instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:13). When we studied this passage earlier I pointed out that it does not mean that we have become unresponsive to sin or that we should die to it or that we are dying to it day by day or that we have died to sin’s guilt. The verb die is an aorist, which refers to something that has been done once for all. Here it refers to the change that has come about as a result of our being saved. “We died to sin” means that as a result of our union with Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit we have become new creatures in Christ so that we can never go back to being what we were. We are to start the Christian life with that knowledge. If we cannot go back, then we must go forward. Let me review this teaching by summarizing what I wrote in my study of Romans 6:11 in volume 2. Dying to sin does not mean:
1. That it is my duty to die to sin.
2. That I am commanded to die to sin.
3. That I am to consider sin as a dead force within me.
4. That I am dead to sin so long as I am gaining mastery over it.
5. That sin in me has been eradicated.
6. That counting myself dead to sin makes me insensitive to it.
What Paul is saying is that we have already died to sin in the sense that we cannot successfully return to our old lives. Therefore, since that is true, we might as well get on with the task of living for the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to forget about sinning and instead present our bodies as “living sacrifices” to God.
Dying to Live
The third foundational teaching for what it means to live by dying is the paradox itself, namely that it is by dying to our own desires in order to serve Christ that we actually learn to live. It is not difficult to understand what this means. We understand only too well that dying to self means putting personal desires behind us in order to put the desires of God for us and the needs of other people first. We understand the promise too! If we do this, we will experience a full and rewarding life. We will be happy Christians. The problem is not with our understanding. The problem is that we do not believe it, or at least not in regard to ourselves. We think that if we deny ourselves, we will be miserable. Yet this is nothing less than disbelieving God. It is a failure of faith. So I ask, Who are you willing to believe? Yourself, as reinforced by the world and its way of thinking? Or Jesus Christ? I say Jesus specifically because I want to remind you of his teaching from the Sermon on the Mount. He speaks there about how to be happy. Indeed, the word is even stronger than that. It is the powerful word blessed, meaning to be favored by God:
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3–10
We call these statements the Beatitudes, which means the way to happiness or blessing. But this is not the way the world thinks one finds happiness. If a director of one of today’s popular television sitcoms or the editor of a widely circulating fashion magazine were to rewrite the Beatitudes from a contemporary point of view, I suppose they would go like this: “Blessed are the rich, for they can have all they want; blessed are the powerful, for they can control others; blessed are the sexually liberated, for they can fully satisfy themselves; blessed are the famous, because they are envied.” Isn’t that the world’s way, the way even Christians sometimes try to go, rather than the way of sacrifice? But think it through carefully. The world promises blessings for those who follow these standards. But is this what they find? Do they actually find happiness? Take for example a person who thinks that the way to happiness is wealth. He sets his heart on earning one hundred thousand dollars. He gets it, but he is not happy. He raises his goal to two hundred thousand dollars. When he gets that he tries to accumulate a million dollars, but still he is not happy. John D. Rockefeller, one of the richest men in the world in his day, was asked on one occasion, “How much money is enough?” He was honest enough to answer wryly, “Just a little bit more.” A Texas millionaire once said, “I thought money could buy happiness. I have been miserably disillusioned.” Another person thinks that he will find happiness through power, so he goes into politics, where he thinks power lies. He runs in a local election and wins. After that he sets his sight on a congressional seat, then on a place in the Senate. If he is talented enough and the circumstances are favorable, he wants to be president. But power never satisfies. One of the world’s great statesmen once told Billy Graham, “I am an old man. Life has lost all meaning. I am ready to take a fateful leap into the unknown.” Still another person tries the path of sexual liberation. She launches into the swinging singles scene, where the average week consists of “happy hours,” Friday night parties, weekend overnight escapes into the country, and a rapid exchange of partners. But it does not work. Several years ago CBS did a television documentary on the swinging singles lifestyle in southern California, interviewing about half a dozen women who all said essentially the same thing: “We were told that this was the fun way to live, but all the men want to do is get in bed with you. We have had enough of that to last a lifetime.” Does the world’s “me first” philosophy lead to happiness? Is personal indulgence the answer? You do not have to be a genius to see through that facade. It is an empty promise. Paul calls it “a lie” (Rom. 1:25). So wake up, Christian. And listen to Paul when he pleads, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom. 12:1–2). God does not lie. His word is utterly reliable. You will find his way to be “good, pleasing, and perfect” if you will bend to it.
The Victim and the Priest
That brings us to the fourth and final foundational truth. The first two concerned what God has done for us in redeeming us and joining us to Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit so that we become new creatures. The third point was the apparent paradox: life by dying. This last point is an urgent appeal for us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices to God. This is not done for us. It is something we must do. This is the “obedience that comes from faith” that Paul wrote about early in the letter, saying, “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (Rom. 1:5). So again we are back to one of the great doctrinal teachings. What an interesting mental picture Paul creates for us in Romans 12:1. A sacrifice is something offered to God by a priest. A priest would take a sacrifice offered by a worshiper, carry it to the altar, kill it, pour out the blood, and then burn the victim’s body. In that procedure the priest and the offering were two separate entities. But in this arresting image of what it is to live a genuinely Christian life, Paul shows that the priest and the offering are the same. Furthermore, we are the priests who present the offering, and the offerings we present are our own bodies. Is there a model for this in Scripture? Of course. It is the model of Jesus himself, for he was both the sacrifice and the priest who made the sacrifice. We have a statement of this in one of our great communion hymns, translated from a sixth-century Latin text by the Scotsman Robert Campbell in 1849:
At the Lamb’s high feast we sing
Praise to our victorious King,
Who hath washed us in the tide
Flowing from his pierced side;
Praise we him whose love divine
Gives his sacred blood for wine,
Gives his body for the feast,
Christ the Victim, Christ the Priest.
Yes, there is an enormous difference between the sacrifice Jesus made for us and our own sacrifices of ourselves. Jesus’ sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice. He died in our place, bearing the punishment of God for our sin so that we might not have to bear it. His death was substitutionary. Our sacrifices are not at all like that. They are not an atonement for sin in any sense. Still, they are like Christ’s sacrifice in that we are the ones who make them and that the sacrifices we offer are ourselves. Another distinction is that in the Old Testament the priests made different kinds of sacrifices. There were sacrifices for sin, of course; they looked forward to the death of Jesus Christ and explained it as a substitutionary atonement. These were fulfilled by Jesus’ death and are not repeatable. In this sense “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,” as the author of Hebrews says (Heb. 10:10). But in addition to the sacrifices for sin there were also sacrifices of thanksgiving, offerings by worshipers who simply wanted to thank God for some great blessing or deliverance. It is this kind of a sacrifice that we offer when we offer God ourselves. Sacrifice is an utterly unpleasant word in our day! No one wants to be a sacrifice. In fact, people do not want to sacrifice even a single little thing. We want to acquire things instead. Nevertheless, this is where the Christian life starts. It is God’s instruction and desire for us, and it is “good, pleasing and perfect” even if it does not seem to be. Will you trust God that he knows what he is doing? Will you believe him in this as in other matters? If you will believe him, you will do exactly what Paul urges you to do in Romans 12. You will offer your body as a “living sacrifice” to God and thereby prove that his will for you is indeed perfect.
Living Sacrifice: Its Nature
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.
Not long ago I reread parts of Charles Dickens’s wonderful historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities. The cities are Paris and London, of course, and the story is set in the years of the French Revolution when thousands of innocent people were being executed on the guillotine by followers of the revolution. As usual with Dickens’s stories, the plot is complex, but it reaches a never-to-be-forgotten climax when Sydney Carton, the disreputable character in the story, substitutes himself for his friend Charles Darney, who is being held for execution in the Bastille prison. Darney, who has been condemned to die, goes free, and Carton goes to the scaffold for him, saying, “It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to, than I have ever known.” The tale is so well written that it still moves me to tears every time I read it. Few things move us to hushed awe so much as a person’s sacrifice of his or her life for someone else. It is the ultimate proof of true love. We are to sacrifice ourselves for Jesus if we love him. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13), and he did it for us. The sacrifice of Sydney Carton for his friend Darney is only a story, albeit a moving one, but Jesus actually died on the cross for our salvation. Now, because he loved us and gave himself for us, we who love him are likewise to give ourselves to him as “living sacrifices.” But there is a tremendous difference. As I said in the last study, Jesus died in our place, bearing the punishment of God for our sin so that we would not have to bear it. Our sacrifices are not at all like that. They are not an atonement for sin in any sense. But they are like Christ’s in this at least, that we are the ones who make them and that the sacrifices we make are ourselves. It is what Paul is talking about in Romans 12 when he writes, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship” (Rom. 12:1). I introduced the matter of sacrifice in the last chapter. In this study I want to explore what exactly is meant by sacrifice, and how we are to do it.
