Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

“He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:9-10).

The divine injunction couched in the inspired exhortation to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1) is commonly called “Paul’s charge to Timothy.” Fundamental to this charge, and of equal importance, is the apostolic admonition to “study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” in the parallel passage of 2 Timothy 2:15. Prefatory to both the commands to preach the word and to rightly divide the word is the basic requirement to study the word. The charge to Timothy, then, is in reality composed and delivered in three parts—study, rightly divide, and preach the word.

The solemn charge was not meant. for Timothy only. We, too, should study to rightly divide the word of God, prompted by the holy purpose enjoined—“to show thyself approved unto God.”

Rightly Dividing the Word

The caution to rightly divide or handle aright the word of God implies that it may be subjected to a wrong division or an improper handling. Indeed, some men in the apostles’ day were charged with perverting the gospel (Gal. 1:7); corrupting the word (2 Cor. 2 :17); making merchandise of the truth (2 Pet. 2:3); wresting the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16); and of handling the word of God deceitfully, in craftiness and dishonesty (2 Cor. 4:2).

A perverted gospel cannot save. Jesus declared that it is the knowledge of truth, not the belief of error, that makes men free (John 8:32). Though a perverted gospel may have in it all the elements of the true gospel, its power to save is lost in perversion. Bread is God’s power to quell the hunger, but the admixture of a poisonous element—a spoonful of arsenic, for instance, in a loaf of bread—would destroy its power. Water is God’s power to quench the thirst, but the admixture of salt will destroy the quenching power to save the soul, but its admixture with error—the doctrines and commandments of men, when heard and believed—destroys its saving power. Hence, Paul’s alarm concerning the perverters of the word at Galatia: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Gal. 1:6-7).

Error preached, error heard, and error believed cannot result in the truth obeyed. No man can accidentally obey God. The truth preached, the truth believed, and the truth obeyed makes a Christian. Nothing else does. How important, therefore, is the word of God, and how careful men should be in their handling of it!

In the third chapter of Galatians the right division of the word is based on the three grand divisions of the Bible, commonly called the patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, but Scripturally known as the promises, the law, and the gospel. The promises were to Abraham. The law came four hundred and thirty years after, through Moses, and was “added because of transgression” until Christ should come. The law was added to the promise God made to Abraham. It “came in besides”—that is, between the promise and its fulfillment. The promise was that Christ, the seed of Abraham, should come, and through him all nations be blessed (Gal. 3:8-14, 17, 19). Since the law was added only until the seed should come, “which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16), it follows that the law automatically ended with the coming of Christ. “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24-25).

Upon this plain and proper division of the word, Paul affirms the abrogation of the law in numerous references. We are not under the law (Rom. 6:14); we are dead to the law and delivered from it (Rom. 7:6); Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4); and Christians are not to be judged by the law (Col. 2:14-16). It is in obedience to the Gospel, therefore, that men are saved today. The Acts of the Apostles—their preaching under the commission of Christ—plainly reveals the terms of our salvation.

Referring to the gospel of Christ as a legal will, the apostle said: “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified” (Heb. 10:9-10). In the preceding chapter the same apostle said:

And for this cause he (Christ) is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they that are called may receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. For where a testament is there must of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Heb. 9 :15-17).

It will not be difficult for anybody who understands the simple legal processes that go into the making of a will to apply this illustration of Paul’s to the gospel.

The Old and New Testaments

Not many people know the difference in the Testaments, called the first and the second, the old and the new. Many preachers talk of the identity of the covenants or testaments, and give the same authority to the Old Testament scriptures in the present dispensation as they give to the New Testament. In reality many practices in religion of about all the religious bodies are brought over from the old dispensation, thus ignoring altogether the distinction between the Testaments made in the New Testament itself. Paul said : “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held ; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of the letter” (Rom. 7 :6). Again he said, “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament” (2 Cor. 3 :6). And again, “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son” (Rom. 1:9). These passages, and many others like them, show plainly that we do not serve God now in the precepts and ordinances of the Old Testament but in the new and living way—the will or testament of Christ.

But the common run of people are very slow to learn this fundamental lesson and when we try to teach them the difference between the testaments they usually say: “That cuts out half the Bible; we believe all of the Bible; we want all of the Bible.” Well, I believe all of the Bible, too, but I would not attempt to do all of it. I believe that God told Noah to build an ark, but I would not attempt to build one. I believe that God commanded Abraham to offer his son on an altar, but I shall not attempt to offer my son on an altar. I believe that it was absolutely necessary for the Jews to offer their animal sacrifices, burn their incense, circumcise their children the eighth day, keep the sabbath, observe the Passover and the day of Pentecost, none of which should be preached or practiced now. Yet people say that they want all of the Bible, when everybody knows that they would not have it all if it were preached to them, even by their own preachers, and the preachers, themselves, know it.

