House Built Upon the Rock Jesus Christ

What Did Jesus Christ Accomplish With His Death?

Here is how one Catholic explains the death of Jesus Christ:

Source: The Question Box, New Edition, by Rev. Bertrand L. Conway of the Paulist Fathers, copyright 1929 by the Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle in the State of New York, published by the Paulist Press, 401 West 59th Street, New York, page 58.

What is the biblical penalty for sin?

The Wages of Sin

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Adam was warned. As long as he was obedient, and did not eat from the forbidden tree, he would live. He would live forever in harmony with his creator God. But rebel against the law of God and the penalty would be a forfeiture of his life. Eat from the forbidden tree and a death sentence would be immediately imposed on Adam.
How was that death sentence carried out after Adam sinned?

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The day that Adam and Eve sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, they were expelled from the garden of Eden and not permitted to return. This expulsion effectively prevented Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life. Without access to the tree of life Adam and Eve would inevitably perish.

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Because Adam had sinned, the penalty of death entered the world:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So what, according to the Bible is the wages of sin? What is the penalty for sin?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Death Is the Penalty for Sin

Ezek 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezek 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Prov 13:14 The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.

Prov 14:27 The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

There are two fates for all of humanity. Life through faith in the atoning death of Christ on the cross, or death for the sinner who lacks faith. The unsaved will not see life, they will perish. Eternal punishing and torment in Hell for sinners is a perversion of scripture and a Catholic fiction. Hell is the grave, a complete cessation of life.

Regaining Access to the Tree of Life

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Adam and Eve, after they sinned, were prevented from eating from the tree of life. This prevented them from living forever as sinners. Sin and sinners were not permitted to be eternal. God has not changed His mind. Those without faith will not be given access to the the Tree of Life, just like Adam and Eve were denied it and were denied eternal life. Consequently, sin and sinners must surely come to an end, cease to exist. When the last sinner has perished in the lake of fire, sin and sinners will be no longer. Those with faith will again be given access to the tree of life, and so will not be subject to the second death:

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, ...

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

1 Cor 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

It is this second death that Christ died for us. For those with faith, the second death will have no power over them. However, in the second death, all sinners will perish in the lake of fire: sinners and sin cease to be. With no sin in the universe there will never again be death. We are promised victory over this second death if we have faith in Christ's atoning death on the cross:

Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (death / the grave) shall not prevail against it.

1 Cor 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1 Cor 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
1 Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

 

If The Wages Of Sin Is Death, Then Did Christ Really Die In Our Place On The Cross?

Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Christ laid down His life for our sins. Death is the penalty for sin, and that is precisely the price Christ paid in our place.

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

2 Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2 Cor 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Th 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

1 Pet 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1 Pet 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 Pet 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1 Pet 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The Good News!

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins. Christ died for us, in our place. He paid the penalty of death that we should have paid, so that by faith in His atoning death and resurrection we might live forever with Him in victory over the law of sin and death. That is the good news, the Gospel message that the Bible teaches in verity.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

May many souls even yet accept the gospel message, that Christ died in our place, that He who knew no sin became sin, and paid the price for our sins, which is death. Also by this faith that we might not die the second death but be permitted to one day eat from the tree of life and live forever as the Bible teaches. And so may we all.

Biblical Baptism A Confession of Repentance and Faith

Quotes from scripture are from the King James unless otherwise noted:

Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

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

Note that John the Baptist did his baptizing in the river Jordan. Ever wonder why? A clue is in the definition of baptism. Here are the Greek words used in connection with baptism, from Strong's Greek dictionary:

G907. baptizo, bap-tid'-zo; from a der. of G911; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, espec. (techn.) of the ordinance of Chr. baptism:--baptist, baptize, wash.

G908. baptisma, bap'-tis-mah; from G907; baptism (techn. or fig.):--baptism.

G909. baptismos, bap-tis-mos'; from G907; ablution (cerem. or Chr.):--baptism, washing.

G910. Baptistes, bap-tis-tace'; from G907; a baptizer, as an epithet of Christ's forerunner:--Baptist.