Living Sacrifices
The first point is the obvious one: The sacrifice is to be a living sacrifice rather than a dead one. This was quite a novel idea in Paul’s day, when sacrifices were always killed. The animal was brought to the priest. The sins of the person bringing the sacrifice were confessed over the animal, thereby transferring them to it symbolically. Then the animal was put to death. It was a vivid way of reminding everyone that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) and that the salvation of sinners is by substitution. In these sacrifices the animal died in place of the worshiper. It died so that he or she might not have to die. But now, with a burst of divinely inspired creativity, Paul reveals that the sacrifices we are to offer are not to be dead but rather living. We are to offer our lives to God so that, as a result, we might “no longer live for [ourselves] but for him who died for [us] and was raised again” (2 Cor. 5:15). We are to be living sacrifices, yes. But with what life? Certainly not our old sinful lives in which, when we lived in them, we were dead already. Rather, we are to offer our new spiritual lives that have been given to us by Christ. Robert Smith Candlish was a Scottish pastor who lived over a hundred years ago (1806–73) and who left us some marvelous studies of the Bible. In his study of Romans 12, he reflects on the nature of the life we are to offer God. “What life?” he asks. “Not merely animal life, the life that is common to all sentient and moving creatures; not merely, in addition to that, intelligent life, the life that characterizes all beings capable of thought and voluntary choice; but spiritual life: life in the highest sense; the very life which those on whose behalf the sacrifice of atonement is presented lost, when they fell into that state which makes a sacrifice of atonement necessary.” What this means, among other things, is that we must be Christians if we are to give ourselves to God as he requires. Other people may give God their money or time or even take up a religious vocation, but only a Christian can give back to God that new spiritual life in Christ that he has first been given. Indeed, it is only because we have been made alive in Christ that we are able to do this or even want to.
Offering Our Bodies
The second thing we need to see about the nature of the sacrifice God requires is that it involves the giving to God of our bodies. Some of the earlier commentators stress that offering our bodies really means offering ourselves, all we are. Calvin wrote, “By bodies he means not only our skin and bones, but the totality of which we are composed.” But although it is true that we are to offer God all we are, most commentators today rightly refuse to pass over the word bodies quite this easily because they recognize how much the Bible stresses the importance of our bodies. For example, Leon Morris says, “Paul surely expected Christians to offer to God not only their bodies but their whole selves.… But we should bear in mind that the body is very important in the Christian understanding of things. Our bodies may be ‘implements of righteousness’ (6:13) and ‘members of Christ’ (1 Cor. 6:15). The body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19); Paul can speak of being ‘holy both in body and in spirit’ (1 Cor. 7:34). He knows that there are possibilities of evil in the body but that in the believer ‘the body of sin’ has been brought to nothing (6:6).” In a similar manner, Robert Haldane says, “It is of the body that the apostle here speaks, and it is not proper to extract out of his language more than it contains.… This shows the importance of serving God with the body as well as with the soul.” Paul does not elaborate upon what he means by presenting our bodies to God as living sacrifices in Romans 12, but has already presented this idea in chapter 6. There he said, “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace” (vv. 12–14). Paul is making the same point there, where he first begins to talk about sanctification, that he makes in 12:1—we are to serve God by offering him our bodies. Sin can control us through our bodies, but it does not need to. So rather than offering our bodies as instruments of sin, we are to offer God our bodies as instruments for doing his will. This concerns specific body parts.
Our minds. Although we often think of our minds as separate from our bodies, our minds actually are parts of our bodies and the victory we need to achieve begins here. I will not dwell on this here because I will be treating it more fully later when I talk about mind renewal. But I remind you that this is the point at which Paul himself begins in verse 2: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Have you ever considered that what you do with your mind will determine a great deal of what you will become as a Christian? If you fill your mind only with the products of our secular culture, you will remain secular and sinful. If you fill your head with trashy novels, you will begin to live like the characters you read about. If you do nothing but watch television, you will begin to act like the scoundrels on television. On the other hand, if you feed your mind on the Bible and Christian books, train it by godly conversation, and discipline it to critique what you see and hear by applying biblical truths to the world’s ideas, you will grow in godliness and become increasingly useful to God. When I wrote on this subject in my earlier study of Romans 6:12–14, I set out a simple goal in this area: “For every secular book you read, make it your goal also to read one good Christian book, a book that can stretch your mind spiritually.”
Our eyes and ears. The mind is not the only part of our body by which we receive impressions and that must therefore be offered to God as an instrument of righteousness. We also receive impressions through our eyes and ears, and these must be surrendered to God too. Sociologists tell us that by the age of twenty-one the average young person has been bombarded by three hundred thousand commercial messages, all arguing from the assumption that personal gratification is the dominant goal in life. Television and other modern means of communication put the acquisition of things before godliness; in fact, they never mention godliness at all. How are you going to grow in godliness if you are constantly watching television or reading printed ads or listening to secular radio? I am not advocating an evangelical monasticism in which we retreat from the culture, though it is far better to retreat from it than perish in it. But somehow the secular input must be counterbalanced by the spiritual. As I wrote earlier, “Another simple goal might be for you to spend as many hours studying your Bible, praying, and going to church as watching television.”
Our tongues. The tongue is also part of our body, and what we do with it is important either for good or evil. James, the Lord’s brother, wrote, “The tongue is … a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell” (James 3:5–6). If your tongue is not given to God as an instrument of righteousness in his hands, this will be true of you. You do not need to be a Hitler and plunge the world into armed conflict to do evil with your tongue. A little bit of gossip or slander will suffice. What you need to do is use your tongue to praise and serve God. For one thing, you should learn how to recite Scripture with it. You probably know the popular songs. Can you not also use your tongue to speak God’s words? And how about worship? You should use your tongue to praise God by means of hymns and other Christian songs. Above all, you should use your tongue to witness to others about the person and work of Christ. Here is another goal for you if you want to grow in godliness: Use your tongue as much to tell others about Jesus as for idle conversation.
Our hands and feet. There are several important passages about our hands and feet. In 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12, Paul tells us to work with our hands so that we will be self-supporting and not dependent on anybody: “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” In Ephesians 4:28 he tells us to work so that we will have something to give to others who are in need: “He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.” As far as our feet are concerned, in Romans 10 Paul writes of the need others have for the gospel, saying, “How can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’ ” (Rom. 10:14–15). What do you do with your hands? And where do your feet take you? Do you allow them to take you to where Christ is denied or blasphemed? To where sin is openly practiced? Are you spending most of your free time loitering in the hot singles clubs? You will not grow in godliness there. On the contrary, you will fall from righteous conduct. Let your feet carry you into the company of those who love and serve God. Or, if you go into the world, let it be to serve the world and witness to it in Christ’s name. Use your feet and hands for him. Here is another goal taken from the earlier study: “For every special secular function you attend, determine to attend a Christian function also. And when you attend a secular function, do so as a witness by word and action for the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Holiness
The third word Paul uses to indicate the nature of the sacrifices we are to offer God is holy. Any sacrifice must be holy, without spot or blemish and consecrated entirely to God. Anything less is an insult to the great and holy God we serve. How much more must we be holy who have been purchased “not with perishable things such as silver or gold … but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18–19). Peter wrote, “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: ‘Be holy, because I am holy’ ” (1 Peter 1:15–16). The author of Hebrews said, “Without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). This is the very heart of what we are talking about when we speak of living sacrifices: Holiness is the end of the matter, the point to which the entire Epistle of Romans has been heading. Romans is about salvation. But as someone wise has noted, salvation does not mean that Jesus died to save us in our sins but to save us from them. Handley C. G. Moule expressed this well: “As we actually approach the rules of holiness now before us, let us once more recollect what we have seen all along in the Epistle, that holiness is the aim and issue of the entire Gospel. It is indeed an ‘evidence of life,’ infinitely weighty in the enquiry whether a man knows God indeed and is on the way to his heaven. But it is much more; it is the expression of life; it is the form and action in which life is intended to come out.… We who believe are ‘chosen’ and ‘ordained’ to ‘bring forth fruit’ (John 15:16), fruit much and lasting.” I don’t think any subject is more generally neglected among evangelicals in America in our day than holiness. Yet there was a time when holiness was a serious pursuit of anyone who called himself or herself a Christian, and how one lived and who one was inside was important. England’s J. I. Packer has written a book called Rediscovering Holiness in which he calls attention to this fact: “The Puritans insisted that all life and relationships must become ‘holiness to the Lord.’ John Wesley told the world that God had raised up methodism ‘to spread scriptural holiness throughout the land.’ Phoebe Palmer, Handley Moule, Andrew Murray, Jessie Penn-Lewis, F. B. Meyer, Oswald Chambers, Horatius Bonar, Amy Carmichael, and L. B. Maxwell are only a few of the leading figures in the ‘holiness revival’ that touched all evangelical Christendom between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries.” But today? Today holiness is largely forgotten as being important for Christians. We do not try to be holy, and we hardly know what holiness means. And we do not look for holiness in others. The great parish minister and revival preacher Robert Murray McCheyne once said, “My people’s greatest need is my personal holiness.” But pulpit committees hardly look for holiness in a new pastor today. They look for a winsome personality, communication skills, administrative ability, and other such things. As for ourselves, we do not seek out books or tapes on holiness or attend seminars designed to draw us closer to God. We want seminars entitled “How to Be Happy,” “How to Raise Children,” “How to Have a Good Sex Life,” “How to Succeed in Business,” and so on. Fortunately, this lack has begun to be noticed by some evangelical leaders who are disturbed by it and have begun to address the subject. I commend Packer’s book, as well as a book written several years ago by Jerry Bridges called The Pursuit of Holiness. There is also the older classic by the English Bishop John Charles Ryle by the same title.
