Over the centuries, many disciples of Christ have been confused, and even troubled, by the fact that a certain Greek word is used a number of times to depict an aspect of our Lord's character. In the minds of some students of Scripture, this term seems to show Jesus in a rather unfavorable light, portraying Him as being overbearing, harsh, angry, and in possession of an explosive temper. One writer suggested He might even be bipolar -- calm, caring and compassionate one moment, then filled with a fierce fury the next. The Greek word in question is "embrimaomai," and the two passages of particular concern, in which this word is employed, are: Matthew 9:30 and Mark 1:43. The word itself appears a total of only five times in the NT writings, four of which are connected to Jesus Himself (in the fifth, it is linked to some who were with Him -- Mark 14:5). The other two times it is used are in the account of Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus, as He prepared to raise the latter from the dead (John 11:33, 38). For an in-depth analysis of the use of this word in this passage, I would refer the reader to Reflections #279 -- "The Tears of Jesus: A Reflective Analysis." In our current study, however, we will focus on the use of this word in the two accounts of healing recorded by Matthew and Mark, for it is these two incidents that seem to trouble people the most. In fact, one commentator, as he considered these accounts, wrote, "Here is a matter which might seem strange at first glance" [Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible: The NT, vol. 1, p. 170].

"Embrimaomai" is an intensified form (due to the preposition "en" being added as a prefix) of the word "brimaomai," which "primarily signifies: to snort with anger, as of horses" [The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, p. 1079 ... also: Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, p. 182]. In time, this horse-like snorting came to be used "as an expression of rage; become indignant, be furious," depicting an emotional excitement of the inner man [Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 442]. Dr. Charles Ellicott states, "The word, implying originally the panting breath of vehement emotion, is one of the strongest used by the New Testament writers to express repugnance, displeasure, or annoyance" [Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6, p. 56-57]. The Expositor's Bible Commentary characterizes it as a "rather violent verb" [vol. 8, p. 233]. "In the classics it meant 'to be very angry, to be moved with indignation.' In the Bible it has a use unknown to profane authors: 'to charge with earnest admonition, sternly to charge, threateningly to enjoin'" [Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament, vol. 1, p. 42]. Dr. Kretzmann concurs, stating that Jesus, in the case of the healed leper in Mark's account, spoke to him "in a most severe manner, assuming a threatening aspect" [p. 170]. Although some scholars, in an attempt to distance the word from its meaning of an intense inner indignation (perhaps to protect the character of Jesus), have suggested that in the NT writings this word simply suggests "a stern and severe warning," yet such a meaning fails contextually in the John 11 passage, where Jesus gave no such charge or warning at all; rather, the term depicted what He was personally feeling. Clearly, the term has shown evolution of meaning and usage, as most words do in most languages, and thus the operative interpretive principle is that "meaning is determined by context." Whereas the passage in John's account indicates the term depicts the inner emotions of Jesus in an emotionally charged setting, the contexts of both the Matthew and Mark passages link the term not only to the Lord's feelings, but also to His words directed to those whom He had healed. This, therefore, will have a bearing on our understanding of how the term is to be understood -- i.e., whether it refers primarily to the emotional state of Jesus Himself, or more properly to some aspect of the warning or charge given by Him.

In Matthew 9:27-31 we find the first account: "As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, calling out, 'Have mercy on us, Son of David!' When He had gone indoors, the blind men came to Him, and He asked them, 'Do you believe that I am able to do this?' 'Yes, Lord,' they replied. Then He touched their eyes and said, 'According to your faith will it be done to you;' and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, 'See that no one knows about this.' But they went out and spread the news about Him all over that region" (NIV). The second account is found in Mark 1:40-45 -- "A man with leprosy came to Him and begged Him on his knees, 'If You are willing, You can make me clean.' Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out His hand and touched the man. 'I am willing,' He said. 'Be clean!' Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 'See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.' Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly, but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to Him from everywhere" (NIV).

