When we read the book of Mark, it begins by introducing us to John the Immerser, or John the Baptist. This man who prepared the way for Christ (1:3). Among other things, we read about John baptizing people in the wilderness and specifically baptizing folks in the Jordan river (1:4-5). This was not the only place he baptized folks, but this was one area, and this is where he baptized Jesus (1:9-10).

                   Later, when we read about John’s baptism, we read where folks were told basically that John’s baptism was not valid, and they needed to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 19:5). Why the difference? If John’s baptism was valid in Mark 1, John 3, and other places, why is it treated as invalid in Acts 19? What difference is there between John’s baptism and Christ’s?

                   While at first glance, there seems to be little to no difference. Both baptisms are immersion. Both baptisms are for those who are seeking “remission of sins.” What difference is there between these acts? Notice, I said at first glance there seems to be no difference. When we study, we see several differences between these acts.

                   In John’s baptism, we see:

• John told men to confess their sins (Matt. 3:6).
• John told them to believe in “the One to come” (Acts 19:4).
• This baptism added none to the church (No church existed then!).
• There is no connection with Christ’s blood.
• John’s baptism is described as “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4).

                   In contrast, Christ’s baptism:

• Was “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) - not an act looking forward to something that had not yet come.
• Puts one “in Christ” (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3).
• Adds us to his church (Acts 2:47; I Cor. 12:13).
• Is connected with the blood of Christ (Rom. 6:3-6; Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38).
• Saves us (I Pet. 3:21; Col. 2:12-13).

                   John’s baptism served its purpose, but its purpose has ended. Now, we are to be baptized in Christ’s baptism -- that baptism which allows us to experience the cleansing effect of His blood, adds us to His church, washes us from sin, and enables us to be called “Christian.”

                   Have you been baptized? If not, what is stopping you? Contact me, and let’s make sure you are right in the sight of God.

- Jarrod M. Jacobs

            Song of Solomon is probably best known for the descriptions of physical beauty contained there. There are four of these descriptions in the song. Three times the Shulammite is complimented (4:1-7, 6:4-9, 7:1-9), and one time, her beloved is praised (5:10-16). These descriptions make some folks uncomfortable. These descriptions have caused some even to suggest that perhaps Solomon’s Song is pornographic. I have also seen the opposite reaction when one chose to depict all that was said about the Shulammite literally. She looked like a monstrosity -- a mixture of goats, sheep, pomegranates, deer or gazelle, a tower, etc., instead of a human woman (See attached).

            What is said, though unfamiliar to our “western” ears, is simply a poem praising the beauty of the one he (or she) loves. I will not be able to explain every description in this short article, but please understand, he compares his beloved to the beauties of nature created by God (Gen. 1-2). Just as some suitor might tell his girlfriend, “Your eyes are bluer than the sea,” the Shulammite was told a similar thing in chapter seven, verse four! She is spoken of in majestic terms in verse five. This would be the equivalent of calling a beautiful girl a “fox” or some other description today. Solomon’s song spends time complimenting the Shulammite for her physical beauty. She also compliments her beloved in the text for the beauty she sees in him.

            Why say such things, and why describe a woman in this way? Is it not obvious? He loves her and therefore compliments the beauty of the one he loves! She had a low opinion of her beauty (1:5-6), so her beloved (and later husband) showers her with praise.

            Husbands, how are you doing at praising your wife for her beauty? Did you praise her before you were married but have since ceased? This man didn’t do it. When we read Song of Solomon 4, 6, and 7, we read him complimenting her before and after the wedding! Husbands, don’t forget this lady is the wife of your youth, and a part of you (Eph. 5:28-29). Pay her compliments! Praise her! Ladies, do this for your husbands as well. Husbands love to be complimented, so act as the Shulammite and do it (Song of Sol. 5:10-16). If you are having marriage problems, or feel like you are drifting apart, maybe part of the problem is a lack of communication. Perhaps you are not communicating your love or your praise to your spouse. This is the point of those four sections in the song. It is not pornographic, nor something meant to stir up evil desires. Instead, it is intended to be sincere praise showered upon two who genuinely love one another.

            Just as husbands and wives today need to compliment and praise one another, I find it interesting that Christ does the same for the church. The church, considered Christ’s bride, is honored by being called “glorious” and without a flaw (Eph. 5:27). The picture of Christ and the church is a picture of a husband and wife and the love they share for one another. It is a picture of genuine, sincere love that ought to be true in the lives of all of those who are married.

            To those married, may your love deepen and grow through the years. As you mature, may you grow closer together, and may it be that the beauty you saw in the wife of your youth only enhance through the years. True beauty is within. May we thank God for that beauty we see in our spouses.