Pleasing to God
The final word Paul uses to describe how we should present our bodies to God as living sacrifices is pleasing. If we do what Paul has urged us to do—offer our “bodies as living sacrifices, holy … to God”—then we will also find that what we have done is pleasing and acceptable to him. That is an amazing thing to me, that God could find anything we might do to be pleasing. But it is so! I notice that the word pleasing occurs twice in this short paragraph. The first time, which is what we are looking at here, it indicates that our offering of ourselves to God pleases God. The second time, at the end of verse 2, it indicates that when we do this we will find God’s will for our lives to be pleasing as well as good and perfect. That God’s will for me should be pleasing, pleasing to me—that I understand. How could it be otherwise if God is all-wise and all-good? He must will what is good for me. But that my offering of myself to him should somehow also please him when I know myself to be sinful and ignorant and half-hearted even in my best efforts—that is astonishing. But so it is! The Bible tells me that at my best I am to think of myself as an “unworthy” servant (Luke 17:10). But it also says that if I live for Jesus, offering back to him what he has first given to me, then one day I will hear him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant!… Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Matt. 25:21). Living for Christ may be hard. It always will be in this sinful, God-defying world. I may not understand what good it does either for me or for other people. But that commendation, the praise of the Lord Jesus Christ, will be enough for me. It will make it worthwhile.
Living Sacrifice: Its Motive
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.
What is it that motivates people to be “the best they can be,” as the Army recruitment ads say? There are a number of answers. One way to motivate people is to challenge them. Dale Carnegie, the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People, tells of a mill manager whose workers were not producing. The owner was named Charles Schwab, and he asked the manager what was wrong. “I have no idea,” the manager said. “I’ve coaxed the men; I’ve pushed them; I’ve sworn and cussed; I’ve threatened them with damnation and being fired. Nothing works. They just won’t produce.” “How many heats did your shift make today?” Schwab asked. “Six.” Without saying anything else, Schwab picked up a piece of chalk and wrote a big number “6” on the floor. Then he walked away. When the night shift came in they saw the “6” and asked what it meant. “The big boss was here today,” someone said. “He asked how many heats the day shift made, and we told him six. He chalked it on the floor.” The next morning Schwab walked through the mill again. The night shift had rubbed out the “6” and replaced it with an even bigger “7.” When the day shift reported the next day they saw the “7.” So the night shift thought they were better than the day shift, did they? They’d show them. They pitched in furiously, and before they had left that evening they had rubbed out the “7” and replaced it with a “10.” Schwab had increased production 66 percent in just twenty-four hours simply by throwing down a challenge. Napoleon said that men are moved by trinkets. He was referring to medals, and he meant that soldiers would risk even death for recognition. Winston Churchill, the great British statesman and prime minister during the hard days of the Second World War, motivated the British people by his vision of victory and by brilliant speeches. We can remember some of his words today: “blood, toil, tears and sweat,” “victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory however long and hard the road may be,” “their finest hour.”
Moved by Mercy
What is it that motivates Christians to live a Christian life? Or to use Paul’s language in Romans 12:1, what is it that motivates them “to offer [their] bodies as living sacrifices … to God”? If you and I were as rational as we think we are and sometimes claim to be, we would not need any encouragement to offer our bodies to God as living sacrifices because it would be the most reasonable thing in the world for us to do it. God is our Creator. He has redeemed us from sin by the death of Jesus Christ. He has made us alive in Christ. He loves us and cares for us. It is reasonable to love God and serve him in return. But we are not as rational as that and do need urging, which is why Paul writes as he does in Romans 12. In verse 1 Paul urges us to offer our bodies to God as living sacrifices, and the motivation he provides is God’s mercy: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.” Romans 12:1 is an amazing verse. It is one of those portions of the Bible that is literally packed with meaning, which is why I have been trying to unpack it carefully in these opening studies. I began by studying the word therefore, which links the urging of verses 1 and 2 to everything that Paul has already written about in the letter. Next we looked at the idea of sacrifice, finding that in genuine Christianity we live by dying to self, as strange as that may seem. Third, we explored the nature of these sacrifices, seeing that: (1) they are to be living, (2) they involve giving the specific individual parts of our bodies to God for his service, (3) they must be holy, and (4) if they are these things, they will be acceptable to God. But why should we present our bodies as living sacrifices? The answer is simple: “In view of [or because of] God’s mercy.” In the Greek text the word mercy is plural rather than singular, so the reason for giving ourselves to God is literally because of God’s manifold mercies—that is, because he has been good to us in many ways. This is entirely different from the way the world looks at things. Assuming that people in today’s world should even get concerned about living righteously—and it is doubtful that very many could—they would probably say, “The reason to live a moral life is because you are going to get in trouble if you don’t.” Or to give secular thinking the greatest possible credit, perhaps they might say, “Because it is good for you.” That is not what we have here. In Rediscovering Holiness, J. I. Packer says,
The secular world never understands Christian motivation. Faced with the question of what makes Christians tick, unbelievers maintain that Christianity is practiced only out of self-serving purposes. They see Christians as fearing the consequences of not being Christians (religion as fire insurance), or feeling the need of help and support to achieve their goals (religion as a crutch), or wishing to sustain a social identity (religion as a badge of respectability). No doubt all these motivations can be found among the membership of churches: it would be futile to dispute that. But just as a horse brought into a house is not thereby made human, so a self-seeking motivation brought into the church is not thereby made Christian, nor will holiness ever be the right name for religious routines thus motivated. From the plan of salvation I learn that the true driving force in authentic Christian living is, and ever must be, not the hope of gain, but the heart of gratitude.
That is exactly what Paul is teaching. As John Calvin wrote, “Paul’s entreaty teaches us that men will never worship God with a sincere heart, or be roused to fear and obey him with sufficient zeal, until they properly understand how much they are indebted to his mercy.”
What Is Mercy?
This is not the first time we have had to think about mercy in studying Romans. Mercy is one of three words often found together: goodness, grace and mercy. Goodness is the most general term, involving all that emanates from God: his decrees, his creation, his laws, his providences. It extends to the elect and to the nonelect, though not in the same way. God is good, and everything he does is good. Grace denotes favor, particularly toward the undeserving. There is common grace, the kind of favor God shows to all persons in that he sends rain on the just and unjust alike. There is also special, or saving, grace, which is what he shows to those he is saving from their sins. Mercy is an aspect of grace, but the unique quality of mercy is that it is given to the pitiful. Arthur W. Pink says, “Mercy … denotes the ready inclination of God to relieve the misery of fallen creatures. Thus ‘mercy’ presupposes sin.” Let me show how this works by three examples.
In the Beginning
The first is Adam. Try to put yourself in Adam’s position at the very beginning of human history and imagine how he must have felt when God came to him in the garden after he and Eve had sinned by eating from the forbidden tree. God had warned Adam about eating, saying, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16–17). The Hebrew text actually says, “On the day you eat of it you will die.” But Adam and Eve had eaten of it, and now God had come to them to demand an accounting and pronounce judgment. “Where are you?” God called. Adam and his wife had hidden among the trees when they heard God coming; they were terrified. God had said that they would die on the day they ate of the forbidden tree. Eve must have expected to die. Adam must have expected to die. “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid,” Adam said. “Who told you that you were naked?” God asked. “Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” Adam confessed that he had eaten, though he blamed the woman for getting him to do it. God addressed the woman. “What is this you have done?” Eve blamed the serpent (Gen. 3:9–13). At last God began his judgments, beginning with the serpent:
Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.
Genesis 3:14–15
God spoke to Eve next, foretelling pain in childbirth and harsh struggle within the marriage. We call it the battle of the sexes. Finally, God addressed Adam:
Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.
Genesis 3:17–19
Imagine yourself in Adam’s place, living through what I have described. God had told Adam and Eve that they would die, but they had not died. There had been judgments, of course, consequences. Sin always has consequences. But they had not been struck down; and, in fact, God had even announced the coming of a Redeemer who one day would crush Satan’s head and undo his work. Even more, God had illustrated the nature of Christ’s atonement by killing animals, the innocent dying for the guilty, and then by clothing Adam and Eve with the animals’ skins. It was a picture of imputed righteousness. Adam must have been overwhelmed by an awareness of God’s mercy. Adam deserved to die, but instead of killing him, God spared him and promised a Savior instead. No wonder Adam then named his wife “Eve,” meaning life-giver or mother. It was his way of expressing faith in God’s promise, for God had said that it was from the seed of the woman that the Redeemer would come. The memory of God’s mercy must have kept Adam looking to God in faith and living for God by faith through his long life from that time forward, for Adam lived to be eight hundred years old and was the father of the line of godly patriarchs that extended from him through his third son Seth to Noah.