There is only one basis upon which to determine the right division of the word of God, and that is in the distinction between the two dispensations and the two testaments. We cannot be under both: “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second.” The second (the new testament) could not even be established without taking away the first. That is the meaning of “that.” If a young couple obtains a marriage license “that” they may be married—it means the license is necessary to the marrying. When Paul said that “we are buried with him by baptism” that we should “walk in newness of Iife”—it means the new life depends on burial in baptism. So when Paul said that Christ took away the first testament that he might establish the second, it simply means that no new testament was possible without the first one being taken away, and if it is taken away we are not under it, are not subject to it, and no part of it is binding on us today. It seems to me, friends, that anybody who is “at home” should be able to see that.

Have you noticed that when people try to adopt practices in the Old Testament, it results in a sort of an offshoot? The Adventists, for instance, love their sabbath day, so they go back and bring it over. The Catholics likewise love their incense, and they go back and bring it over. The Methodists and Presbyterians love their babies (infant membership) and they go back and bring them over. The Mormons love their women (polygamy) and they go back and bring them over—that is, they tried it, but Uncle Sam put a stop to it. And there is another class of Judaizing off shooters—the Christian Church—they love their music (David’s instruments), and they go back and bring them over. How much better are they than the rest of them? None! They are worse, for they teach the difference in the testaments, whereas the others do not, and they are therefore downright inconsistent.

If the Christian Church preacher should argue with an Adventist on the sabbath question, or a Methodist on the infant question, or a Catholic on the incense question, or a Mormon on the polygamy question—that Christian Church preacher would know where to make them stay. Ah, he would keep them back in the Old Testament; he would not let them cross the line between the testaments. But when he wants his mechanical instrument in the church—what does he do? Why, he jumps clean over the cross backwards and lands right in the middle of David’s old testament goat pen and digs out an old rusty Jewish harp and plays it in the church.

He says David did it! Well, David had eight wives, and took more, the Bible says. Yes, their names and addresses are in 2 Samuel 3, and concubines besides. God would not let David build the temple in the old Testament because of some things he did, but there are preachers today who think it is all right for him to order the worship for the church of Jesus Christ!

The fact is that instrumental music in worship is the relic of an abrogated age and there is no authority for its use in divine worship. In Hebrews 10 we are told that the first covenant also had ordinances of divine service, “which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” The “time of reformation” is the new dispensation—the New Testament. The “carnal ordinances” of the Old Testament were only “until” the New Testament came. They were “imposed on them,” the people that were under it, but they are not to be brought over into the New Testament church. The man who brings them over does so without divine authority, and sins.

The Essentials of a Will

Let us look into the gospel will a little further. We all know that certain things are essential to a will. There is first, the testator, the man who makes it; there is second the gift, the thing bestowed; there is third, the conditions, the terms upon which its benefits are to be received ; there is fourth, the death of the testator, and it is never in force while the testator lives ; there is fifth, the probation of the will, the court must approve it; there is sixth, the executors, those who administer the will; and seventh, there are heirs, or the beneficiaries of the will. But we all know that during the life of the man who makes a will that the will does not bind him; he is free to do as he chooses in all things. The will is effective only upon the death of the testator.

Now, that is the apostolic application to the gospel, and it is Paul’s illustration not mine. First, Christ is the testator; second, salvation is the gift; third, the condition are those gospel commands set forth in the Great Commission of Christ to the apostles; fourth, Jesus Christ must die, the will was not in force during His life and ministry on earth, for He lived under the law; fifth, after His death the will was probated in heaven, when He ascended to heaven and “appeared before the throne of God for us”; sixth, the apostles became the executors, qualified by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to administer the terms of the new will (Acts 2); and seventh, all who obey the terms and the conditions of the gospel become the heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.

If this seems legalistic, remember that it is Paul’s argument, not mine. Furthermore a legal will does not eliminate grace. It is by grace that a man makes a will in favor of its beneficiaries, and they by grace are his heirs. It is by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ that, under the will we are heirs of salvation. So do not think for one moment that we are legalizing the grace of God out of the plan of salvation. His grace has been legalized into the gospel, and not out of it.

(1) Before and After the Cross.

If you are following me, you will remember that during the life of the testator the will is not in force, and the testator acts, independent of the will, as though it had never been made. But when the testator dies, his only power henceforth is in the will and not in himself personally–he acts through the will. During the lifetime (the personal ministry) of Christ, the will was not in force. “For a testament is of force after men are dead.” Paul did not have to tell us that for we know it, but that’s his way of making us believe the gospel—it is just as true of Christ as of men, that his will was not in operation while he lived on this earth.

