Z.W. Kelley

Category: Bible Studies

  • Is God bound by His Word?

    Is God bound by His Word?

    At first, the question almost sounds wrong. God is God. He is sovereign. There is no authority above Him, no law greater than Him, and no one who can force Him to do anything. So how could we possibly say that God is “bound” by His Word?

    Yet I believe there is a very real sense in which we can say that He is.

    God is bound by His Word out of moral necessity.

    What do I mean by that?

    Moral necessity simply means that something is necessary because of what is morally good and true, rather than because of an outside force. In God’s case, I don’t mean that His Word has authority over Him. I mean that His Word comes from Him. God has to be faithful to what He says because being unfaithful would go against who He is.

    God cannot separate what He says from who He is. His Word is trustworthy because He is trustworthy. His promises are faithful because He is faithful. God is completely consistent in His nature, His character, and His Word.

    In other words, God is consistent in totality.

    Can God Do Anything?

    We often say that God can do anything. In one sense, that’s absolutely true. Nothing is too difficult for God. Nothing in creation possesses greater power than its Creator.

    But Scripture also tells us that there are things God cannot do. Paul writes of God, “who does not lie” (Titus 1:2). Hebrews goes even further:

    Hebrews 6:18 | So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie.

    Think about that language for a moment.

    Impossible.

    Does that mean God lacks power? Of course not. God cannot lie because lying would go against His own nature. God is truth. For God to stop being truthful, He would have to stop being who He is.

    Paul gives us another remarkable statement:

    2 Timothy 2:13 | If we are unfaithful, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny who he is.

    Notice that Paul doesn’t simply say God chooses not to deny Himself. He says He cannot. God’s faithfulness isn’t merely something He does. Faithfulness is part of who He is.

    This is what I mean by moral necessity.

    There are things God cannot do precisely because He is God. He cannot lie because He is truth. He cannot become evil because He is good. He cannot become unfaithful because He is faithful.

    So, can God do anything? Absolutely.

    But will God do anything? No.

    Why? Because God is completely consistent with His own nature. His power doesn’t mean that He can suddenly become something other than who He is.

    I think there is an interesting connection here to the way God reveals Himself to Moses:

    Exodus 3:14 | God replied to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. Say this to the people of Israel: I AM has sent me to you.”

    The Hebrew phrase Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh is famously translated “I AM WHO I AM,” but the Hebrew can also carry the sense of “I will be what I will be.” I’ve even seen the thought expressed more plainly as, “I be who I be.”

    I like that way of thinking about it.

    God simply is who He is.

    He isn’t becoming someone else tomorrow. His nature isn’t shifting depending on the circumstances. God will always be consistent with Himself.

    So when we say there are things God cannot do, we aren’t describing a weakness in God. We’re describing the absolute consistency of His nature.

    That isn’t weakness. It’s perfection.

    God Is Not Bound by Something Greater Than Himself

    This is where I think we need to make an important distinction. When I say that God is bound by His Word, I am not suggesting that there is some cosmic rulebook sitting above God that He is obligated to obey.

    There is no authority above God. God’s Word isn’t something separate from Him that forces Him into obedience.

    Rather, God is faithful to His Word because God is faithful to Himself.

    His Word is an expression of His character. If God makes a promise and then breaks that promise, the problem would be much deeper than simply failing to do something He said He would do. God would be acting against His own nature.

    Scripture tells us:

    Numbers 23:19 | God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?

    We aren’t like that. We can promise something today and change our minds tomorrow. We can tell someone the truth one day and lie the next. We can be faithful for twenty years and become unfaithful in the twenty-first.

    God cannot. His nature doesn’t change.

    That means when God gives His Word, we can trust the One who gave it.

    The Flood and God’s Covenant

    I think one of the clearest examples of this can be found all the way back in Genesis. God judged the earth through the flood in the days of Noah. Afterward, God established a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and the earth.

    God said:

    Genesis 9:11 | Yes, I am confirming my covenant with you. Never again will floodwaters kill all living creatures; never again will a flood destroy the earth.

    God then established the rainbow as the sign of that covenant. I think this gives us one of the clearest examples of what I mean when I say God is bound by His own Word.

    Could God physically produce another worldwide flood? Of course. The God who created the earth and its oceans certainly has the power to do it.

    But can God destroy the earth through another worldwide flood?

    I would argue that He cannot. Not because He has lost the ability to control the waters. Not because something in creation could stop Him.