The Worst of Sinners
My second example is Paul. In his earlier days Paul was called Saul, and he was a fierce opponent of Christianity. He was a Pharisee, the strictest sect of the Jews, and he was zealous for the traditions of his fathers. This led him to participate in the martyrdom of Stephen, and he followed that by arresting and otherwise persecuting many of the early Christians. Having done what he could in Jerusalem, Paul obtained letters to the leaders of the synagogues in Damascus and went there to arrest any Christians he could find and carry them off to Jerusalem for trial and possible execution. On the way Jesus stopped him. There was a bright light from heaven, and when Saul fell to the ground, blinded by the light, he heard a voice speaking to him. “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” the voice replied. At this point Paul must have had feelings similar to those of Adam when God had appeared to him in the garden of Eden. True, God had not told Paul that he would die if he persecuted Christians. He was persecuting them in ignorance, supposing that he was serving God. But he had been terribly mistaken. He had done great harm, and he had even participated in the killing of Stephen. In that first moment of Paul’s dawning apprehension, when he recognized that it was Jesus of Nazareth who was speaking to him, he must have thought that Jesus had appeared to him to judge him. He certainly deserved it. He must have expected to have been struck down and to die. Instead Jesus sent him to Damascus, where he was to be told what he should do. When the message came to him by a disciple named Ananias, it was that he was to be God’s “chosen instrument to carry [God’s] name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel” (Acts 9:1–15). Mercy? I should say it was. Paul never forgot it. That is why, years later, he could write to his young friend and co-worker Timothy, saying, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life” (1 Tim. 1:15–16). It was because he knew himself to be a sinner saved only by the mercy and grace of God that Paul joyfully gave himself to God as a living sacrifice and worked tirelessly to please him.
A Slave of Slaves
My third example is John Newton. Newton ran away to sea as a young boy and eventually went to Africa to participate in the slave trade. His reason for going, as he later wrote in his autobiography, was that he might “sin his fill.” Sin he did! But the path of sin is downhill, and Newton’s path descended so low that he was eventually reduced to the position of a slave in his master’s African compound. This man dealt in slaves, and when he went off on slaving expeditions Newton fell into the hands of the slave trader’s African wife, who hated white men and vented her venom on Newton. Newton was forced to eat his food off the dusty floor like a dog, and at one point he was actually placed in chains. Sick and emaciated, he nearly died. Newton escaped from this form of his slavery eventually. But he was still chained to sin and again went to sea transporting slaves from the west coast of Africa to the New World. It was on his return from one of these slave voyages that Newton was wondrously converted. The ship was overtaken by a fierce storm in the north Atlantic and was nearly sinking. The rigging was destroyed; water was pouring in. The hands tried to seal the many leaks and brace the siding. Newton was sent down into the hold to pump water. He pumped for days, certain that the ship would sink and that he would be taken under with it and be drowned. As he pumped water in the hold of that ship, God brought to Newton’s mind verses he had learned from his mother as a child, and they led to his conversion. When the ship survived the storm and the sailors were again in England, Newton left the slave trade, studied for the Christian ministry, and finally became a great preacher. He even preached before the queen. What was Newton’s motivation? It was a profound awareness of the grace and mercy of God toward him, a wretched sinner. Newton wrote these words:
Amazing grace—how sweet the sound—
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found—
Was blind, but now I see.
Newton never forgot God’s mercy to him. Once a friend was complaining about someone who was resistant to the gospel and living a life of great sin. “Sometimes I almost despair of that man,” the friend remarked. “I never did despair of any man since God saved me,” said Newton. In his most advanced years Newton’s mind began to fail and he had to stop preaching. But when friends came to visit him he frequently remarked, “I am an old man. My mind is almost gone. But I can remember two things: I am a great sinner, and Jesus is a great Savior.” Certainly the mercy of God moved Newton to offer his body as a living sacrifice to God and to seek to please him.
Love So Amazing
Now I come to you. Up to this point I have been asking you to put yourself in the place of Adam, Paul, and John Newton, trying to feel what they must have felt as an awareness of the greatness of the mercy of God swept over them. But if you are a Christian, you should be feeling the same things yourself even without reference to Adam or Paul or other characters. Ephesians 2 describes your experience. It says that before God revealed his mercy to you, you were “dead in your transgressions and sins” (v. 1). You “followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (v. 2) and were “by nature [an object of God’s] wrath” (v. 3). “You were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and [a foreigner] to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world” (v. 12). That was your condition. But now listen to what God did. “Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (vv. 4–7). That is the nature of the goodness, love, grace, and mercy of our great God. If you are a Christian, shouldn’t it motivate you to the most complete offer of your body to him as a living sacrifice and to the highest possible level of obedience and service? How can it do otherwise? In my opinion, you can never understand and accurately appreciate what God has done in showing you mercy in Christ without replying wholeheartedly, as did Isaac Watts in his great hymn “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” (1709):
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.
Service That Makes Sense
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.
The Greek words of the last phrase of Romans 12:1 are ambiguous and have been translated different ways. For example, there are two different ways the words spiritual act of worship in Romans 12:1 may be understood. The noun translated worship is latreia, which can mean either service or worship. The plural of latreia can even mean rites or duties. The adjective in this important combination of words is logikos, however, which can mean either spiritual or rational, and when it is coupled to the noun two rather different meanings are possible. One meaning is preserved in the King James Version: “your reasonable service.” The newer translation is “your spiritual worship,” which appears in the New International Version. What is it? Is it “reasonable service” or “spiritual act of worship”? One answer is that the Greek words may actually embrace both ideas at the same time, spiritual worship being thought of also as rational service. But if I am forced to make a choice, I find myself siding with John Murray, who notes that “reasonable or rational is a more literal rendering.” Logikos has given us the English word logical, which means reasonable or according to reason, and this should also be the preferred meaning, if for no other reason than because in the next verse Paul talks about Christians being transformed by “the renewing of [their] mind[s].” So Paul really is talking about something reasonable, saying that the living sacrifice that he is urging upon us here is logical. Even more, the service itself is to be performed reasonably, or with the mind. “The service here in view is worshipful service and the apostle characterizes it as ‘rational’ because it is worship that derives its character as acceptable to God from the fact that it enlists our mind, our reason, our intellect. It is rational in contrast with what is mechanical or automatic.… The lesson to be derived from the term ‘rational’ is that we are not ‘spiritual’ in the biblical sense except as the use of our bodies is characterized by conscious, intelligent, consecrated devotion to the service of God.” To understand these words well we must comprehend two things. First, we must understand the kind of service that is required. Second, we need to see why such demanding service is so reasonable.
Giving God Ourselves
As far as the first of these two matters is concerned, we have already spent a good bit of time exploring what this kind of service is about. It concerns what Paul calls “sacrifice.” When we were looking at it in detail earlier we saw that it involves three things. First, it must be a living sacrifice. That is, our lives are to be given to God in active, continuing service. Second, it involves the offering of our bodies. In other words, we must give God the use of our minds, eyes, ears, tongues, hands, feet, and other body parts. Third, we must be holy. Moreover, we saw that if we do this, then the sacrifices we make to God will be pleasing to him. Our problem, of course, is that we do not want to give God ourselves. We will give him things. It is relatively easy to give God money, though even here we are frequently far less than generous. We will even give God a certain amount of our time. We will volunteer for charitable work. But we will not give ourselves. Yet without ourselves these other “gifts” mean nothing to the Almighty. You will begin to understand the Christian life only when you understand that God does not want your money or your time without yourself. You are the one for whom Jesus died. You are the one he loves. So when the Bible speaks of reasonable service, as it does here, it means that you are the one God wants. It is sad if you try to substitute things for that, the greatest gift. A wonderful illustration of how we do sometimes substitute things for ourselves is the story of Jacob’s return to his own country as related in Genesis 32. He had cheated his brother Esau out of his father Isaac’s blessing about twenty years before, and he had been forced to run away because his brother was threatening to kill him. Twenty years is a long time. Over those two decades Jacob had gradually forgotten his brother’s threats. But when it came time to go home, which is what this chapter describes, Jacob began to remember the past and grew increasingly fearful of what might happen. Moving along toward Canaan with Laban behind him and his own country in front of him, Jacob had time to think. He remembered his own disreputable conduct. He recollected Esau’s murderous threats. Every step became more difficult. Finally he came to the brook Jabbok that marked the border of his brother’s territory, looked across to where Esau lived, and was terrified. If he could have gone back, he would have. But there was no way to go except forward. What was he to do? The first thing he did was send some servants ahead to see if they could find Esau and perhaps get a feeling for what he was planning to do. They had not gone very far when they ran into Esau, who was actually coming to meet Jacob. Unfortunately, he had four hundred men with him. This was a huge army from Jacob’s point of view, and he could only assume the worst—that Esau was coming to kill him. He thought quickly, then divided his family, servants, and flocks into two groups, reasoning that if Esau attacked one group, the other might escape. Ah, but what if Jacob was in the group Esau attacked? On second thought, that didn’t seem to be a very good plan, so he decided to appease his brother with gifts. First he sent him a present of two hundred female goats. He sent a servant along to drive the herd, and he gave the servant these instructions: “When my brother Esau meets you and asks, ‘To whom do you belong, and where are you going, and who owns all these animals in front of you?’ then you are to say, ‘They belong to your servant Jacob. They are a gift to my lord Esau, and he is coming behind us’ ” (Gen. 32:17–18). After this he sent another group of twenty male goats, and he gave the servant in charge of this flock the same instructions, to say that they belonged to Jacob and were being sent as a gift to Esau, with Jacob to come after them. Just in case Esau was not satisfied with the goats, Jacob decided to send two hundred ewes, then twenty rams. After this he sent over the rest of his livestock: “thirty female camels with their young, forty cows and ten bulls, and twenty female donkeys and ten male donkeys” (v. 15). Each group had its servants in charge, and to each servant he gave the same message. It must have been an amusing picture—all Jacob’s possessions stretched out across the desert going toward Esau. But there was more. After he had sent the animals Jacob sent his least favored wife Leah with her children ahead of him across the Jabbok, followed by his favored wife Rachel with her children. Then there was the Jabbok. And then there at last, all alone and trembling, was Jacob. I suppose that if he had known the chorus, he might have been singing “I surrender all.” All the goats, that is. All the sheep. All the camels. All the cows. All the bulls. All the donkeys. He had given up everything, but he had still not given himself. That is what some of us do. We tell God that we will give him some time. We volunteer to help with something around the church. We give him our money. We do not give ourselves. That night the angel came and wrestled with Jacob to bring him to the point of personal submission, after which this scheming, stiff-necked man was never the same again. When is the angel going to come and wrestle with you? Does he need to?