- Jarrod M. Jacobs

            (Note: If you have not read part 1 of this article, please read it first. It will help you to understand the applications I am making in this article. - JMJ)

            After completing the article this morning, my mind continued to think about Solomon’s writing. As is common for me, my mind doesn’t seem to “shut off” easily! (ha) After writing about the Shulammite woman and her requesting that her love not be stirred up or awakened “til he please” (Song of Sol. 2:7, 3:4, 8:4), I began thinking about another application. As I stated in an earlier article, I am not convinced that Song of Solomon is a type/antiype of Christ, nor a “Messianic” song. I do think, however, that there are several places where applications can be made to Christ and the church when we consider the fact that God used the husband and wife relationship to describe this spiritual relationship (Eph. 5:22-33). I am always willing to study with anyone on this if you believe Solomon definitely had Christ in mind in this song.

            Having said this, please go back and reread what the Shulammite said. I believe this is one of those verses where an application to Christ and the church can be made. The text in Solomon’s Song said she didn’t want her passions stirred until the time was right and proper. It is not that the passion itself was wrong, but it could be expressed in the wrong way if the time (before marriage) was not right. This statement caused me to think more about “timing” and how God has His timetable for things. Is it not fascinating to consider that an eternal being is concerned with time and has a “timetable” of His own?

            I know God doesn’t count time as we do (II Pet. 3:8), but I also know things have happened at the “right time” with God! Think about the birth of Christ. Jesus Christ came to this world “in the fulness of time” (Gal. 4:4). He did not get here too early or too late. It is the same with the church, Christ’s bride. The church came into existence in the “last days” (Isa. 2:2-4). In other words, at the right time, when the right king was in power (Dan. 2:44-45), and when things had come to fruition as God wanted (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21)! In the case of God and His plan for Christ and the church, no one was going to “stir up” anything to change God’s plan. When the time was right, it happened perfectly!

            We could include the fact that when God works providentially, then He is working things out at the right time. This was true with people like Joseph, Ruth, Naaman’s maid, Daniel, Hannah, Abraham, Esther, and a host of others. It is also true today. God has ways in which His will is going to come about. When this happens, it happens at the right time, regardless of whether or not it was our time!

When we think about the end of the world, remember Christ will return for His bride (the church). When He does, it will be at the right time. No man knows when this will be, but again, this eternal being, our Father, has said Jesus will come “as a thief in the night” (I Thess. 5:2; II Pet. 3:10), and when He does, He will return for His bride, and this world will end (Rev. 19:6-21). It is on God’s timetable and not man’s. No one will “stir up” God’s passions and make Him send Christ too early or too late!

            Some try to guess as to when the Lord will return. It seems some have made predictions about His return almost since the time He left (Acts 1:9-11; I Thess. 4:13-5:11; II Pet. 3; Acts 5:36-37; Matt. 24:4-5; etc.)! Does anyone remember the bulletin boards and bumper stickers that were out some years ago that said, “If the Lord doesn’t come soon, He will owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah!”?

            Let’s stop whittling on God’s end of the stick and realize that God won’t be “stirred up” but will make sure things are done right on time as He has always done. Let us, in the meantime, prepare for the Lord’s return by being saved (Jn. 8:24; Lk. 13:3; Rom. 10:10; Mk. 16:16) and remaining faithful to Him as a faithful bride would (Rev. 2:10; I Cor. 15:58). Let us spend time on earth growing (II Pet. 3:18) and maturing in the Lord that we will be ready for Him when He arrives. Let us prepare to hear those words, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant”!

- Jarrod M. Jacobs

            From time to time, we are questioned by some who wonder why we need to study the Old Testament. Some say, “The Old Testament has been done away (II Cor. 3:6-17), so what purpose does the Old Testament serve for us today?” I understand we can answer this question several ways, but I want to answer this by considering what is said in Jude’s letter to the Christians.

            When reading the book of Jude, we find no less than eight references to Old Testament people and events. Considering that this letter is only 25 verses in length, this means almost 25% of this letter is dedicated to reminding Christians of what has already happened!

            If you have not noticed this before, please slow down and see that when Jude wrote to Christians to warn them about God’s ability to punish the evildoers, he went back to when Israel left Egypt (v. 5; Ex. 5-12). Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was also presented as examples of not only dying in a fire, but also “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (v. 7; Gen. 19)!