There are many instances during the personal ministry of Christ where he blessed men, forgave sins, and saved sinners—but they are not cases by which to settle our case for the simple reason that we are under the will and they were not. “By the which will we are sanctified (saved)”—and that’s Paul telling you on which side of the cross you live.

A palsied man was forgiven and healed in Mark 2; Zacchaeus, the publican received salvation in Luke 19; the sinful woman, a harlot, was saved and made virtuous in Luke 7 ; but these do not represent gospel conversion for the simple fact that they were not under the gospel. In each instance the circumstances and the conditions varied. “The testator was on earth with “power on earth to forgive sins. Thus before the cross there was a diversity of conditions upon which men received the dispensations of the living testator’s blessings; but after the death of Christ, there is a uniformity of conditions upon which men are saved—the terms of the will, sealed by the blood of the testator.

(2) The Thief on the Cross.

There is a book in the New Testament designed especially to show men how to be converted. It contains many cases of conversion, under the preaching of the apostles. It not only tells us how to be converted, but by actual example shows us how to do the things that we are told to do. Yet men—even preachers—will ignore this book entirely, the express purpose of which is to execute the will of Christ, and try to make a model case of conversion out of the thief on the cross, when it was not in any sense a gospel conversion.

Wherever we go, whenever we tell anybody that Jesus said in the Commission: “Go preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned”—people instantly say, preachers and all, “Well, what about the thief on the cross?” If by that you mean that you aim to put yourself in the place of the thief and be saved like the thief, I must say that you may be a thief, but if you are, you still cannot be saved like that thief.

It is evident that the common query concerning the thief on the cross has been made current by denominational preachers in order to circumvent the gospel declaration of Jesus Christ in Mark 16:15-16. The question involved concerns the person of the malefactor—who was this thief on the cross? The necessary answer is that he could have been a backsliding disciple of John, or of Jesus. Some disciples of the Lord have turned thieves since the cross and it is entirely possible that some of them did so before the cross. Furthermore, he could have been a backsliding Israelite, such as Zacchaeus, the publican of Luke 19.

The next question concerns his baptism—was the thief baptized? If not, it is considered a solid argument against the essentiality of baptism to salvation. But that conclusion would not follow. For instance, the. apostle Paul declares in Romans 10:9 that confession of faith in Christ and his resurrection from the dead is essential to our salvation. But Abraham did not so believe and did not so confess. Yet Abraham was saved—without faith in Christ. The reason is that Abraham did not belong to the gospel dispensation. The same is true of the thief—he did not live under the execution of the Great Commission of Mark 16:15. But was the thief baptized? Who can say, nay? It is declared in Mark 1:4-5 that “all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem,” were baptized of John ; and it is stated in Luke 7 :29 that “all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” Who knows that the thief was not in this multitude and among this number? Let the allegators prove their allegation that the thief was not baptized.

The question remains that if the thief was not baptized—was the thief on the cross saved without baptism? The answer is, if he was not baptized, then he was saved without baptism, for the simple reason that paradise is the realm of the saved and the unsaved do not abide there. The hadean world has two divisions—paradise and tartarus. It is stated in Luke 23:43 that the spirit of Jesus went to paradise; but it is recorded in Acts 2 :27 that his soul went to hades—therefore paradise is in hades. But in 2 Peter 2:4 the declaration is made that some early representatives of the race of man in a former period of history, here referred to as angels, apostatized from their first estate, thus forfeiting their high position (Jude 6), and were cast down to tartarus (the word hell here is tartaroo)—therefore tartarus is in hades.

It follows that the hadean world was described as the partitioned region of the dead—paradise, where the souls of the saved abide in bliss; and tartarus, where the spirits of the unsaved are reserved unto judgment.

Granting that the words of Christ to the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” means that he was saved (though Paradise was not heaven) still his case is no model for us. A simple question or two should be all that is necessary to clear the matter up. When did the thief die, and get his blessing—before or after the death of the testator, before or after the will? Was the will in effect, in force, in the case of the thief? “For where a testament is there must of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead ; otherwise it is of no strength at all while he that made it liveth.” Now, just apply that to the thief and anybody who can see through a ladder can see that the case of the thief is not a gospel conversion, not being under the will.

But we are under the will. Jesus died, arose from the dead, delivered the will to his apostles, commissioned them to preach, but ordered them to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they received the Spirit to qualify them as executors; then he ascends to heaven, probated the will and sealed it with the authority of heaven’s court, and sent it in the power of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2) to the twelve who waited for their qualifications, and upon that eventful occasion for the first time the terms and conditions of the new will were declared and executed. And “by the which will we are sanctified.”