Why Is It Reasonable?
Let’s not wait for the angel. Let’s deal with this matter of sacrificial service to God now. Let’s examine why it is reasonable to serve God sacrificially.
It is reasonable because of what God has already done for us. We touched on this point in the first of our studies of Romans 12, because it is implied in the word with which Paul begins this final major section of the letter: therefore. Therefore refers back to everything Paul said earlier. He discussed our need as sinners. We are under the wrath of God, on a destructive downhill path and unable to help ourselves. Paul has shown that we are not even inclined to help ourselves. Instead of drawing close to God, who is our only hope, we run away from him, suppressing even the truths about God known from the revelation of himself in nature. Yet God has not let it go at that. God intervened to save us by the work of Jesus Christ, who died for us, and by the work of the Holy Spirit, who enables us to understand what Jesus has accomplished, repent of our sin, and trust him for our salvation. Then he has also joined us to Jesus Christ to make us different people from what we were before. Paul expounded on that in the letter’s first eleven chapters. So now, when he gets to chapter 12, he says, “Look what God has done. Is it not reasonable to give yourself utterly and sacrificially to a God who has given himself utterly and sacrificially for you?” Let me make that personal. Are you a believer in Jesus Christ? Are you trusting him for your salvation? Has the Holy Spirit made you alive in Jesus Christ? If he has, what can be more reasonable than to give yourself to him? What is more logical than to serve God wholeheartedly in this way?
It is reasonable because of what God is continuing to do. The salvation of a Christian is not just a past thing. It is also a present experience, because God is continuing to work in those whom he has brought to faith in Jesus Christ. It is difficult to make changes in our lives, break destructive habits, form new ways of thinking, and please God. But this is exactly what God is doing in us. It is what this text is about. God does not start a thing and abandon it. When God starts something he always brings it to completion. He is doing this with you. Therefore, it is absurd to oppose his purposes. It is futile. The only reasonable thing is to join God and get on with what he is enabling you to do.
It is reasonable because such service is God’s will for us, and his is a good, pleasing and perfect will. This point anticipates Romans 12:2, which says, “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” Christians often get greatly hung up on the idea of discovering what God’s specific will is for their lives. There has been great debate on this, some of which I reviewed earlier in my study of Romans 8. In my judgment, there clearly are specific plans for our lives that God had determined in advance, because he has predetermined all things. The difficulty is that he has not revealed these to us. They are part of the hidden counsels of God, and they are not known by us simply because they are hidden. But although these specific details are not made known, general but very important things are, and the most important of these is that God wants us to be like Jesus Christ. This is what Romans 8:28–29 says. “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” This is what Romans 12:2 is getting at as well. Sometimes we also get hung up on the idea that God’s will must be something hard, difficult, or irrational. Paul corrects that error by giving us three adjectives to describe the nature of God’s will. It is good, he says. God is the master of the understatement. So if God says his will is good, he means good with a capital G. He means that his will for us is the best thing that could possibly be. God’s will is also acceptable, says Paul. This means acceptable to us, since the fact that God’s will is acceptable to God goes without saying. Do not say that the will of God is hard. Or difficult. Or irrational. If you are thinking along those lines, it is because you have not yet learned to surrender to it. Those who do surrender to God’s will, offering their whole selves as sacrifices to him, find that the will of God is the most acceptable thing there can be. Finally, Paul argues that the will of God is perfect. No one can say more than that. Our ways are not perfect. They can always be improved upon and often must be corrected. God’s ways are perfect. They can never be made better. So isn’t it the most reasonable thing in the world to serve God and to do so without reservation, with all your heart?
It is reasonable because God is worthy of our very best efforts. We read in Revelation 4:11: You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.
And again, of Jesus in Revelation 5:9–10:
You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth.
And yet again in Revelation 5:12:
Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!
That is the testimony of the elders, the four living creatures, the angels, and the entire company of the redeemed. It means that God is worthy of all honor, including the very best we have to offer. Do you believe that? I think that is the problem. If we did believe it, we would judge it reasonable to live for Jesus now and we would do it. Instead, in many cases we only say, “Jesus is worthy of all honor,” and then go out and fail to live for him. Our actions refute our profession. On the other hand, if you do live for him, giving God all you can ever hope to be, then you are testifying that God truly is a great God and that he is worthy of the best you or anyone else can offer.
It is reasonable because only spiritual things will last. My last point is that it is reasonable to give everything you have for God because in the final analysis only that which is spiritual will last. Everything else—everything we see and touch and handle—will pass away. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away” (Matt. 24:35). If that is true of the heavens and the earth, it is certainly true of the small perishable things you and I give so much of our lives for. Although “the world and its desires pass away,” we are also told that the one who “does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:17). And so do his works! The Bible says, “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord.… They will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them” (Rev. 14:13). Learning to think this way is part of what it means to think spiritually. It is a start in developing a truly Christian mind. I close with two illustrations. Jim Elliot wrote as a young missionary, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” He gave his life to God in what he judged to be the most reasonable service, and he gained a spiritual inheritance forever. Another missionary, William Borden, came from a wealthy privileged family, was a graduate of Yale University, and had the promise of a wonderful and lucrative career before him. But he felt a call to serve God as a missionary in China and left for the field even though his family and friends thought him a fool for going. After a short time away and even before he reached China, Borden contracted a fatal disease and died. He had given up everything to follow Jesus. He died possessing nothing in this world. But Borden of Yale did not regret it. We know this because he left a note as he lay dying that said, “No reserve, no retreat, and no regrets.” Like so many others, he found the service of Christ to be eminently reasonable, and he gained a lasting reward.
Boice, J. M. (1991–). Romans: The New Humanity (Vol. 4, pp. 1491–1521). Baker Book House.
Supreme Court Could Be About To Let Political Parties Spend Unlimited Money The Supreme Court will hear a case this term that could reshape the rules governing how political parties support their candidates. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that federal limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment by restricting a party’s ability to assist its nominees. The Court agreed to take up the case in June, setting arguments for Tuesday, December 9, 2025.
End of isolation? German chancellor Merz meets PM Netanyahu, visits Yad Vashem & affirms support for Israel German chancellor Friedrich Merz continued his visit to Israel on Sunday, meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and several cabinet ministers ‘Germany must stand up for the existence and security of Israel,’ says Merz “I bow before the six million men, women, and children from all across Europe who were murdered by Germans because they were Jews,” Merz said in Yad Vashem.
IDF chief says Gaza ceasefire line is ‘new border’ – but PM Netanyahu says Phase 2 will begin ‘shortly’ The IDF Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published somewhat conflicting statements about the state of the ceasefire and the future of the Gaza Peace Plan on Sunday. “The Yellow Line is a new border line – serving as a forward defensive line for our communities and a line of operational activity.” However, Prime Minister Netanyahu signaled that the second phase of the ceasefire, which would include Israeli withdrawals as well as the start of a new administration of the enclave and the disarmament of Hamas, could start soon.