G911. bapto, bap'-to; a prim. verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or spec. sense, i.e. (lit.) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by impl.) to stain (as with dye):--dip.

Apostolic baptism was by full immersion, and that is why John the Baptist used the river Jordan. In other words, the one being baptized was fully dunked under the water, which is clear from the Greek and even acknowledged by the Catholic Church:

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death (628), from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."(6)

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc.--Libreria Editrice Vaticana, bearing the Imprimi Potest of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, page 312.

So the New Testament only speaks of baptism by immersion. However, some may point to the book of Ezekiel to validate baptism by sprinkling:

Ezek 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Ezek 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Sprinkling of water was part of Israel's ritual cleansing ceremonies (see Numbers 8:7, 19:13, 17-21), which Ezekiel alludes to, but not a single instance of baptism by this method can be verified anywhere in the New Testament. Baptism was only by full immersion. The common practice today of baptism by sprinkling or pouring is simply not supported by the New Testament. It is therefore, nothing but the tradition of men.

Yet, some may point to Pentecost (Acts 2:41) and use the following rational to justify baptism by pouring:

"At Pentecost, the thousands who were baptized could not have been baptized by immersion -- Jerusalem had no body of water large enough. (Water was [and is] piped in to the city.) The converts must have been baptized by pouring."

This makes you think that there were no large bodies of water in Jerusalem, that water was piped directly into homes, in sinks and bathtubs like today, which would make the task of baptizing 3000 by immersion impractical. Most any map of Jerusalem in New Testament times will show there were the following pools of water in the immediate vicinity:

• Serpent's Pool - to the southwest
• Tower's Pool - to the west
• Strouthion Pool - to the northwest
• Sheep Pool - to the north
• Pool of Israel - to the north
• Pool of Bethesda - to the north by the sheep gate
• Pool of Siloam - to the south

The Pool of Siloam is mentioned in John 9:7-11 as the place where a blind man received his sight after washing there. Another, the Pool of Bethesda is mentioned in John 5:2-7 which was by the Sheep Gate and frequented by the sick and lame looking for healing.

In Palestine, water is frequently stored in very large cisterns cut into the rock, some large enough to have spiral staircases cut into them so that one could walk down to the water level to draw water. There would have been an ample number of such pools and/or cisterns in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem with which to baptize 3000 people by immersion in one day.

So why immersion? What is the reason for it?

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Baptism is symbolic of burial with Christ, which is the reason for full immersion, and coming up out of the water is symbolic of being raised from the dead to a new and eternal life. This symbolism is not effectively conveyed by sprinkling or pouring.

Another common practice is the baptism of infants soon after birth. Search the New Testament and you will not find a single instance of an infant being baptized. Here is what the Vatican Catechism says with regard to infant baptism:

The Baptism of Infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.(50) The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God where they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.(51)

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.(52)

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.(53)

50 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1514; cf. Col 1:12-14.
51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681;686, 1.
52 Cf. LG 11; 41; GS 48; CIC, can. 868.
53 Cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; CDF, instruction, Pastoralis actio: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156.

The Catholic Church teaches that the act of Baptism cleanses one of original sin, hence the perceived need to baptize infants, so that should they die, they will die in a state of sinlessness and enter heaven. The thought being that the infant that dies without baptism, dies still tainted by Adam's inherited sin, and so cannot enter heaven. This kind of thinking stems from a total misunderstanding of the purpose and function of baptism and how sin of any kind is forgiven by God. These then are the scriptural references cited above by the Catholic Catechism to support infant baptism:

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Acts 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

1 Cor 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 Cor 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1 Cor 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

These above passages are cited to "prove" infant baptism, but this is nothing more than sheer speculation. The fact remains that there is not a single incident recorded in the New Testament where infant baptism can be identified and really proved.