There are obviously many things in these two accounts from which we could personally profit by more in-depth examination and reflection (for example: the importance of faith in the securing of the desired healing/cleansing, and the lack of any prior personal meritorious work on the part of those favored by the Lord). However, in light of our focus in this study, we will limit ourselves to just a few relevant observations. In both accounts, the Greek word "embrimaomai" is linked contextually to the charge/command issued by Jesus to those whom He had healed. Thus, although it may indeed provide some insight into His emotional state at that specific point in time (both usages appear in the aorist tense, by the way), it more specifically seems to reflect the strong nature of the warning itself, and the fact that Jesus was quite serious about this warning and wanted these men to take it seriously as well. Most translations and versions tie the term to the words of Jesus, rather than making it a statement about His emotional state. Such phrases as the following are the norm: "Jesus sternly warned them" (NASB, ESV) ... "Jesus strictly charged them" (ASV) ... "Jesus dismissed him with strict orders" (The Message) ... "a straight commandment" (The 1599 Geneva Bible) ... "a stringent charge" (Williams' NT in the Language of the People), although one or two versions seek to link the term far more to the emotional state of Jesus Himself: "Jesus threatened them" (Wycliffe Bible).

I really see nothing in either account suggesting to us that Jesus flew into a sudden fit of rage here, lashing out violently at the men whom He had just shown great compassion for in these acts of healing. Indeed, in Mark 1:41, we read: "Filled with compassion" (Greek: "splanchnizomai"), Jesus reached out and touched the leper, healing/cleansing him. For Jesus to go immediately from compassion to rage would certainly seem to be a shocking transformation. However, there are a few manuscripts that have a different word in this verse: "orgizo," which means "anger, wrath." Some scholars feel this may be a scribal change made in an attempt to make the feelings of Jesus consistent with the "stern warning" two verses later. There is little support for this alternate reading, however. Dr. Bruce M. Metzger observes, "The character of the external evidence in support of orgizo is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports splanchnizomai" [A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 76]. Nevertheless, The Expositor's Bible Commentary has taken the view that Jesus was indeed angry with the leper, even before He healed him, and therefore the word orgizo should be accepted as the correct reading in vs. 41, "for Jesus knew that the man would disobey Him" [vol. 8, p. 630]. For the record, I disagree with this view.

There is no question, on the other hand, that Jesus took His two warnings (on these two separate occasions) very seriously, and that He sought to impress upon these men just how important it was to His ministry at this time that they obey His instruction. Thus, He gave His charge "sternly," and it would not be lost on His hearers that Jesus felt very strongly about what He was saying, His words being invested with strong emotion emanating from His innermost being. This wasn't just a random request on His part; it was heartfelt and intense. The question that arises is: WHY was it so important to Jesus that these men remain silent about the blessings they had received? What specifically was Jesus so concerned about that He would issue such warnings with such emotional intensity? "Our Lord frequently gave such prohibitions (Mark 5:43; 7:36; etc.), and His reasons for doing so varied according to circumstances" [C. E. W. Dorris, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Mark, p. 39]. However, in these two accounts His prohibition is linked with a strong emotional concern, which again leads to the above questions regarding His intent.

A number of explanations have been suggested. "This rather violent verb reveals Jesus' intense desire to avoid a falsely based and ill-conceived acclaim that would not only impede but also endanger His true mission" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 233]. It is speculated that since Jesus still had much work yet to do in His earthly mission, the time was not yet right to make dramatic revelations as to His true identity or ultimate mission. In other words, if the word got out that the Messiah, the long-awaited King of the Jews, had finally arrived, many would no doubt seek to place Him on the throne and expect the ushering in of a physical kingdom and the expulsion of the Romans, which expectation could seriously jeopardize His spiritual mission to mankind. Thus, at this stage of His work, the less public acclaim He received the better. This seems to be suggested later in Matt. 12:15-21, where we find Jesus "warning them not to tell who He was" (vs. 16), which, in fact, was "to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah" (vs. 17). At the right time, and under the right circumstances, His identity and mission would be revealed. That time had not yet come, which Jesus even stated to His mother at the beginning of His ministry (John 2:4).