AI outs Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman as HKOPS author Chat GPT has outed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) as the real author of the four versions of the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine solution (HKOPS) published on the purported author Ali Shihabi’s website. Shihabi has since 2020 been advising MBS on the Neom mega property development.
Carlson Plans Qatar Home Purchase While Doha Hosts Hamas Leadership Tucker Carlson’s growing relationship with Qatar moved into an entirely new phase this weekend when he told an audience at the Doha Forum that he intends to buy a home in the Gulf emirate. The announcement came during his on-stage interview with Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, and it immediately intensified an already fierce fight inside the pro-Trump, pro-Israel world over Qatar’s ties to Hamas and its long campaign to shape American media.
Pretoria halts visa waiver for Palestinians after Gaza flights South Africa has withdrawn its 90-day visa exemption for Palestinian Authority passport holders over concern the longstanding policy was being used to relocate Gazans, the country’s Department of Home Affairs announced on Saturday. The move came less than a month after a chartered plane landed in Johannesburg with more than 150 Palestinians from Gaza, unsettling South African authorities, who kept the passengers onboard on the tarmac for around 12 hours before allowing them to disembark.
AI Researchers Say They’ve Invented Incantations Too Dangerous to Release to the Public we reported on a new study conducted by researchers at Icaro Lab in Italy that discovered a stupefyingly simple way of breaking the guardrails of even cutting-edge AI chatbots: “adversarial poetry.” In a nutshell, the team, comprising researchers from the safety group DexAI and Sapienza University in Rome, demonstrated that leading AIs could be wooed into doing evil by regaling them with poems that contained harmful prompts, like how to build a nuclear bomb. Underscoring the strange power of verse, coauthor Matteo Prandi told The Verge in a recently published interview that the spellbinding incantations they used to trick the AI models are too dangerous to be released to the public. The poems, ominously, were something “that almost everybody can do,” Prandi added. In the study, which is awaiting peer-review, the team tested 25 frontier AI models — including those from OpenAI, Google, xAI, Anthropic, and Meta . Why poems? That much isn’t clear,
IDF sees sharp rise in enlistment from Druze, Bedouins, and Arab Christians For him and other members of Israel’s Druze community, the turmoil across the border has become a catalyst for a broader shift within their community – which includes a dramatic rise in IDF enlistment among Druze who live on the Golan Heights, who are long known for their opposition to Israel. The events in Syria, coupled with the shock of the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, are reshaping attitudes toward the Israeli state, the army, and the Druze community’s place within both.
Hamas’s Khaled Mashaal: We will not disarm, give up control in Gaza, or accept int’l oversight Hamas will not disarm, give up its weapons, rule of the Gaza Strip, or permit external oversight in Gaza, including the International Stabilization Force (ISF), terror leader Khaled Mashaal said during a video address to an Istanbul conference titled “Pledge to Jerusalem” on Saturday. Israel’s Foreign Ministry, sharing footage of Mashaal’s address, slammed the comments, calling them a “direct contradiction of the core terms of the peace plan itself.”
Iran directing Hamas money network in Turkey, moving hundreds of millions to terrorists Hamas, with the support of Iran, continues to “push forward terrorist plots against Israel and is trying to rebuild its capabilities, including outside of the Gaza Strip,” Adraee stated. Adraee shared documents belonging to the terror group that showed that it ran a network of money changers made up of Gazans living in Turkey in order to exploit Turkish financial infrastructure for terrorist activities. The money changers work in full cooperation with Tehran
Report: Iran Abandoned Assad Two Days Before the Fall of His Regime A Syrian military officer who had coordinated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards told AFP on Sunday that “Tehran abandoned Bashar al-Assad two days before the collapse of his regime.” “We knew the situation was serious, but not at this level,” the officer said. According to the report, following the fall of Aleppo to rebel forces, Iran halted its military involvement in Syria and evacuated approximately 4,000 fighters from the area.
University Of California Mandates Students Conform To Gender Ideology To Remain Registered Is calling a “transgender” person by their “deadname” or objecting to a man in a woman’s restroom sexual harassment? Well, the University of California thinks so—and they are trying to make sure all of their students also think so by including such ideology in mandatory sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training. “failing to use one’s self-declared trans pronouns or protesting the presence of men in women’s restrooms constitutes a hostile environment and qualifies as harassment.”
Trump says Zelensky ‘isn’t ready’ yet to accept US-authored proposal to end Russia-Ukraine war President Donald Trump on Sunday claimed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “isn’t ready” to sign off on a US-authored peace proposal aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war. Trump was critical of Zelensky after US and Ukrainian negotiators completed three days of talks on Saturday aimed at trying to narrow differences on the US administration’s proposal. But in an exchange with reporters on Sunday night, Trump suggested that the Ukrainian leader is holding up the talks from moving forward. “I’m a little bit disappointed that President Zelensky hasn’t yet read the proposal, that was as of a few hours ago. His people love it, but he hasn’t,”
11 Signs That Our World Is Rapidly Becoming A Lot More Orwellian All over the globe, the digital control grid that we are all living in just continues to get even tighter. They are using facial recognition technology to scan our faces, they are using license plate readers to track where we travel, they are systematically monitoring the conversations that we are having on our phones, and they are watching literally everything that we post on social media. At this stage, many of us just assume that nothing that we do or say is ever truly private.
Herzog: The fountains of American life are based on ‘biblical values’ “The fountains of America, of American life, are based on biblical values, just like ours [in the Jewish state],” Israeli President Isaac Herzog told Politico in a long-format interview published on Saturday.
How the India-Russia Alliance Affects US Negotiating Power New Delhi and Moscow just plotted a new course together. Bilateral trade will hit $100 billion by 2030, Russian energy deliveries will be “uninterrupted”, defence co-production will be expanded on Indian soil, and Russia’s state media will gain fresh reach in the world’s most populous democracy. For the US, this should not be considered simply a diplomatic nicety between two emerging powers. This alters leverage in any Ukraine peace settlement attempts, affects prices for Americans, and accelerates a broader alignment between non-Western powers against Washington and Brussels. How does the Putin-Modi meeting affect the US?
Police say criminal illegal alien injured 4 officers in Nebraska gas station shootout The armed suspect accused of wounding multiple officers in a gas station shootout after allegedly firing on a 61-year-old man in an earlier in a seemingly random shooting has been identified as an illegal immigrant and convicted felon. Officials said Salvadoran national Juan Melgar-Ayala, 28, injured four officers at a QuikTrip in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday before being killed at the scene by responding officers.
Revealed: Hamas money laundering network in Turkey linked to Iran The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Shin Bet revealed that Hamas, under direction of Iran, is operating a clandestine network of money exchangers in Turkey, using the country’s financial infrastructure to fund terrorist activities against Israel. According to documents obtained by Israeli authorities, the network is composed primarily of Gazans who manage the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars directly to Hamas and its leadership.
Chechen leader threatens Zelenskyy amid drone strike, echoes alleged assassination plot Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov’s threats against Ukraine following a drone strike echo a 2022 plot to infiltrate Kyiv and target President Zelenskyy. The leader’s latest threat came after a Ukrainian drone reportedly struck a high-rise building near Kadyrov’s home in Grozny on Nov. 5.
America’s New National Security Strategy: A Surprise Departure On China Policy In a big development, the final US National Security Strategy was just published and the refocus on the Western Hemisphere (i.e. the Americas) is confirmed. The document clearly establishes this as the US’s number one priority, saying that the US will now “assert and enforce a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine.”
As Christians put more trust in AI, pastor warns of idolatry As a growing number of people have been turning to apps like Text With Jesus for spiritual guidance, Pastor Ray Miller of First Baptist Church in Abilene, Texas, warns that the rapid adoption of the technology in the faith arena could become “another type of idol pulling at our attention.”
Ukrainian city hit by ‘massive’ strike as peace talks in US conclude Russian air strikes on Ukraine have continued overnight, hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he had a “very constructive” phone call with Donald Trump’s negotiating team following three days of talks in Florida.
Birthright citizenship at SCOTUS: On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship when it concerns those born to noncitizens. In an effort to combat the problem of “anchor babies,” Trump ordered the federal agencies to interpret the 14th Amendment to exclude the granting of automatic citizenship to babies born to noncitizens. That order was quickly challenged by left-wing immigration groups and blocked by the courts. This case has the potential to overturn a misunderstood court precedent set in 1898. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that all former slaves were granted full U.S. citizenship; however, in recent decades, it has been used to grant automatic U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., irrespective of their parents’ citizenship status.
Omar claims to lead the charge on investigating Somali fraud: On Sunday, Ilhan Omar explained that Somalis are the real victims of the massive Somali fraud. “We are also taxpayers in Minnesota.” Omar said, “We also could have benefited from the program.” Margaret Brennan of CBS News asked whether the Minnesota state government was responsible for failing to catch the fraud. Omar jumped at the chance to pass the blame: “That is what I alluded to in my letter. … How can this amount of money disappear fraudulently without there being alarms set off?” Ilhan went on to explain that she was one of the first members of Congress to inquire into the scam. In summary, Somalis are the real victims of Somali fraud, state Minnesota Democrats are responsible for not catching the fraudsters, and Omar deserves credit for paying attention to her own district.