            Do you remember when Moses died and how no man could find where his body was buried (Deut. 34:6)? Have you ever taken the time to study that event, and what spiritual foreshadowing and application might be there? If you have studied this, don’t forget to add Jude 9 to your work. This gives us insight that the Old Testament doesn’t.

            While Cain might be a familiar name to most, have we heard of Balaam (Num. 22-24) or Core (Korah, Num. 16)? Jude 11 reminds us of evildoers of the first century who acted very much like these Old Testament people. What does this mean? Are you familiar with the records of these men, and what made their acts evil? Why did God condemn them, and how can we avoid acting like them today?

            Another familiar name to most of the world is Adam (v. 14; Gen. 2-5). What of this other person, Enoch, though? Do we know anything about him (Gen. 5:22-24)? Why was he special, and why might the prophecy cited here be significant, not only in his day, but also in the 1st century?

            I understand this study is a little different. I offered more questions than answers, but there is a reason for this. How can we know the answers to the questions above if we do not spend time in the Old Testament? I know nothing of these people, nor the events referenced if I do not spend time studying the truth found in that section of Scripture, The Old Covenant. It has a purpose! Let us respect it!

            As we close, please remember what the apostle Paul said. He wrote the Romans and told them, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). I believe this is the purpose behind why Jude was inspired to refer to so many Old Testament people and events in his letter. By referring to these Old Testament people and events, it made his warnings crystal clear. Are we listening to the warnings? Maybe we need to go back and have a “refresher course” on these people that we might gain a better appreciation of Jude (and the rest of the New Testament)!

- Jarrod M. Jacobs

            I can remember not long after I started in my first “full-time” work, I encountered a few brethren who took the position that the “red letters” in the Bible were more important than the “black letters.” In other words, we ought to give greater emphasis to the words Christ spoke on earth than to anything else in the New Testament. To them, the epistles, etc., were of lesser value than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Perhaps you have heard of people who have taken such a position. Until that time, I had not heard of such a belief. This may seem to have a noble aspect because people wish to place greater emphasis on Christ’s words, but the noble intention has many glaring errors.

First of all, it is a strange position to hold because red-letter Bibles were not published until 1901! What about the people from the 1800s and back to the second century? Were they unable to determine the “important words” because their Bibles weren’t typed with red letters? Second, if the words of Christ (in red letters) have a greater impact than what the apostles said, what about the fact that Christ told them He was not able to tell them everything because they weren’t ready? He then promised the Holy Spirit to come and “guide” them into “all truth” (Jn. 16:12-13)? So, the apostles didn’t have all the truth when Christ was on earth, speaking in “red letters”! They did get all of it later (Acts 2:1-5; Gal. 1:12; etc.), yet somehow their words are not as important as what Christ said? This is a strange doctrine, indeed.

            Not only is it a strange doctrine, but it also contradicts passages like II Peter 3:2. Peter told his readers that he wanted them to “be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior.” He would also later condemn people for twisting Paul’s words and put Paul’s words on an equal plain with “the other Scriptures,” i.e., the Old Testament Scriptures (II Pet. 3:16). This sounds nothing like what I was told about the importance of the “red letters”! Based on the truth Peter taught, let me ask a few questions.

• Jesus said the words He spoke were the words given to Him by the Father (Jn. 12:49-50). Do we now discount the words of Christ as “lesser” than the Father’s?
• The job of the apostles was to speak the words of Christ to the world (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15; Jn. 14:26). When they did so, how were these words of lesser importance than Christ’s? They were Christ’s!
• Since the words of the apostles are equated with the words of the prophets of God (II Pet. 3:2), how can we say they are of lesser value or lesser importance than Christ’s?
• Please supply book, chapter, and verse where Jesus (while on earth) gave us: instructions on how to worship, instructions on the organization of the church, instructions on the work of the church, instructions on matters of faith vs. matters of opinion, insight into the conflict between the Jews and the Gentiles and how to be at peace, the meaning of His cross, etc. (Maybe I am seeing some people’s motivation for dismissing the “black-letters”! When we dismiss them, we dismiss all of these things as well!)
• Since Deity is actually behind the entire Bible (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Pet. 1:20-21), shouldn’t the whole Bible be “red-letter”?

            Personally, I find the “red letter” Bibles distracting. I mainly preach out of Bibles that have only black letters. Friends, let us not ignore the words of the apostles, but realize that since these men were Christ’s ambassadors (II Cor. 5:20; Eph. 6:20), their words are as authoritative as Christ’s when it comes to doctrine and truth! Peter said we need to be listening to the commands of the apostles, and so let’s do that and be blessed (II Pet. 3:2)!

- Jarrod M. Jacobs