Lending support to this (especially in the Matthew account) is the fact that the blind men called Jesus: "Son of David" (Matt. 9:27), which at the time was a phrase associated with Messianic expectation. "This is the first time Jesus is called 'Son of David,' and there can be no doubt that the blind men were confessing Jesus as Messiah" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 233]. Thus, "the reason for this sternness lies in the manner in which these men called Jesus the Son of David" [R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, p. 379]. Dr. Kretzmann notes, "The danger of a carnal movement, by which the people of Galilee would be roused into rebellion against the Romans, made it necessary for Him to impose silence upon them" [p. 52]. The Greek scholar, Dr. Marvin Vincent, in his classic Word Studies, says, "The reason for this charge and dismissal lay in the desire of Jesus not to thwart His ministry by awaking the premature violence of His enemies" [e-Sword]. Our Lord's concern was not unfounded either, for after these men, in their joy, spread the good news far and wide, we are informed: "As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly, but stayed outside in lonely places" (Mark 1:45). Thus, it was because of just such concerns that Jesus sought, in the strongest possible terms, to prevent the premature pronouncements of His identity and mission. To suggest, as some have, that these verses reveal a negative side of our Lord's nature (that He was unstable and given to sudden emotional swings from compassion to rage) is unfounded.

***************************

From Ray Downen in Missouri:

Al Maxey is convinced that God's grace is given to every person regardless of that person's wish or desire. He writes, "Some seemingly don't understand the concept of a 'free gift,' and insist on 'paying for' this gift of grace. Little do they know that the price of this free gift was 'paid in full' by Jesus at the cross. To suggest that we must pay something in addition to what He has already paid is to imply that the price He paid in His precious blood was somehow insufficient, and the difference must be 'made up' by us." Those who reject Jesus as Lord of their life will not be saved. God's grace is conditional. Al says it's universal. Al is wrong.

• The above statement is a portion of an email Ray Downen sent out to his mailing list on Monday, March 10th. Ray, who is a dear brother whom I have known for a number of years, and with whom I have visited face-to-face a number of times at the Tulsa Workshop, is a leader in the Christian Church and the founder of Mission Outreach. Over the past few years, however, he has become increasingly vocal in his opposition to some of my teaching (or, I should say, what he has mistakenly perceived my teaching to be). I have tried time and again, as have others, to convince him that I do NOT teach what he claims I teach, but he persists in his misrepresentations nonetheless. The above statement is yet another example. A good friend of mine, and also of Ray, and an author and publisher, wrote Ray about the above statement, saying, "Ray, in all honesty, Al has never said that." He is right. I do not teach the TULIP philosophy of "Irresistible Grace," nor am I a proponent of Universalism. I have written extensively against both. On the other hand, I firmly believe God's gift of grace, as extended through the sacrifice of His Son, was given "once for ALL," rather than it being a "Limited Atonement" (another TULIP tenet, which suggests His gift is only extended to the elect, and withheld from all others). Thus, the grace of God is, in fact, unlimited in scope; it is extended/made available to all people everywhere. Does this mean all men are saved "regardless of that person's wish or desire"? Of course not. That would deny their free will. Although the gift of His grace is extended to ALL, not everyone will choose to receive it. It is received BY FAITH -- a faith that will be evidenced in our actions thereafter in numerous ways. Is God's grace conditional? It is given/extended freely, UNconditionally to ALL; but whether or not men choose to receive that free gift IS conditioned on whether or not they believe (have faith). If that faith is genuine, it will show itself throughout their lives, on a daily basis, in God-glorifying ways. Yes, Jesus "paid it all" (as we sing in our hymn), and thus there is nothing I can bring in my hands to merit His grace. I can only receive it, with empty hands, by faith, and then show my gratitude for His gift in my subsequent attitudes and actions, which will, prayerfully, become increasingly Christ-like through the transforming power of His indwelling Spirit. If such teaching is "heresy," then I gladly plead guilty to being a "heretic." -- Al Maxey