Twice-deported illegal alien charged in Charlotte stabbing: On Friday, a 33-year-old drunken man forced his way onto a light rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina, and subsequently attacked and stabbed another passenger, who remains in critical condition. The assailant is Gerardo Solorzano-Garcia, a twice-deported illegal alien from Honduras. “This heinous stabbing by this twice-removed illegal alien should have NEVER happened,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stated. “Unfortunately,” she noted, “we cannot guarantee the county will honor the [ICE] detainer since they have a history of not cooperating with ICE.” Solorzano-Garcia has a prior criminal history, which includes battery with a deadly weapon, using a false ID, and resisting arrest. It will now include attempted murder. Donald Trump also weighed in, posting on Truth Social, “Another stabbing by an Illegal Migrant in Charlotte, North Carolina. What’s going on in Charlotte? Democrats are destroying it, like everything else, piece by piece!!!”
Gas prices down, electricity prices up: Donald Trump boasted at a recent cabinet meeting that gas prices were “at about $2.50 a gallon.” That’s true in some regions, but the national average only recently dipped below $3 a gallon. Trump suggested gas prices may continue to fall to $2 a gallon or below, which would be a welcome change for everyday Americans. Republicans may want to focus on gas prices, but Democrats are jumping on the rising cost of electricity, which is up 11% this year. From September 2024 to September 2025, electricity prices rose 2.8%, which is actually below the overall inflation rate over that period of 3%. Energy prices are expected to continue to fluctuate with AI data centers, and axed renewable subsidies are expected to push prices up, even as deregulation of fossil fuels and the expansion of nuclear energy begin to drive prices down.
Part of the affordability crisis: lack of workforce participation: Affordability has become a leading issue heading into this year’s midterm elections. Of primary concern is the cost of housing, with many young Americans finding the American dream of home ownership less accessible than in prior generations. While the price of homes is a problem, another factor exacerbating the issue is the lack of workforce participation among young men. The latest Labor Department data shows that fewer and fewer young men ages 16 to 24 are entering the workforce. In the not-too-distant past, the workforce participation of young men was over 70%. It has dropped below 60% today. Able-bodied young men working is necessary for developing their own economic potential. Sitting on the sidelines and not working is robbing them not only of valuable work experience but also of a burden on the rest of Americans who are working.
Trump voids Biden autopen orders; now what? President Donald Trump can declare that former President Joe Biden’s autopen actions are “null and void,” but it may be easier said than done. Trump says that autopen orders, acts of clemency, and pardons were issued without Biden’s approval because his staffers “took the presidency away from him.” Whether or not Trump’s claim is valid, the tricky issue will be proving it. Documents and emails may provide evidence, as may eyewitness testimony. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has identified instances in which the autopen signed executive actions without a clear record of Biden’s approval. Some of Biden’s own words about staffers picking names within a category he approved might make some of his clemency orders the easiest to overturn. These issues are likely to be litigated in particular legal cases, which the Trump administration will want to choose carefully.
MTG has “zero plans” for political future: Over the weekend, Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” where host Lesley Stahl asked her about her surprising resignation and if she was eying a run for the presidency in 2028. “I have zero plans, zero desire to run for president,” Greene answered. “I would hate the Senate. I’m not running for governor.” Greene explained that what led to her discord with Donald Trump was her forcing the issue of releasing the so-called Epstein Files. Trump “was extremely angry at me,” she claims. “He said that it was going to hurt people.” However, it was after Trump changed his stance on the issue that Greene announced her resignation. Perhaps she really is done with politics. Her official last day in office is January 5, but reportedly, she has already been absent from numerous votes.
Trump awarded the first-ever FIFA Peace Prize: For those without Trump Derangement Syndrome, Donald Trump’s diplomacy that led to the Abraham Peace Accords, the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities undermining its ability to wage offensive wars, his negotiations between India and Pakistan, and his peace plan for Gaza had placed him in strong contention for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, after the prize was awarded to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, she dedicated it to Trump for his strong support of her cause. The Nobel committee may not have honored Trump, but FIFA, the governing body of soccer worldwide, created its own peace prize and awarded it to him in recognition of his efforts. “You definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action,” said FIFA president Gianni Infantino. Trump quickly donned the gold medal, adding, “This is truly one of the great honors of my life.”
Tensions reignite between Thailand and Cambodia: With both sides blaming the other for starting it, an already fragile ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand appears to be on the verge of breaking. Thailand launched airstrikes along the disputed border with Cambodia to, as its prime minister put it, “defend the country and protect public safety.” Maj. Gen. Winthai Suvaree said the Cambodian troops fired first into Thai territory in multiple areas, reporting that at least one Thai soldier was killed and several were wounded. Cambodian Defense Ministry spokesperson Maly Socheata said the firefight was a result of a Thai military attack on Cambodian troops, and Thai forces killed four Cambodian civilians and injured nine others. Both countries have tens of thousands of displaced civilians near the border. The modern territorial claims stem primarily from a 1907 map drawn during Cambodia’s time under French colonial rule, which Thailand has argued is inaccurate.
Headlines
Trump adds Flag Day as free national park day while axing MLK Day and Juneteenth —(Fox News)
Judge orders unsealing of grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein case (Just the News)
IRS agents might have to watch a lot of OnlyFans content thanks to Trump’s “No tax on tips” policy (Not the Bee)
DC Police Chief Pamela Smith stepping down, mayor says (Washington Times)
NYC mayor-elect tells residents how to resist ICE agents knocking at their door in new video (Fox News)
‘No more Mr. Nice guy’: Trump bashes Rep. Henry Cuellar for running as a Democrat after pardon (NBC News)
Special needs community demands people stop comparing them to Tim Walz (Babylon Bee)
The Trump administration is working to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as stop people from buying junk food, which then leads to taxpayer spending on healthcare.
Nate Jackson
As we recently learned in New Somalia — a.k.a. Minneapolis — it’s entirely possible to scam the American “safety net” for a billion dollars. Criminals go where the money is, and few organizations are throwing more money around with little oversight but lots of “compassion” than the government via a myriad of income-redistribution programs. Food stamps are a prime example.
Early this year, the Trump administration began focusing on reducing the number of Americans on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — commonly known as food stamps. It’s currently about 42 million Americans (or one in eight) at a cost of roughly $100 billion annually (down from $120 billion in FY2022), which ought to shock and appall every American.
It ought to. Then again, when my wife taught eighth grade in the inner city 24 years ago, one student she mentored was shocked to learn that we bought our own groceries with our own money — the $27,000 she earned teaching while I finished a degree and worked part-time. No one else the girl knew didn’t rely on food stamps.
The Schumer Shutdown put SNAP in the news a month ago, but I’m circling back because Team Trump is working on major accountability measures this year.
In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans expanded work requirements and tightened eligibility rules, and placed more of the onus on states for how money is spent.
The 50 states administer the distribution of federal funds for the program, so, in February, the Agriculture Department asked the states to provide an accounting of all recipients, including names, birth dates, addresses, and Social Security numbers, to weed out ineligible recipients.
As is becoming more common, 29 mostly red states complied, and 21 blue states and DC did not. Moreover, last week, they sued.
Naturally, the Democrats’ rationale for noncompliance was that the data might be used by President Donald Trump’s jackbooted brown shirts Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to detain and deport illegal aliens. Didn’t Democrats just throw a huge tantrum to say that illegals don’t really receive taxpayer benefits? Yes, yes, they did.
Well, a few days ago, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins posted on X, “NO DATA, NO MONEY — it’s that simple.”
In last week’s cabinet meeting, she added, “We will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states until they comply and they allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer.”
After the shutdown ended and SNAP benefits resumed, Rollins ordered that all recipients must reapply. The data from 29 complying states show why — “186,000 deceased men and women and children in this country are receiving a check,” she said. “Can you imagine when we get our hands on the blue state data what we’re going to find?” Given that Democrat states like California, New York, and — ahem — Minnesota are the most “generous” with your money, I can only imagine.
Rollins is not without compassion. Just the opposite, in fact. She wants to ensure that recipients “literally are vulnerable, and they can’t survive without it.” That’s ostensibly the whole purpose of the safety net, right?
It doesn’t work that way in practice. Veteran journalist John Fund notes, “The Government Accountability Office estimates that, overall, the federal government made $528 billion in improper payments involving multiple programs in 2021 and 2022.”
Another area of accountability is not just who gets the money but how they can spend it.
In March, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. encouraged states to ban SNAP recipients from spending that money on sugary drinks and other junk food. After wrangling within the Trump administration, a plan emerged to allow states to apply for waivers to limit what items could be bought with food stamps. So far, 12 states have received those waivers, and more have applied. They take effect in 2026.
The Make America Healthy Again leader rightly insists that paying millions of people to buy junk food contributes to the obesity epidemic and a health crisis, which taxpayers also pay for.
More SNAP money (roughly $13 billion) is spent on sugary drinks than on any other single item.
Think about that for a minute. “We are actually paying for people to get diabetes,” RFK said in August. “Taxpayers should not be financing that.”
Bringing it full circle, he said, “We’re paying again when they get [treated] through Medicaid and, ultimately, Medicare. We are poisoning them with sugars and ultra-processed food.”
The Minnesota graft operation is outrageous, but it pales in comparison to the detrimental effects of SNAP. We’re paying tens of billions of dollars every year to subsidize junk food, which causes obesity and health problems. Then American taxpayers are being shaken down again for $1.9 trillion annually (and rising) for healthcare. How much of that is to treat health problems caused by the junk SNAP recipients buy?
How many of the 186,000 dead recipients died because of how they spent the money?
Douglas Andrews: Dems Defend Another Indefensible — As the Trump administration prosecutes the war on narco-terrorists, the Democrats are forced yet again into another politically unpopular position.
Thomas Gallatin: Trump Puts Biden’s EV Mandate Out to Pasture — The Trump administration has rolled back Joe Biden’s draconian CAFE standards, a deregulatory move that will significantly slow the rise in auto prices.
Emmy Griffin: Most-Cited Climate Study Retracted — German authors’ predictions were exponentially out of whack, undermining a key data point in the narrative for the climate alarmists.
Brent Ramsey: Good Navy News — Having written extensively about the decline of our Navy in recent years, here’s a look at some good Navy news!
Childfree Liberal Women Are Raising Dolls as Their Children — A disturbing trend is emerging on social media, particularly on platforms like TikTok, where child-free and liberal women are raising baby dolls or reborn baby dolls as if they were real children.
Humor: Best Times to Bother Your Husband — Ladies, sometimes you just have to tell your husband something completely irrelevant involving people he doesn’t really know, or things that don’t pertain to him. The important thing is knowing when is the right time to do it.
SHORT CUTS
Pearl Clutching
“When you come for one of us, you come for all of us. We reject the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump. … [Somalis] are Americans. … They are part of our family. They are part of the fabric that makes Minneapolis a better place.” —Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey
Leftist Lob
“The president of the United States is a killer.” —Maxine Waters
Reality Check
“Those who appear ‘troubled’ by videos of military strikes on designated terrorists have clearly never seen the Obama-ordered strikes, or, for that matter, those of any other administration over recent decades.” —Representative Rick Crawford
Wisdom of the Ages
“One of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of criminals and paid so little attention to their victims.” —Thomas Sowell
Culture and Heartland
“When you think about it, shouldn’t [soccer] really be called, I mean, this is football, there’s no question about it. We have to come up with another name for the NFL stuff.” —President Donald Trump
Re: Affordability Crisis
“The connection between illegal immigration and skyrocketing housing costs is as clear as day. We are proud to be moving in the right direction. Still so much to do.” —Vice President JD Vance
Fact-Check: True
“What the Washington Post said last week was a complete lie. They owe an apology to Pete Hegseth, and especially they owe an apology to Admiral Mitch Bradley.” —Senator Tom Cotton
Re: Climate Hysteria
“The moral panic is slowly evaporating. Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat — let alone embrace sweeping upheavals in energy policy and personal lifestyle.” —Josh Hammer
Re: The Left
“Democrats don’t care about consumer choice and affordability. Their policies, as the auto CEOs noted, aren’t based on reality or common sense. They are based on virtue signaling. All they do is raise taxes and impose regulations that bust the budgets of average Americans.” —Gary Bauer
For the Record
“Democrats, of course, don’t care about legal niceties or dead smugglers. They see the air strikes as their latest excuse to get Hegseth sacked or as another political weapon to use against Trump.” —Michael Reagan
ON THIS DAY in 1941, a day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed Congress with his “Day of Infamy” speech, and Congress officially declared war on Japan.
More than 1,000 pastors are commissioned to stand with Israel as the first-ever Ambassadors Summit wraps up in Israel, with participants calling it a defining moment for Christians to take a stand against the growing antisemitism in the US and around the world, and a ‘turning point,’ as the group gathered on the Mount of Olives to pray for the peace of Jerusalem; the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem tells CBN News the event shows Israelis that having a thousand pastors come from around the United States “in solidarity and appreciation and love means everything to us. It tells us we’re not alone;” Chris Mitchell talks about whether the leadership of the Summit sees it as a success, the Israeli government’s view of the Summit, why some call it a turning point, the impact it’s expected to have, and what comes next; here at home, the Supreme Court will take up cases challenging state bans on transgender athletes – biological males competing in female sports; how to eat healthy and avoid gaining weight over the holidays; and a preview of the upcoming ABC special, “Kevin Costner Presents: The First Christmas.”
Last week, Kirk Cameron did a podcast testing the boundaries of Christian fellowship and debate, bringing on an annihilationist to discuss his view in what’s dubbed a “Dangerous Conversation.”
James Cameron, the son of Kirk Cameron, argues in favor of annihilationism, but his arguments is rather simplistic. The first is that it would make God cruel and unjust, alluding to the 8th Amendment in the US Constitution. The argument is that eternal conscious torment is unjust. Kirk Cameron posits the argument against this that lying to a dog results in less consequence than lying to the government which has a less severe consequence than lying to an all powerful deity. Such a deity who exists in eternity would carry out a punishment that’s eternal in nature. Kirk Cameron follows this up, citing Revelation 20:10, which is explicit about Satan and the reprobate being tormented in the final state.
James Cameron’s second argument is that Scripture is agnostic on the issue. This argument is echoed by Kirk Cameron who takes it to argue that annihilationism is within the camp of Christianity. Nevertheless, James Cameron says that there are verses on both sides, but does not provide a definitive verse that presupposes an end to eternal punishment.
The idea that God’s character is impugned by eternal conscious torment is ridiculous, as the Creator can act as He pleases with the creation. God is not obligated to save anyone, but rich in mercy, He saves many. As for the punishment of a fallen creation, the consequences of cosmic rebellion merit eternal torment. The idea that God’s punishments in Scripture came with a mercy, excludes examples where they did not, but even these point ahead to God’s grace as well as eternal judgment.
Jesus saves sinners from God’s wrath, which begs the question of what this wrath is and looks like. This is to say, annihilationism is a more severe false teaching than Kirk Cameron lets on, simply because his son is swayed in favor of annihilationism.
•
NEWS: Over 1,000 pastors gather on the Mount of Olives, commissioned to stand with Israel amid rising antisemitism. Chinese pastor Ezra Jin’s family launches a U.S. Christmas campaign as Beijing escalates its crackdown on house churches.
•
FOCUS STORY: A new survey shows how pastors are using artificial intelligence, the tools they’re turning to, and why some experts warn caution is needed.
•
• MAIN THING:
• As anxiety surges nationwide — especially during the holidays — Dr. Linda Mintle joins Madison Seals to explain how a biblical worldview offers real hope and practical help.
•
LAST THING: Micah 7:7 “I watch in hope for the Lord… my God will hear me.”
Republicans are too weak to fight their enemies. Indeed Republicans think their enemies are over there in foreign lands–Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Venezuelans.
A Democrat judge dismissed the grand jury charges against James and Comey on the grounds that the US attorney prosecuting the case was illegally appointed. The case was not dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence, or on the grounds that the evidence against them presented to the grand jury was false, or that the grand jury was politically biased against the defendants. In other words, even if we assume the judge’s assertion of illegal appointment is correct, the appointment has nothing to do with the case against James and Comey.
The US Justice department last Thursday failed in its attempt to secure a new indictment against New York attorney general Leticia James when the grand jury refused the indictment. It is taken for granted that the prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Yet the case against Leticia James, a case strong enough to have already secured a grand jury indictment, was refused by a second grand jury. What is going on here? Did the prosecutor intentionally present a bad case? I remember AG Bondi saying that the Justice Department was staffed with Democrats. Are jurors in New York too fearful to indict Democrats? Do they fear threats and harassment by thugs?
Remember, the charge against Leticia James is that she committed mortgage fraud– the same charge on which she attempted to frame President Trump. In Trump’s case, there was no evidence of fraud. It was only Leticia James’ assertion. Moreover, there were no complaints of fraud against Trump from the people he allegedly defrauded. All of the lenders said they were pleased with the loans. No one suffered any loss. Leticia James knew that in the corrupt New York so-called “justice system” she could convict a person like Trump, who has been demonized by the media. She knew that there would be some black jurors influenced by the demonization of white people as racists and exploiters who would see in the case against President Trump a way of dealing a blow against their oppressors. Vengeful jurors were the basis for Leticia James prosecution of President Trump.
A new Government Accountability Office report provides yet more reasons for Congress not to extend the enhanced Obamacare subsidies that expire at the end of the month.
Well, what do you know? It turns out the media is admitting Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government in Ukraine might have stolen Western aid, after all. In the least shocking development since the […] The post appeared first on The Western Journal .
Truth2Freedom's Blog 