So what does baptism really do? Can anyone, by baptizing an unwilling participant, wash away sins and save them? Are forgiveness and salvation dispensed like a commodity through a ceremony or sacrament by any church? Just how are sins, any and all sins, washed away?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Jesus Christ is the only one who can cleanse us of our sins. He took our sins to the cross, and died because of them. By our faith in His atoning death, we can be saved, because His blood was shed for the specific purpose of washing away our sins. Note the sequence in the above verse. Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. Belief comes first, and then baptism.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The act of baptism is not magical, and does not by itself cleanse anyone of sins. That is not what these verses mean. A confessed faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what really saves.

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 12:8 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 12:9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Pet 3:21 (NIV) and this water [of Noah's flood] symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Pet 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Those with faith will seek baptism as an outward sign of repentance, an open confession before men and God of faith in Jesus Christ to cleanse them of their sins. An infant, or child younger than the age of reason, cannot repent of their sins or express their faith, so baptizing them does nothing to remove their sins, and is therefore quite useless.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Note what a Roman Catholic Catechism of the 19th century had to say on the matter of infant baptism:

    Q. Can Protestants prove to Anabaptists, that the baptism of infants is good and useful?
    A. No; they cannot; because, according to Protestant principles, such baptism is useless.
    Q. Why do you say this?
    A. One of the Protestant principles is, that no human being can be justified, except by an act of faith in Jesus Christ; but no infant is capable of making this act of faith; therefore, upon Protestant principles, the baptism of infants is useless.
    Q. Can you draw the same consequence from any other principle?
    A. Yes; their first principle is, that nothing is to be practised, which is not authorized by scriptural example; but it does not appear from Scripture, that even one infant was ever baptized; therefore Protestants should reject, on their own principle, infant baptism as an unscriptural usage.
    Q. How do Anabaptists treat other Protestants?
    A. They boast that the Scripture is evidently for Anabaptist practice; that other Protestants hold traditional doctrines like Catholics. They quote Matt. xxvii., "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them," from which they say it is clear, that teaching should go before baptism; hence, they conclude, that as infants cannot be taught, so neither should they be baptized, until they are capable of teaching or instruction.
    Q. What use do they make of Mark xvi.: He who believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved?"
    A. They say it is evident that belief, or faith, must precede baptism; but, they add, children or infants are not capable of believing; therefore neither are they capable of being baptized.
    Q. What can Protestants reply to this Anabaptist reasoning?
    A. They may give these passages another meaning, but [pg. 153] they can never prove that their interpretation is better than that of the Anabaptists, because they themselves give every one a right to interpret Scripture.
     Q. What inference do you draw from this?
     A. That every Protestant has much reason to doubt whether he be baptized.
    Q. How do Catholics prove that infants ought to be baptized?
    A. Not from Scripture alone, which is not clear on this subject, but from the Scripture which illustrated by the constant tradition of the Church, which, in every age, administered baptism to infants, and consequently the practice must have been derived from the Apostles.
    Q. Can Protestant use this triumphant argument of tradition against the Anabaptists?
    A. No; they have no right to use it in this matter, where it would serve them, since they reject it in every question, where it is opposed to their novel and lately-invented doctrines.

Source: Controversial Catechism, by the Rev. Stephen Keenan, published in 1851 in Edinburgh; by C. Dolman, 13 South Hanover Street, and 61, New Bond Street, London, pp. 152,153.

The Rev. Stephen Keenan makes the point that if you are a Protestant, and hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura; the Bible only for doctrine; but you were only baptized as an infant, then you have reason to doubt that your baptism was valid, since infant baptism cannot be proved from scripture!

So, if you have faith in Christ, but have not yet been baptized, or if you were baptized as an infant, or by mere sprinkling, you might want to consider being baptized in the same biblical manner as Jesus was by John, as an adult by full immersion, as an open confession of your faith before God and man that you accept the death of Jesus Christ in your place to wash away your sins, and that you lay claim to the promise of eternal life because of that faith:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

---

Under the Law The Bible Definition

Romans 3:19  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

When we see this one singular verse of Scripture, then we cannot seriously agree with the many modern thinkers who pervert the Scripture, trying to decieve young Christians into thinking that:

1.  God's Law of Ten Commandments is our enemy
2. Or having any discussion of Commandment keeping, observing the Law, or reading the things contained in the Law (Torah-instructions of Moses) means you have placed yourself under the Law.