From a Reader in Tennessee:

I have just finished reading and studying Reflections #610 -- "Purchasing the Gift of Grace." You are right on target! I have been a deacon in two congregations, an elder in one, and a Bible teacher in three. It took me quite a while, and many hours of study, to get where I am today. I was a student at Lipscomb when Clay Pullias was the president. I studied under Batsell B. Baxter, as well as under many other very conservative teachers. It has taken me 40 years of study of the Bible on my own, and many hours of prayer, to come to the understanding of the Bible that I have today. I am so glad that I did not stop studying when I left Lipscomb. I agree with your teachings completely. You are right on target. Keep up the good work. Al, please do not let the critics get to you and discourage you in any way!

From a Reader in Georgia:

Your Reflections article "Purchasing the Gift of Grace" was REALLY good! You explained grace so well. Last Sunday, I began teaching, in one of the adult classes, an extended verse-by-verse study of Galatians. I have already planned to spend a good bit of time on grace. My intent now is to pass out copies of this Reflections article in toto to the class members, with full credit to you as the author, and spend some time talking about it. Thanks, Al.

From a Reader on the Island of Barbados:

I say AMEN to your article "Purchasing the Gift of Grace." This is just what the Great Physician ordered. You have packaged it concisely and precisely. The Scripture references used nail it down. It is my belief, however, that it will take some believers a lifetime before they believe what you have stated so clearly in this episode of Reflections. By and large, as a denomination we have not come to grips with this truth. Thanks for this remarkable, Scripture-supported explanation of the Wonderful Grace of Jesus.

From a Noted Leader/Author in Churches of Christ:

Al, Thank You for your amazing article on the amazing grace of our loving God (Reflections #610 -- "Purchasing the Gift of Grace"). Sadly, some have dropped the G from grace and stressed the RACE to be won on their own merit, and then dropped the R, thinking that if they play their ACE right, then maybe, just maybe, if they are one of the lucky ones, they might win the game and be invited to sit on the back row in heaven! Most of the sermons I have heard on grace are then quickly nullified by about TEN sermons on how you can "fall from grace," and thus why you need to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." We dare not ever leave the impression that salvation is a FREE GIFT, rather than something one must earn through brownie points and staying on the good side of brethren who are looking for specks in each other's eyes. Brother Al, keep up the great lessons that challenge us to THINK and to STUDY the Word. Truth has nothing to fear from such!

From a Reader in North Carolina:

Let me personalize the following passage: "For by grace I have been saved through my faith in God, not because of anything I have done or will do, but it is a gift from my heavenly Father; no works I could have done would merit it, thus, I have no room to brag." I know I took some liberties in translation, but isn't this exactly what the Spirit is trying to each us?! Grace is a free gift from God, and we can never repay Him for that wonderful, precious gift! We can only love and serve Him with our lives, tell others about His Son, and count the days until we sit at His feet for all eternity. Won't it be wonderful there?! I appreciate you, brother!

From a Reader in Georgia:

I wonder if people have ever thought about Peter's other sermon?! Everybody points to Acts 2:38 in the first sermon, but as I was reading in Acts this morning it dawned on me that Peter preached another sermon that was very closely patterned after his Pentecost message, but either he forgot what he had said just days earlier, or the dog ate his notes! "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19, ESV). Repent -- same message as Acts 2:38, and I would assume nobody would repent, turning to Him, unless they believed. What?! No mention of baptism?! Yet, sins are said to be "blotted out"? I assume the "times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord" would be a reference to receiving the Holy Spirit. It's the same message as Acts 2:38 ... except for the water. So, what would the people who only heard the second sermon think they needed to do to have their sins blotted out?! Just curious if you had ever commented on this before.