The Great Commission

The last commission of Christ to the eleven, known as the Great Commission, is the embodiment of the constitution of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Luke wrote Theophilus that Jesus was with the disciples forty days after the resurrection, “speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). The records indicate that the commission was given on more than one occasion during these forty days. Matthew and Mark record the scene of the commission on a mountain in Galilee, while in Luke’s record the scene is in Jerusalem. It is entirely consistent with all that the facts and circumstances that Jesus should repeatedly instruct the disciples concerning his kingdom so soon to be inaugurated.

(1) The Great Commission is the Constitution of the Kingdom.

It is evident that Acts 1:3 has a direct reference to the “all things” of the commission. This being true, all the principles of the kingdom are embodied in this divine constitution–the Great Commission. Everything that can be preached by the authority of Jesus Christ in the command: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The apostles preached nothing that did not come within the range of this commission. Everything that pertains to the kingdom of Christ is in it. Preachers today who preach anything about the kingdom which the apostles of Christ did not preach are outside the pale of divine command and are preaching things for which there is no authority in heaven or on earth.

When Philip went down into Samaria, he “preached Christ unto them” (Acts 8:5), and “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” (verse 12). With Philip, preaching Christ was preaching the kingdom. How different must have been his preaching from the kingdom-theory preaching of some brethren now! When men today preach anything except Christ, they are preaching something about the kingdom that Philip did not preach. And if they preach anything Philip did not preach, they are not preaching the gospel of the kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom is simply the gospel of Christ, shorn of all doubtful theory and uncertain speculations. Theorizing on some notion of a “future kingdom” in the form of a millenial reign of Christ on an earthly throne is not the kind of kingdom preaching Philip did, and those who do it are not preaching the gospel. Such speculative preaching is outside the Great Commission and without the authority of Jesus Christ.

(2) The Great Commission is All-Comprehensive. It Includes All Power in Heaven and on Earth.

“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.” How much power is all power in heaven and on earth? It is power seen and unseen—power unlimited and unbounded by geographical or ethereal line. If Jesus should return to the earth and reign a thousand millenniums, he could never achieve more than all power of which he is in actual possession now. The Great Commission says so. “All power is given unto me.”

Moreover, Paul says so.

Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:20-23).

In Pauline fashion this is a death-dealing argument to the future-reign theory. 1. Christ is exalted at God’s right hand. 2. He is set on a throne in heaven. 3. He is above all earthly power, might, and dominion. 4. He is head over all things to the church. 5. When he was thus made head of the church, God put all things under his feet. Could he ever by any conceivable means have more power, glory, and exaltation than he now has, according to Paul? These theories of a Palestinian reign of Christ on a Judaistic throne in an earthly Jerusalem over a fleshly Israel are foreign to everything the New Testament teaches. It would bring Christ down from the throne of his Majesty in heaven and seat him on the earth—his footstool! And some brethren call that exalting Christ!

(3) The Great Commission Not Only Comprehends All Powers, But It is Predicated on the Fact That Christ is Exercising All Power Through the Gospel.

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations.” What does “therefore” mean, if it does not refer to exercising that power ascribed to him in the preceding sentence? It means that the authority of Christ is not physical; it is greater. He exerts it not as world rulers. Alexander the Great was once a world monarch. To bring Jesus Christ down from the right hand of God to an earthly throne of worldly power demotes the Lord of lords to the level of an Alexander or a Caesar. The gospel is the all power of Christ. He exercises it every time a soul is saved. And it takes as much power to save one soul as it does to save millions—all power.

If Christ does not exercise all power through the gospel, then, when he does exercise it, how will he do it? Will he have another force? Will he save men another way? If not, what would he do on earth that he did not do when he was here and that he is not doing now through the gospel? Why change his throne from heaven to earth, if his plan is to remain unchanged? But if the change of his throne results in the change of his plan, it nullifies the Great Commission and makes the gospel which the apostles preached a failure.

If Christ is not exercising all power through the gospel, the claim of all power and the correlative command to “go teach” was, at least, two thousand years premature! Such teaching is more than speculative—it is vitiating to the Great Commission. There is no alibi a gospel preacher can offer for preaching such theories, and there is no apology another gospel preacher can make for the one who does.

(4) When the Great Commission Was First Preached, Peter Announced that Christ, Being Exalted at God’s Right Hand, Was Seated on the Throne of David as the Lineal and Spiritual Heir to the Kingdom.

The second chapter of Acts is a prophecy-fulfilling chapter. Here the Great Commission was executed. The divine constitution had been ratified in heaven, and with the seal of heaven’s authority it was sent in the power of the Holy Spirit to the apostles on Pentecost to be preached. The kingdom was established. David had prophesied a thousand years before that God would raise up One to sit on his (David’s) throne, and Peter very definitely declared that the prophecy was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:29-33).

Peter’s star witness that the kingdom had come and that Christ was seated on David’s throne was David himself. Hear his conclusion:

Let me speak freely unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,…Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted…he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear (Acts 2:29-33).

The “therefore” of verse 33 is the inspired conclusion that in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ the prophecies concerning David’s throne and kingdom were fulfilled. Peter connects the event of Christ’s sitting on David’s throne with the event of his resurrection and not of his second coming. This fulfillment of David’s own prophecy regarding the reign of Christ is the final argument that convinced the Jews, and it surely ought to convince brethren today. When a Jew accepts Christ, we have little trouble showing him that Jesus Christ is reigning on David’s throne. Our greatest difficulty is in convincing a few Gentile preachers.

The truth of David’s word, the surety of God’s oath, and the inspiration of Peter are staked on the fact that David’s throne is in heaven and that Jesus Christ is on it.

(5) The Kingdom Which Began on Pentecost, of Which the Great Commission is the Constitution, is the Kingdom Which Will Stand Forever.

Six hundred years before Christ, Daniel depicted the rise and fall of four successive world powers and said: “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom…and it shall stand forever.” It was in the days of the Roman emperors, the last of that succession of kings foretold by Daniel, that the kingdom of Christ began. It was “at hand” when John appeared on the scene as its harbinger (Matt. 3:2). Jesus taught his disciples to pray for its inauguration (Matt. 6:9). Joseph, the Arimathean, waited for it (Mark 15 :43). The penitent thief pleaded to enter it when the Lord should come into possession of it (Luke 23:42), and the expectant disciples after his resurrection were yet anxious to receive it (Acts 1:8).

It is evident that the kingdom had not come before the resurrection of Christ. It is also obvious that it had come after the resurrection of Christ when the apostles referred to it as a present existing thing (Col. 1:13). But is it really the kingdom of Daniel that would “stand forever,” or “look we for another” yet in the future? Hear Paul:

But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven,…Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear (Heb. 12:22-28).

Paul’s argument is that when we received the church, we also received the kingdom which cannot be moved. Is there any difference between a kingdom which will stand forever and one that cannot be moved?

It must be plain to all who are not obsessed with the theory of a future earthly reign of Christ that the immovable kingdom of Paul is the everlasting kingdom which Daniel said God would set up. It began on Pentecost with the preaching of the Great Commission, its divine constitution. In obedience to the terms of the commission people entered it then, and may by the same gospel obedience enter it now. Thus with binding power the terms of entrance were announced on the day of its beginning (Acts 2:37-38). When men yield to the authority of Christ, the King, obey his gospel, enter his kingdom, and live according to his word, God’s will is being done “in earth as it is in heaven.”

The Great Commission is the Lord’s own statement of the terms of the new will. He made it, died for it, and then delivered it to the twelve for execution, after the Spirit should come. His instructions to them were specific, and their execution of his orders were divinely ordered. The Commission exists in four specific records, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew records the command to teach and baptize. Mark records the command to preach, believe and be baptized, with salvation following. Luke puts down repentance and remission of sins in his name. John declares that sins would be remitted or retained on the basis of apostolic authority in preaching its terms. Taking the witnesses and their testimony in due order it follows that wherever the gospel is preached, men must believe it, repent of their sins, and be baptized in order to become heirs to the blessings of salvation.

After this commission was given and executed on Pentecost, there were no exceptions to it. On Pentecost Peter said: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”—every one of them was commanded to do the same thing and for the same purpose. Through the book of Acts the story is uniform—the gospel believed and obeyed and the promise of the new will enjoyed.

It does not make void the blood at all. We are saved by the blood, but Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). We are cleansed by the blood, but Paul said that we are “cleansed with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5 :25). We are sanctified by the blood, but Paul also said that Christ sanctifies us “by the washing of water with the word.” We are washed in the blood, but we are commanded to “arise and be baptized and wash away sins” (Acts 22:16). We have remission of sins in his blood, but the inspired executor of Christ’s blood sealed will, said on Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.”

We cannot separate the blood from the will, nor the will from obedience. “By the which will be are sanctified.” Truly, there is a fountain filled with blood and it’s drawn from Emanuel’s veins. It is opened for you, it is opened for all; yea, sinners plunged beneath its flood lose all their guilty stains.