    But because God said He wouldn’t.

    He gave His Word. He established His covenant. And because God cannot lie, His own character guarantees what He has spoken.

    That’s exactly what I mean when I say God is bound by His Word out of moral necessity. His power hasn’t changed.

    His Word has been given.

    For God to destroy the earth through another flood after promising that He would never do so would mean violating His own Word. And violating His Word would go against the truthful and faithful nature of God Himself.

    I think this becomes even more interesting when we look toward the final judgment. Peter looks back to the flood and then describes a future judgment, not through water, but through fire (2 Peter 3:5–7, 10).

    There is certainly a meaningful connection between fire and things like judgment, purification, testing, and refining throughout Scripture. But I think there is another layer worth recognizing.

    God has already given His Word concerning the waters.

    The earth will not meet its final judgment through another flood. God established that thousands of years ago.

    So when I see a rainbow, I don’t think it should only remind us that there once was a flood. It should also remind us that God made a promise after that flood, and He remains faithful to what He said.

    His Word still stands.

    Has God Exalted His Word Above His Name?

    Psalm 138:2 gives us one of the most interesting statements in Scripture concerning God’s Word and His name. The King James Version famously reads:

    Psalm 138:2 | KJV | For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

    Young’s Literal Translation gives us something very similar:

    Psalm 138:2 | YLT | For Thou hast made great Thy saying above all Thy name.

    I don’t think we should brush those translations aside. When we look at the original Hebrew, there is good reason that translations such as the KJV and YLT render it this way. But other more literal translations bring out the relationship between God’s Word and His name a little differently.

    The Legacy Standard Bible says:

    Psalm 138:2 | LSB | For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.

    The Amplified Bible renders it:

    Psalm 138:2 | AMP | For You have magnified Your word together with Your name.

    At first, these translations can sound like they’re saying different things. Has God exalted His Word above His name? Has He magnified His Word according to His name? Or has He magnified His Word together with His name?

    Personally, I don’t think it changes the main point very much.

    God’s Word will always be connected to who God is. His name represents who He is—His character, reputation, and identity. His Word is what He has spoken, declared, and promised.

    So I don’t think we should imagine God’s Word and God Himself as two separate things being placed on a scale against each other. If we follow the rendering that God has exalted His Word “above” His name, that doesn’t mean His Word has somehow become a higher authority than God Himself.

    God hasn’t placed something external above Himself. Instead, I think it shows just how seriously God regards what He has spoken.

    I also think translations such as the LSB and AMP do a great job of connecting God’s Word directly to God Himself. God magnifies His Word according to His name. God magnifies His Word together with His name. His Word and His character are in perfect harmony.

    Again, God is consistent in totality.

    And considering I’m personally a big fan of the NLT, I love the way it communicates the thought:

    Psalm 138:2 | NLT | For your promises are backed by all the honor of your name.

    I love that.

    His promises are backed by all the honor of His name.

    Think about what that means. It brings honor to God when He remains faithful to His Word because His faithfulness shows us exactly who He is. God’s name is attached to what God has spoken. His character stands behind His Word.

    That’s why I don’t think the differences between these translations really change the heart of what is being communicated. If anything, reading them together helps me appreciate it even more.

    Whether we read that God magnifies His Word above His name, according to His name, or together with His name, the connection is still there. And I think the NLT captures that connection beautifully:

    His promises are backed by the honor of His name.

    You can trust what God says because you can trust who God is. God doesn’t have one character and speak with another. He isn’t faithful in His nature but unreliable in His promises. He isn’t truthful in who He is but careless with what He says.

    His Word and His character are consistent.

    Abraham Believed the One Who Promised

    This becomes incredibly important when we get to Romans 4. Abraham is often presented as an example of having great faith, and certainly he did. But I think sometimes we focus so heavily on Abraham’s faith that we miss the object of Abraham’s faith.

    Abraham wasn’t believing in belief. He wasn’t trying to generate enough faith inside himself to force something to happen.

    He believed God.

    Paul writes:

    Romans 4:21 | He was fully convinced that God is able to do whatever he promises.

    I think that’s an important distinction. Biblical faith isn’t confidence in my ability to believe.

    It’s confidence in God.

    Abraham could trust the promise because he trusted the One who made it. And think about how well that connects with everything we’ve already seen.

    God cannot lie. God cannot deny Himself. God established His covenant after the flood and remains faithful to it. God’s promises are backed by the honor of His name.

    And Abraham becomes our great example of faith because he was convinced that God would do what God had promised.

    The strength of Abraham’s faith ultimately rested in the faithfulness of God.

    God’s Nature Guarantees His Word

    This is ultimately where I’ve landed.

    When we say that God is “bound by His Word,” we have to understand what we’re actually saying. God isn’t bound by an external authority. God isn’t subject to something greater than Himself. God’s Word isn’t sitting above Him like a law that even God must obey.

    Rather:

    God is bound by His Word out of moral necessity because His nature guarantees His faithfulness to it.

    He cannot lie. He cannot deny Himself. He does not cease being faithful. His character does not change. And because of that, His Word cannot contradict who He is.

    The same God who placed the rainbow in the sky after the flood is the God who spoke to Abraham, the God revealed through Jesus Christ, and the God we worship today.

    His Word isn’t reliable because something forces God to keep it.

    His Word is reliable because of who God is.

    That’s the distinction.

    God is true. God is faithful. God does not change. His Word carries His name, His character, and His honor with it.

    When God remains faithful to what He has spoken, it brings honor to His name because it shows us once again that God is exactly who He has revealed Himself to be.

    He is consistent in totality.

    So is God bound by His Word?

    I believe He is—but not because His Word is greater than Him.

    He is bound by His Word because He is God. His nature guarantees His faithfulness. His character guarantees His truthfulness. And His name stands behind what He has spoken.

    You can trust God’s Word because you can trust God.

    And ultimately, our confidence isn’t in the strength of our faith.

    Our confidence is in the character of the One who gave us His Word.

  • Where Did John the Baptist Get the Idea to Baptize People?

    When John the Baptist suddenly appeared in the wilderness of Judea calling people to repentance and baptizing them in the Jordan River, the Gospel accounts do not stop to explain where baptism came from. John simply appears—and people seem to understand what he is doing.

    That raises an interesting question: Where did John get the idea to baptize people?

    Baptism was not entirely foreign to the Jewish world of the first century. Ritual washing had deep roots in the Old Testament, and archaeological evidence shows that ritual immersion was widespread among Jews by the time of Jesus. Yet John was doing something distinctive. He was calling Israel to repentance and immersing people in preparation for the coming Messiah.

    Even more importantly, John tells us that this ministry was not merely his own idea. God had sent him to baptize.

    John Did Not Invent Ritual Immersion

    Long before John the Baptist showed up at the Jordan River, washing with water already had religious significance for the Jewish people.

    We see this throughout the Old Testament. The Law of Moses included different ceremonial washings, and priests were required to wash before certain acts of service. So the idea of water being associated with cleansing was nothing new to Israel.

    By the first century, ritual immersion was also common in Jewish life. Archaeologists have discovered mikvahs, or Jewish ritual immersion pools, throughout Jerusalem and Judea from the time surrounding Jesus.

    But here is what I find really interesting.

    When John starts baptizing people, the religious leaders don’t seem confused about what baptism is. They question why John has the authority to do it.

    That distinction matters.

    The Pharisees Asked the Right Question

    John 1:19-25 |19 This was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Temple assistants from Jerusalem to ask John, “Who are you?” 20 He came right out and said, “I am not the Messiah.”

    21 “Well then, who are you?” they asked. “Are you Elijah?”

    “No,” he replied.

    “Are you the Prophet we are expecting?”

    “No.”

    22 “Then who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us. What do you have to say about yourself?”

    23 John replied in the words of the prophet Isaiah:

    “I am a voice shouting in the wilderness,
        ‘Clear the way for the Lord’s coming!’”

    24 Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25 asked him, “If you aren’t the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet, what right do you have to baptize?”

    Did you catch what they asked?

    They didn’t ask John, “What is baptism?”

    They asked him, “If you aren’t the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet, what right do you have to baptize?”

    That’s a pretty significant difference.

    These were priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem to question John. They knew the Scriptures. They knew Jewish purification practices. And apparently, the act of baptism itself didn’t require an explanation.

    What they wanted to know was why John was doing it.

    In other words, their problem wasn’t necessarily the practice. Their question was about John’s authority.

    And that question actually leads us straight toward the answer we’re looking for.

    Who Told John to Baptize?

    John 1:32-33 | 32 Then John testified, “I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him. 33 I didn’t know he was the one, but when God sent me to baptize with water, he told me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descend and rest is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

    There it is. Right in the middle of John chapter 1, verse 33.

    John didn’t wake up one morning and decide that he was going to start baptizing people. He tells us plainly that God sent him to baptize with water.

    That changes the way we should look at John’s baptism.

    Yes, ritual washing already existed. Yes, immersion was something the Jewish people were familiar with. But John’s baptism wasn’t simply another ritual washing that he borrowed and put his own spin on.

    John was commissioned by God to baptize.

    And God even gave John a sign to identify the Messiah: the one upon whom John saw the Holy Spirit descend and remain was the one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

    John saw that happen with Jesus.

    So now we’re getting somewhere. We know John didn’t invent the idea of ritual immersion, but we also know his particular ministry of baptism came directly from God.

    The next question is: what made John’s baptism different?

    What Made John’s Baptism Different?

    Mark 1:4-5 | 4 This messenger was John the Baptist. He was in the wilderness and preached that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven. 5 All of Judea, including all the people of Jerusalem, went out to see and hear John. And when they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River.

    So what made John’s baptism different?

    Repentance.

    John wasn’t simply washing people because they had become ceremonially unclean. He was calling people to turn from their sins and turn back to God.

    And notice who John was preaching this message to. These weren’t pagan Gentiles who knew nothing about the God of Israel. John was preaching to the Jewish people themselves.

    That would have been a powerful message.

    Being a descendant of Abraham wasn’t enough. Being part of Israel wasn’t enough. John was calling the people of God to personally repent and prepare themselves for what God was about to do.

    Matthew records John confronting this mindset directly when some of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to see him. He warned them not to simply say, “We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham” (Matthew 3:9 NLT).

    John’s message was clear: the Messiah was coming, and Israel needed to be ready.

    This is why John’s baptism was more than another ritual washing. The water was connected to a much bigger message—repentance, forgiveness, and preparation for the coming Messiah.

    And John wasn’t interested in an outward ritual without an inward change.

    “Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God.”
    — Matthew 3:8 NLT

    That may be one of the most important things to understand about John’s baptism. The water itself wasn’t the point. A changed heart was.

    John Came From a Priestly Family

    Luke 1:5 | 5 When Herod was king of Judea, there was a Jewish priest named Zechariah. He was a member of the priestly order of Abijah, and his wife, Elizabeth, was also from the priestly line of Aaron.

    There is another detail about John that I think is worth mentioning.

    John came from a priestly family.

    His father, Zechariah, was a Jewish priest. Luke also tells us that John’s mother, Elizabeth, was from the priestly line of Aaron.

    So John didn’t grow up disconnected from the Law of Moses, the priesthood, or the purification practices of Israel. He was born into a family that would have been very familiar with these things.

    I don’t think we should take this too far and say that John became “the Baptizer” simply because his father was a priest. Scripture already told us where his commission to baptize came from: God.

    But his background is still fascinating.

    The man God chose to prepare Israel for the Messiah was the son of a priest, from the line of Aaron, and yet his ministry wouldn’t take place inside the Temple.

    John was out in the wilderness, calling Israel to repentance and preparing the way for the Lord.

    John’s Baptism Was Meant to Reveal the Messiah

    John 1:29-31 | 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 He is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘A man is coming after me who is far greater than I am, for he existed long before me.’ 31 I did not recognize him as the Messiah, but I have been baptizing with water so that he might be revealed to Israel.”

    Now we get another piece of the puzzle.

    We already know who told John to baptize. God did.

    But here John tells us why.

    John says that he had been baptizing with water so that the Messiah might be revealed to Israel.

    That means John’s baptism wasn’t an isolated ministry. It was directly connected to the coming of Jesus.

    John had been sent ahead of Him. He was calling Israel to repentance, baptizing them with water, and preparing the people for the One who was coming after him.

    Then one day, Jesus Himself walked down to the Jordan to be baptized.

    And this is where everything John had been told by God came together.

    John said that God had given him a specific sign: the person upon whom he saw the Holy Spirit descend and remain was the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

    John saw that sign happen with Jesus.

    Suddenly, the purpose behind John’s ministry becomes much clearer. His baptism wasn’t only about calling people to repentance. God was using John’s ministry to prepare Israel for the Messiah—and ultimately to reveal the Messiah to Israel.

    John had been baptizing people in water, but he was preparing the way for Someone far greater.

    34 I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Chosen One of God.” – John 1:34

    John’s Baptism Was Preparing the Way for Something Greater.

    Matthew 3:11 | 11 “I baptize with water those who repent of their sins and turn to God. But someone is coming soon who is greater than I am—so much greater that I’m not worthy even to be his slave and carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

    John never presented his baptism as the end of the story.

    In fact, he constantly pointed beyond himself.

    John baptized with water, but he told the people that Someone much greater was coming. John even said that he wasn’t worthy to carry His sandals.

    John’s baptism was preparing people for Jesus.

    This fits perfectly with everything we’ve already seen. John was sent by God to baptize. His baptism called Israel to repentance. And through that ministry, the Messiah would be revealed to Israel.

    But John also understood that what Jesus would bring was greater than anything he could do with water.

    John baptized with water. Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit.

    John knew his role. He wasn’t trying to build a ministry around himself. He was preparing the way for Someone else.

    That was the entire point.

    Why Did Jesus Come to John for Baptism?

    There is something that immediately seems strange about this.

    If John was calling people to repentance, why would Jesus need to be baptized?

    John apparently wondered the same thing.

    When Jesus came to him, John actually tried to talk Him out of it. John knew who was greater. He told Jesus that he was the one who needed to be baptized by Him, not the other way around.

    But Jesus insisted.

    “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.”
    — Matthew 3:15 NLT

    Jesus wasn’t being baptized because He needed to repent of sin. He had no sin to repent of.

    Something bigger was happening.

    Remember what John told us in John chapter 1. God had sent him to baptize, but God had also given him a specific sign to watch for. The One upon whom John saw the Holy Spirit descend and remain was the One he was looking for.

    And that is exactly what happened when John baptized Jesus.

    The Holy Spirit descended upon Him, and the Father spoke from heaven.

    This identified Jesus to John, but I think there is another part of this moment that we shouldn’t overlook.

    Look at what happens next.

    Jesus is baptized. The Holy Spirit descends upon Him. And before Jesus begins His public ministry, the Spirit leads Him directly into the wilderness.

    Luke makes the progression incredibly clear. Jesus leaves the Jordan “full of the Holy Spirit” and is led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Luke 4:1 NLT). After enduring forty days of temptation, Jesus returns to Galilee “filled with the Holy Spirit’s power” (Luke 4:14 NLT).

    Then, when Jesus enters the synagogue in Nazareth, He reads from Isaiah:

    “The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me…”
    — Luke 4:18 NLT

    Think about that progression.

    Jesus is baptized. The Spirit descends upon Him. He is led by the Spirit into the wilderness. He overcomes temptation. Then He begins His public ministry in the power of the Spirit.

    This doesn’t mean Jesus was without the Holy Spirit before His baptism. But His baptism marks an important moment as He steps into His public ministry. Before He performs the miracles we read about, before He begins traveling and preaching throughout Galilee, and before He calls His disciples to follow Him, we see Jesus anointed with the Holy Spirit and ministering in the Spirit’s power.

    I think that is incredibly significant.

    John’s baptism of Jesus wasn’t about Jesus needing cleansing. It was part of something much greater. The Messiah was being revealed, John’s God-given sign was being fulfilled, and Jesus was stepping into the ministry He had come to accomplish.

    Why “John the Baptist”?

    There is one final detail that I think brings all of this together.

    We know him as John the Baptist.

    We hear that name so often that it almost sounds like “Baptist” was John’s last name. But that isn’t what the title means at all.

    The Greek is Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής (Iōannēs ho Baptistēs)—essentially, “John the Baptizer.”

    The title identifies John by what he was known for doing.

    We actually see something similar with Simon the Tanner in the book of Acts. Simon wasn’t called “the Tanner” because he invented tanning. He was called Simon the Tanner because that was the work he was known for doing.

    The same idea applies to John.

    John the Baptizer doesn’t mean John invented baptism. It identifies him with the work that characterized his ministry—the very work God had sent him to do.

    And even the Greek word itself existed before John’s ministry.

    The verb βαπτίζω (baptizō) carried the idea of dipping, immersing, submerging, or washing. The New Testament even uses this word family in contexts involving Jewish ceremonial washings.

    So neither the word nor the basic concept of immersion began with John.

    What was new was John’s God-given mission.

    He was sent to call Israel to repentance, baptize with water, prepare the way for the Lord, and reveal the Messiah to Israel.

    That mission became so closely associated with him that nearly two thousand years later, we still know him by it:

    John the Baptizer or as your gospel accounts read it… John the Baptist.