• I actually stressed this point in Reflections #515 -- "Peter's Problem Preposition: Reflecting on 'EIS' in Acts 2:38." The following is an excerpt from that article: The reality of God's inspired revelation, and this is perceived throughout, is that we are saved by grace through faith, not by virtue of anything we have done or ever could do; rather, it is a gift of God because of His great love and mercy. If this is true, and I believe with all my heart that it is, then we must repent of proclaiming a performance-based and knowledge-based salvation! Redemption is not to be found in getting religious rituals right; it is found in the redemptive act of our Redeemer! Salvation is a GIFT, and it is received by FAITH. Yes, genuine faith will show itself in our daily lives in countless loving manifestations, but none of these evidentiary acts, in and of themselves, constitute the precise point of salvation (as some sacramentalists assert). Thus, passages like Acts 2:38 must be understood in view of the truth that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). With that foundational truth in mind, how are we to understand what Peter told the people in Jerusalem on that first Pentecost following our Lord's death, burial, resurrection and ascension? Peter's message in his sermon was essentially: Jesus is the Messiah ... and you killed Him ... repent of this, and embrace Him. Dr. F. F. Bruce correctly points out that in Acts 2:38 "the call to repentance is Peter's basic and primary demand" [Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 75]. When we teach baptism as the primary demand of this verse we have missed Peter's point. Peter's purpose was to turn the hearts of his hearers to faith in Jesus as their Redeemer, who, by virtue of His shed blood, would cleanse them of their sins. This basic emphasis is especially seen in Peter's sermon in Solomon's Colonnade where he says nothing about baptism, but instead declares to the people, "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out" (Acts 3:19). "This shows that for Luke at least, and probably also for Peter, while baptism with water was the expected symbol for conversion, it was not an indispensable criterion for salvation" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 284]. Peter's clear emphasis is repentance, which "is not a mere feeling; it has not the uncertainty of moods and sentiments. It is not a simple change in the weather of the soul. It is a distinct alteration of the focus of the intelligence; it carries with it a movement of the will; in short, it is a revolution in the very ground of the man's being" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 18, p. 66]. -- Al Maxey

From a Reader in Alabama:

In your last issue of Reflections, in the readers' section, a person from Alabama wrote, "It seems to me you are teaching baptism as less important than the role given it in Scripture. ... I do not understand your efforts to separate the timing of God's work of salvation from the act of baptism in water." I just wanted to tell you that your answer to that reader's questions was absolutely brilliant. The analogy of the wedding ceremony is perfect. The Lord is truly blessing your studies of His Word. I'm so thankful that He has given you the wisdom and the ability to share your learning with the rest of us!

From a Reader in New Mexico:

Dearest Al, Thank You for your wonderful sermon yesterday! Even now, I don't have words to describe what it meant to me (and not only to me, but also to the guests I brought). I was very impressed by all the research you had done for the message. I would gladly hear that sermon again! I've also made copies of the handout you provided to the congregation, and am sending it to family and friends. I thank you again for your good lessons and for all you do for us here at Cuba Avenue. We love you!

From a Reader in California:

I shuddered when I read the statement that "grace follows obedience." I hope this brother who made this statement (which you quoted and commented upon in your last Reflections) will think things through on this. I am grateful that I came to an understanding of Christ's sacrifice and God's grace, and I pray that this person does too. Thank you, Al, for standing firm on God's true message of love for mankind.

From a Reader in [Unknown]:

I have a question, and so I'm turning to you, whom I perceive to be very knowledgeable about the strict Church of Christ beliefs. My brother is always using 2 Timothy 2:15 ("Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" -- KJV) to support his belief that the Church of Christ is the ONLY "true church." I need to know your thoughts on this.