No such definitions are in Scripture.

Commentary upon Mary of Bethany/Magdalene?

Luke 7:36 references, "one of the Pharisees." This person is the Biblical Simon the leper, of Bethany the city of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.  We will compare the different gospels to find the relationship between Mary and Simon.

The Feast at Simon’s House

  Luke 7:36–50

And one of the Pharisees desired Him that He would eat with him. And He went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.  And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping, and began to wash His feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet, and anointed them with the ointment.  Now when the Pharisee which had bidden Him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if He were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth Him: for she is a sinner.  And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.  There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.  And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?  Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And He said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.  And He turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest Me no water for My feet: but she hath washed My feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.  Thou gavest Me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss My feet.  My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed My feet with ointment.  Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.  And He said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.   And they that sat at meat with Him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?  And He said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Matthew 26:6–13

  Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on His head, as He sat at meat.  But when His disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?  For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.  When Jesus understood it, He said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon Me.  For ye have the poor always with you; but Me ye have not always.  For in that she hath poured this ointment on My body, she did it for My burial.  Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

Mark 14:3–9

And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on His head.  And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?  For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.  And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on Me.  For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.  She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.  Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

John 12:1–9

Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.  There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.  Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.  Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,  Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?  This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.  Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.  For the poor always ye have with you; but Me ye have not always.  Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom He had raised from the dead.

. Major comment: Matthew and Luke. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus; Passion Week; Additional Note at end of chapter.]

Desired. Jesus had cured Simon of the leprosy (Matt. 26:6), and he, desiring to express his gratitude, prepared a feast and invited Jesus as the guest of honor. This feast took place in Bethany on the day preceding Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, less than one week prior to the crucifixion. Furthermore, Lazarus, who had been raised from the dead not more than two months previously, during the late winter of a.d. 30–31 (see on John 11:1), was included as a guest of honor along with Jesus. Jesus graciously accepted the hospitality of Pharisee and publican alike (see Luke 5:29; 19:5; cf. chs. 11:37; 14:1).

Sat down to meat. Literally, “reclined [at the table]” (see on Mark 2:15). Simon was on one side of Jesus and Lazarus on the other, as the guests reclined to partake of the meal.

37. A woman. Mary of Bethany, otherwise known as Mary Magdalene. See Additional Note at end of chapter

Alabaster. A comparatively soft rock that can be carved into cups, boxes, vases, or flasks. Ancient ointment flasks were usually carved from light-gray translucent limestone.

Ointment. The common “ointment” of Palestine was olive oil to which spice or other aromatic ingredients were added. Mary’s “ointment” was the “very costly” spikenard (see Mark 14:3; John 12:3), probably extracted from the fragrant roots of the Nardostachys jatamansi. This plant grows high in the Himalaya Mountains, and in ancient times was used as a source of perfume and medicine (see on S. of Sol. 1:12). If Mary’s “ointment” had come from the mountains of northern India, it is little wonder that it was considered “very costly” (John 12:3, 5). Mark 14:5 gives its value as about 300 Roman denarii (see p. 49). It should be remembered that this would be equivalent to 300 working days’ wages for a laborer of the time (see on Matt. 20:2). Such a valuable gift, suitable for the monarchs of earth, represented great personal sacrifice on the part of Mary.

38. Stood at his feet. Guests at a feast would remove their sandals before the meal and recline on their left side on the couches on three sides of the table, with their left elbow resting on the table and their feet at the lower end of the couch, away from the table (see on Mark 2:15). This arrangement made it comparatively simple for Mary to “anoint” the feet of Jesus without being noticed until the aromatic scent of the perfumed ointment filled the room.

To wash. Literally, “to wet,” or “to moisten.”

With tears. Mary had probably not planned to shed tears of joy and thankfulness on Jesus’ feet. But as she knelt to apply the ointment, her tears probably came in spite of an attempt to hold them back, and fell on His feet before she could apply the ointment.