• Such sectarian dogma is just another tragic example of those who base their convictions upon nothing more than assumptions drawn from assumptions. The passage in question has nothing whatsoever to do with identifying one small faction of a movement within Christendom as THE "one true church." Yet, I have heard various rigid religionists from various sects and factions use this passage to declare themselves, to the exclusion of all other disciples of Christ, THE CHURCH. Their premise, of course, is that THEY, and they alone, are the ONLY ones on the face of the earth who "rightly divide" the Scriptures. All others, they contend, twist and pervert the Word of God. Since the "Church of Christ" church is the only group that "rightly divides" God's Word (dividing/cutting out instruments, choirs, Sunday schools, fellowship halls, etc.), then obviously WE (i.e., those who agree with our theological assumptions and party preferences and practices, all of which, of course, have been "rightly divided" by us from the Scriptures) are the "one true church." OUR view is "right" on everything; everyone else's view is wrong, which means they don't love the Lord or the Scriptures. They're dishonest, they are godless, they are "denominationalists," and they are all, without exception, going straight to hell unless they "wise up and get to the right church" (i.e., OURS). For a far more rational and reasoned view of the meaning of this passage, I would refer the reader to Reflections #518 -- "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: Reflecting on Pauline Intent in 2 Timothy 2:15." -- Al Maxey

From a Reader in Texas:

Al, I just read Reflections #501 -- "Can We OBEY The Gospel?" What an outstanding article! You have shown yourself to be unsatisfied with just unthinkingly accepting certain phrases and/or sayings oft-repeated among Church of Christ brethren. You clearly want to delve deeply into what the Scriptures actually say in relation to such phrases or expressions. You want to explore the actual words in Greek and find out what those words meant to the one who first wrote them. You probe. You dig. You try to get at the real intent of the terms. You did that in Issue #501, and you did a similar outstanding job at dissecting and properly understanding a phrase/concept in your recent article about coming into contact with the blood of Jesus Christ (Reflections #608). You do this over and over, Al; you write such great, informative articles! I don't agree with you on everything you write, but so much of what you write is spot on! So many of your Reflections are like a breath of fresh air; like discovering a beautiful orchid in the snow; a delight of reason and understanding in a barren landscape of tradition and legalism and mindless repetition of "right sounding" phrases (such as "obey the gospel," which is just used by "us" as a code phrase to mean "get baptized"). Yet, you are not satisfied, Al, with just accepting such metaphors and expressions. You take these metaphors and expressions and peel them back layer by layer, examining them to see what, if any, deeper truths may be there, and for that I thank you! Keep on doing the great work you're doing!

From a Minister in Texas:

Al, I agree with you that baptism in water is not a sacrament. That is just false on a number of levels. I also agree that there is nothing we can DO to earn or merit God's gift. However, what do you think of this illustration that I have used in sermons? -- I choose to give a new car to a friend; it is a free gift. He doesn't have to pay me anything. However, he still has to go to the DMV and sign the papers transferring ownership. If he refuses to sign those papers, the vehicle is not legally his. True, he didn't do anything to earn the car (he didn't pay for it), but there was still something he had to DO before he could own it. I tell people that baptism is like signing the papers at the DMV. Salvation is a free gift; you can't do anything to earn it. But, until you get baptized that salvation isn't yours. Does this illustration make sense, or am I missing something somewhere?

• Several people wrote to share similar illustrations with me, all of which have a single purpose: to try and validate the view that baptism in water is THE act that MUST be performed by man BEFORE the "free gift" of God's grace can be bestowed upon the penitent believer. I am very familiar with these illustrations, and, I admit, have even used them in the past (and with a single purpose in mind: to get people to the water; even boasting afterward of how effective they were in getting people to "come forward"). There is a flaw here, however, that many fail to perceive: most such analogies break down at some point, for faint shadows can never fully convey the depth of the greater substance. The major fallacy here is that we seek to compare aspects of receiving a temporal gift from men with the reception of an eternal gift from God. When men give physical things to other men, temporal rules and regulations of the societies and cultures in which they dwell will apply. They are under law, and must comply with such law, even in the area of gifts freely given. However, when God seeks to impart a gift of a spiritual, eternal nature and value into the hearts and lives of men and women, the analogy with respect to aspects of reception under human laws and customs will of necessity break down, for such human regulation/law no longer has any standing. No physical act can truly receive a spiritual gift; no act of man, no matter how "righteous," can ever deserve a reward from God. The gift of grace is received spiritually (by FAITH; it is an inner reception), but the reality of that inner reception of faith can then (for our benefit, as well as the benefit of others) be made manifest in a physical act representative of the greater reality.