Hairs of her head. It was commonly thought a disgrace for a woman to let down her hair in public. But, probably unprepared for this apparently unforeseen need for a towel, she reached for her hair.

She kissed His feet

According to the Greek, she kissed repeatedly (see v. 45). In some Oriental lands, today as well as in ancient times, and elsewhere, a kiss is a common formof greeting (Compare Matt. 26:49). To embrace another’s feet and to kiss them was an entirely appropriate and respectable demonstration of high regard (Compare Matt. 28:9).

Anointed them

See on Matt. 6:17. That is, after the burst of emotion.

39. Simon spake within himself.

Simon was reclining next to Jesus, and would be one of the first persons at the table to detect the perfume and to notice what was happening. A gracious host, he said nothing. But he passed silent judgment on Jesus for permitting the act of gratitude without remonstrating with the woman.

Textual evidence may be cited for reading “the prophet,” that is, the Prophet predicted by Moses in Deut. 18:15 (see on Deut. 18:15; John 1:21). According to the Greek, Simon at this point had reached the conclusion that Jesus was not a prophet, or He would have known better what kind of woman Mary really was.  Simon was apparently unaware that Jesus knew very well what “manner” of woman Mary was. Simon probably knew little of what had happened to Mary since the time he had humbled her, a circumstance that tends to confirm the suggestion (see Additional Note at end of chapter) that Mary had left Bethany to save herself and her family embarrassment.

40. Jesus answering said. That is, answering Simon’s unspoken thought or question.

41. A certain creditor. [The Two Debtors, Luke 7:41–43. See on parables pp. 203–207.] That is, “a certain [professional] lender [of money at interest].” This brief parable is concerned with gratitude for the blessings of salvation. Apparently the parable is based on the fundamental principle that one’s appreciation for blessings received is in direct proportion to one’s sense of need in respect to those blessings. Only he who comes to the place where he feels his utter helplessness before God is in a frame of mind properly to appreciate what God does for him, whether in material things or in spiritual things. He who does not sense his need of divine help is confident of his own ability and resources, and relies on these to find a solution to the problems that confront him. It is for this reason that God so often permits His earthborn children to exhaust their own resources before He steps in to provide them with divine help. Should He intervene before they become conscious of their utter helplessness, they would not truly appreciate the blessings bestowed, they would not be led to trust in His wisdom and kindness, their characters would remain imperfect, and they would continue to trust in their own devices and ability to cope with the problems of life.

Thus it was with Simon. Though Jesus had healed him of the leprosy and he justifiably “desired to show his gratitude” (see Matt. 26:6; DA 557), it was the gratitude of one man toward another, not the gratitude of man toward the infinite God. Simon’s “character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged” (DA 557); in short, he was unconverted. Thus, Christ’s ultimate objective in healing his bodily leprosy, namely, healing him of the leprosy of sin, had not yet been achieved. Simon’s attitude toward Jesus was similar to that of Nicodemus, who recognized Jesus to be “a teacher come from God,” but failed to recognize his personal need of being “born again” (see on John 3:2, 3). Both were, at this stage in their religious experience, the “stony” ground type of hearers (see on Matt. 13:5).

Five hundred pence. That is, 500 Roman denarii, or about $56.56 (see p. 49). Fifty denarii would be about $5.66. In terms of actual purchasing power the value would be much greater (see on Matt. 20:2).

42. Nothing to pay. The size of the debt made no difference in the ability of the two debtors to pay. Both were unable to pay what they owed. But there was a vast difference in their appreciation for the lender’s cancellation of the debt. The man with the lesser obligation would, presumably, have found it easier to earn money to repay his debt, whereas the man with the greater obligation would have found it correspondingly more difficult. The man who owed the 500 Roman denarii (see on v. 41) was, apparently, so far in debt that he had little hope of repaying it, while the man who owed only 50 denarii might, if given time, do so. For both, at the moment their debts were due, however, there was, presumably, no alternative but that of slavery (see on Matt. 18:25).

Frankly. This word has been supplied by the translators, but its meaning is implied in the Gr. charizomai, “to do a favor,” or “to give graciously” (see on v. 21), here translated “forgave.”

Most. Literally, “more.”

43. I suppose. The answer was obvious, as was the case with so many of the parables and lessons of Jesus. In some instances those to whom they were addressed were reluctant, in other instances ready, to acknowledge the lesson so clearly set forth (Matt. 21:31, 41, 45; see Luke 10:36, 37).

He forgave most. See on v. 42. Simon pronounced judgment upon himself. Tactfully the Saviour led the proud Pharisee to realize that his sin, his seduction of Mary, was greater than hers, as 500 denarii was greater than 50.

44. He turned to the woman. Though Christ turned to Mary as He spoke, His words were addressed to Simon. This fact may imply that Jesus meant His statement both as a rebuke to Simon and as an expression of gratitude to Mary for her thoughtful kindness. This tribute must have meant far more to Mary than a word later spoken to her alone, for Jesus honored her in the presence of others who considered they had valid reason to despise and ignore her.

Thou gavest me no water. According to the Greek in each case—the water (v. 44), the kiss (v. 45), and the oil (v. 46)—the word itself stands first for emphasis, as “water thou gavest me not,” etc. Why Simon did not provide at least water for his guests is not clear. It is doubtful that he would have invited a group of guests to share the hospitality of his home and table, and then have denied them lesser courtesies had these been mandatory upon the host. It seems, rather, that the contrast Christ here draws between Simon and Mary is not so much one of a duty omitted and a duty performed, as a favor neglected and a favor bestowed. Simon was hospitable, but he might have done even more than he did. Mary’s act of gratitude was performed, not as an obligation, but as the expression of a heart that overflowed with love and devotion.

45. Hath … ceased. Gr. dialeipō, “to be intermittent.” It denotes repeated rather than continuous action.

46. Oil. Gr. elaion, usually “olive oil.” Simon had not “anointed” Jesus even with the most common oil of Palestine. In contrast, Mary used “ointment,” muron, the most expensive that money could buy (see on v. 37). Simon had not used even the most common oil on Christ’s head, whereas Mary had applied the most expensive kind to His feet. What a contrast—and in this contrast was reflected the heart attitude of each. The hospitality of Simon was insignificant by comparison with the boundless gratitude of Mary.

47. Forgiven. Love for Christ leads to forgiveness in the sense that love for Him prompts contrition and confession. The love Mary now felt in her heart for Christ was the result of forgiveness already granted her prior to this occasion (see Additional Note at end of chapter). Simon felt but little love for Christ, because his sins were as yet unforgiven, because, like Nicodemus (see on John 3:3–7), he had not considered himself a sinner in need of divine forgiveness.

48. Are forgiven. Literally, “have been forgiven.” Mary had already received forgiveness for her sins.

49. Within themselves. Or, “among themselves.”

Also. Gr. kai, “and,” “also,” or “even.” Kai seems best translated by “even” in this passage.

50. Faith hath saved. Man’s faith must ever rise to claim the blessings of forgiveness, for “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6). A sense of need and of dependence upon Christ must accompany faith (see on Matt. 5:3; Luke 5:8).

Critics of this position regarding Mary

Most commentators are of the opinion that the incident here recorded by Luke should not be identified with the feast mentioned by the other gospel writers. Some of their more important reasons for this conclusion are:

1.     Doubt that Mary of Bethany could have been of the character of the woman described by Luke, inasmuch as what is recorded elsewhere in the Gospels concerning Mary of Bethany seems to them to preclude identifying her with this woman;

2.     Doubt that a Pharisee, particularly one living only 2 mi. from Jerusalem, would, less than a week prior to the crucifixion, entertain Jesus publicly, particularly when there was evidently a question in his own mind as to the Messiahship of Jesus;

3.     Seemingly irreconcilable differences between the account in Luke and that of the other three Gospels which, in their opinion, tend to outweigh the many points of similarity.

Summary of reasons to conclude Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdelene are the same person 

 1.     John identifies Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus as the one who anointed Jesus’ feet, and his account of the incident is obviously parallel to that of Matthew and Mark, who, with Luke, do not mention her by name. This may have been because the woman, a devout Christian, was still living at the time the Synoptic Gospels were written. The three synoptic evangelists, although feeling that the narrative should be included in the gospel record, may have decided, in Christian kindness, not to mention her name. John, however, might not have felt bound by this consideration inasmuch as his Gospel was written several decades later, and thus probably many years after the woman’s death. It is worthy of note that John, who alone mentions Mary, is the only gospel writer to omit the name of Simon.

2.     Luke 10:39, 42 and John 11:1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45; 12:3) both mention and identify a Mary of Bethany. Mary, known as Mary Magdalene (probably “of Magdala,” a town on the western shore of the Lake of Galilee (see Matthew 15:39), is listed among the women who accompanied Jesus on the Second Galilean Tour (see Luke 8:1–3), and is mentioned by all four Gospels in connection with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1, 9; Luke 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1, 11, 16, 18). At some time prior to the Second Galilean Tour Jesus had expelled seven demons from her (Luke 8:2  And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.  Also the gospel of Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

3.     If, let us say, Mary of Bethany left home as a result of her shameful life, she could have found a home in Magdala, perhaps with friends or relatives who lived there. A majority of the recorded incidents of Jesus’ Galilean ministry took place in the vicinity of the Plain of Gennesaret, where Magdala was situated, and it may be that upon the occasion of one of Jesus’ early visits to Magdala He freed her from demon possession. After accompanying Jesus on the Second Galilean Tour, she could have returned to Bethany, a changed person, and again made her home there. This possibility does not, of course, prove that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are to be identified as the same person, but it does show how this could reasonably have been the case. All the information on the subject that is given in the gospel record can easily be understood in harmony with such an explanation.

4.     The argument that near the close of His ministry Jesus had no friends among the leaders of Israel is not valid. Nicodemus, “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1), boldly took the part of Jesus in a council of the chief priests and Pharisees (see John 7:45–53). His influence upon this occasion—at the Feast of Tabernacles, a.d. 30, about six months before the crucifixion—is apparent from the fact that his counsel prevailed and the group dispersed without accomplishing their objective (see John 7:53). At the crucifixion, when of all times men would fear to be known as followers of Jesus, when “all the disciples forsook him, and fled” (Matt. 26:56), and when Peter, His most ardent defender, denied Him repeatedly (Matt. 26:69–75), Joseph of Arimathaea, another “honourable counsellor” (see on Mark 15:43), publicly provided a burial place for Jesus, and, with Nicodemus, openly supervised His interment there (see Matt. 27:57–60; John 19:38–40). Many of the “chief rulers” believed on Jesus at this time, but did not “confess” him for fear of excommunication (John 12:42), though after the resurrection many of them no doubt became Christians (see Acts 6:7).

5.     The supposed points of difference between the various accounts are not so great as may appear, and by no means render the accounts mutually exclusive. Luke alone speaks of Jesus’ host upon this occasion as a Pharisee; but this is not strange, for there were many Pharisees, and it was simply a matter of choice on the part of the writer whether he identified a man as a Pharisee. Luke alone of the gospel writer refers to two other occasion on which Christ dined in the home of a Pharisee (chs. 11:37; 14:1). Apparently Luke considered Christ’s association with the Pharisees on a friendly, social basis a fact worthy of particular notice, and this would explain his recording here the fact that the host was a Pharisee.

6.     That Luke dwells upon Simon’s reaction to the incident, whereas the other gospel writers have nothing to say about this aspect of it, emphasizing only Judas’ reaction, is not strange. If Luke had a reason for introducing the narrative at this point in his gospel record rather than at the close of Christ’s ministry, as do the other writers, he would hardly have reported the attitude of Judas and the lesson Christ sought to teach him; to do so would seem to have been inappropriate at this early point in the gospel narrative. It would have presented Judas in a character role he had not openly developed as yet, and the report as given by the other three gospel writers at a later point in their narratives, would have tended only to confuse the reader of Luke at the point where Luke inserts the story.

7.     There are many points in the narrative of Luke that are mentioned by one or more of the other three evangelists: (1) All agree that the occasion was a feast. (2) All agree that the person who anointed Jesus was a woman. (3) The three Synoptists agree that the “ointment” was in an alabaster container; John does not speak of the container. (4) Neither Luke nor Matthew mentions the kind of “ointment,” but Mark and John both say it was “spikenard.” (5) Both Luke and John mention the anointing of Jesus’ feet. (6) Both Luke and John mention the fact that Mary used her hair as a towel to wipe Jesus’ feet. (7) The three synoptic writers give the host’s name as Simon. These points of similarity do not necessarily prove that Luke’s incident has to be identified with that recorded by the other three evangelists, but they do tend to increase the degree of probability in that direction.

8.     Assuming that the feast at the home of a Pharisee that Luke records, is identical with that in the home of Simon in Bethany, two questions call for an answer: (1) Why did Luke insert the story so early in his gospel narrative, so far from its true chronological setting? (2) Why is his account so different from that of the other three Gospels in certain important respects? The context in Luke provides an entirely satisfactory and convincing answer to these questions.

9.     Luke is writing primarily for non-Palestinian Gentile Christians. Having mentioned repeatedly the opposition of the Jewish leaders to Christ (chs. 5:17, 21, 30, 33; 6:2, 7, 11; etc.), Luke no doubt feared that his educated Gentile readers would ask how they should be expected to believe in Christ if all the leading men of His own nation (and thus, presumably, the men best qualified to appraise His claims) rejected Him. This probably accounts for the fact that Luke, alone among the four gospel writers, mentions three specific instances when Jesus dined in the home of a Pharisee (chs. 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), as well as other instances of seeming friendliness between Jesus and certain Jewish leaders (see on ch. 7:3).\

10. The immediate context of Luke’s account of the feast in Simon’s house makes even clearer the reason Luke inserted the story at this point in the narrative. He has just recorded the fact that the leaders rejected both the message of John the Baptist and that of Jesus (see vs. 30–35)—not all the leaders, to be sure, but evidently the vast majority. Therefore at this very point in his story of Christ Luke would be most likely to feel the need of pointing out that some of the leaders were friendly toward Him. Furthermore, it is in this very chapter that Luke records the friendly mediation of certain “elders of the Jews” (v. 3). Immediately following this incident, Luke gives the circumstances leading up to Christ’s own admission that the leaders of Israel rejected both John and Him (vs. 11–35). The friendliness of certain of the leaders mentioned immediately preceding and after vs. 11–35 may have been intended by Luke to allay any suspicion on the part of his readers that Christ might not be the Messiah because His own nation had rejected Him.

11. On the assumption that this is why Luke inserted the account of Simon’s feast at this early point in the gospel narrative rather than in its true chronological setting, the reason for the major difference between Luke’s account and that of the other three evangelists becomes clear. Accordingly, there was no point in Luke’s recording either the reaction of Judas or the references to Christ’s imminent death. The main point was the attitude of Simon as one of the leaders of Israel. For the other three evangelists, it is the attitude of Judas that has meaning in the context where their recital of the incident appears. The account of Judas’ reaction and that of Simon are not mutually exclusive, but complementary, and would in no way contradict each other even if they were both given by one or more of the writers of the Gospels.

12. Luke’s narrative of the feast at Simon’s house is clearly identified with that of the feast in the home of Simon in Bethany, as given in the other Gospels. Simon of Bethany is also identified with the Simon in Luke’s narrative. Furthermore, the unnamed woman of Luke’s account is identified with Mary of Bethany and with Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons. Also, Simon himself is declared to be the one who had led Mary into sin at some previous time. Simon and other Pharisees had already professed faith in Jesus as a prophet, recognized Him as a teacher sent from God, and hoped that He might be the Messiah (See John 3:1, 2). But he had not as yet accepted Him as the Saviour, and this incident became the turning point for salvation in his life.