• The death, burial and resurrection of God's Son secured the gift of salvation for us. Jesus paid the price of our redemption IN FULL, and that gift of grace, that great spiritual, eternal reality, we receive spiritually BY FAITH, and then manifest physically in a participatory action known as baptism in water. The observing of the Lord's Supper is another similar temporal participatory action by men of a greater spiritual, eternal reality. Neither act is a sacrament, although some in centuries past, and even today, have sought to make both sacramental. These are symbolic acts, not sacramental acts. Nevertheless, both are essential evidentiary acts in that they validate the genuineness of our faith, as well as serving as a visible and dramatic testimony to others of the gift we have received and by which we live. In our analogies we often mistakenly try to relate apples to oranges. We talk about physical conditions regulating the receiving of physical gifts from fellow humans, which comparison breaks down quickly when moving the discussion to spiritual, eternal gifts being offered by God to those dwelling in a temporal realm. The reaching for and reception of such gifts require something other than a highly regulated physical act -- it requires a spiritual act. That is where FAITH comes in. We receive His free gift into our hearts by grace through faith, and NOT as the result of anything WE have done physically in this temporal realm, for nothing offered by man could ever be considered worthy of such a free gift. However, as His children, newly born from above by the richness of His grace and mercy through a sincere faith, we waste no time SHOWING our love for Him and deep gratitude for His gift of salvation in various ways relevant to the physical realm in which we live. These are evidentiary acts of faith that speak dramatically to the greater reality with which we have been spiritually blessed (baptism in water being one such evidentiary act of faith). With this understanding, I have to question the worth of such comparisons as signing papers at the DMV, for I believe they do not truly convey the truth with respect to "saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves," and such analogies can therefore be more harmful than helpful in our proclamation of the Good News (for if we are honest with ourselves, we will have to admit that the only real purpose of such analogies is to promote baptism in water as the specific point at which we "contact the blood" and are thus "saved"). Frankly, those we seek to teach, if they are discerning at all, tend to see through this rather quickly. -- Al Maxey

From a Minister in Ohio:

If I understand your Reflections article, salvation is wholly a gift of God's grace and is unconditionally given to sinful men without any need on their part to do anything to receive it. If that be correct, the work you do in preaching is pointless and a total waste of everybody's time, including your own.

• Grace alone does not save, otherwise ALL would be saved. Faith alone does not save (otherwise the demons also would be saved -- James 2:19). Genuine faith always shows itself. There are various levels of faith (as per the demons, and as per the Jewish leaders, who believed, but who feared confessing Jesus lest they be put out of the synagogue -- John 12:42). Thus, the right kind of faith will be visible. The same is true with LOVE. A love that does not show itself is not genuine. After the beautiful passage (Eph. 2:8-9) that shows we are saved by grace through faith, not of works, we find the 10th verse which states our Lord expects us to engage in good works. These are the evidentiary acts of faith that will validate our saving faith. My point in my articles is that we too often teach that one or more of these evidentiary acts is the precise point of our salvation (that the act itself is what saves us), as in baptism. This, like loving others, showing mercy, being benevolent, etc. is a testimony to our faith and devotion to the Lord, but not a salvific act in itself (which would make the act sacramental in nature). Our salvation is by His grace and our faith, but our life testimony, from beginning to end, will consist of evidentiary acts of love, faith, repentance, compassion, etc. In these acts we show who, and Whose, we are. They do not save us, but are the acts of one who is saved. Our works testify to the efficacy of HIS work within us (the transforming power of His indwelling Spirit). To begin singling out individual evidentiary acts and investing them with salvific powers is sacramentalism, which leads quickly to sectarianism. I seek simply to return people to the power of grace/faith, and then urge them to reflect that reality in their daily lives by their actions and attitudes. -- Al Maxey

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, contact me and I will immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, then feel
free to send them on to others and encourage them
to write for a free subscription. These articles may all
be purchased on CD. Check the ARCHIVES for
details and past issues of these weekly Reflections:
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm