1

2A CHALLENGE TO RESPOND TO LOVE

In the area of biblical studies, there isno greater study than a study of the sacrifi-cial Son of God on the cross, and the re-sponse of sincere hearts to such awonderous offering. The purpose for allthat exists in our world and the universe isdiscovered in the cross. In order to accom-plish His purpose for the creation of theworld, God brought into His creation an his-torical event that is so wonderful that it isalmost overwhelming to comprehend.

The amazing story of creation beganwith the creation of inhabitants of this worldwho were subject to mortality since the dayof their creation. Upon creation, these mor-tal beings had to have the hope of beingreconciled to their Creator. In realizing thatthey were only clods of dirt in whom was alife-giving spirit from their Creator, the cre-ated could never claim the status of God.They were mortal. In order to gain eternalityin the presence of their Creator, the createdwere given a spirit that would yearn for theirCreator. Inherent eternality, therefore, wasnever a blessing given to moral man uponhis creation. It would come only at the costof the Creator through the life-giving sacri-fice of the Son of God. All the yearning andanswers of the created were thus answeredat the cross of Calvary.

Because the Creator is defined bylove, He would never have left His creationfrustrated about making an eternal connec-tion with Him. The “Connector” came forthe specific purpose of connecting the cre-ated with the Creator through the cross.The cross, therefore, is the invitation of aloving God to bring into His fellowship foreternity those whose origin was simply dirtand spirit.

The revelation of our Creator some

two thousand years ago through the crossevidenced beyond question that the logicof His eternal plan was flawless. It was flaw-less in execution for the cross brought intoharmony all that was known of God beforethe revelation of the mystery of the gospel.The cross connected all the dots from cre-ation to eternity. The cross answered allour questions concerning why we are hereand where we are going.

What validates the revelation of thismystery is the fact that it is centered aroundthe very character of God that He embed-ded within the emotional makeup of His cre-ation. The Creator was love, and thus, thatwhich He would create must also be afterHis image of love. In order for a lovingCreator to be able to lead His creation oflove into His eternal presence, there couldonly be an awesome act of love. This is thefoundational message of the cross. It wasa love act of God for the sake of His cre-ation.

We would respond through faith(trust) in the God who worked throughoutmillennia in order to bring His Son to thecross, the grave and the resurrection. Ithas been our goal in this book to take read-ers on a journey from eternity to the cross,and then open the Scriptures for under-standing how one can connect to the Sonon the cross in order to be reconciled toGod. We know that Satan will turn peoplefrom the power of the cross by leadingpeople away from doing that which wouldwash away sins. We write, therefore, toencourage obedience to the gospel throughbaptism into the name of the Father, Sonand Holy Spirit. Through this obedience offaith, our hope is renewed. Through bap-tism we fulfill all the righteousness of God.

Text: Roger E. DicksonCover: Triston Jacobsohn

Publisher: Africa International Missions, Cape Town, South Africa; Hutchinson, Kansas U.S.A.

Copyright 2013

3CONTENTS

THE CROSSA Metaphorical Hypothesis 4

1 Nothing But The Cross 72 The God Revealed At The Cross 143 Restoring The Appeal Of The Cross 204 Metaphors Of The Cross 245 The Redeemer Of The Cross 266 The Ransom Paid At The Cross 287 The Sacrificial Offering On The Cross 308 The Suffering Servant On The Cross 349 Reconciliation At The Cross 3610 Justification At The Cross 3911 Crucified With Him On The Cross 4412 Refocusing On The Cross 47

THE FAITHIntroduction 52

13 Rescuing Our Faith Out of Theological Jargon 5314 False Starts And Erroneous Conclusions 5915 The Necessity Of Faith 6316 A Theology Of Elimination 6917 The Fear Of The Lord 7318 Lost In Belief 7719 Failure To Fulfill All Righteousness 79

THE BAPTISMIntroduction 84

20 Definition Of Baptizo 8921 Baptism And Church History 9222 Baptism And Obedience To The Gospel 9623 Baptism And The Blood Of Jesus 10224 Baptism And Remission Of Sins 10725 Baptism And Being In Christ 11026 Baptism And Divine Relationships 11327 Baptism And Our Covenant Relationship With God 11728 Baptism And Salvation 12329 Baptism And Logical Conclusions 12630 Baptism And Response To The Gospel 12931 Baptism And Proper Candidates 13532 Baptism And Household Conversions 14133 Baptism And Infant Salvation 14534 Baptism And Covenant Relationships 148

35 Baptism And Common Objections 151

4

A METAPHORICAL HYPOTHESIS

(Imagine with me for a moment. Just a moment to look into a hypothetical con-versation in eternity. It could have taken place before the creation of the worldbetween the Father, Son and Spirit. After all, something gave birth to the idea ofour creation. And in trying to discover that something, be patient as we imaginean awesome conversation that possibly took place between the three eternalexistences of Deity before the creation of the world.)

essence can be showered. Otherwise,we do not exist as true love.”

“Therefore,” replied the Son, “Wemust do the act. Regardless of all therisks, we have no choice because of thenature of who we are. We are love, andlove must love. True love cannot existwithout the existence of that which isfrail and finite.”

“But for the act to be real,” inter-jected the Spirit, “We cannot hold backin what we create. What we seek tocreate must also have volition as we.Our created creature must be able tomake choices, and because of theirwrong choices they will become broken.If we create, but do not give the rightand freedom of our created to makechoices, then they will judge us to behard, fiendish, ... even unloving for send-ing into destruction those who cannotlive perfect before us. In the midst ofthe results of their bad choices, they willquestion why we even created them inthe first place.”

“And if we create such beings,”continued the Spirit, “most will simplyrebel against us. In fact, because mostwill rebel they will think that we havedestined many of them to a destructionconcerning which they had no choice.They will then judge us to be fiendish,something that is totally contrary to who

At the eternal planning table, theFather brought up the subject, “Wethree are love. Is it not the nature oftrue love to express itself toward oth-ers? Must we dwell in eternity withoutobjects on which to lovingly expressourselves? How can true love existwithout expression? How can we bedefined as love without having in oureternal presence those who must haveour love showered upon them throughour grace and mercy?”

“It is truly our nature to be expres-sive,” responded the Son. “It is our na-ture to manifest ourselves to the exist-ence of something other than ourselves.If we are who we say we are, then wemust love. We must create somethingupon which we can pour out our love.”

The Spirit added, “But if we bringinto existence those who are not afterour nature, then there will be problems,a lot of problems. In order to bring intoexistence that which can truly be anobject of our love, there must be condi-tions. And the conditions might not jus-tify the act of creation. Are we reallywilling to take this risk?”

“I know,” lamented the Father. “Butif we are who we say we are, then wehave no other choice. Love must beexpressed. It must have an object uponwhich the most profound nature of its

A Metaphorical Hypothesis

5

we really are. Is this a risk that we arewilling to take? Because so many willreject our love, some will even deny thatwe exist because our creation will ap-pear to have all gone wrong.”

“Regardless of the risks,” sighedthe Father, “we all want to bring intoexistence those on whom we can eter-nally shower our love. We cannot beloving without expressing love. It is atruth about us that we cannot ignore,and thus, we must do what must bedone.”

“But I want to remind all of us,”cautioned the Spirit. “If we go throughwith this plan, we will bring upon our-selves all sorts of grief. We will mournwith pain as our creation goes wrong.Since in our creation there must be thefreedom of the created to make choices,then we know what will happen. Thosewho make all the bad choices will bringgreat pain and suffering into the lives ofthose of ours who will respond to ourlove. We know that no individually pre-destined or preprogrammed robots canbe created, for no robot can truly respondto us by saying, ‘I love you too.’ Andbecause no robots can express a recip-rocal love, most of the creation will gowrong because the majority will moveaway from who we really are.”

“I know. I know,” replied the Son.“But we cannot just sit here and allowlove to go unexpressed ... idle in eter-nity. We must do something. There-fore, I am willing to make the move re-gardless of the consequences. I willcreate the object of our love and I willtake ownership of what I create, includ-ing doing whatever is necessary to bringour creation into eternity with us.”

“If you do that, my Son, it will cost

you dearly,” grieved the Father.“I know, but what else can we do?

I know that if we truly create those whocan truly respond to us with their love,there are risks, tremendous risks. Infact, most of those we create will sim-ply deny through their behavior that weeven exist. But again, what else canwe do to unleash our love? It is simplynot in the nature of who we are to sitidle. So because we are the true eter-nal existence of love, we must do whatwe have to do. We must create.”

The Spirit again cautioned, “MustI remind everyone here that this cannotbe a one-man show? We are one, andbecause we are one any one existenceof ourselves must act as the whole. Ifwe go ahead with this plan, everyonewill be involved. I will take the part ofhovering over what we create. Sincewe are about to create those in whomwe will invest the power to makechoices, I will make sure that they arenot left without direction. We simplycannot allow our creation to wander inobscurity in the environment for whichwe will create for them. They must knowwhat we expect of them, and they willalways need a road map back to us.”

The Father also volunteered, “I willassume the totality of control, and thusbe the occasion and object for love tobe revealed to those who are created.In order for love to be illustrated, wemust be as that which we desire of ourcreation. But Son, again, do you fullyunderstand that if you go through withthis plan the personal cost to you willbe overwhelming?”

With a tear in His eye, the Fathercontinued to remind the Son, “If you gothrough with this, you will never again

A Metaphorical Hypothesis

6

be as we are now. We will all continueto be one, but your existence will changeforever for the sake of those whom youare about to create. Can you eternallydrink of this cup of sacrifice?”

“I will take ownership of what I cre-ate,” the Son confidently affirmed. “Iknow the sacrifice will be humiliating andeternal, but being in eternity without re-flecting our love on others is worse thangiving up the form I am in order to iden-tify with our creation. The benefits faroutweigh the eternal sacrifice.”

“But you know the risks,” the Spiritalso reminded the Son. “If you create abeing that has the right to make choices,you will be bringing into existence moralchaos that will result in untold sufferingand evil. Because of so much sufferingand evil they will accuse us of being bothcruel or fiendish, if not deny our exist-

ence altogether because of so much suf-fering and evil that will result from theirfreedom to make choices. Are you will-ing to be overwhelmed with the suffer-ing that will result from this sacrifice thatyou are about to make in order to bringour creation back to us into eternal dwell-ing?”

“I am!” the Son confidently re-sponded. “What else can we do? Wehave no other option. We are love, andlove can do nothing else. I am willing tocreate what will become a moral messand I am willing to clean up the mess,regardless of the extreme sacrifice thatis necessary to make it so.”

“So then,” the Father sighed, “Letit begin.”

“In the beginning God created ....”(Genesis 1:1)

All that has existed throughout history, and into the future of mankind,centers around the atoning sacrifice of the incarnate Son of God on thecross. The destiny of the obedient in the loving eternal arms of God de-pends on a foreplanned offering that happened two thousand years agooutside Jerusalem. From the seed promise to Eve, through the call ofAbraham, to the birth and existence of national Israel, and finally to thevery foot of the cross, all of God’s struggles with man in human historywas to bring His Son to an atoning sacrifice on a cruel cross for oureternal existence. The community of God since the cross is the result ofthat event, for the cross was more than an historical event. It was thepinnacle of a preexistent “table plan” to bring those of faith into theeternal dwelling of a loving Deity. Without our focus on the centrality ofthe cross, we can never fully understand and appreciate the work of Godthroughout history. We can never understand God Himself. We wouldconclude, therefore, that without the Spirit explaining through revela-tion the six-hour cross event, we could never understand the meaning ofour lives and the reason for our existence. The cross is the explanationfor all things. It is the foundation upon which we discover why we arehere, and God’s intended destiny for us who believe.

A Metaphorical Hypothesis

7

Chapter 1

NOTHING BUT THE CROSSNOTHING BUT THE CROSSNOTHING BUT THE CROSSNOTHING BUT THE CROSSNOTHING BUT THE CROSS

Have you ever wondered why theapostle Paul made this statement: “ForI determined not to know anythingamong you except Jesus Christ andHim crucified” (1 Co 2:2)? If you have,then you, as we, are on our way to re-storing again our focus on the cross.Now to what extent did Paul believewhat he said in this statement? If whathe stated is true, then it is possibly timeto reconsider our legal outlines on“church” and look again at what shouldbe the central message of our preach-ing. It is time to rethink our faith andregenerate our commitment to God, forwe may have strayed from the veryfoundation upon which all history exists,and the answer to our very existence.

It was the eternal plan of the infi-nite God that a mediator between Godand man be offered for His creation.This plan was established before thecreation of those whom He sought todeliver from this world in order to bringinto eternity (Rv 13:8). To accomplishthis plan, there had to be a divine linkbetween God and man. That link wasthe incarnate Son of God. “For there isone God and one mediator betweenGod and men, the man Christ Jesus”(1 Tm 2:5).

The message of a crucified me-diator is unique with Christianity. It iscontrary to the hero worship of man-made idol religions and revered icons.

For this reason, the concept of a faithbased on a cross does not appeal tothe rich and famous. It is repulsive tothe proud and arrogant. “For thepreaching of the cross is foolishnessto those who are perishing. But to uswho are being saved, it is the power ofGod” (1 Co 1:18). The wise men of theworld will always consider “cross Chris-tianity” a scandalous religion. But thosewho come to understand the awesomebeauty of the Suffering Servant of Godon the cross will have a life-changingexperience.

Even in the early days of Christian-ity the warning went out to the rebel-lious. In the context of Acts 13:38-41Paul quoted Habakkuk 1:5 concerningthe prophesied astonishment of peopleat the mystery of God. It would be un-believable by those who were con-sumed in their own religiosity. Paulwarned the Jewish audience of Antiochof Pisidia, “Beware therefore, lest thatcome on you which is spoken in theprophets” (At 13:40). Habakkuk hadprophesied, “Behold, you despisers,and marvel and perish! For I work awork in your days, a work that youwill in no way believe, though a mandeclare it to you” (At 13:41; see Hb1:5).

So why would the concept of thecross be so difficult to believe by mostof the world? The concept of a cruci-fied incarnate God was contrary to thenature of arrogant men and man-madereligions. Men conceive of gods who

Section I

THE CROSSTHE CROSSTHE CROSSTHE CROSSTHE CROSS

The Cross

8

crush and punish. But the one true andliving God gave out of Himself on be-half of His creation. And in this giving,there was incredible sacrifice. It all be-gan with the lowest death the Son ofGod could have experienced in His in-carnate flesh. When the text says, “Hehumbled Himself and became obedientunto death, even the death of thecross,” (Ph 2:8), there was no accidentabout the foreplanned event of the eter-nal God. Our Savior knowingly soughtto bring on Himself shame and humilia-tion, even cruelty, in order to give ushope and the opportunity for eternaldwelling. It was an incredible plan ofsuffering. It was one that would mani-fest the core nature of a true God whocreated man, but not with predestinedpunishment because of man’s fallibility.It was a plan of hope to come into thepresence of our eternal loving Father.

The cross defines the God who isbeyond the definition of any word in ourdictionaries. And because it does, it wasa mystery to men throughout historyuntil its revelation two thousand yearsago. In some ways, it is still a mysteryas we struggle to look through the meta-phors that explain the event in order tocomprehend the sacrifice that tookplace on the “old rugged cross.” If wewould understand God, therefore, wemust open the “dictionary” of the cross.We must step through the doors ofmetaphors in order to understand insome way this God who allowed Him-self to be crucified by those He created.Rousseau was right when he said,“Socrates died like a philosopher, butJesus Christ died like a God.” There-fore, we seek to understand the God onthe cross in order to understand the God

beyond the cross.

A. The shame and humiliation ofthe cross:The Greek word for “cross” is

stauros, though the word skolops isused as a Greek synonym in sometexts. Throughout early church historycrosses were portrayed as uprightbeams upon which a cross beam wasattached to either nail or tie the arms ofthe condemned. To the Romans, thecross was a cruel instrument to humili-ate the criminal in order to bring abouthis death. It was meant to strike terrorin the minds and hearts of the behold-ers. Throughout their early history, theJews considered hanging on a tree athing only the cursed should suffer (SeeDt 21:23; Gl 3:13). Because of their re-pulsion of such a form of death, manyJews rejected the crucified Jesus as theMessiah of Israel.

Cicero, in Pro Rabirio, spoke of thecross in reference to Roman culture,“Let the very name of the cross be faraway not only from the body of a Ro-man citizen, but even from his thoughts,his eyes, his ears.” Since crucifixionwas such an abhorrent form of execu-tion in Roman culture, one can onlyimagine the extent to which the Jewsrejected the crucifixion of the One whowas truly their Messiah. But at the sametime, we consider in awe those earlyJews who looked past the abhorrenceof the cross in order to discover theChrist of the cross, and thus, the fulfill-ment of the prophecies concerning theSuffering Servant of God.

The cross was an ancient form ofexecution that was meant to terrorizeany who would oppose a conquering

The Cross

9

army or violate the law of a dominantgovernment. Alexander the Great cruci-fied 2,000 Tyrian captives after the fall ofthe city of Tyre. Greeks, Romans, Egyp-tians, Persians and Babylonians all cru-cified the rebellious. Because crucifix-ion was considered by the Romans tobe the means of death and punishmentof rebellious slaves and hardened crimi-nals, they exempted any Roman citizenfrom the indignity of such a death.

But when an angry mob was askedwhat to do with Jesus, they cried out,“Let Him be crucified!” (Mt 27:22).Their cry for Jesus’ crucifixion was theworst possible means of death thatcould be brought upon the one theyopposed. The Jews considered thecross a means of death for the cursed,as well as a means to subject Jesus tothe most indignant manner of deathpossible. The religious leaders of Is-rael wanted Jesus to suffer the deathof a common criminal, the death of onewho had rebelled against their traditionalreligiosity (See Mk 7:1-9). And thusIsaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled. “And Hemade His grave with the wicked, andwith a rich man in His death .... Yet itpleased the Lord to bruise Him” (Is53:9,10).

And all this “pleased the Lord”?Isaiah’s prophecy startles us! Whywould God resort to the most humiliat-ing and cruel means of death for Him-self in order to redeem by sacrifice thoseHe had created from the dust of theearth? Why would God incarnate anddie for clods of dirt in which there is aspirit in order to bring them into eter-nity? The message of the cross is amessage of shame and humiliation onour behalf. Nevertheless, it is a mes-

sage that reveals the true God of heaven.There is a grandeur in the thought of aGod who would come so far and go solow in order to lift so high those He hadcreated out of the dust of the earth. It issuch an incredible concept of love. It isso incredible that those of the world sim-ply reject such as foolishness. But forthose who see the cross as a manifes-tation of the God of love, they are over-whelmed to the extent that they are will-ing to sacrifice their total being in re-sponse to that love.

B. The public spectacle of thecross:Jesus was not allowed to die a

quiet death in some obscure place. Hewas taken outside the city of Jerusa-lem and put on open display beforethousands of onlookers (Mt 27:27-31).Those who cried out for His blood re-joiced in His public display on a crossbefore all to mock and ridicule. “Thenthey spit on Him, and took the reed andstruck Him on the head again andagain. And after they had mocked Him,they took the robe off Him and putHis own garments back on Him, andled Him away to crucify Him” (Mt27:30,31). “Likewise the chief priests,with the scribes and elders, were mock-ing Him, saying, ‘He saved others; Him-self He cannot save. He is the King ofIsrael, let Him now come down from thecross and we will believe in Him” (Mt27:41,42).

If we were theologians in a roomplanning the development of a new reli-gion, then the event of a crucified leaderwould certainly not be the foundationupon which we would establish our move-ment. The public display and picture of

The Cross

1 0

a bleeding leader on a cross would notbe appealing to those whom we wouldlead in our new faith. In fact, the con-cept would be repugnant, if not repul-sive. Adherents would not be drawn toour new faith, but repelled. How couldour new faith be built on the shame of acrucified leader? It could not unlessthere was something Divine about theevent.

As we seek to discover the indig-nity of the cross, we are led to believethat God planned something that wasso incredible that it would be difficult tobelieve. But He had a plan. And theplan was first indicated from the mouthof a man who wore animal skins andate grasshoppers. “Behold, the Lambof God who takes away the sin of theworld?” (Jn 1:29). That crucified “Lambof God” would draw out of humanity allthe “animal skinned clothed and grass-hopper eating” believers who could iden-tify with the Lamb Himself who was wor-thy to be their leader into eternity.

C. The innocent victim of thecross:Isaiah had prepared the minds of

the faithful in Israel in reference to thecoming Messiah. “He is brought as alamb to the slaughter, and as a sheepbefore her shearers is dumb, so He didnot open His mouth” (Is 53:7). “He haddone no violence, nor was any de-ceit in His mouth” (Is 53:9). If Jesuswere a common criminal, He wouldhave been justly punished under Ro-man law. But he was found innocent.Even the Roman official Pilate remindedthe people who cried out for His cruci-fixion, “I have found no reason fordeath in Him” (Lk 23:22). If Jesus were

innocent of any crime, then the crosswas a scandal. It was a misnomer ofjustice. Would such a “misnomer ofjustice” be considered the foundationupon which a new faith could befounded and continued throughout his-tory?

If Jesus were only a man, thencertainly no one would be so naive asto sacrificially dedicate his life to such avictim of injustice. We are almost ledto believe that God intended that thecross be so humiliating, so repulsive,and such a miscarriage of justice, thatit would attract only those who wouldbe willing to suffer the same in their ownlives. It would appeal only to those whohave been abused and used, exploitedand unjustly spoken against, even thoseof society who have had to scrape a liv-ing out of their environment by wearingonly animal skins and eating bugs tosurvive. If this is the “way of the cross,”we cringe, but we are also held in aweat its appeal to the poorest of the poor.We then wonder at the God who wouldhave conceived and planned such alowly appeal to the lowest of humanity.What God is this in which we believe?If the “way of the cross leads home,”then do we really want to be at homeamong the poorest of the poor, the mosthumble of society? We most certainlydo since it will be in the presence of ourCreator! So we cry out to the innocentvictim on the cross, “Take us there!Take us home!”

D. Political victimization of thecross:We must keep in mind that the

Jews had no power of capital punishmentsince Palestine was an occupied land

The Cross

1 1

by the Romans during the days of Jesus.Only the Roman government had thispower, and thus, if Jesus were to be cru-cified, only by the authority of the Ro-man government could this happen. Andsuch was the case.

The times were volatile, and thus,Pilate, the Roman representative of Pal-estine, sought to pacify the mob of Jewsby reasoning with them concerning theinnocence of Jesus (Lk 23:22). How-ever, he had to succumb to their pleasto crucify Jesus. He did so in order toprevent what appeared to him to be apotential uprising of the Jews on thismost volatile occasion of the JewishPassover and Pentecost feasts whenthe most radical Jews were in town. Itwas the Romans, therefore, who nailedJesus to the cross. Jesus was cruci-fied according to the laws of Rome, butat the wishes of the angry Jewish mob.The rebellious Jews bore the guilt, butthe Romans did the act.

From the viewpoint of the Ro-mans, therefore, the cross was a resultof the politics of the times. Jesus wasa victim of a political struggle betweenRome and the Jews. Nevertheless,Pilate’s efforts were only temporarilysuccessful as the resistance of the Jewscontinued to grow to the point of rebel-lion against Roman occupation. It grewto the point that in A.D. 70 Rome ren-dered a final crushing blow to Jewishnationalism by the destruction of theJewish state and Jerusalem. In all thispolitical turmoil in the last years of na-tional Israel, to the Romans the cruci-fixion of Jesus was simply just anotherexecution of a supposed “king” of Is-rael who would seek to lead the Jews inrebellion against Rome (Compare At

21:38).But in the plan of God, the occa-

sion for the event in history was right.“But when the fullness of the time came,God sent forth His Son ...” (Gl 4:4).There is more in this statement than asimple fulfillment of prophecy. Theprophecy was fulfilled because the timein history was right to redeem the bro-ken. Throughout the millennia, the po-litical landscape had been laid by Godfor the crucifixion of the incarnate God.

We must never assume that thecross was an accident, and thus, anunplanned work of God. Some havebeen so mistaken concerning theforeplanned event of the cross that theyhave affirmed that because the Jewsrejected Jesus, God postponed a sup-posed earthly kingdom reign of Jesus.He postponed the kingdom reign onearth and then supposedly establishedthe church as an after thought. Suchan insidious teaching strikes directly atthe heart of the eternal plan and pur-pose of the cross in history for the sal-vation of man. Such a theology nulli-fies all prophecy concerning the suffer-ing servant who would give Himself inorder that the people be healed. Suchtheologies minimize the importance ofthe cross in reference to God’s eternalplan to bring His creation into His eter-nal presence. And for this reason, it isalmost impossible for those who main-tain such theologies to understand fullythe predestined fate of the Son of Godon the cross of Calvary.

E. Fulfilled destiny of the cross:At the time of the cross, the dis-

ciples had lost all hope that Jesus wouldbe their expected earthly king (See At

The Cross

1 2

1:6). Their hopes were dashed, andsubsequently, they went their way. Twoof the disciples on the road to Emmaussaid to Jesus, whom they did not rec-ognize, “But we were hoping that it wasHe who was going to redeem Israel” (Lk24:21). In a similar emotional state,Peter despondently said, “I am goingfishing” (Jn 21:3). The point is that thedisciples were looking for no martyrs fortheir faith. Death by the cross was acomplete surprise. The One theythought would be a conquering leaderwho would lead them in the restorationof national Israel was hanged on a crossoutside Jerusalem, just like the falsemessiahs that had previously risen inIsrael.

Martyrs are the result of the hopesof followers whose faith in them moti-vates the continuation of a movementbased on the thinking of the martyrs.But Jesus was to be no martyr. Whatthe disciples did not understand at thetime of the crucifixion, and even afterthe resurrection, was the fact that des-tiny was fulfilled in Jesus. They did notat first understand that the cross wasthe foreplanned mystery of God for thesalvation of mankind. They did not un-derstand this until Jesus explained allthe prophecies concerning the event.He rebuked them by saying, “O foolishones, and slow of heart to believe allthat the prophets have spoken. Was itnot necessary that the Christ sufferthese things and to enter into Hisglory?” (Lk 24:25,26). They needed tobe taught, even though they were stand-ing right there in the presence of the res-urrected Redeemer. Jesus continued,“And beginning with Moses and all theprophets, He explained to them in all the

Scriptures the things concerning Him-self” (Lk 24:27). It was as Paul laterwrote, “He made known to me the mys-tery” (Ep 3:3). And now we have thatmystery revealed and written for ourlearning. “Therefore,” Paul continued,“when you read you can understand myknowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Ep3:4). The cross was a mystery until itwas revealed, and thus Jesus’ deathwas not an accident. It was His des-tiny.

F. Betrayal and the cross:If we view the cross from a strictly

human standpoint, then its event wassimply the result of a plan gone wrong.On the night of betrayal when Judas“drew near to Jesus to kiss Him” (Lk22:47), what was in his mind was morethan thirty pieces of silver. We wouldassume that Judas had in mind ascheme to force the earthly kingship ofJesus, for such was an erroneous hopeof all the disciples (At 1:6). To the timeof the Last Supper in the upper room,“there was also a dispute among themas to which one of them should be con-sidered the greatest” (Lk 22:24). Thiswas the last hour Jesus was with Hisdisciples, and yet, they were disputingamong themselves as to which oneshould be considered the greatest in asupposed earthly kingdom. They werelooking forward to something in the fu-ture, which thing Judas possibly thoughthe could expedite by his betrayal ac-tions.

But the actions of Judas all wentwrong when the riotous mob in Jerusa-lem took control of the situation by tak-ing control of Jesus. In remorse, Judasthrew down the thirty pieces of silver and

The Cross

1 3

hanged himself. Jesus went to thecross. And the disciples simply lost allhope and either went home or went fish-ing. This is not a planned foundationupon which to develop a new religion.And this is simply not something inwhich followers would take pride. Whowould preach a faith that was based ona betrayal scheme that went wrong?Who would give his life to preach a mes-sage that was started by eleven discipleswho sought to rewrite a betrayal schemeof their crucified leader?

The fact is that the betrayal schemewas part of God’s eternal plan. And be-cause it was, history changed by thechanging of lives. The evidence of thechanged lives of the disciples clearly re-veals that the cross message becameso deeply imbedded in their very soulsthat they were able to stand up beforeall opposition and confidently proclaim,“Whether it is right in the sight of God togive heed to you more than to God, youjudge. For we cannot but speak thethings that we have seen and heard”(At 4:19,20).

G. Shame in defeat at the cross:Now view the cross from the

standpoint of all the supposed failedpromises that were made by Jesus.“And whoever lives and believes in Mewill never die” (Jn 11:26). “... upon thisrock I will build My church and the gatesof Hades will not prevail against it” (Mt16:18). “I am the door of the sheep”(Jn 10:7). “And I give to them eternallife. And they will never perish, neitherwill anyone snatch them out of My hand”(Jn 10:28). “And no one has ascendedto heaven except He who came downfrom heaven, even the Son of Man” (Jn

3:13). We could go on.Throughout His ministry, Jesus

promised victory. But at the cross, Hisenemies seem to have won the battle.From the viewpoint of the bystandersat the cross, therefore, Jesus would beshamed in all His false hopes and prom-ises that He had stated throughout Hisministry. There had to be more to thecross than promises. From the view-point of man, the cross meant shameand embarrassment. What intellectualwould be drawn by such a One who re-neged on all His promises?

Jesus knew that many wouldmock Him for all the supposed failedpromises He made. “He saved others,”they mocked. “Himself He cannot save.He is the King of Israel, let Him nowcome down from the cross and we willbelieve in Him” (Mt 27:42). Jesus waswilling to take the risk of being mockedfor His supposedly failed promises. Hewas willing to be mocked for the sakeof those who were sincere and honestof heart. The supposed shame of thecross, therefore, actually became theoccasion and opportunity for the sincereand honest to reveal themselves.Those who would accept the shame ofthe cross of their Savior would later de-clare through their faith in the cross,“For I am not ashamed of the gos-pel, for it is the power of God unto sal-vation to every one who believes ...”(Rm 1:16).

H. Failure in discipleship at thecross:Judas was with Jesus for over

three years. He listened to and sat atthe feet of the Son of God. He was inthe company of great men who would

The Cross

1 4

go on to be world-changing personali-ties. And yet, Jesus seemingly failed inHis efforts to truly disciple this person.But David foretold this part of the eter-nal plan. “Even my own familiar friendin whom I trust, who ate my bread, haslifted up his heel against me” (Ps41:9).

If the encounter of Judas withJesus was viewed simply from a humanstandpoint, then the cross would meanembarrassment for Jesus in that Hewent to death having been unsuccess-ful to disciple all those who were clos-est to Him. If we view Jesus as simplyan innocent Jewish teacher who suf-fered execution as a common criminal,then certainly He failed. But the storynever began with Jesus as simply a manand good Rabbi of Palestine. He wasthe incarnate Son of God who came witheternal redemption. But from the view-point of unbelievers, the fact that Jesuscould not keep all His disciples faithfulto His cause was a sign of failure.Would the cross, therefore, have anyappeal to the wise of this world whovalue accomplishment and success? IfJesus on the cross were viewed fromthe eyes of the successful of worldlyleadership principles, then the world atthe time of the cross event viewedJesus as a failed leader. If the story ofthe gospel stopped at the cross, wemight come to this conclusion. But itdid not. What followed was an emptytomb. The empty tomb validated thework of God on the cross, for we re-member what Paul wrote, “Now if Christhas not been raised, then your faith isvain. You are still in your sins” (1 Co15:17). Jesus not only died for our sins,He was raised for our sins. The event of

the gospel was successful, regardlessof the thinking of the world.

The cross is repulsive to the wiseof this world who have no concern forthe eternal plan of redemption by God.Even the first disciples turned awaybecause they did not understand themeaning of the cross. The two men onthe road to Emmaus expressed it well:“... we were hoping ...” (Lk 24:21). Theeleven disciples returned home to Gali-lee. Their initial understanding of thecross was simply earthly, and thus, therewas at first no salvational joy in theevent. Those who are wise of this worldconsider the cross foolishness, andtherefore, they often pity those who un-derstand that the cross is the centralityof all history and the focal point of eter-nal redemption for all men. However,because God revealed the eternal planof the cross, we who believe rejoice inthe marvelous work of God. And be-cause we rejoice, “we preach Christ cru-cified, to the Jews a stumbling block andto Gentiles foolishness, but to those whoare called, both Jews and Greeks,Christ the power of God and the wis-dom of God” (1 Co 1:23,24).

Chapter 2

THE GOD REVEALEDTHE GOD REVEALEDTHE GOD REVEALEDTHE GOD REVEALEDTHE GOD REVEALEDAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSS

As we venture further into ourcross-centered faith, we begin to under-stand that the cross is the lens throughwhich we look in order to build the worldview of our faith. It is the gyroscopethat keeps us level in times of turmoil,and the cornerstone in which we find ameasuring rule to judge all the false phi-

The Cross

1 5

losophies of misguided men. When Paulreminded the Corinthians that we “stand”on the event of the death of Jesus forour sins and His resurrection for ourhope, his metaphor pointed to mentaland emotional stability (1 Co 15:1-4). Thecross brings to our inner most soul anunmovable rock of hope that will keepus focused on Christ through the great-est turmoil that life has to offer. The Spiritsaid it through David. “The Lord is myrock and my fortress and my deliv-erer, my God, my strength in whom Iwill trust, my shield and the horn ofmy salvation and my high tower” (Ps18:2). What a statement! And Davidsaid that without any knowledge ofthe cross. So when Paul said that westand on the gospel, he meant just that.If our faith is not cross based, then it isa faith that is simply built on our ownwill to believe, not the power of the death,burial and resurrection of the incarnateSon of God.

A. The heart of God revealed at thecross:“For whatever things were writ-

ten before were written for our learn-ing, so that we through patience andencouragement of the Scriptures mighthave hope” (Rm 15:4; 1 Co 10:11).These were things that were written inthe Old Testament. In this statement,Paul refers us back to the Old Testa-ment Scriptures in order that we learnand understand those things uponwhich we can rest our hope. And in ourcontext of inquiry, we seek to under-stand the longsuffering of God. In ourmourning over our sin, we need a verylongsuffering God, which God is revealedas He patiently worked through a rebel-

lious people in order to bring the crossplan into reality.

In His enduring patience with Is-rael, we understand the hurt of God inIsrael’s rejection of Him. He mournedover the spiritual adultery of His peoplewith whom He was in a covenant rela-tionship. Of His covenanted people,God charged, “But you were as a wifewho commits adultery, who takes for-eigners instead of her husband” (Ez16:32). The apostasy of Israel to thegods of foreign powers was extreme.And so God’s hurt for His people wasextreme. Jeremiah’s metaphor(anthropopathism) of God is vivid.“When I would comfort Myself againstsorrow, My heart is faint in Me” (Jr 8:18).“For the hurt of the daughter of Mypeople am I hurt. I am mourning. As-tonishment has taken hold of Me” (Jr8:21).

We learn the heart of God as Hepatiently remained with Israel throughtimes of rebellion, even to the foot ofthe cross. However, our understand-ing of God’s loving heart was still lim-ited until we come to the cross. Ourunderstanding of the heart of Godthrough the Old Testament Scriptureswas based on knowledge and histori-cal events, not on the reality of the in-carnation and crucifixion of God Him-self by those of His own people whowere misguided. We never truly under-stand the loving heart of God until wefind ourselves at the foot of the crosslooking up to the suffering incarnateGod whose blood dropped on our sin-ravaged souls. It was there that weheard the awesome heart of God speakfrom His lips, “Forgive.” And so the cru-cified God did what no man is able to

The Cross

1 6

do. “Their sins and their iniquities Iwill remember no more” (Hb 8:12).

The Israelites before the crosscould never fully understand the natureof a loving God until God was on a crossoutside Jerusalem. When God madeHimself vulnerable to His creation,shaming Himself even unto death, yea,the death of the cross, then we begin tocomprehend somewhat the nature ofHis loving heart we could never haveimagined after our own emotional inven-tions. Religions that bypass the cross,therefore, are grossly inadequate inunderstanding the one true and livingGod. They are guilty of creating godsafter the corrupted imaginations of menwho have hidden agendas or ulteriormotives. The God of heaven makesmen, but religions make gods. Andwhen we come to the cross, no religionof man has ever been able to createthe God that we see there. Never!

B. The true God revealed at thecross:Men have throughout millennia

created gods after their own imagina-tion. However, they could never haveconceived of a God who would be andbehave as the one true and living Godthat we experience on the cross. Toconceive of a God who humbles Him-self to weakness in order to become thevictim of His creation, is simply beyondthe invention of human minds. We justdo not conceive of gods behaving thisway. The cross, therefore, exposes thetrue loving heart of God for His creation.If He were not truly love, then He wouldnever have been there in the first place.

It is for this reason that the crossis our road map to the God of heaven.

Such was the message of Paul’s poetryof Philippians 2:5-11. This text is notsimply an outlay of historical facts. Paulis talking about our minds identifying withthe mind of a humbled God. He is notgiving a simple history lesson on the in-carnate God. “Let this mind be in you”(Ph 2:5) means to “be transformed bythe renewing of your mind” (Rm 12:2).The mentality into which we must betransformed was the humbling journeyof the Son of God from the form of Godto the form of the cross. It involves know-ing that which we must sacrifice. It isknowing and willing not to live for our-selves, but for Christ Jesus (Gl 2:20).Jesus was before “in the form of God”(Ph 2:6). The cross, therefore, meanstransformation from one state of mind toanother. “He made Himself of no repu-tation ... being made in the likeness ofmen” (Ph 2:7). The cross means hum-bling oneself to being vulnerable to hu-miliation. “He humbled Himself and be-came obedient unto death, even thedeath of the cross” (Ph 2:8).

If we are willing to take this jour-ney of transformation with the Son ofGod, then we will reign in life with Him.“God also has highly exalted Him andgiven Him the name that is above ev-ery name” (Ph 2:9). And for those whoare willing to take this transforming jour-ney with Christ, there is also reign. “Forif by one man’s offense death reignedthrough the one, much more they whoreceive abundance of grace and the giftof righteousness will reign in lifethrough the one, Jesus Christ” (Rm5:17). “For if we died with Him, we willalso live with Him. If we suffer, we willalso reign with Him” (2 Tm 2:11,12).The only way for the incarnate Son to

The Cross

1 7

reign in heaven was through the deathof the cross. Likewise, our only way to“reign in life” with Him is through thecross of Jesus. Jesus knew this, andthus, He was willing to lead the way forus to discover our reign with Himthrough the bearing of our cross. Sowhen He said, “And whoever does notbear his own cross and come after Me,cannot be My disciple” (Lk 14:27), Hemeant that we must look for a cross inthis life, not for crowns. And until wefind the cross of Christ and take owner-ship of it as our means of being trans-formed to the mind of Christ, we willnever understand the God of the cross.This is the God we can never under-stand if we do not go to the cross withHis Son.

Now could any man in his wildestimagination come up with a “theology”

as this in order to start a new religion?The one true and living God is as this.The imagined gods of men urge us toseek crowns before crosses. They en-courage us from pulpits throughoutChristendom to buy and wear silk-skinsuits, not skins of goats. They sit us atthe tables of fine cuisine, not to searcharound for grasshoppers to eat. Theyencourage us to build mansions on earthfor ourselves, not to find fox holes inwhich to dwell. Our created gods moveus to buy and lavish ourselves with gold.But those who have the mind of the Onewho went to the cross sends forth Hisdisciples to say as Peter, “Silver and goldhave I none.” Could we have imaginedthe God of the cross as depicted bysome unknown writer in his words be-low when he compared Alexander theGreat of the Greek Empire with Jesus?

JESUS AND ALEXANDERJesus and Alexander died at thirty-three;

One lived and died for self; one died for you and me.The Greek died on a throne; the Jew died on a cross.

One’s life a triumph seemed; the other but a loss.One led vast armies forth; the other walked alone.

One shed a whole world’s blood; the other gave His own.One gained the world in life, and lost it in death.

The other lost his life, to win the whole world’s faith.

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty-three;One died in Babylon; the other on Calvary.

One gained all for self; and one Himself He gave.One conquered every throne; the other every grave.

The one made himself God; the God made Himself less.The one lived but to blast; the other but to bless.

When died the Greek, forever fell his throne of swords.But Jesus died to live forever, to be Lord of Lords.

Jesus and Alexander died at thirty-three.The Greek made all men slaves; the Jew made all men free.

One built a throne on blood; the other built on love.One was born on earth; the other from above.

One gained all the earth, to lose all earth and heaven.The other gave up all, that all to Him be given.

The Greek forever dies; the Jew forever lives.He loses all who gets and wins all things who gives.

The Cross

1 8

C. Drawn from far away by thecross:We can never understand how far

away from God we were because of oursin until we understand how far God hadto come to reconcile us again unto Him-self. When Isaiah said that our sinsseparate us from God (Is 59:2), we cannever comprehend the magnitude of thatseparation until we realize that the Sonof God became obedient unto death,even the death of the cross, in order torestore our fellowship with Him. Whenwe begin to comprehend the God whobecame flesh on our behalf (Jn 1:14),then we begin to understand the tremen-dous ransom price the Son had to payfor us. This is the foundation of John’sself-reflective statement, “If we say thatwe have no sin, we deceive ourselvesand the truth is not in us” (1 Jn 1:8).How can the truth be in one who is notmoved to mourn over the cost of thecross? Our entire emotional being iswrapped up in the truth of the cross, forthe cross reveals how far God had tosend His Son from the “form of God” inorder to bring us back into His fellow-ship. The more we understand thesethings, the more life-changing they be-come.

The cross not only reveals the Godof love, it reveals ourselves to ourselves.Paul wrote, “For the grace of God thatbrings salvation has appeared to all men”(Ti 2:11). Paul was speaking of the rev-elation of the God of grace in Jesus.Through Jesus, God was reaching out forus through the cross. The apostles wereprivileged to experience Jesus personally.John reflected on his early experiencewith Jesus by explaining, “And we be-held His glory, the glory as of the only

begotten of the Father, full of grace andtruth” (Jn 1:14). Jesus means more thana set of teachings, as was characteristicof the Old Testament law of Moses. “Forthe law was given through Moses, butgrace and truth came through JesusChrist” (Jn 1:17). The coming of Jesuswas about Him and what He brought forour problem of sin. He brought Himselfas our Deliverer in order to deliver us fromthat which we could not deliver ourselves.Through Him we understand what Hemeant in Matthew 5:4. “Blessed arethose who mourn, for they will be com-forted.” When we understand how dis-tant the One on the cross was from “be-ing in the form of God,” then we begin tocomprehend the statement, “For God soloved the world that He gave His onlybegotten Son ...” (Jn 3:16). Who wouldnot be driven to mourn over his sins whenunderstanding the loving grace that wasrevealed on the atoning cross by the in-carnate Son of God? John was right.Whoever does not confess his sins, hasno truth in him because the cross doesnot move him to mourn over his sin.

It is hard for those with too manysuccess stories in their lives to confessup to failure in sin. It is almost impos-sible for the overconfident to turn fromgazing at their shelves of trophies andawards to gaze upon an old ruggedcross. It is for this reason that the self-confident and earthly awarded find itdifficult to confess failure to God at thefoot of the cross. On the other hand, itis easy for those who have beenwrecked by a cruel world to confess theirfallibility. They have few success sto-ries for which they have been awardedtrophies. Their character, therefore, hasnot been hardened by much glory and

The Cross

1 9

self-proclaimed accomplishments. Tothose who have been humbled by thestruggles of life, the cross is an oppor-tunity to confess their failures and claimthe crown of victory. The cross appealsto those who find it easy to confess theirsins.

The revelation of the extent towhich God had to go in order to recon-cile us unto Himself, magnifies the ugli-ness of our sin and its dire conse-quences. Self-realization of our sinshould humble us to confession. Thecross manifests the total inability of manto reconcile himself unto God. Thecross reveals this sickness in ourselves.It humbles our arrogance, our narcis-sistic confidence that “we are the man.”In all of our ego, arrogance, and self-ishness, we are shocked by the cross.We are “cut to the heart” by its mes-sage (At 2:37). We are driven to ourknees and cut to the very inner being ofour existence. The cross digs out ofour inner soul those corrupted lusts onwhich we have depended so much in alife of individualism, competition andawards. The cross helps us understandwhy “few that are in high places arecalled.” But many do respond to themessage of the suffering Savior. It isthese who can write, “I am not ashamedof the gospel, for it is the power of Godunto salvation ...” (Rm 1:16). It is thesewho have cried out and thanked God,“Wretched man that I am! Who willdeliver me from the body of thisdeath? I thank God through JesusChrist our Lord” (Rm 7:24,25).

D. A new community order of lovefrom the cross:“A new commandment I give to

you, that you love one another; as I haveloved you, that you also love one an-other. By this will all men know thatyou are My disciples, if you have lovefor one another” (Jn 13:34,35). Howelse would we identify those who haveresponded to the loving heart of God?Since God is love, those who are Hiswould be signaled before the world bytheir behavior of love. Because He “soloved” them (Jn 3:16), they show Hislove before the world. “He who doesnot love does not know God, for Godis love” (1 Jn 4:8). Any faith, therefore,that does not manifest the heart of theloving God must be suspect. We knowthose who are of the way of the crossbecause of their love for one another.Paul wrote, “ ... for you yourselves aretaught by God to love one another” (1Th 4:9). We are taught this love by thelove of the cross. It is an ongoing teach-ing as the love is ongoing in the com-munity of God.

The loving community of the crosswas described by Jesus with hyperbole.“If anyone comes to Me and does nothate his father and mother and wife andchildren and brothers and sisters, yes,and his own life also, he cannot be Mydisciple” (Lk 14:26). Matthew’s recordof Jesus’ statement serves as a com-mentary to Luke’s hyperbole. “He wholoves father or mother more than Meis not worthy of Me. And he who lovesson or daughter more than Me is notworthy of Me” (Mt 10:37). Those ofthe community of God love as they havebeen loved. John stated, “We love be-cause He first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19).But the extent of this love is not fullydefined in John’s brief statement. Thenew commandment involves the inten-

The Cross

2 0

sity of the love the disciples have for oneanother. “Seeing you have purified yoursouls in obeying the truth in sincere loveof the brethren, love one another fer-vently with a pure heart” (1 Pt 1:22).Our love for one another is as the lovingFather so fervently loved us that He gaveHis Son for us. The cross, therefore, isthe definition of the love by which thenew commandment is taught to the dis-ciples of Jesus.

When we thus come into the com-munity of God, we come into a commu-nity of slaves who seek to serve oneanother out of love (See Mk 10:42-44).We come into the ekklesia (church)wherein we are directed, “But love yourenemies, and do good, and lend, ex-pecting nothing in return ...” (Lk 6:35).“You will then be the children of the MostHigh, for He is kind to the ungrateful andto the evil. Therefore, be merciful, justas your Father also is merciful” (Lk6:35,36). When we lose grip of our-selves, the loving Father grabs hold ofour hearts through the cross. We thusgive of ourselves as He gave to us. Wegive our time. We give our possessions.We discipline our lives in order to bringourselves into the subjection of oneanother’s love. This is the direction towhich our understanding of the cross willlead us. Many people, therefore, walkwith caution when they come to thecross. They are fearful that the crosswill call out of them more than they arewilling to give. But we remember whatthe apostle of love said. “Beloved, if Godso loved us, we ought also to love oneanother” (1 Jn 4:11). “If we love oneanother, God dwells in us and His loveis perfected in us” (1 Jn 4:12). There-fore we also remember, “There is no fear

in love, but perfect love casts out fear...” (1 Jn 4:18).

Chapter 3

RESTORING THE APPEALRESTORING THE APPEALRESTORING THE APPEALRESTORING THE APPEALRESTORING THE APPEALOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSS

The world has moved into a “YouTube” generation where our emphasishas been placed on “broadcasting our-selves.” We have our pockets full ofsmart phones in order that others cancontact us at any moment. When weare in a personal conversation with an-other and the cell phone rings, we takethe call, ignoring our personal conversa-tion with the person before whom we arespeaking. We have a generation ofpeople who have grown up in front of theirown Facebook cameras, and thus, a gen-eration that is focused squarely on itselfby inventing electronic media devicesthat make us feel important. Picturesof ourselves are pasted everywhere inour environment. We crave to build our“followers” list to which we can tweet our-selves. We are narcissists by trainingfrom childhood. We are a generation ofpeople who have been awarded trophiesfrom youth for every minor accomplish-ment, and thus, our self-esteem that ourparents were so cautious to insure hasturned us inward into ourselves. We are“winners” in every aspect of a life wherethere are no losers. The result has beenthat we have changed our religion to anarcissistic faith where we are concernedabout ourselves more than our neighbor.

Our assemblies have changed fromworshiping God to being concert encoun-ters during which we seek to motivateourselves for the coming week. We havethus conveniently brought our egocen-

The Cross

2 1

tric behavior into our faith. Our faith,therefore, “is all about us.” The result ofthis itching-ear (narcissistic) generationis that it has heaped upon itself everysort of “feel good” preachers who havelong since given up preaching Bible. Ifthe behavioral function of our faith doesnot make us feel good, then we moveon to one that will. In all of this self-oriented religiosity, there is little appealfrom a cross that means sacrifice,slavehood and self-denial. The cross istotally about others, and none of self.Those who are all about themselves cre-ate religions that make them feel thatthey are the center of the universe.

Nevertheless, we must not allowourselves to believe that the appeal ofthe cross is hopeless to those of self-oriented cultures, for the inhabitants ofsuch cultures often feel quite lonely intheir competitive relationships with oneanother. When the apostle Paulstepped into a city that was not muchdifferent than a typical modern-day cityof self-centered hedonistic religionists,he brought the most important messageof history. “For I delivered to you first ofall that which I also received, that Christdied for our sins ...” (1 Co 15:3). Isthere room for this message todayamong the assortment of religionists whoclaim some stake in Christianity? Doesthe suffering servant of the cross haveany appeal to a self-centered, narcissis-tic generation?

Let’s see. We wear goldencrosses around our necks, but can wesay as Peter, “Silver and gold I do nothave ...” (At 3:6). We wear a cross as asymbol of our faith, but in a culture ofentitlement, we shun the call, “Andwhoever does not bear his own cross

and come after Me, cannot be My dis-ciple” (Lk 14:27). We take pride in ourChristianity, but often confuse it withchurchianity. We love the blessings ofa loving social fellowship, but we revoltat the principle, “Bear one another’s bur-dens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gl6:2). Have we not created a “churchian-ity” that is convenient, one that allowsus to live at a distance from the needsof humanity? Have we come to the pointin our faith, or religion, that “missions”is a word that will be lost in our vocabu-lary. Or maybe our definitions have di-gressed to what Time Magazine re-ferred to as “vacationaries”? We areconfident to do “missions” for twoweeks, but not as long as a lifetime ofcross-bearing and cross-cultural sacri-fice. Is the era of the “missionary” gone?Have we generated a generation of tooweak missionaries who are good foronly two weeks?

There is something about the mes-sage of the cross that strikes squarelyat the pride of the self-oriented personwho is inbred with the curse of entitle-ment. The cross is a message that sayswe are entitled to nothing but to giveourselves to others. It is a messagethat cannot be comprehended by thehuman reasoning of both materialists andthe exploited. In fact, we would statethat in this life where we are confined tothe finiteness of our powers of humanreason that we will never be able to com-prehend the full meaning of the sacrifi-cial Deity on a cross outside Jerusalem.For Deity to incarnate into the form ofHis creation, and then go to the crossfor the salvation of dust and spirit, issomehow beyond human comprehen-sion. If we think we have figured out this

The Cross

2 2

God who would do such a thing, thenwe have probably come up with thewrong god. We not only worship a Godwho can give up His entitlement of be-ing in the form of God in order to washthe feet of His creation (Jn 13:1-17), weworship a God of what we would con-clude to be extremes, the extreme ofthe cross. What God would do this?Surely, no god we could create after ourimagination could or would do such athing for His creation. A totally selflessGod has little appeal to a narcissist.

There would be no Christianity ifthere were no cross. The cross is theepitome of the revelation of the love ofthe God we cannot fully comprehend.He is the God who is beyond the defini-tion of the words of our dictionary. It isthe mystery of this lack of total defini-tion and comprehension that draws us.It is a mystery that draws us to knowthis God who loved us so much in spiteof ourselves. We seek to conceive, tounderstand, to experience something sowonderful as a God who existed in eter-nity, but was lovingly willing to incarnatefor the purpose of transforming us intoeternal beings in His presence. If thisis not life-changing stuff, then we can-not be changed. It is a message thathas awesome power in the transforma-tion of lowly creatures who have beenconfined to an environment that seemsto have gone wrong. However, the en-vironment is the best of all possible en-vironments for the habitation of truly freemoral agents. The environment did notgo wrong. The free-moral inhabitantsof the environment did. And maybe thisis the very beginning of our urge tochange, for we reason that this world isnot all there is. We are thus willing to

make whatever changes that are nec-essary in our lives in order to becomeas the One who came to fetch us fromthis harsh environment of existence.We view the cross, therefore, as ameans of escape.

When we begin to understand thatthe cross was a manifestation of love,then we are on our way. Love gener-ates love. “We love because He firstloved us” (1 Jn 4:19). The Son of Goddid not invade earth for the purpose ofholding back the wrath of a God whowas ready to mash us like flies. Theatonement of the cross was not to fendoff a God of wrath, but to reconcile awayward, and often rebellious child ofcreation, back to a God of love. Wethus study the cross, not to understandthe Scriptures, but to understand theGod of love revealed in, but beyond, theScriptures. The objective of our searchof the Scriptures, therefore, is to some-how understand this God who can af-fect and change our lives so much. Themore we understand this God of love,the more the aroma of His love is re-flected to others through us as His lovewas poured out on us through the cross.

In our religious heritage we mayhave been the result of catechisms andrituals, doctrines and commandments.The validation of our faith may have beenin the correctness of an outline of stat-utes that were claimed to be “biblical”by a listing of “out-of-context” scripturesunder every point. But is it possible thatwe have been sidetracked into thinkingthat our faith is unmovable because ofour doctrinal correctness? We wouldsuggest that our plea for restoration isnot to restore a correct doctrinal outlineby which we would validate our faith. Our

The Cross

2 3

plea is to restore the cross to the cen-trality of our faith and behavior. Onlywhen this restoration is begun can wetruly begin to understand the outline ofHis teaching. We thus start with theman Jesus in order to understand whatHe said, for His teaching means littlewithout understanding who and what Hedid as an atoning sacrifice.

The gospel is the historical eventof the death of Jesus on the cross, Hisburial, and His resurrection. But ourunderstanding of the cross must gobeyond our faith in an historical event.If we cannot get beyond the event, wecannot get to the One who died thereand was resurrected. The message ofthe cross is far more than an event ofhistory. It is a life-changing transforma-tion by One who eternally changed fromGod to us on our behalf. Most peoplefail to experience the life-changing ex-perience of the cross because they failto move beyond the facts of an histori-cal event.

And such is the curse of legal-ori-ented religiosity and literalistic interpret-ers. The legalist is infatuated with thevalidation of his faith through correctfacts, that is, understanding the Scrip-tures correctly. He thus manufacturesa correct outline in order to define whowe are as God’s people. In strugglingto create a consistent outline of inter-pretations, he often suffers from thesame twisting of the Scriptures as theliteralist. The literalist struggles to in-terpret the profound metaphors thattake us as close as possible with hu-man reason to the essence of the mean-ing of the cross. Being confined to thefacts of Bible statements, however, hestruggles to imagine beyond the herme-

neutic “it means what it says and sayswhat it means ... literally.” And thus, theliteralist often has an idol god with eyesand a nose that he is ready to carve outof a piece of wood.

The legalist is ready to argue hisoutline with the correct proof texts. Theliteralist is still trying to create a god af-ter his own image. The literalist cannotget beyond the wood and the legalistcannot get beyond the outline in orderto understand what the Spirit is trying toreveal through the metaphors of thecross. Both the legalist and literalist areheld up by human deductive reasoningor childish interpretations.

One of the primary shortcomingsof the legalist and literalist is that it isvery difficult for both to understand theprofound depth of the meaning of thecross. As a result, there is only intellec-tual change and not behavioral trans-formation. We affirm that there is infor-mation about the cross that we mustintellectually perceive and understand,which things are revealed in the Scrip-tures. However, unless we move pastan intellectual knowledge of the cross,we will never experience the life-chang-ing profoundness of the cross. We willnot be able to experience the adven-ture of the mystery of the cross thatgoes far beyond facts and figures, farbeyond words and paper. We would con-fidently assert, therefore, that when Paulwalked into town, his message was notabout facts and historical events alone.What he brought to the people was life-changing. There is no other way to an-swer the results he had in places likePhilippi when a small group of two wage-earners with their dependents continuedto support him sacrificially once and

The Cross

2 4

again as he carried the message of thecross to other cities (See Ph 4:10-18).There is no other way to explain whythe Thessalonians broadcasted the mes-sage they received in every place only ashort time after Paul left their presence.“For the word of the Lord has soundedforth from you, not only in Macedoniaand Achaia, but also in every placeyour faith toward God has spreadabroad, so that we do not need to speakanything” (1 Th 1:8). What makes pa-gan idolaters drastically transform intobeing and doing things as this? Whenwe discover what makes such a radicalpersonality transformation, then we areon our way to understanding the life-changing message that the early evan-gelists took from one city to another. Wecan be sure that the life-changing moti-vation was not an outline of Scriptures.

Chapter 4

METAPHORS OF THE CROSSMETAPHORS OF THE CROSSMETAPHORS OF THE CROSSMETAPHORS OF THE CROSSMETAPHORS OF THE CROSS

There is mystery in metaphors. Ametaphor is using something that isearthly and physical in order to conveya truth of something that is greater andoften spiritual. When we say, “He runslike a rabbit,” we are not saying that aparticular person is a rabbit. Our meta-phorical meaning is that the particularperson about whom we are speaking isvery fast. David said, “The Lord is myrock ...” (Ps 18:2). This does not meanthat the Lord is a literal rock. It meansthat He is immoveable and solid as arock. David wrote concerning the “face”and “eyes” of God (Ps 34:15,16). ButGod does not have a face and eyes.He is spirit (Jn 4:24). In David’s use ofmetaphors, we are challenged to pon-

der what he meant. This is the mysteryof metaphors, and often, one of themost difficult areas of revelation for theliteralist to understand. Because it isdifficult for him to conceive of a Godwithout eyes and ears, so it is difficultfor him to think beyond the wood of thecross, the iron nails, and blood drippingfrom the brow of Jesus. We are oftenso held up by our Mel-Gibson-Passion-movie scene of the crucified Son of Godthat we cannot see the Son of God be-yond the cross.

The Bible is loaded with meta-phors. This is why it is often difficult forthe literalist to think beyond the physi-cal or earthly figure of the metaphor ofthe cross in order to comprehend thespiritual significance of what the HolySpirit is trying to convey to us throughthe cross. We have found it interestingthat in many languages of the worldthere is no word for metaphor. Thoughthe people speak daily in common lan-guage by using metaphors, their school-ing is sometimes quite elementary in ex-plaining what they are actually meaningthrough the use of metaphorical figuresof speech. When understanding theBible, especially the spiritual signifi-cance of those truths that are illumi-nated through metaphorical figures, it issometimes challenging for some to graspthe full meaning of various importanttexts. For this reason, this difficulty hasled many to be literalists in understand-ing the Bible. This is particularly true inreference to understanding the Psalmsand those apocalyptic books that aresaturated with metaphors. In our studyof the cross, we often rob ourselves ofthe full significance of the cross by hav-ing a shallow understanding of the meta-

The Cross

2 5

phors that are used to reveal the “aton-ing sacrifice”–that is a metaphor–of thecross.

Because we fail to see the beautyof metaphors that are used in referenceto the cross, we restrict our understand-ing of what God did for us throughJesus. The cross was more than anhistorical event. Its significance is morethan wood and blood. Because we mini-mize our understanding of the cross, weoften relegate our response to the crossto obedience of facts only. We concludethat Jesus historically died on a cruelcross. From here the sermonprogresses into explaining the gore ofthe cross and the tremendous physicalsuffering that Jesus endured whilenailed to the cross. He subsequentlydied, was buried, and then was histori-cally and victoriously resurrected fromthe dead. We then move on to encour-age our audience to obey these facts.They are subsequently buried with Jesusin baptism in order to be raised with Himfrom the tomb of water. Our message,therefore, settles around knowing thefacts and “getting baptized” as a simpleact of obedience to the facts. All is con-veniently outlined and charted in orderfor us to affirm confidently that we haveobeyed the historical event of Jesus’death, burial and resurrection. All thefacts of the event have been learned andobeyed and we move on, forgetting thatthe event of the cross was an historicalevent around which all creation existsand its destiny will be terminated.

But the gospel cannot be reducedto precise actions in obedience to his-torical facts. Metaphors take our un-derstanding of the gospel into the realmof mystery. Through the metaphors of

the cross the Holy Spirit seeks to moveour minds beyond what we can histori-cally perceive. He seeks to move ourthinking to a higher level of understand-ing in order to determine the teleologyof the cross. Once He has “inspired”our thinking, then He has brought us intothe reality of metaphorical mysteries bywhich we begin to comprehend the na-ture of the one true and living Godwhose eternal sacrifice was revealedthrough the cross.

Though we have connected thefact of the gospel with the fact of ourbaptism into Christ, the Holy Spirit wantsto take our minds far beyond the eventsand facts of history. He seeks to do thisthrough the richness of metaphors overwhich we meditate day and night in or-der that we be held in awe at the won-der of God who desired to reconnectus to His loving presence. We wouldnot, therefore, cheat ourselves. Wemust not by relegating our understand-ing of His wondrous work through thecross by our resistance to step throughthe doors of metaphors by which theSpirit has revealed the atoning sacrificeof a loving God. We will thus take thisjourney to step through the doors ofmetaphors in order to see a greater re-ality. It is only when we take this stepthat we can appreciate the transcendentGod who is seeking to break throughinto our cocoon of the physical. If onour part we can release our minds fromthe confinement of our physical environ-ment, then we will discover in amaze-ment the essence of a God who is trulyloving. He is not a god who would arbi-trarily create souls, and then predestinethem to destruction. On the contrary,He is a God who seeks to lovingly reach

The Cross

2 6

out from His eternal realm of existencein order to offer an invitation to all Hiscreation to come and join Him in eternalbliss.

Since the audience of the NewTestament letters was primarily a Jew-ish audience, our first “dictionary” tounderstand the metaphors that are usedin reference to the crucifixion of theMessiah would naturally come from theOld Testament. The metaphors do findsome of their meaning in their use inthe common language of the day whenthe letters were written. However, wewould assume that God laid the foun-dation for Israel’s understanding ofthe cross by His work with Israelthroughout their history. Our searchfor an understanding of the physical andliteral foundation of the metaphors of thecross, therefore, must find their primarydefinition in God’s work with Israel (SeeRm 15:4; 1 Co 10:11). The Old Testa-ment, therefore, is our first dictionary tounderstand the metaphors of the cross.The following chapters explain some ofthe beautiful metaphors used by the HolySpirit in order to explain from God’s view-point what took place at the cross.

Chapter 5

THE REDEEMERTHE REDEEMERTHE REDEEMERTHE REDEEMERTHE REDEEMEROF THE CROSSOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSSOF THE CROSS

From the Old Testament, the word“redemption” is used in reference toproperty or people (See Lv 25:25-27; Rt4:4-12). The one who sought to “re-deem” something had to sacrificesomething of his own in order to acquirethat which was desired (Nm 3:51; Ne5:8). Throughout the Old Testament,the meaning of redemption was deliv-

erance or purchase. That which waspurchased was delivered to the one whopaid the redemption money. In thissense, God redeemed Israel out ofEgyptian captivity (Dt 9:26; 2 Sm 7:23;1 Ch 17:21; Is 52:3). Israel’s redemp-tion was based on the fact that Hispeople could not redeem themselves be-cause they were in captivity. Redemp-tion, therefore, carries with it the mean-ing that the one who pays the redemp-tion price desires that which he seeksto redeem or purchase. It also assumesthat the one redeemed could not of him-self pay his own redemption price.

In reference to God’s deliveranceof Israel from captivity, the nation of Is-rael belonged to God as His claimedpeople because they were the descen-dents of Abraham to whom God hadmade a promise that He would make agreat nation of his seed (Gn 12:1-4; Dt15:15). He had established a covenantwith Abraham, and at the time of theirdeliverance, He desired to establish acovenant with the descendents of Abra-ham as a nation. And thus, God obli-gated Himself to redeem Israel out ofcaptivity because of His own promisesto Abraham and His desire to make acovenant with the seed of Abraham (1Ch 17:21; Ps 25:22). Because He hadcreated the nation He desired to cov-enant with the nation in order to bringthe Israelites into the rest of the prom-ised land (Compare Hb 4).

Since God had promised Abrahamthat through his seed all families of theearth would be blessed (the cross) (Gn12:2,3), God’s work to redeem Israel setthe metaphorical stage for His redemp-tion through the One who would cometo be a blessing to all people. God’s

The Cross

2 7

redemption of Israel was something theJews could not do for themselves. Godhad to step in and do the deed. Thisstory of redemption was subsequentlyrecorded for a future redemption whenpeople would be purchased and deliv-ered out of the captivity of sin. Israel,as we, desired to be free. But only whenGod came to their rescue through Mosescould they, as we, be delivered to free-dom (See Dt 18). God did the samethrough Jesus.

At the cross, Jesus obligated Him-self to redeem us as His created people.“In Him we have redemption through Hisblood ...” (Ep 1:7). Since Jesus was theCreator (Cl 1:16), He obligated Himselfas our Creator to deliver us from thatwhich we could not deliver ourselves.He redeemed us from our separationfrom God because of our rebellion (Is59:1,2). Since we were in the captivityof our own sins that separated us fromHim, the Son of God had to come forHis creation through the cross. Wecould not deliver ourselves through thekeeping of law, for none of us could per-fectly keep any law by which we couldredeem ourselves, “for by works of lawno flesh will be justified” (Gl 2:16). There-fore, “Christ redeemed us from thecurse of the law, having become acurse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed iseveryone who hangs on a tree’” (Gl 3:13).

Zacharias was right in reference tohis announcement of Jesus being thefulfillment of the promise to bless allnations through Israel. “Blessed is theLord God of Israel, for He has visitedand redeemed His people” (Lk 1:68).And Paul concluded, “He redeemed usin order that the blessing of Abrahammight come on the Gentiles through

Christ Jesus, so that we might receivethe promise of the Spirit through faith”(Gl 3:14). Jesus redeemed “those whowere under law, so that we might re-ceive the adoption as sons” (Gl 4:5).He “gave Himself for us so that He mightredeem us from every lawless deedand purify for Himself a special peoplewho are zealous for good works” (Ti2:14). The payment of redemption,however, was costly. “You were not re-deemed with corruptible things ... butwith the precious blood of Christ ...”(1 Pt 1:18,19; see Rv 5:9; 14:3,4). Thechurch, therefore, is the family of Godwho is redeemed from all the nations ofthe world (Rv 14:4).

“All things were created throughHim [Christ] and for Him” (Cl 1:16).Since Christ created us for Himself, thenbecause we were created free-moralindividuals, through law He could onlydirect our lives. No system of law couldbring us into His eternal fellowship sinceall sin is against law (Rm 3:23). Ourredemption, therefore, could only be ac-complished through an incarnate offer-ing that would atone for our inability todemand eternality based on our keep-ing of law. Law kept us in bondage.Grace through our Redeemer set us free.There was, therefore, only one option inreference to the salvation of those whowere created. Jesus had to do some-thing, and that something cost Himdearly, for He had to eternally sacrificebeing on an equality with God and in theform of God in order to bring His cre-ation back into the presence of God (Ph2:5-8).

While we busy ourselves with con-cern over bearing our own cross, weshould take another look at the eternal

The Cross

2 8

sacrifice of the One who bore a cross inorder that we have the privilege of bear-ing our crosses. Our lifetime cross bear-ing seems to pale in view of the crossthat Jesus had to bear, and still does,for we assert, therefore, that the cost forour redemption went far beyond Jesus’death on the cross.

Chapter 6

THE RANSOM PAIDTHE RANSOM PAIDTHE RANSOM PAIDTHE RANSOM PAIDTHE RANSOM PAIDAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSS

In order that something be re-deemed, a ransom price had to be paid.Something was given for something.With the metaphor of redemption, there-fore, there also comes the ransom pay-ment. Ransom assumes the inabilityof the redeemed to deliver themselves.The Psalmist wrote that even thewealthy could not pay a ransom for theirown deliverance. “They who trust intheir wealth and boast themselves in themultitude of their riches, none of themcan by any means redeem his brotheror give to God a ransom for him–for theredemption of their soul is costly andmoney can never suffice ...” (Ps 49:6-8). The metaphor of ransom sometimesindicates a price that is too high to bepaid. The picture of ransom that is of-ten used in the Old Testament some-times focuses on one’s inability to settlehis debt with another (See Pv 6:35).Atonement money was to be given as aransom for souls so that they would notbe touched by a plague (Ex 30:12). Ifone was deserving of death, however,no ransom could be paid for his deliv-erance (Nm 35:31). If one would flee toa city of refuge, no ransom was to begiven to deliver this person from his pun-

ishment (Nm 35:32).Isaiah was specific in identifying

the foundation of the metaphor of ran-som for Israel. In Isaiah 43, Isaiah fo-cused the minds of the apostate Israel-ites on the day when they were createdas a nation when God redeemed themfrom Egyptian captivity. “But now thussays the Lord who created you, OJacob, and He who formed you, O Is-rael, ‘Do not fear, for I have redeemedyou.” (Is 43:1). In order to be redeemedfrom Egyptian captivity, the Israelitespassed through the waters of the RedSea on dry land (Is 43:2). But their de-liverance from captivity came at theprice of other nations. “For I am theLord your God, the Holy one of Israel,your Savior. I gave Egypt for yourransom, Ethiopia and Seba in yourplace” (Is 43:3). The ransom paid forthe redemption of His people was thedeath of the firstborn and armies ofEgypt. God took the firstborn of theEgyptians in death for a ransom pay-ment to deliver the children of Israel fromcaptivity.

God wanted Israel to rememberthat their birth as a nation did not comeat a small price. Their birth cost theprice of the lives of many firstborn sonsand daughters of other nations, as wellas the army of Egypt, Ethiopia andSeba. Isaiah then spoke of a time whenthe faithful remnant would rememberthe high ransom for Israel’s redemptionfrom Egyptian captivity. He remindedthe Israelite remnant of their day of re-demption. “Was it not You who driedup the sea and the waters of the greatdeep, who has made the depths of thesea a way for the ransomed to passover?” (Is 51:10). Jeremiah added, “For

The Cross

2 9

the Lord has redeemed Jacob and ran-somed him from the hand of him whowas stronger than he” (Jr 31:11). Andthen Hosea looked into the future to aday when God would pay the ultimateransom price for His people. “I will ran-som them from the power of thegrave. I will redeem them from death”(Hs 13:14).

The cross is a picture of a ransompaid, the high cost of the ransomed first-born and only begotten Son of God. Wehave been ransomed by the blood ofthe eternally incarnate and crucified Sonof God. Jesus came into the world inorder to pay this high ransom. “For eventhe Son of Man did not come to beserved, but to serve, and to give Hislife a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45).Jesus gave Himself as a ransom to pro-vide all people with the opportunity tobe delivered from sin (1 Tm 2:5,6). “ForHe has made Him who knew no sin tobe sin on behalf of us ...” (2 Co 5:21).

The metaphor of ransom paid at thecross is not a picture of arrogance andselfishness. It is a picture of a lowlysacrifice of self on behalf of others whocould not pay the price for their own de-liverance through meritorious worksof law or good deeds. And since wecould not work ourselves out of captivityinto which we had given ourselvesthrough sin, God had to pay the ran-som. It was an unselfish gift of grace.

The cross does not have much ofan appeal to a narcissistic generationthat is consumed with broadcasting it-self through a collection of self-portraitson the internet. The selfish find little ap-peal of the selfless ransom paid at thecross. The behavior of the cross isabout broadcasting a ransomed servant

and exalting others before oneself, justas Jesus. To a self-centered generationof people, the Holy Spirit would say, “Forif anyone thinks himself to be somethingwhen he is nothing, he deceives him-self” (Gl 6:3). “... God resists the proudand gives grace to the humble” (1 Pt5:5). We must be cautioned, therefore,that if we follow the ransom metaphorto the cross, we will end up as slaves.

Central to the nature of true Chris-tianity is the example of its Founder asa ransom price on the cross for all whowould respond. “The Son of Man didnot come to be served, but to serve, andto give His life a ransom for many” (Mt20:28). Paul goes further in explainingthe sacrifice of Jesus by saying thatJesus gave “Himself a ransom for all”(1 Tm 2:6). The ransom price was notoffered for a few chosen. If any teach-ing strikes at the heart of the false doc-trine of individual predestination it is theransom of Jesus on the cross for allpeople. God is not willing that any ofHis creation should perish (2 Pt 3:9).Therefore, Jesus was given as full pay-ment for the sins of all who would re-spond to His offering from the cross.

We must always keep in mind thatGod ransomed the firstborn of Egypt forIsrael. But this was not a guarantee thatmany Israelites would not later rebel atMount Sinai. Though delivered fromcaptivity, the ransom price did not coverthe latter rebellion. Those who gavethemselves over to the rebellion ofKorah, Dathan and Abiram were de-stroyed (Nm 16). Those who lackedfaith to enter immediately into the landof promise fell in the wilderness. Thepoint is, one can be delivered by re-sponding to the ransomed price of

The Cross

3 0

Jesus, but if he does not walk in the lightas Jesus is in the light, the ransomedblood of Jesus does not cleanse him ofhis rebellion through sin (See 1 Jn 1:7,8).If we sin willfully after being ransomed,then the blood of Jesus will not redeemus from destruction, “for if we sin will-fully after we have received the knowl-edge of the truth, there no longer re-mains a sacrifice for sins” (Hb 10:26).

Chapter 7

THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGTHE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGTHE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGTHE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGTHE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSS

Redemption necessitates sacri-fice. And sacrifice necessitates death.In the Old Testament, a living animalwas given as a sacrifice for the deliver-ance of the people. Throughout the his-tory of Israel, all of Israel’s blood sacri-fices reminded them of the first bloodoffering of the Passover lamb whoseblood was poured out to protect eachhousehold from the death of their ownfirstborn in their deliverance from Egyp-tian captivity (Ex 12:22,23). Israel’s first-born lived, but the Egyptians’ firstbornwere given as a sacrificial ransom for theirdeliverance (Is 43:1-3). A lamb of thePassover was sacrificed for the protec-tion of Israel’s firstborn, but the protec-tion of their firstborn meant the death ofthe firstborn of all unbelieving Egyptianhouseholds.

Sacrifices were also used to ratifycovenants. When God established Hiscovenant with the nation of Israel atMount Sinai after they came out of cap-tivity, life was again given in order thatthe people be sprinkled with a bloodoffering for the covenant (Ex 24:3-11).A living covenant was thus established

by the death of that which was sacri-ficed. Moses said to the people, “Be-hold the blood of the covenant thatthe Lord has made with you concern-ing all these words” (Ex 24:8).

Throughout the history of Israel,once a year on the Day of Atonement,an unblemished animal gave its life onthe altar as a sin offering of blood forthe people (Lv 4:1-35; 16:1-34). Godreminded Israel, “For the life of theflesh is in the blood. And I have givenit to you on the altar to make atone-ment for your souls. For it is theblood that makes atonement for thesoul” (Lv 17:11). In the atonement(meaning, “the covering of sins”) life wassacrificed for the sins of the people.Year after year, therefore, the minds ofthe people of Israel were being preparedfor a final blood sacrifice that was tocome in their future. It would not be thesacrificial blood of animals, but theblood of life from the incarnate Son ofGod. It would not be a Passover offer-ing to save the firstborn, it would be theoffering of the Firstborn of God for allthose who would choose to be bornagain. Once this blood was poured outas an offering, never again would an ani-mal be killed as a blood offering. Suchwas what the Hebrew writer wanted usto know when he spoke of Jesus beingour high priest “who does not need dailyas those [Old Testament high priests],to offer up sacrifice, first for His ownsins, and then for the people’s, for thisHe did once for all when He offeredup Himself” (Hb 7:26,27).

In establishing the foundation forthe metaphor that would eventually leadto the flesh and blood sacrifice of theincarnate Son, we must keep in mind

The Cross

3 1

that the animal sacrifices that werebrought to be offered in Israel wereeaten, both by the Levites and thosewho participated in the offering (Lv6:16,18,26,29; 7:6,15). This opens thewindow for understanding our eating ofthe flesh and blood of Jesus. Jesusspoke metaphorically of such during Hisministry. “Whoever eats My flesh anddrinks My blood, has eternal life” (SeeJn 6:52-56). This was a difficult sayingfor the disciples to comprehend, but asimple statement that was founded onthe background of their knowledge of thesacrificial offerings of Israel (Jn 6:60). Atthe time Jesus made the statement theydid not understand the atoning sacrificeof the cross that was yet in their nearfuture. And they knew nothing at allabout the Lord’s Supper that would comeafter the sacrifice. In John 6 Jesus wasspeaking metaphorically of eating Hissacrificed flesh and blood in the Lord’sSupper. We do not eat literally of thefleshly body of Jesus, nor drink of Hisliteral blood. But in the institution of theSupper meal, Jesus took the bread ofthe Passover meal and said, “This is Mybody” (Mt 26:26). Of the cup of the fruitof the vine, He said, “This is My blood ofthe covenant” (Mt 26:28). Through theinstitution of the Supper on the eve ofHis betrayal, therefore, Jesus was pre-paring the minds of the disciples for Hissacrificial offering, as well as their re-membrance of it through the Supper untilHe comes again (See Lk 22:18; 1 Co11:26).

When we venture to the cross, theminds of the people had been preparedfor the concept of the atoning sacrificeof the Lamb of God. Sacrifice is themessage of Philippians 2:5-8. Jesus

gave in and gave up in order to give forHis creation. He gave up “being in theform of God” in order to give into beingan obedient sacrifice. He became oursacrificial sin offering. “For He hasmade Him who knew no sin to be sinon behalf of us ...” (2 Co 5:21). “Forwhat the law could not do in that it wasweak through the flesh, God sendingHis own Son in the likeness of sinfulflesh, and for sin, condemned sin inthe flesh” (Rm 8:3). “Whom God hasset forth to be an atoning sacrifice byHis blood ...” (Rm 3:25). Therefore,“Christ our Passover was sacrificed”(1 Co 5:7; see Hb 9:6-14; 10:15-18).

It was impossible for the blood ofthat which was created out of nothingto be a sufficient sacrifice for that whichwould be eternal. For this reason, it wasimpossible for the blood of animals tobe a sufficient sacrifice for those whomGod would bring into eternal dwelling(Hb 10:1-4). Only that which hadeternality could be a sufficient sacrifice.However, in order for this sacrifice to besufficient, there had to be a sacrifice onthe part of the One who would give Him-self for us. There was the necessity,therefore, for the eternal to become asthose for whom He would choose tomake a sacrificial offering. And for Hissacrifice to be more than a brief thirty-three years in a state of incarnation onearth, it had to be eternal. A thirty-threeyear sacrifice would not be a true sacri-fice if the incarnation could be reversed.There is no revelation in all of Scripturethat speaks of any reversal of the in-carnation.

So what sacrifice did Jesus actu-ally make that made Him worthy to beour Passover sacrifice? By the time of

The Cross

3 2

Jesus’ coming into the world, thousandsof rebellious Jews had already been cru-cified on crosses throughout the RomanEmpire. Numerous insurrections hadbeen put down, resulting in the crucifix-ion of rebels across the Empire, spe-cifically in Palestine. The Jews knewthe horror of crucifixion. Many had per-sonally witnessed the crucifixion ofcriminals. On some occasions, theyhad witnessed the crucifixion by Romanauthorities of friends and family who hadparticipated in various insurrection plots.They knew the agony of death on across. Sometimes death would notsoon deliver the crucified victim, andthus, the authorities would break thelegs of the crucified. It was an agoniz-ing death that would linger on for hours.But eventually, death would release thecondemned from life, and thus bring toan end hours of suffering on a cross.The Jews were not unfamiliar with cru-cifixions.

So we reconsider the crucifixion ofJesus. According to the timeline ofJesus on the cross, the length of timewas about six hours before He gave upthe life of His fleshly body (See Jn10:17,18). We know the death wasagonizing. We know the excruciatingpain that must have ravaged His body.But when life on a cross would go on forhours, if not a day, we wonder if the sac-rifice for eternity was only for six hours.We think not. We must consider thatJesus’ sacrifice for us was more thansix hours of pain on a cross outsideJerusalem two thousand years ago. Wemust consider the possibility, or reality,that when He humbled Himself, and wasborn into the likeness of men, it wasforever.

John alerted his readers to this re-ality in 1 John. John was writing manyyears after the cross and resurrection.He wrote, “And we know that the Sonof God is come ...” (1 Jn 5:20). He usesthe Greek present tense. It was not thatthe Son of God had come, but “is come.”The Son appeared on earth, but therewas something about His coming thatcontinued to exist by the time Johnwrote 1 John. In 1 John 4:2 John re-vealed this truth in another sentencestructure. “Every spirit that confessesthat Jesus Christ has come in the fleshis from God ....” The obvious conclu-sion to this statement is that Jesus hadcome in the flesh for His earthly minis-try, but He was still in the flesh for Hisheavenly ministry that was taking placeat the time John wrote. He was in someway still in the flesh.

In 2 John the apostle looks to thefuture in reference to the coming ofJesus. “For many deceivers have goneout into the world who do not confessthat Jesus Christ is coming in theflesh. This is the deceiver and theantichrist” (2 Jn 7). John is emphatic inthis statement about Jesus still being inthe flesh, aligning a denial of such tomark one as antichrist. His statementrefers us to the “going” of Jesus fromthis earth at His ascension. At the as-cension, the two angels said to theapostles as they watched Jesus bodilyascend into heaven, “You men of Gali-lee, why do you stand gazing up intoheaven? This same Jesus who wastaken up from you into heaven will comein like manner as you have watchedHim go into heaven” (At 1:11). Now re-late this thought to what John revealedin 1 John 3:2. “Beloved, now we are the

The Cross

3 3

children of God, and it has not yet beenrevealed what we will be. But we knowthat when He appears, we will be likeHim, for we will see Him as He is.”Jesus bodily ascended into heaven. Hewill bodily be coming again from heavenin the future.

Now consider seriously the con-clusion to the above statements. WhenJesus was resurrected, His body waschanged, but it was the same body. Hisincarnation was into a natural body. Butin death “it is sown a natural body. It israised a spiritual body. There is anatural body and there is a spiritualbody” (1 Co 15:44). Jesus’ natural bodywas raised a spiritual body. The apostleJohn handled the body of Jesus afterHis resurrection. However, he did notunderstand the nature of this body (1Jn 3:2). But it was a spiritual body thatthe apostles could handle, one withwhich Jesus ate (Lk 24:39-42). WhenJesus comes again, He “will transformour lowly body so that it may be fash-ioned according to His glorious body”(Ph 3:21). In order for us to be fash-ioned according to His “glorious body,”He must still have a body in which Hewill be revealed from heaven.

We are now beginning to some-what comprehend the totality of the sac-rifice that Jesus made for us. When Hegave up being on an equality with Godin order to be fashioned in the body ofman (Ph 2:5-8), it was forever. Hissacrifice was not for what would be amomentary period of thirty-three yearsin the flesh in comparison to eternity.His suffering for six hours on thecross was not the finality of all Hissacrifice for us. The sacrificial offer-ing on the cross was made, but the eter-

nal sacrifice of His existence in our like-ness was forever. He gave His form asGod and being on an equality with Godin order to pay the ransom that was nec-essary in order to deliver us from sinand the bondage of this world.

When the New Testament speaksof “believing in Jesus,” therefore, it iscommanding more than a simplistic“sinner’s prayer” of mourning. It is com-manding a total life-changing obediencein response to the God who transformedto be as us in order to dwell togetherwith us in eternity. Therefore, let usnever again try to get by with a cheap“faith only” response to His eternal in-carnate sacrifice. Such is a mockery ofwhat the Son of God humbled Himselfto be in order to go to the cross for oursins. It is a weak response to what theSon of God gave up in order to foreverbe our high priest.

We thus view the sacrifice ofJesus to be more than the cross offer-ing. The Hebrew writer shed some lighton this. “Therefore, in all things He hadto be made like His brethren, so thatHe might be a merciful and faithful highpriest in things pertaining to God, tomake an atoning sacrifice for the sinsof the people” (Hb 2:17). The cross wasa moment in time for the atoning sacri-fice. However, being made “like Hisbrethren” exemplifies the sacrifice be-yond our comprehension. Could theSon of God give up forever being on anequality with God in the very form ofGod? He came in the flesh (Jn 1:14).He lived in the flesh (1 Jn 1:1). His fleshdied on the cross, was buried, and sub-sequently raised to be victorious overdeath. His natural body was raised aspiritual, glorious body. And in this body

The Cross

3 4

He ascended on high. In this same glo-rious body He will come again for Hispeople, with whom He will dwell as Hisbrethren for eternity. When we considerthis awesome sacrifice of the Son ofGod in order to bring us into eternaldwelling, we faint to our knees ...speechless. His was a sacrifice that issimply beyond our comprehension. Wecan never fully understand this becausewe can never take this journey with theSon of God. In view of this sacrificethat was to come, the Old Testamentprophet Isaiah rightly described ourSavior as the coming Suffering Servant.

Chapter 8

THE SUFFERING SERVANTTHE SUFFERING SERVANTTHE SUFFERING SERVANTTHE SUFFERING SERVANTTHE SUFFERING SERVANTON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSS

In order to carry out the eternalpurpose of creation, that is to bring cre-ated beings into eternal dwelling with theFather, Son and Holy Spirit, someonehad to come from the infinite to the fi-nite. One of Deity had to make the eter-nal sacrifice in order to bring into thepresence of the Eternal Love those whowould be gifted with eternality by beingin His presence. This Mediator wouldnot only bring reconciliation between theeternal and mortal, but would immortal-ize the mortal for eternal dwelling.

As human beings, we would ex-pect a glorious entrance of God into theenvironment of man. We would expecta spectacular invasion with a galacticdisplay of heavenly bodies. We wouldthen look for angelic knights in shiningarmor. But such was not the case.Such a heavenly entrance into our worldwould not provide the opportunity todraw out of creation proper candidates

who were fit for eternal dwelling in thepresence of God. Only those who wouldfollow His example of humbling Himselfunto death, even the death on a woodencross, would be qualified to eternallydwell in His presence.

As free-moral individuals who of-ten choose ourselves first, we neededan example of someone who choseHimself last. We needed a messengerof humility, meekness, one who couldshow kindness and mercy to our falli-bility. We needed a servant, but not onlya servant. We needed a servant whoin all things would be “tempted as weare, yet without sin” (Hb 4:15). Throughsuch a One we could thus “come boldlyto the throne of grace, so that we mayobtain mercy and find grace to help intime of need” (Hb 4:16). And so, thepicture of the coming Messiah of Israelthat was painted by the prophets was apicture of a suffering servant, one whowould suffer just as those He sought todeliver into eternal dwelling. It was onlylogical that He be such.

Isaiah paints the greatest meta-phorical pictures of the coming sufferingservant (See Is 42:1-9; 49:1-6; 50:4-11;52:13 – 53:12). He introduced the com-ing servant of the Lord with these words:“Behold My servant whom I uphold. Myelect in whom My soul delights. I haveput My Spirit upon Him. He will bringforth judgment to the Gentiles” (Is 42:1).“He will not fail nor be discouraged untilHe has set judgment on the earth” (Is42:4). Until He would die on the cross,the suffering servant would endure greatpain and suffering in order to accomplishHis mission. The suffering servant wouldsay, “I gave My back to those whostruck Me and My cheeks to those

The Cross

3 5

who plucked off the hair. I did nothide My face from shame and spit-ting” (Is 50:6). Isaiah continued to paintthe picture of this servant. “Just as manywere astonished at you, My people, soHis appearance was marred more thanany man, and His form more than thesons of men” (Is 52:14). We are sureIsaiah’s hand became weak as he wasled by inspiration of the Holy Spirit towrite these words concerning the com-ing servant: “He is despised and re-jected by men, a man of sorrows andacquainted with grief. And we hid,as it were, our faces from Him. Hewas despised and we did not esteemHim” (Is 53:3). “He has borne ourgriefs and carried our sorrows. Yetwe esteemed Him stricken, smitten byGod and afflicted” (Is 53:4). “He waswounded for our transgressions. Hewas bruised for our iniquities. Thechastisement of our peace was uponHim. And with His stripes we arehealed” (Is 53:5).

The inspired writers who recordedthe ministry and gospel of Jesus wantedus to understand that Jesus fully real-ized His mission. There were no sur-prises as He led Himself to the cross(See Jn 10:17,18). Jesus identifiedHimself as the servant who was anointedby the Lord to come to His people (Com-pare Lk 4:16-21 with Is 61:1,2). As waspictured by the words of Isaiah, Jesus’ministry as the servant of the Lord wasone of healing (Compare Mt 8:16,17 withIs 53:4). Through the records of the min-istry and gospel of Jesus are revelationsof Jesus knowing that He was the Onewho was to suffer for the people of God(See Mk 8:31; 9:12; 10:33,34; 14:21).

Contrary to the expectations of the

religious elite of Israel, the servant of theLord who would heal the spiritual woundsof the people was not the military herothey expected. He was the lowly ser-vant of God who was despised, rejected,spat upon and crucified by those towhom He came. The suffering servant,therefore, became the opportunity forindividuals to determine their own eter-nal destiny. “He came to His own andHis own did not receive Him. But asmany as received Him, to them Hegave the right to become the childrenof God, even to those who believe inHis name” (Jn 1:11,12). If one wouldaccept as God the One who was cruci-fied as a common criminal on a cross,then it would be this one who had a rightto be a child of God. The picture of theRedeemer as a suffering servant on across exemplifies the right of any indi-vidual to make a choice to reveal whetherhe or she is of a character that is fit foreternal dwelling.

Jesus reminded His disciples, “...the Son of Man did not come to beserved, but to serve, and to give His lifea ransom for many” (Mt 20:28; see Mk10:45). As the incarnate Son of God,Jesus came to serve our sin problem,and to do such, He had to suffer thecross of humiliation. Jesus was trulyour servant who suffered on our behalf.Those who submit to the cross by tak-ing up their crosses, are of a like-mindedcharacter, and thus worthy because ofthe cross to be considered sons of God.Paul reminded the Galatians, “For youare all sons of God through faith inChrist Jesus. For as many of you aswere baptized into Christ have puton Christ” (Gl 3:26,27).

The Cross

3 6

Chapter 9

RECONCILIATIONRECONCILIATIONRECONCILIATIONRECONCILIATIONRECONCILIATIONAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSSAT THE CROSS

The sin offering of Israel laid thefoundation for understanding the recon-ciliation that would come through theoffering of the suffering servant. In thesin offering, the blood of the sacrificedanimal was not to be eaten (Lv 6:30).When reconciliation was accomplished,animals died in order “to make recon-ciliation” for the people (Lv 8:15). Forexample, when Israel was reconciledagain unto God, animals had to die.“Then the priests killed them and theymade reconciliation with their [ani-mal] blood on the altar, to make anatonement for all Israel” (2 Ch 29:24;see also Ez 45:15-17). Reconciliationcame at a price, the price of a sacri-ficed life. Through the cost of the sacri-fice of animals year after year in Israelthe stage was being set for the comingof the One who would offer the price ofHis blood as the medium by whichGod’s people could be reconciled untoHim. It was a coming sacrifice thatwould terminate all animal sacrifices.

The Son of God intervened in thehistory of humanity in order that brokensouls might be able to approach untotheir Creator. Reconciliation was theinitiative of a loving God to reach out toHis creation. The cross, therefore, wasGod’s signal to His creation that all whowould come to Him have a way home.Reconciliation at the cross was Jesusopening the door through which the bro-ken could find their way to the One whocould heal their brokenness. WhenJesus was lifted up to the cross, thedrawing power of reconciliation was

awesome to those who mourned overtheir sin-ravaged souls.

If we view God from the perspec-tive of who He is, the God of love, thenreconciliation was an initiative on thepart of God to bring man again into Hisfellowship as it was before the sin ofAdam. “God was in Christ reconcilingthe world to Himself, not counting theirtrespasses against them” (2 Co 5:19).In order for God to bring man into Hisfellowship, something had to be donefor man’s broken soul because of sin.We would conclude this because cre-ation was also the initiative of God. Hecreated a free-moral individual He knewwould exercise his free-moral right torebel. But since God is love, He neededto stand as a just God by offering manan opportunity to be reconciled to Hisfellowship through the blood of Christ.

If God did not offer the opportunityfor reconciliation, then He would notstand as a just God if He separated any-one unto eternal condemnation. Butbecause God is a God of love and jus-tice, He did not create with the intentionof judging His creation without an op-portunity for reconciliation. If He had,then He would be judged a fiendish Godfor creating man in the first place. Andif He intentionally predestined some ofHis creation to eternal punishment, itwould correctly be concluded that Hewas a fiendish and unjust judge for cre-ating individuals who were destined topunishment.

Depending on one’s version,translations use words as “atonement”and “appeasement” to render the OldTestament Hebrew words that refer toreconciliation. In atonement, or propi-tiation, sins are covered by the blood of

The Cross

3 7

sacrifices in order that we may approachGod. In appeasement, the wrath of God(judgment) is calmed in order that manbe reconciled to God without being con-demned because of sin. Some haveviewed the foundation for reconciliationto be based on the necessity that God’s“anger” or “wrath” be appeased beforemen could approach Him. Those of thisthinking contend that in some way God’swrath had to be appeased in order tomake it possible for Him to enter into acovenant relationship with man. Butbasing reconciliation on the concept ofappeasing God’s anger or wrath seemsto stand against God’s effort of recon-ciliation in the New Testament. It alsoseems to be contrary to the very natureof a loving God. If God is love, then Heis not seeking to condemn or unleashHis wrath upon His creation. He is lov-ingly seeking to reconcile His creationto Himself. It would be as Jesus said,“For God did not send His Son into theworld to condemn the world, but that theworld through Him might be saved” (Jn3:17). God is not willing that any shouldperish, but that all should respond to Hispleas to be reconciled again to His fel-lowship. But in order for a loving God tojustly bring those tarnished with sin intoHis fellowship, something had to be doneabout their sin-blemished souls.

We would view Romans 5 as thedictionary to define the work of a lovingGod to reconcile His creation unto Him-self. “Therefore, having been justifiedby faith,” Paul introduces his argument,“We have peace with God throughour Lord Jesus Christ” (vs 1). It isthrough the cross of Jesus that we haveaccess to God because it was our ownsin that took us away from God (vs 2).

Paul turns to the initiative factor that “be-cause of the love of God” the Spirit hasbeen poured out for the believer (vs 5).All that Paul discusses in this chapteris based on this truth: “Because of thelove of God.” The fact that God is love,He took the initiative to reach out to man.“For when we were still without strength,at the right time Christ died for theungodly” (vs 6). Here is the point: “ButGod demonstrates His love toward us,in that while we were still sinners,Christ died for us” (vs 8).

The cross did not happen becauseof the plea of man to be reconciled withhis Creator. It happened because ofGod’s love for His creation. God wasactive in reconciliation and man waspassive. Now that Christ died for theundeserving, and we have responded byfaith, Paul continued, “Much more then,having now been justified by His blood,we will be saved from wrath [judgment]through Him” (vs 9). We would under-stand the “wrath,” not as the characterof God toward man, for if such were thecase, then the cross would never havehappened. The wrath refers to justice,for we cannot be reconciled to God withthe blemishes of our sin. Sin (rebellion)cries out for justice, judgment and pun-ishment. Love answers with grace andmercy.

In Romans 5 Paul then brings intothe picture the resurrection. “For if whilewe were enemies we were reconciledto God by the death of His Son, muchmore, having been reconciled, we willbe saved by His life” (vs 10). Our con-fidence, therefore, is in the power of thecross to bring those of faith unto thethrone of God. So Paul concludes ourrejoicing. “And not only this, but we also

The Cross

3 8

rejoice in God through our Lord JesusChrist, through whom we have nowreceived the reconciliation” (vs 11).“Therefore, as through the offense ofone [Adam’s sin separated him fromGod], judgment came on all men to con-demnation, even so through the righ-teousness of one [Jesus did that whichwas just by going to the cross], the freegift came to all men to justification oflife” (vs 18).

The means of reconciliation withGod has already been accomplished.It is past tense in that Jesus poured outHis blood in order to clean us of sin.Our cleansing was for the purpose ofHim presenting us without blemish be-fore the Father. The washed are pre-sentable to the Father because “theyhave washed their robes and madethem white in the blood of the Lamb”(Rv 7:14). The blood was poured out atthe cross. The Father has now sent outthe invitation to all to be immersed inthe blood of reconciliation. So when theScriptures say that “in Him we have re-demption through His blood” (Ep 1:7),then we need to search the Scripturesin order to discover how we can comeinto Christ wherein the blood of Christflows freely from Calvary (See Rm 6:3,4;Gl 3:26,27). (It is now that we are be-ginning to understand what happens atthe point of baptism into Christ. Thenext time you witness someone beingbaptized, envision them going down intoa pool of the blood of Jesus in order tobe “washed in the blood of the Lamb.”)

God is light and in Him is no dark-ness at all (1 Jn 1:5). And because thereis no darkness in God, then no dark-ness of sin can come into His presence.Since the very purpose for the creation

of man was to bring mortal beings of loveinto the eternal presence of love, thensomething had to be done for the sin ofa truly free-moral individual who wasblessed with the opportunity to say, “Ilove you too.” Thus when the Scripturesspeak of the wrath of God being revealed,reference is to just judgment of thosewho have not been qualified by obedientfaith to come into the eternal light ofGod’s love. Sin separated us from God,and thus, there needed to be a meansby which sin would be washed away sothat we could approach God (See At2:38; 22:16).

Paul wrote, “For the wrath of Godis revealed from heaven against all un-godliness and unrighteousness of menwho suppress the truth in unrighteous-ness” (Rm 1:18). The wrath of God isrevealed by the revelation of the righ-teousness of God through Jesus. Jesusis the way, truth and the life (Jn 14:6).But for those who would rebel againstHis way and ignore His truth, they haveno opportunity for His life. “But we knowthat the judgment of God is accordingto truth against those who practice such[evil] things” (Rm 2:2; see 2 Th 1:6-9).In order that men have the opportunityto escape the coming just judgment ofGod, the gospel was revealed, for in thegospel is “the righteousness of God re-vealed from faith to faith, as it is written,‘The just will live by faith’” (Rm 1:17).

In order to bring His creation intoeternal dwelling, those who were sepa-rated from God by their rebellion in sinhad to be brought back into the fellow-ship of Deity. The mission of Jesus,therefore, was a mission of reconcilia-tion. It was a mission that the sufferingservant accomplished by paying the

The Cross

3 9

ransom of His blood for our sin. Throughthe cross, He “disarmed principalities andpowers, He made a public display ofthem, triumphing over them in it” (Cl2:15). The power of sin was disabled atthe cross. Through the resurrection,Jesus was exalted “far above all princi-pality and power and might and domin-ion and every name that is named, notonly in this age, but also in that which isto come” (Ep 1:21). Through the resur-rection and ascension, the Father “putall things under His feet, and gave Himto be head over all things to the church”(Ep 1:22). He did so in order “that everytongue should confess that Jesus Christis Lord, to the glory of God the Father”(Ph 2:11). The cross and resurrection,therefore, changed history because thesacrificial work on the part of Jesus drawsout of the hearts of men the true imagein which they were created after God.And so the prophecy of Jesus of Him-self was fulfilled. “And I, if I am lifted upfrom the earth, will draw all men toMe” (Jn 12:32). So now, all those whohave responded to the outpouring of thelove of God on the cross have also as-sumed the responsibility of the ministryof reconciliation (Read 2 Co 5:11-21).We go forth to preach the good news ofreconciliation, therefore, in order to findthose who seek to be restored unto theirCreator.

Chapter 10

JUSTIFICATION AT THE CROSSJUSTIFICATION AT THE CROSSJUSTIFICATION AT THE CROSSJUSTIFICATION AT THE CROSSJUSTIFICATION AT THE CROSS

The word “justify” is a legal term.It was a term used in the Roman courtsystem to refer to the legal proceedingsof judicial law. Understanding its mean-ing must be determined in the context

of the work of an advocate (lawyer). Theadvocate pleaded the case of the de-fendant. He sought to argue the caseof the defendant in order that the de-fendant be given mercy from the graceof the court. If mercy was granted, thenthe defendant was acquitted (justified)of his crime.

When we bring this metaphor intoour state of condemnation in sin, thecrucified Savior works as our advocateto plead our case before the eternalcourt of justice. He not only pleadedour case at the cross, He actually stoodin to take the blame for our crime. Tak-ing our broken soul upon Himself wasso great that He cried out from thecross, “My God, My God, why have Youforsaken Me?” (Mt 27:46).

John reminded his readers, “And ifanyone sin, we have a Counselor [ad-vocate] with the Father, Jesus Christ therighteous” (1 Jn 2:1). Not only did Jesusbring justification for all sin through thecross, John indicates that the represen-tation before the Father in reference toour sin is continuing. “Therefore, He isable also to save those to the uttermostwho come to God through Him, seeingHe always lives to make intercessionfor them” (Hb 7:25). Through the res-urrection and ascension, Jesus is ableto do this because He has now entered“into heaven itself, now to appear in thepresence of God for us” (Hb 9:24).Justification was a onetime work of Godin the past, but intercession on the be-half of the justified is ongoing. It is con-tinuing because He lives.

What exemplifies continued inter-cession for us is the justification for usin the past that took place at the cross.To a great extent, the religious world has

The Cross

4 0

distorted the teaching of justification byfocusing on man, rather than the workof Christ. This distortion has gone tothe extreme in many religions becauseadherents are led to believe that thereis no justification except that which isvalidated by the merit of man. They failto see that justification was some-thing that God did for us, not whatwe do for ourselves. It was the workof God through His Son to justify, forour sin was against Him. It is the workof the redeemed to obediently walk withJesus because they have been justified.We walk by faith, but our faith does notminimize the justifying work of Jesusthat took place on the cross. We arecleansed by His blood through obedi-ent faith as we walk in the light as He isin the light. “But if we walk in the lightas He is in the light, we have fellowshipwith one another and the blood of JesusChrist His Son cleanses us from allsin” (1 Jn 1:7). Our walk is an obedientwalk because we have been justified, notin order to be justified. It is because wehave been justified that the blood of HisSon continues its work in our lives.

The story of justification is ex-plained in God’s covenant relationshipwith Israel. God established a covenantrelationship with Israel at Mount Sinai.With any covenant of the Old Testa-ment, blood was offered to ratify thecovenant. But with the establishmentof covenants, there were conditions forthe maintenance of the covenant. Godestablished conditions for Himself, andHe established conditions for Israel tomaintain their part of the covenant.Within the covenant with Israel Godmade promises. His keeping of thesepromises defined His faithfulness to the

covenant. He is a righteous (just) Godbecause He keeps His promises. Therighteousness of God, therefore, movedthe faithful to remain committed to keepthe covenant because they desired toreceive the promises of God. By faiththey trusted in the righteousness (faith-fulness) of God to keep His promises.It is for this reason that Israel had towalk obediently by faith in God whokeeps His promises.

Israel’s history is a testimony of thefact that though God is righteous (He isjust by keeping His promises), Israel’swalk was often rebellious. They weredisobedient to the law that came as theirconditions for keeping the covenant.Whenever we speak of God’s righteous-ness in the New Testament, therefore,and our trust (faith) in Him to keep Hispromises, we must think of an obedientfaithfulness to His will. It is not simply a“faith only” walk, but an obedient faiththat moves us to keep our conditions ofthe covenant we have with God. How-ever, we know we cannot keep the con-ditions perfectly. We sin, and thus, weneed the continuing blood of Jesus inorder to remain in a covenant relation-ship with God. But if we rebel by turn-ing away from the covenant, then thereno longer remains a fulfillment of thepromises on our behalf. The Hebrewwriter reminded us of this. “For if wesin willfully after we have received theknowledge of the truth, there no longerremains a sacrifice for sins” (Hb 10:26).

This thought is summed up in thewords of Micah 6:1-8 who pronouncedjudgment on Israel for their unfaithfulwalk in turning away from their covenantwith God. Micah wrote that “the Lordhas a complaint with His people” (vs 2).

The Cross

4 1

God had fulfilled His part of the covenantby delivering the Israelites from Egyp-tian captivity and bringing them into thepromised land. He did this so that theymight “know the righteousness [faithful-ness] of the Lord” (vs 5). But many cen-turies later when Micah prophesied tothe nation, they had faulted on their re-sponsibility to remain faithful to God. Sowhat would God require of them in or-der to restore their covenant relation-ship with Him in view of the fact that Hewas faithful (righteous) to fulfill Hispromises of the covenant? “He hasshown you, O man, what is good andwhat the Lord requires of you, but to dojustly and to love mercy, and to walkhumbly with your God” (vs 8). They mustrenew their faith by renewing their com-mitment to the covenant.

Any discussion in reference to thejustification of God must be defined inthe context of God’s covenant relation-ship with Israel. Through His righteous-ness (faithfulness to keep promises),God delivered on His covenant prom-ises. Except for the faithful remnant thatHe restored from captivity, the majorityof Israel turned away from the covenantwhen they ran after idolatrous gods. Nev-ertheless, God fulfilled His promises tothe faithful remnant. Justification at thecross did not depend on their righteous-ness, for they were dead in sin whenthe Advocate pled their case before theJudge at the cross (Rm 5:8). The righ-teousness of God, however, was mani-fested at the cross for God fulfilled allHis promises concerning the Seed thatwould bless all mankind.

This profound subject is intro-duced by Paul in Romans 1:16,17, butis often misunderstood. Paul first

speaks of the gospel. According to hisdefinition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians15:3,4, the gospel is the justifying workof God in the death of Jesus for our sinson the cross. It is Jesus’ death and res-urrection. This good news event is thepower of God unto salvation. In orderto be this power unto salvation, twothings had to take place. First, the righ-teousness of God must be revealed tothose with whom God seeks to bring intoa covenant relationship. This was ac-complished through the cross. “For thegrace of God that brings salvation hasappeared to all men” (Ti 2:11). Second,there must be a faith response by thosewho seek to come into this covenant re-lationship with God. The faith responsewould be obedience to the gospel (See2 Th 1:6-9; 1 Pt 4:17).

In reference to the gospel, Paulcontinues to explain that “it is the righ-teousness of God revealed from faithto faith ...” (Rm 1:17). The sending ofHis Son to die for our justification wasGod’s faithfulness to bring His creationinto a covenant relationship. The cross,therefore, revealed the faithfulness ofa just God to His creation that could notbe saved by their own righteousness.He would not allow those who seek Himto go without a covenant. He so lovedthe world that the general invitation wasmade to all men through the cross tocome into His covenant that He soughtto establish with those who choose toobey the gospel. The righteousness ofGod was revealed by His faithfulnessto His creation in order to establish acovenant that would in turn require faith-fulness on the part of man (Rm 1:17).

The gospel was a manifestation of“faith to faith,” (God’s faithfulness con-

The Cross

4 2

nected to man’s faithfulness). Here iswhere so many have missed the pointin reference to justification that is basedon God’s faithfulness that inspires ourfaithful response. This is also wheremany of the Protestant world havebased their theology on a misunder-standing of justification that was broughtout of the Reformation Movement. Ex-periential religionists assumed that jus-tification relied on a meritorious experi-ence whereby one justifies himself be-fore God. Seeing the futility, and rightlyso, of any meritorious works of law ordeeds being able to justify oneself be-fore God, “faith only” theologians haverun in the opposite direction. They haveconcluded that since we cannot be jus-tified by meritorious works, then justifi-cation must rest solely on our faith.Some have corrupted this theology evenmore. They unfortunately base their un-derstanding of justification on the foun-dation of a concept that God individuallypredestined some to eternal destructionregardless of their choice in the matter.Since these theologians could not makeeveryone righteous before God throughobedient faith, they assumed, therefore,that God had created some for eternaldestruction regardless. They thus de-stroyed the free-moral obedience of allmen, and subsequently created a fiend-ish Creator who would unjustly condemnto eternal hell those He individually pre-destined to such a fate.

But all these theologies of menhave made something simple so com-plex. And in reference to the theologyof some, they have created a god whois a respecter of those who were sup-posedly unconditionally elected to eter-nal salvation, and fiendish toward those

who were unconditionally predestined toeternal damnation in a fiery hell.

The righteousness of God was re-vealed at the cross. It was there thatour justification was initiated by the faith-fulness of God to keep His promises tothe fathers of Israel. Paul revealed thisfaithfulness of God in Galatians 2:16, apassage that is often obscured by sometranslations. The International KingJames Version has the correct reading.“Knowing that a man is not justified byworks of law, but by the faith of ChristJesus, even we have believed in ChristJesus so that we might be justified bythe faith of Christ, and not by works oflaw, for by works of law no flesh will bejustified.”

At the cross, justification resultedfrom the faithful work of Jesus Christ,as opposed to the futile meritorious ef-forts of men to keep law perfectly in or-der to justify themselves. Some trans-lations of Galatians 2:16 have unfortu-nately been influenced by their thinkingthat places justification on the shouldersof men. They translate the phrase “thefaith of Christ Jesus” in Galatians 2:16to read “by faith in Christ Jesus.” Butthe reading in Greek is literally “faith ofChrist.” It was because of the faithful-ness of Christ to accomplish the eternalplan of redemption on the cross that Godwas able to reconcile the world unto Him-self. Through the cross, God “has rec-onciled us to Himself through Christ” (2Co 5:18). Through His Son, the Fatherwas justifying those who were dead insin because of their inability to keep lawperfectly in order to justify themselves.

God was faithful to fulfill His prom-ise that He originally made to Adam andEve in Genesis 3:15. He was faithful to

The Cross

4 3

fulfill His promise to Abraham that in hisseed all nations of the world would beblessed (Gn 12:3). God was faithfulthrough the faith of Christ to take Him-self to the cross in order to call all mento join Him in a covenant with the Fa-ther. The justification of the cross wasnot simply a blanket declaration that allmen are now unconditionally justified.It is a call by the gospel message to allmen to come with obedient faith into thiscovenant. Through the appeal of Hisrighteousness revealed on the cross,God pleads to all men for “obedienceto righteousness” (Rm 6:16). He is “notwilling that any should perish but thatall should come to repentance” (2 Pt3:9).

The gospel is power unto salvationfrom “faith to faith” (Rm 1:17). It wasinitiated and executed on the cross be-cause of God’s faithfulness to keep Hispromises. God now calls on those whoseek to come into a covenant relation-ship with Him to act on their faith. IfGod were willing that no one should per-ish, but did not offer the cross, then Hewould not have been faithful to keep Hispromise that was made two thousandyears before to Abraham (See Gn 12:1-4). Israel was called by God to be faith-ful because He was faithful to keep Hispromises to the fathers. But if we thinkwe can respond to the faithful actions ofGod that were revealed at the cross witha simple “sinner’s prayer” that does notmove one to do anything in response tothe faithfulness of God, then we are ask-ing God to respond with His atoning workat the cross to an unresponsive faith.

Inactive faith was the core toJames’ thought when he wrote, “Whatdoes it profit, my brethren, if someone

says he has faith but does not haveworks? Can faith save him?” (Js 2:14).James gave the example of obedientAbraham. “Was not Abraham our fa-ther justified by works when he of-fered Isaac his son on the altar? Yousee that faith was working with hisworks, and by works was faith madeperfect” (Js 2:21,22). Now listen toJames’ conclusion to the actions ofAbraham. “And the scripture was ful-filled that says, ‘Abraham believedGod and it was credited to him forrighteousness’” (Js 2:23). Abrahamacted on his faith. It was not a deadfaith. And because he had an activefaith, he was credited to be righteous,that is, justified. One is not righteous(justified) before God without an activeresponse to God’s action on the cross.It was for this reason that the eunuchasked Philip, “What hinders me frombeing baptized?” (At 8:36). It was forthis reason that Ananias asked Saul, “...why are you waiting? Arise and be bap-tized and wash away your sins ...” (At22:16). And it was for this reason thatin the same hour of the night the activefaith of the Philippian jailor moved himto take action in reference to his newknowledge of the saving power of thecross. “And immediately he was bap-tized ...” (At 16:33).

Therefore, when Paul made thestatement, “faith to faith,” he meant fromGod’s faithfulness to take action at thecross for our justification, which faith-fulness should draw the same activeresponse out of those who come to thecross. There must be a faith responseto God’s faithfulness, otherwise, ourfaith leaves us in death at the foot ofthe cross until we do what Jesus said

The Cross

4 4

to do in reference to our sins. “He whobelieves and is baptized will be saved”(Mk 16:16). It cannot be more simplethan that (See At 2:38; 22:16).

Must we remind ourselves of 1Peter 4:17. “What will be the end ofthose who do not obey the gospel ofGod?” If one comes to the cross with asimple mental faith, without obedienceto the gospel of the death, burial andresurrection of Jesus (Rm 6:3-6), he isnot justified simply because his faith hasnot moved him to faithfulness. Salva-tion by the gospel is by “faith to faith.”God has been faithful in the work of of-fering to His creation an opportunity tobe justified before Him. Unless one re-ciprocates with faith in action, the crosswill accomplish nothing in reference toone’s justification that is freely offeredat the cross.

The cross is the revelation of therighteousness of God toward His cre-ation. “But now the righteousness of Godwithout the law is manifested ... eventhe righteousness of God that is by thefaith of Jesus Christ to all those whobelieve ...” (Rm 3:21,22). Jesus wasfaithful in taking Himself to the cross forthose He had created (See Jn 10:17,18;Cl 1:16). The cross now calls on all whowould believe to respond to the cross.Because all have sinned (Rm 3:23), thecall of the cross is to respond to the jus-tification that is offered there for our sins(Rm 3:24). When one responds to thecross by obedience to the gospel, hehas access to the redemption that is inChrist Jesus (Rm 6:3; Gl 3:26,27).Through the cross, God “has set forth[His Son] to be an atoning sacrifice byHis blood through faith in order to de-clare His righteousness for the remis-

sion of sins in the past because of theforbearance of God” (Rm 3:25). There-fore, “as through one man’s disobedi-ence many were made sinners, even sothrough the obedience of one [Jesus]will many be made righteous [justi-fied]” (Rm 5:19).

Chapter 11

CRUCIFIED WITH HIMCRUCIFIED WITH HIMCRUCIFIED WITH HIMCRUCIFIED WITH HIMCRUCIFIED WITH HIMON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSSON THE CROSS

Paul wrote the well-known state-ment, “I have been crucified withChrist. And it is no longer I who live,but Christ lives in me” (Gl 2:20).“Crucified” in this statement is the Greekpassive, and thus at some time in thepast Paul was acted upon by being cru-cified with Christ. The tense of the verbdoes not indicate something that Paulpersonally did, but something that wasdone for him. That something was thework of Christ at the cross. BecausePaul was acted upon by the work ofChrist on the cross, there was power inhis life to live the cross-bearing life. “Andthe life that I now live in the flesh I liveby faith in the Son of God ...” (Gl 2:20).When Paul wrote to the Philippians, wenow understand what he was sayingwhen he wrote, “I can do all thingsthrough Him who strengthens me” (Ph4:13). It was not Paul of himself whowas able to lead the crucified life. It wasthe crucified Christ who lived within him.His “can do” was not “I can do myself.”Paul wrote, “But in all these things weare more than conquerors through Himwho loved us” (Rm 8:37). Our power toconquer is not within ourselves. It is“through Him” who loved us on the cross.

Paul’s continued walk under the

The Cross

4 5

power of the cross was maintained byhis obedient faith. This would be thelife-style that Jesus indicated when Hestated, “Whoever wishes to come afterMe, let him deny himself and take uphis cross and follow Me” (Mk 8:34; Lk9:23; 14:27). The joy of bearing ourcrosses for Christ, therefore, is in ourknowledge of and faith in what Jesusdid on the cross. This is certainly be-hind the statement of James when heencouraged his readers, “My brethren,count it all joy when you fall into vari-ous trials ...” (Js 1:2). Cross-bearingdisciples are full of joy because theyrealize that it is the crucified Christ whois working in them for the glory of God.

Paul’s crucifixion with Christ takesus back to the cross of Christ. Paulwants to remind us that our old man ofsin was crucified with Christ at the timeJesus died on the cross. He wrote inreference to our problem of sin in Ro-mans 6:6. “... knowing this, that ourold man was crucified with Him so thatthe body of sin might be destroyed, thatwe should no longer be bondservantsto sin” (Rm 6:6). In using the word“knowing” (Gr. ginosko), Paul wanted theRoman Christians to understand, graspand comprehend something that wasvery important concerning their salvation.He wanted them to realize that they werewho they were in Christ because of whatChrist did on the cross for them. Theword “crucified” in his statement is theGreek passive, that is, the object (us)was acted upon by another. In the Ro-mans 6:6 statement the “old man of sin”was acted upon by Christ at the cross.The “old man of sin” was taken to thecross with Christ. So in answer to thequestion of when the old man was cru-

cified, it was when Jesus was crucified. There is no such thing as self-cru-

cifixion. Though our crucifixion withChrist will motivate us to take up ourcross and follow Jesus, we are not cru-cifying our old man of sin, for such wouldbe impossible. In crucifixion, someonewas always acting upon the victim to nailhim to the cross. And when we are dis-cussing the problem of sin, only the Oneagainst whom we sin has the authorityto forgive that sin. While on earth, theSon of God had the authority to forgivesin directly, immediately and personally(Mt 9:6). And while He was on the cross,the Son of God was there to forgive oursins by allowing Himself to be crucifiedfor our old man of sin. As a reminderthat He had the power to forgive whileon earth, in His last moments on thecross He personally forgave another bysaying to the thief on the cross, “... to-day you will be with Me in Paradise” (Lk23:43).

We could not of ourselves crucifyour old man of sin. The cross was aboutforgiveness and crucifixion. If by faithwe come to the cross, realizing that theSon of God has taken care of our oldman of sin, then in thanksgiving we goto the grave with Him in order to enjoynewness of life when our sins arewashed away in the waters of baptism(At 22:16). We are thus born again asa new creature in Christ. “Therefore, ifany man is in Christ, he is a new crea-ture. Old things have passed away.Behold, all things have become new”(2 Co 5:17).

On the cross Jesus was active intaking our old man of sin with Him to becrucified. Through the obedient faith ofChrist to go to the cross, we can have

The Cross

4 6

faith that our old man of sin was cruci-fied. But as His faith was active in tak-ing our old man of sin to the cross forcrucifixion, our faith must also be ac-tive in doing that which is necessary inorder to have life. Through obedienceto the gospel (baptism) our faith is ac-tive in taking the crucified old man tothe grave. We were passive in Jesus’work to crucify the old man of sin. How-ever, we must be active in burying theold dead man. Therefore, through thepower of the cross our old man ofsin was crucified with Jesus. But byfaith, we choose to have the old manburied with Christ and raised to walkin newness of life (Rm 6:5).

We must keep in mind that thoughthe old man of sin was crucified withJesus when He went to the cross, weare all as dead men walking. We haveno life before resurrection, as Jesus wasin a tomb before life came in the resur-rection. There is “no condemnation tothose who are in Christ Jesus” (Rm 8:1)because those in Christ have buried theold crucified man (See Gl 3:26-29). How-ever, outside Christ he is in condemna-tion. But when one is “baptized into His[Christ’s] death,” that is, “united in thelikeness of His death,” it is then that hecan be raised with Him “in the likenessof His resurrection” in order to walk as anew creature in Christ (Rm 6:3-6; 2 Co5:17). Once the old man of sin is bur-ied, a new man is born who has beenblessed with eternal life in Christ. Johnreminds us, “And this is the testimony,that God has given us eternal life andthis life is in His Son” (1 Jn 5:11).

Paul brings out the above meaningin Ephesians 2:8. “For by grace you aresaved through faith, and that not of

yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Thegrace of God appeared on the cross onour behalf (Ti 2:11). It was grace thatbrought salvation, both through the faithof Jesus and the faith of ourselves. Oursalvation could not be accomplished onour own. It had to come only as a gift ofGod, which gift we accept through faith.This is the power of the gospel that isfrom “faith to faith.” God did what wecould not do for ourselves. Paul con-tinues his teaching on this matter inRomans 6 by reminding the Roman dis-ciples, “Therefore, do not let sin reignin your mortal body so that you shouldobey the lusts of the body” (Rm 6:12).On the contrary, he exhorted, “presentyourselves to God, as those who arealive from the dead, and your mem-bers as instruments of righteousness toGod” (Rm 6:13). Herein is the power ofgrace. We know that we are undergrace, and not under the necessity ofperforming law perfectly in order to saveourselves. Therefore, “sin will not havedominion over you, for you are not un-der law, but under grace” (Rm 6:14).The power of the cross is that we knowthat our insufficient performance of lawwill not separate us from the love of God.Since God gave His only begotten Sonin order to crucify the old man of sin,then there is nothing that can separateus from the love of God that is in ChristJesus our Lord (Rm 8:39).

The curse of experiential religionis that the adherents of such faiths havelittle faith in our total justification byJesus on the cross. The power of thegospel is minimal in the mind of the onewho questions his salvation by the graceof God. The experientialist seeks tocleanse his conscience of guilt through

The Cross

4 7

the performance of emotionality, and of-ten, meritorious good works. It is diffi-cult for him to step aside and get out ofthe way of Jesus who has taken care ofthe old man of sin. Some fail to realizethat we are “created in Christ Jesus forgood works” (Ep 2:10). We are not cre-ated in Christ by good works. When weunderstand that God saved us at thecross of grace, that realization movesus into action. It is that grace thatcauses thanksgiving (2 Co 4:15). Paul’slife was an example. “But by the graceof God I am what I am. And His gracetoward me was not in vain, but I la-bored more abundantly than they all,yet not I, but the grace of God thatwas with me” (1 Co 15:10). That is avery powerful statement! God’s gracetook Paul far beyond what he could everhave accomplished by his own self-willto work meritoriously in obedience tolaw. When Paul said, “for you are notunder law, but under grace” (Rm 6:14),he meant that we are not under the mo-tivation to keep law meritoriously in or-der to be saved. On the contrary, weare under the motivation of grace to livefor Jesus. By being motivated by faithin God’s grace, we understand Romans3:31. “Do we then make void lawthrough faith? Certainly not! On thecontrary, we establish law.” Under faithwe cry out to our Father to instruct usconcerning the right way.

Chapter 12

REFOCUSING ON THE CROSSREFOCUSING ON THE CROSSREFOCUSING ON THE CROSSREFOCUSING ON THE CROSSREFOCUSING ON THE CROSS

Throughout the centuries therehave always been efforts to relegate thecross to a subpoint on a theologicaloutline. The more a religion was based

on the traditions of the fathers, the lessemphasis there was placed on the sig-nificance of the cross in the theology ofthe religion. The more organized a reli-gion focused on the authority of menon earth within the organized structureof the religion, the less adherents fo-cused exclusively on King Jesus and Hisleadership through the cross. The worstscenario is a religion that sets up its ownchurch head on earth. Add to all thisreligious chaos the fact that the morelegalistic a church becomes in its theol-ogy, the less the mystery of the crossfits into its systematic theology.

Salvation, it was presumed by thetraditionalist and the legalist, was basedon faithfulness to “the church” and itsestablished identity. It was faithfulnessto the church, and subsequently, thechurch would get one into heaven. Re-gardless of one’s response to the cross,“faithfulness,” which meant faithfulnessto the church, would determine one’sdestiny. The result of this obsession withtraditional church structures and legaltheological outlines, was that church anddoctrine were highlighted, with the mes-sage of the cross being relegated to asubpoint at the conclusion of the ser-mon. The result was that campaignsand crusades alike were organized ef-forts to promote one’s church in contrastto the supposed error of all otherchurches. Preaching church becamethe center of our “evangelistic” sermons,and the cross was added only at theconclusion of a theologically engineeredpresentation of “church doctrine.”

Those who were more legally ori-ented in their theology viewed the crosssimply as the back drop of their focuson a manufactured “plan of salvation.”

The Cross

4 8

Acts 2 became the center of referenceto their preaching, and subsequently,they were able to bring people to bap-tism without even mentioning the cross.Some realized the error of this legal ap-proach to salvation, and then ranthrough Jerusalem to focus exclusivelyon Jesus alone. They walked with Himand His disciples down the roads ofPalestine, but they lost their emphasison the incarnate God who was nailedto the cross to ransom their souls fromsin. Jesus became a folk hero, goodteacher, a personal friend, someone withwhom we sought to identify as our per-sonal Savior. But in our listing of theteachings of Jesus, the atonement of thecross was marginalized for a simple con-versation with Jesus as a good friend.Jesus became our personal Savior, butnot to the extent of being our “personalGod” before whom we will be judged.The emphasis in reference to Jesus hav-ing an impact on our lives changed fromwhat Jesus did for us to what we coulddo for Him. The result of this change infocus led some to a works-oriented faithwhereby they sought to justify them-selves before God. The result was thatwe never really felt good about our sal-vation because we never really felt goodabout our works, for we knew that ourworks were never enough to merit ourintended yearning for eternal life.

And then there are those who sim-ply gave up works altogether. In theirfear of a faith that would manifest itselfthrough an obedient response to the in-carnate and crucified God of the cross,they simply affirmed that salvation wasby a simple inactive faith on the part ofthe predestined. No works required!They forgot that the New Testament book

on grace and faith (Romans) was intro-duced and concluded by “obedience offaith.” “We have received grace andapostleship, for obedience of the faith...” (Rm 1:5). And lastly, Paul concluded,“... the mystery ... has been made knownto all nations for the obedience of faith”(Rm 16:25,26).

Add an inactive response to thecross the doctrine of individual predesti-nation, and some religionists have comeup with a religion that appeals to the car-nal nature of man. It appeals to the ma-terialist who would consume the worldupon himself. Regardless of what onedid morally, or how much he consumedupon himself, he was still predestinedto heaven, and thus, he could live with-out endangering his soul. What onepreacher said to one of the young mem-bers of his group emphasizes the point.The young man confessed to thepreacher that he was struggling withmoral temptations in his life. Thepreacher reassured the young man bysaying, “That’s fine. As long as youunderstand that you have been predes-tined personally to eternal life, it doesn’tmatter.” Individual predestination movesone to divert his life from the cross. Ifone believes that he or she is individu-ally predestined, then there is no fear oflosing one’s soul. One person recentlycalled us and stated, “I have never heardof apostasy. What does it mean?” Thecross has little appeal to the “presump-tuously saved.” It has little motivationfor those who believe they cannot fall fromthe grace of God. After all, who wouldreally want to bear the cost of the crosswhen he believes that he is already indi-vidually predestined to eternal life? Thefaith of the individual predestinationist,

The Cross

4 9

therefore, is not in the work of the incar-nate Son of God on the cross, but in hisindividual predestination. Once one be-lieves that he is individually chosen byGod, then there is no need for faith inthe work of the Suffering Servant on thecross.

What those who believe in indi-vidual predestination have done is makesenseless the atoning sacrifice of thecross. They have negated any love re-sponse to the love act revealed on thecross. If one was individually predes-tined at birth to eternal glory, then whatneed would there be for any eternal aton-ing sacrifice? If certain individuals werealready destined to glory, why pay anyransom? Why would God even need toincarnate in the flesh of man in order tomake a redemptive offering? If predesti-nation is true, then we would questionwhy the Son of God even showed up atthe cross. If God predestined individu-als to eternal glory, then certainly Hecould have just taken them on to heavenwithout all the intervening scandal of thecross. He could have taken them with-out all the suffering and salvational plan-ning throughout the centuries for thesake of a free-moral individual who re-ally was not free in the first place to takeownership of his own eternal destiny.

The shocking reality about this the-ology is that a vast number of religion-ists throughout the world today believein the theology of individual predestina-tion. It is an appealing theology becauseit makes God a respecter of specificpeople, not because it draws individualsto the cross of love. We must not un-derestimate the theology of individualpredestination to a narcissistic genera-tion that is consumed with adding indi-

viduals to their follower list as they havepresumed that God unconditionallyadded them to His family before theywere born.

But we would base our faith on thefact that because a loving God was notwilling that any of His creation shouldbe lost, His love was revealed at thecross through His Son. We thus seeka restoration of emphasis on the aton-ing sacrifice of Jesus as our primarymessage to the world, a world in which“whoever believes in Him should notperish, but have everlasting life” (Jn3:16). The message of the cross is“Him.” God sent Him into the world asan opportunity for every person to haveaccess to everlasting life. The reward ofbelieving in Him is being a part of thecovenanted people of God.

Jesus brought more than a set ofdoctrines to “establish” churches. Hebrought Himself, and thus our messageto the lost must not be a simple set ofoutlined doctrines to “identify the church.”Our message to the world is the atoningsacrifice of the incarnate Son of God.Our message is not only on a crucifix-ion event outside Jerusalem two thou-sand years ago. Jesus came in the fleshfor the cross. He was resurrected tostay in the flesh. And He is coming againin His glorified body in order to receiveHis brethren with whom He will dwell inHis glorified body. We thus look beyondthe six hours of suffering on the cross inorder to see the God who eternally gaveup being on an equality with the eternalGod in order to be made in the likenessof His brethren with whom He has cho-sen to dwell forever. Our message,therefore, is not a law of condemnation,but a message of deliverance from the

The Cross

5 0

bondage of sin through the ransom thatwas paid for our redemption.

We must keep in mind that themessage we preach is not a catechismof teachings. The gospel, the goodnews, is not a system of law. Law onlyinfers duty and discouragement, for wecannot keep law perfectly in order tosave ourselves. The covenant that Godseeks to establish with us is more thana contract of duty. If the gospel is sim-ply a contract that is based on obliga-tions to keep the laws of the contact,then we have brought ourselves againinto the bondage of our inability to keeplaw perfectly. On the contrary, the gos-pel is a message of joy and hope. It is amessage of deliverance and freedomfrom the bondage of law. If our cov-enant with God were simply a contrac-tual agreement, then we would be sub-jugated to a set of obligations that wemust keep perfectly in order to preservethe contract. And we know we cannotdo such in order to save ourselves.

God’s covenant with us is differ-ent than a contract. God reaches outthrough the cross to covenant with us,though in our rebellion we seek to turnfrom Him. As in Israel, God continuallysought to turn Israel from her waywardrebellion (See Hs 2:9-23; 8:14; 11:5-9).God’s covenant with us today is a cov-enant of grace. He seeks to nurture usinto eternity through the drawing powerof His love and grace (See 1 Co 15:10;2 Co 4:15). Through the cross, Hemanifested Himself as a loving God whois reaching out to the wayward in order

to bring them again into His eternal fel-lowship.

The cross is a manifestation ofGod’s love that suffers with us throughHis Suffering Servant. Therefore, whenone in repentance seeks to return to God,he does not come to God pleading onthe basis of his works, but pleading thatwhat he could not pay through works oflaw would be paid by the ransomed bloodof the incarnate Son. When God grantsforgiveness, which He always does, it isa grant that is given regardless of ourimperfections. This is grace and mercy.This is the good news of the cross. Uponthe basis of our mourning over our sins,God grants righteousness regardless ofour imperfections. He considers us faith-ful (righteous) regardless of our inabili-ties. The righteousness of Jesus, there-fore, becomes the imputed righteous-ness of the believer. It is for this reasonthat the believer does not have to de-pend on his own righteousness, for heknows that all sin, including himself. Wemust depend on the righteousness ofJesus at the cross, “knowing that a manis not justified by works of law, but bythe faith of Christ Jesus ...” (Gl 2:16).We need to remember the words of Paulto the Jews in the synagogue of Antiochof Perga. “Therefore, let it be known toyou, brethren, that through this Man[Jesus] is preached to you the forgive-ness of sins, and by Him all who be-lieve are justified from all things ofwhich you could not be justified bythe law of Moses” (At 13:38,39).

The Cross

5 1

On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,The emblem of suffering and shame;

And I love that old cross where the Dearest and Blest,For a world of lost sinners was slain.

So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my trophies at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,

And exchange it some day for a crown.

Metaphorical Epilogue

“Are they all here?” the Father joyouslyasked the Son.

“Every last one!” the Son reassured theFather. “I did not leave one behind.”

“Oh, this is so wonderful. They’re so glo-rious, as white as snow,” the Father added.“Son, you have to thank yourself for this.”

“He surely does,” added the Spirit. “Youwouldn’t believe the mess they were in atthe time He arrived to clean them up. Theyneeded a real scrubbing. And once theywere cleansed, it was sometimes a chal-lenge to keep them drawn in the right di-rection by our love. The deceiver was con-stantly roaring in their faces. But, he is goneand it is all over.”

“Was it worth all the struggle, My Son?”

“It was, Father. Just look at them. Theyare truly a loving community of people whoreflect our nature. Though I gave up so

much to go get them, they went through somuch to follow Me here. We need to thankthe Spirit for being with them in everystruggle along the way.”

The Spirit added, “It was easy after theyresponded to our grace that was pouredout for them at the intervention. They wereso thankful that all they needed was a littleprotection here and there to keep themsafe. Because of their love for us, they wereso willing to follow our instructions of thebook.”

Then the Father concluded, “So now, it’stime to move them on into eternity. Our lovehas been fulfilled and forever we havethose in our presence who have recipro-cated our love. Their presence in our com-pany is proof that We are Who We are.”

“Then the King will say to those on Hisright hand,

‘Come, you blessed of My Father,inherit the kingdom prepared for you

from the foundation of the world’.”(Matthew 25:34)

The Cross

5 2

Section II

THE FAITHTHE FAITHTHE FAITHTHE FAITHTHE FAITH

When studying any Bible subjectthere is a preliminary principle of bibli-cal interpretation that must never be vio-lated: What the majority believes, orwhat the religious culture dictates,must never become the foundationupon which the biblical interpreterestablishes his understanding of theScriptures in reference to his reli-gious beliefs and behavior. If thisprinciple is not observed, then thepeople are on their way to apostasy fromGod, if not already there.

The entire apostasy of the nation ofIsrael in the Old Testament is a testi-mony to the truth of the preceding im-portant principle. This principle was al-luded to in Paul’s reference to the firstapostasy of Israel when the Israelitescame out of Egyptian captivity (1 Co10:1-13). After over 400 years in Egyp-tian captivity, the generation of Israelitesthat first came out of captivity had beeninfluenced by the religious beliefs of theEgyptian culture. This first generationhad been freed from political bondage,but not from the bondage of Egyptianreligiosity that had affected many Isra-

elites. The evidence of this religious in-fluence was revealed at the foot of MountSinai upon which the glory of God wasrevealed in their eyesight. They com-plained. They rebelled. They made agolden calf idol. And then, they werestruck down by the Destroyer for theirlack of focus on the one true and livingGod. Paul wrote of them, “Nor let uscomplain as some of them complained,and were destroyed by the destroyer” (1Co 10:10). Paul admonishes us by say-ing, “Now these things happened to themas an example, and they were writtenfor our admonition ...” (1 Co 10:11).Therefore, “let him who thinks he stands”against the influence of the religiousculture in which he lives “take heed lesthe fall” (1 Co 10:12). What everyone isbelieving, therefore, can never be thefoundation upon which we approach ourGod through His word.

Bible study must always be foundedupon the principle, “Speak Lord, yourservant is listening.” And when anyonewould speak for the Lord, “let him speakas the oracles of God” (1 Pt 4:11). Thisprinciple of faithfulness to the oracles

God calls all men to faith in His incarnate Son on the cross. Throughout thecenturies after the fall of man in the garden of Eden, God worked to bringreconciliation between Himself and man. He worked to fulfill the originalpurpose for which He created man, that is, that people of faith come into Hiseternal fellowship forever. In order that this plan be accomplished, God didHis part in providing the road map into His presence through the cross. Hehas now handed everything over to man to respond to the map. It is nowthe responsibility of man to respond by obedient faith to the faithful work ofGod on the cross.

The Faith

5 3

of God cannot be overemphasized morethan when one is studying what Godwould require of man for his own salva-tion. In order to be saved before God,we can never allow the religious world todictate the conditions for our salvation.We can never allow traditional theologyto determine our thinking on these mat-ters. Our thinking must be guided solelyby the word of the One before whom wewill be judged (See Jn 12:48).

Since people of all religions seek todevise their own systems of salvation,it is imperative that the faithful disciplemake every effort to approach the wordof God with an objective humility that isnot encumbered with the influences ofeither culture or the favorite banners ofthe misguided religious world in whichhe lives. Lest one be led astray as Is-rael, he must approach the subject ofthis discussion with great caution.

We have been mandated by theSpirit to “test the spirits to see whetherthey are from God, because many falseprophets have gone out into the world”(1 Jn 4:1). Since it is not inherent withinourselves to test the truthfulness of whatanother person teaches, our only op-tion to avoid apostasy is to resort tothe word of God. We can test the “spir-its of religion” only with our obsessionwith a “thus saith the Lord.” If we fail todo this, we are doomed to fall away bycreating a religion after the traditions ofour fathers or after our own misguideddesires (See Mk 7:1-9). If we would bedisciples of the Lord, therefore, we haveno other option but to focus specificallyon what God says to us through Hisword.

Many years ago we made a deci-sion not to be disciples of the religious

world. Our decision was not to be dis-ciples of the church. We would be dis-ciples of Jesus alone. We thus refusedto be disciples of a patterned structureof religiosity or theology that became thefashionable doctrine promoted by our fa-thers that had been passed down to usthrough our religious heritage. Westaunchly opposed the religious heri-tages of any particular religious groupthat was not founded upon the word ofGod. Imbedded within many religiousgroups are an assortment of traditionalteachings that have no biblical founda-tion, and yet, are bound on the con-sciences of men for the sake of preserv-ing the group, not for the exaltation ofthe Son of God. But specifically, allteachings in the context of the salvationof men should be held suspect until wecan find a “book, chapter and verse” thatwould support correct salvational con-clusions. So today we seek to makeno uncertain proclamation that our faithmust never be imbedded with the doc-trines and commandments of men (SeeMk 7:1-9). We would be disciples solelyof Jesus whom we follow through Hisword. Jesus said, “If you continue inMy word, then you are truly My dis-ciples” (Jn 8:31). Jesus could not havemade it more clear that we must con-tinue in His word in order to be His dis-ciples. Religious heritages and traditionshave no part in this discussion.

Chapter 13

RESCUING OUR FAITHRESCUING OUR FAITHRESCUING OUR FAITHRESCUING OUR FAITHRESCUING OUR FAITHOUT OF THEOLOGICAL JARGONOUT OF THEOLOGICAL JARGONOUT OF THEOLOGICAL JARGONOUT OF THEOLOGICAL JARGONOUT OF THEOLOGICAL JARGON

We never cease to be amazed atthe ability of clerical religionists to cre-ate popular phrases and terminologies

The Faith

5 4

that manifest twisted ideas. Becausewe live in a world of biblical ignorance, itis absolutely imperative that anyone whowould seek to restore themselves to Godmust be a diligent Bible student. If wewould restore our nobility before God,then we must, as the Bereans, “receivethe word with all readiness of mind” andsearch “the Scriptures daily to seewhether these things” are so (At 17:11).If there is no desire to study the Bible,then there is no hope for the religionistwho would seek to please God. Onecan be religious without the word of God.But one cannot be a child of God anddisciple of Jesus while being ignorant ofthe word of God.

This affirmation does not assumethat we know everything in the Bible. Butit does assume that we know every fun-damental teaching that refers to the sal-vation of men. God did not make salva-tional teachings ambiguous and difficultto understand. From a simple readingof the text of God’s word one can clearlyunderstand what is necessary to besaved.

But because we are surrounded withso many charismatic religious leaderswho hold spellbound thousands of bibli-cally ignorant adherents, there seemsto be no hope for a modern-day revival ofthe word of God to the centrality of faith.This situation has reached its pinnaclein reference to what is necessary forone’s salvation. In a religious culturewherein there is a dearth of knowledgeof the word of God, we have been inun-dated with biblical ignorance through thesmooth and fair speech of those whohave little knowledge of the Bible, butassert themselves to be spokesmen forGod.

Nevertheless, we must for a momentexcuse ourselves from our fatalisticviews of the misguided religious world inorder to make every attempt to investi-gate the word of God. The religiousmasses may be destroyed because oftheir lack of knowledge of the word ofGod (Hs 4:6), but we would “with allreadiness of mind search the Scriptures”in order to discover what is necessaryfor our own salvation (At 17:11). If wecan for a moment lay aside our religiousprejudices and open the pages of theBible, let’s take another look at the sub-ject of faith and obedience in referenceto one’s relationship with God.

As we study through the subject offaith and obedience, we must be sureto note that there are two groups ofpeople of faith in the New Testament whowill be held accountable for their faith.The first group are the alien sinners.Those of this group are outside Christand lost in a state of condemnation insin. These were the Ephesians beforetheir obedience to the gospel. Paulwrote that in their former life outsideChrist they “were dead in trespassesand sins” (Ep 2:1). It was to alien sin-ners as these that statements as thefollowing were made: “Believe on the LordJesus Christ and you ... will be saved”(At 16:31). This is the group of aliensinners outside Christ who must act ontheir faith in Jesus in order to do all thatGod commands of them to be saved.To these unbelievers, therefore, the mes-sage is to believe on Jesus as the Sonof God. Once belief is established, thenthe one who believes must do everythingthat is required by God in order to comeinto Christ.

The second group who will be held

The Faith

5 5

accountable for their faith are those whoact on their faith in Jesus, and thusobeyed the gospel. These are those towhom it was written, “For as the bodywithout the spirit is dead, so also faithwithout works is dead” (Js 2:26). This isthe group of those who have alreadyacted on their faith to obey the gospel.Now they must continue to walk obedi-ently in thanksgiving to the grace of God.They do this by working out their “salva-tion with fear and trembling” (Ph 2:12),for they will give account of their worksbefore the Lord (2 Co 5:10).

It is imperative that when studyingthe subject of faith and salvation in theBible that the context in which a par-ticular statement is made must first beunderstood. It must be understood ifstatements concerning faith are madein reference to alien sinners or to Chris-tians. Determining whether a statementconcerning faith was made in the con-text of unbelievers or believers solves al-most all problems in reference to dis-covering what is required of one to besaved.

A. What some men say.The statements of warning in the

Bible concerning apostasy cannot beoveremphasized in the area of teach-ings concerning salvation. We mustassume that in reference to this sub-ject Satan will do his most excellentwork. For this reason, we must be verycautious when studying what God wouldrequire of all men in order to be deliv-ered from the bondage of sin. We mustnot doubt and rebel at the “foot of MountSinai” because of our present religiousculture or past heritage. When study-ing matters that pertain to our salvation,

it is a time to allow the Bible to “meanwhat it says, and say what it means.”No interpretation is needed.

1. A foundational principle:When discussing salvation, we are dis-cussing a relationship between mortalman and the One in whose presencewe must dwell in order to enjoy theblessing of eternal existence (2 Th 1:9).This relationship depends on the re-sponsible actions of ourselves, and thecommands of God in whose presencewe will maintain our eternality. It is atthis point that some theologians becomenervous. This nervousness is generatedby how we understand certain words thatare used in the Bible in reference to thesalvation of the alien sinner. Some theo-logians almost cringe when words as“performance,” “work,” or “obedience” areused. They have no difficulty in apply-ing these words to God in His “perfor-mance” or “work” to make available theopportunity of the cross after thousandsof years of labor in order to preserve theseedline promise made to Adam and Eve.But when the same words are used inreference to man’s responsibility to re-spond to the crucified Son, then there isalmost a total abhorrence of any perfor-mance, work or obedience on the partof man to respond to God’s SufferingServant on the cross. It seems that wefeel comfortable with allowing God tostruggle to bring His Son to the cross,but somehow we excuse ourselves ofall responsibility to respond obediently.We find this most amusing, especiallyin view of what the Scriptures say in ref-erence to our responsibility to respondto the love offering of God at Calvary. Infact, it seems quite ridiculous to believe

The Faith

5 6

that God had to do all the work and weneed do nothing, except the work of asimple “sinner’s prayer.” Sometimes er-roneous teachings can be revealedthrough the application of commonsense.

2. A biblical principle: Jamesspoke of a fundamental behavioral re-lationship of the Christian in referenceto his continued salvation in Christ. It isa principle of faith and works that per-meates the Scriptures. It involves ourrelationship with God from the very be-ginning of our realization of the crucifiedSavior and will continue to the time ofour rest in death as a faithful servant (Rv14:13). This principle was introducedby James with the Spirit-inspired words,“What does it profit, my brethren, ifsomeone says he has faith but doesnot have works? Can faith save him?”(Js 2:14).

The first thing to notice concerningJames’ statement in James 2:14 is thatit is a question. When the Holy Spiritasks a question as this, He knew thatwe would know the answer. And ouranswer would be, “Of course not.” It isobvious that faith alone cannot typify thebehavior of the Spirit-driven disciple ofChrist. The Christian cannot be savedwithout works. The Spirit helps with ouranswer to James’ question by teaching,“Even so faith by itself, if it does nothave works, is dead” (Js 2:17). Andherein is revealed the foundational prin-ciple upon which our relationship withGod must be established from the verybeginning. This principle must be main-tained from the very beginning of our re-lationship with God to the time when ourbody is made dead by the departure of

our spirit (Js 2:26).After elaborating on the inseparable

union of faith and works in the life of theChristian, as illustrated by the faith ofAbraham, James summarized, “You seethat faith was working with his works,and by works was faith made perfect”(Js 2:22). This is a defining principle.Acceptable faith before God is al-ways made perfect by response.James’ conclusion is obvious. “You seethen that a man is justified by works andnot by faith only” (Js 1:24). We mustbe careful not to reverse the word or-der of this statement. It does not say,“You see then that a man is justified byfaith and not by works only.” The sen-tence begins with “you see.” The mean-ing here is certainly more than “you un-derstand.” One cannot “understand”justification apart from an empirical dem-onstration of faith. We can see thedemonstration of works, but we can-not see faith. Therefore, when we seethe works, we can understand that oneis justified by a working faith. Justifica-tion is manifested to all to see becauseeveryone can see the demonstration ofour works. They cannot see faith if it isnot demonstrated. We must keep thisfundamental truth in mind when we ap-proach any teaching concerning faith inreference to the salvation of the alien sin-ner. In order to witness that the aliensinner has been justified, somethingmust be seen. One can proclaim hisown faith in Christ, but until his faith ismanifested through action it is not anacceptable faith. It is a dead faith untilit comes alive through obedience.

It is amazing that most of the reli-gious world today cannot see (under-stand) this point. When faith is dis-

The Faith

5 7

cussed in reference to the initial encoun-ter of the alien sinner with God, obedi-ence is totally repudiated by many reli-gionists who believe that there is no dem-onstration of faith necessary on the partof man in reference to his salvation. ButJames reminds us that we cannot vio-late or ignore the connectivity of faith andworks/obedience in any context of ourrelationship with God, starting from thevery moment that we believe that Jesusis the Christ and Son of God. He con-cludes, “For as the body without the spiritis dead, so also faith without works isdead” (Js 2:26). This same principlebegins when one first encounters Jesus.It continues to the time when one even-tually experiences the separation of bodyand spirit. If “faith-without-works-is-dead”is a truth in reference to the Christianlife, then the same principle holds truein reference to the beginning of theChristian life. A faith that is not demon-strated by the alien sinner is dead untilit is demonstrated by obedience.

The principle that permeates theScriptures in reference to man’s relation-ship with God is always faith and ac-tion. Whether we use the words “perfor-mance,” “works,” “obedience,” or anyaction word, the fact is that acceptablefaith before God must always involvesome outward response on the part ofman. Our personal inward feelings andcommitment must always be demon-strated before man and God.

Now the novice student of the Bibleoften becomes confused here when hereads passages as Galatians 2:16. “...knowing that a man is not justified byworks of law, but by the faith of ChristJesus ... for by works of law no fleshwill be justified.” Those who do not

rightly divide the word of God, trip overthis statement by applying it to the faithof the alien sinner. The “works” in Ga-latians 2:16 are in a completely differentcontext than the faith/obedience re-quired of the alien sinner for his salva-tion. Paul is discussing the life of theChristian, not the initial response ofthe alien sinner to the gospel. He isdiscussing legal meritorious obedienceto law that a Christian might seek toperform in order to earn his justificationbefore God. Paul’s argument is that itis impossible for the Christian to keeplaw perfectly in order to be saved, forall have sinned (Rm 3:9,10,23). For thisreason, the Christian can never be justi-fied by works of law simply because noone can keep law perfectly.

Here is a point not to be misunder-stood. There is a vast difference betweenmeritorious works of law on the partof the believer and obedience to lawon the part of the unbeliever. If oneconfuses the two, then he will fail to un-derstand the alien sinner’s responsibil-ity to be obedient to that which God re-quires of one to be saved. Meritoriousworks of law are the efforts of the Chris-tian who would supposedly justify him-self before God. But obedience to lawrefers to God’s requirements on the partof the alien sinner in order to come intoa saving covenant relationship with God.

The alien sinner cannot be justifiedbefore God without obedience to God’slaw. But the Christian does not main-tain his justification before God by meri-torious works of law. Therefore, we mustbe careful not to twist the Scriptures tothe destruction of the alien sinner by mis-applying the Scriptures. Doing suchwould be doing what some did about

The Faith

5 8

whom Peter wrote. These are those whotwist scriptures that apply to the Chris-tian. They are those who are untaughtand unstable, and thus the word of Godthey “distort to their own destruction, asthey do also the other Scriptures” (2 Pt3:16).

3. “Only” strips faith. We mustkeep in mind that when one uses theword “only” with faith, then he has re-duced faith to a simple inactive mentalassent of the mind. He has said thatno response on the part of the individualis necessary to the word of God. “Only”reduces faith to only a mental aware-ness of God and Christ. Whether usedin reference to the alien sinner or theChristian, “only” means that one’s lifecan remain totally inert as long as onementally believes in the right things. Weare certain that no one really wants tomaintain this belief, for it would infer thatwe could live wickedly as long as wementally believe in Jesus. It would inferthat the alien sinner could continue in abehavioral pattern of sin as long as hementally confesses that Jesus is the Sonof God.

B. What some are saying.In the present religious environment

there is probably no teaching that per-meates all “Christian” groups more thanthe belief that “salvation is by faith only.”More Scriptures are distorted andtwisted concerning this teaching thanmost teachings of the Bible. “Faith onlysalvation” is a teaching of such com-monality among religious groups that itmany times unites the religious world.And herein is the danger. If any teach-ing in reference to the salvation of the

alien sinner is accepted by almost allreligious groups, then this is what wewould expect from Satan who seeksto deceive the masses. We certainlywould not assume that Satan would workto unite the religious world around a com-mon doctrine in reference to the salva-tion of man. If a religious world com-monly accepts a doctrine that refers tothe salvation of the alien sinner, then ob-viously we should step back for a mo-ment and take a closer look at the doc-trine. We should do this simply be-cause Satan does not work to uniteChristendom over a doctrine by whichlost men are saved. It is his work tolead men away from doing that which isnecessary to be saved, not to unite thereligious world around a doctrine in ref-erence to the salvation of all men. Forthis reason, commonly accepted teach-ings in reference to the salvation of thealien sinner should always be suspectuntil there is a “book, chapter and verse”in the word of God to prove such to becorrect.

“Faith only salvation” is a belief thatis so embedded within the ranks of reli-gious theology that disagreement withsuch brings on one harsh condemnationof being a legalist. But we must keep inmind the foundational principle withwhich we began this discussion. Whatthe majority believes, or what the re-ligious culture dictates, must neverbecome the foundation upon whichthe biblical interpreter establisheshis understanding of the Scriptures,or his religious beliefs and behav-ior.

The intensity by which the “faith onlysalvation” doctrine is accepted is re-vealed by the “authorities” of almost all

The Faith

5 9

religious groups that would seek to fallunder the umbrella of Christendom. Inthe Episcopal “Articles of Religion” in theBook of Common Prayer,” it is statedthat man is “accounted righteous beforeGod, only for the merit of our Lord andSavior Jesus Christ by faith.” InHiscox’s A New Directory of the BaptistChurch, Hiscox wrote that justificationand pardon from sins is “solely throughfaith” (pp. 551,552; see also StandardManual for Baptist Churches, p 62).Some have stated that “no effort how-ever commendable ... can in any wayjustify the sinner” (Seventh-DayAdventists Answer Questions on Doc-trine, 1957). In the Methodist’s Articlesof Religion it is stated that “justificationby faith only is a most wholesome doc-trine” (Art. IX; see also the PresbyterianWestminster Confession, Ch. XI,11; theLutheran “Augsburg Confession,” Art. IV).In order to establish a salvational rela-tionship with God, it is thus commonlybelieved among most religious groupsthat salvation is “solely through faithin the Redeemer’s blood” (See J. M.Pendleton, Baptist Church Manual,1966).

Chapter 14

FALSE STARTS ANDFALSE STARTS ANDFALSE STARTS ANDFALSE STARTS ANDFALSE STARTS ANDERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONSERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONSERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONSERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONSERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS

In discussions concerning faith andsalvation, it is always good to review theexisting inconsistences of thinking con-cerning these subjects, as well as theapostasy that led to what we experiencein Christendom today. Christendom to-day is burdened with some distortionsof the Scriptures concerning faith andsalvation that confuse people. Because

we are in the midst of so much confu-sion in this critical area of theology, weare forced to be critical in reference toexisting beliefs that we feel are sustainedby a twisting of several key scriptures.We must also point out some inconsis-tencies in the “faith only” theology thatare often overlooked by those who sus-tain the belief that the alien sinner needdo absolutely nothing in reference to hissalvation. He can simply sit in a chairand mentally perceive that he is savedwithout any expression or obedience offaith whatsoever.

A. Imbedded “works”:In order to promote the “faith only”

teaching, various “formula statements”and salvational terminologies have beeninvented by all sorts of religionists. Forexample, the “sinner’s prayer” has beenpromoted by some in order for the aliensinner to announce Jesus as a “personalSavior,” or to make a verbal declarationof one’s own salvation. But the conceptof a “sinner’s prayer” and the terminol-ogy “personal Savior,” are found nowherein the entire Bible. These theologicallinguistic terminologies often reflect the“faith only” doctrine that has so capti-vated the religious world. But when aterm or phrase that is not in the Bible isused to reflect a particular belief, thenwe caution ourselves. It is not that theusing of such terminologies is unblblical.The problem is that they can often re-flect unbiblical concepts. Our task asBible students is to always “search theScriptures” in order to determine if theseterminologies reflect correct biblicaltruths (See At 17:11).

The irony of the “faith only” theol-ogy is that there is a contradiction within

The Faith

6 0

the theology itself in reference to worksof faith. Adherents to the theology af-firm that some confession of faith mustbe made by the alien sinner, whether itis a “sinner’s prayer,” a statement to “re-ceive Jesus” as one’s personal Savior,or simply an expression or declarationfrom the individual who seeks to be savedthat he believes in Jesus. But are notsuch expressions or confessionsworks within themselves? For ex-ample, if one must proclaim some formof a “sinner’s prayer,” then is not thisprayer a work of faith? The same peoplewho demand some outward work or con-fession of faith by the alien sinner in ref-erence to the alien sinner’s salvation,even a tearful eye or outward cry, vehe-mently state that baptism should not bea condition for salvation since such issupposedly a “work.” Sometimes, whenwe do not sit down and seriously con-sider our thinking, we will carry on withsuch theological inconsistencies.

B. A reflection on history:A reflection on church history might

answer some of the problems in refer-ence to the development of the “faithonly” theology. Instead of baptism be-ing the reflection of the faith of the aliensinner, and subsequently necessary inorder to wash away sins, after the firstcentury there was a gradual separationmade between baptism and salvation.As men began to emphasize special in-structions before baptism in order toguarantee that one was a true discipleof Jesus, the connection between bap-tism and salvation began to fade. Bythe third century, this trend became soextreme that some groups required al-most three years of instruction before

they would baptize anyone. The resultof the separation of salvation and bap-tism was that baptism became a ritual-ized sacrament. It became a sacramentof “the church” that was surrounded withspecial statements, the anointing of oil,and an assortment of other ritualisticceremonies. The fact that baptism hadanything to do with salvation was totallylost.

Baptism eventually became a sac-rament that was totally disconnectedfrom salvation. It thus became a legalordinance of “the church.” It was be-lieved that as a legal ordinance, bap-tism had nothing to do with the forgive-ness of sins. By the fourth century, theapostasy had progressed to the pointthat if one sinned after baptism, thesesins were not forgiven. Because of thisbelief, many delayed their baptism untillate in life, lest one sin after his baptismand be condemned for unforgiven sins.“Deathbed” baptism became common.

Throughout the centuries, corruptedtheologies surrounding baptism lingeredin religion. In the middle ages whenthere was a protest against the conceptof baptism that was practiced by theRoman Catholic Church, the Reforma-tion Movement leaders had to do some-thing with the teaching since baptismwas mentioned so many times in theNew Testament. As a result of the Ref-ormation of the middle ages, differentgroups came up with different doctrinessurrounding the subject of baptism.Since baptism had already been sepa-rated from salvation, the evolution ofwhere to place baptism in the life of theone who sought to come to Christ var-ied from one protestant reformer to an-other. Some said that one is saved by

The Faith

6 1

faith alone, but is baptized into thechurch. Therefore, one is saved outsidehis membership of the church.

Those who followed after the teach-ing of individual predestination taughtthat one’s confession of faith was a sig-nal that he was individually predestined.Baptism was thus only an outwardmanifestation of God’s predestination ofthe individual. The profession of one’sfaith was simply an announcement toothers that he was one of the individu-ally predestined. But if one is alreadysaved by being individually predestined,then why would there be any need thatone make some confession of faith? Itwould seem to be quite ridiculous todemand the obedient condition of a con-fession of faith when one is already indi-vidually predestined to eternal life.

In the digression from the originalpurpose of baptism in reference to thewashing away of sins, religionists havecome up with another theology thatwould supposedly place one in a savingrelationship with God without being bap-tized. This was the theology of the truly“faith only” teaching that was developedby early Reformation leaders as Luther,Wesley and a host of others. Salvationwas believed to be based solely on one’swork of declaring his own salvation. Thistheology has followed the Pentecostchurch movement that started in the lat-ter part of the 1800s. Today it is par-ticularly prevalent in the independentchurch movement that had its beginningroots in the last of the 1900s.

In modern times, the “sinner’sprayer” was first introduced by D. L.Moody. In training the evangelists thathe sent out, Moody taught his traineesa “model prayer” that could be easily re-

peated by respondents at crusades inorder that they declare their own salva-tion. The concept of the “sinner’s prayer”gained popularity in the 1950s when BillyGraham, and organizations as the Cam-pus Crusades, incorporated its use intheir evangelistic outreaches. The“sinner’s prayer” became a commonwork of declaring one’s salvation that wasconvenient, especially when used in ra-dio and television evangelistic broadcast-ing. Listeners were often asked to sim-ply place their hands on a radio or tele-vision, and then repeat a formulatedprayer after the radio/television speaker.The listener was then proclaimed saved.

C. Obedience to the King:The terminology “personal Savior”

was introduced and popularized byCharles Fuller when he used the phraserepeatedly in his radio sermons be-tween 1937 and 1968. Use of the“sinner’s prayer” was meant to bringJesus into one’s life as a “personal Sav-ior.” But when one considers the con-cept of the “personal Savior” in Jesus,such thinking can sometimes be de-throning of who Jesus really is. Paulwrote, “Even though we have knownChrist according to the flesh, yet nowwe know Him thus no more” (2 Co5:16). The epistles move our under-standing of Jesus beyond our knowledgeof Him through Matthew, Mark, Luke andJohn. We now know Jesus after His as-cension to the right hand of God to reignas King of kings. The thought of havingJesus as our “personal friend” must in-clude our recognition of Jesus as “theblessed and only Potentate, the King ofkings, and Lord of lords” (1 Tm 6:15).“We have such a high priest who is

The Faith

6 2

seated at the right hand of the Majestyin the heavens” (Hb 8:1). The apostlesknew Jesus as a personal friend on earth,but after the ascension they knew Himas the reigning God over all things be-fore whom all humanity will stand in judg-ment (At 17:30,31; 2 Co 5:10).

Jesus is our Mighty God and Ever-lasting Father who is now reigning overall things (See Is 9:6). He is our King,Priest, Potentate, Mighty God andEverlasting Father of all. He is nowsuch “that at the name of Jesus everyknee should bow ...” (Ph 2:10). Wecannot claim Him for ourselves alone.Can He be our “personal” Lord? CanHe be our “personal” King? Our rela-tionship with Him is a relationship withHis kingship, headship and control overall things (Ep 1:21,22). If we would claimHim as our “personal Savior,” we mustbe careful in our thinking that we do notminimize His work as our King, Lord andHigh Priest.

We have a personal relationship withJesus only as a part of His corporatebody, the church. Because the churchis the bride of Christ, all those who are“baptized into His body” have a joint cov-enant relationship with Jesus (1 Co12:13). One can never have a relation-ship with Jesus unless he is a memberof the body of Jesus. We may strugglewith one another’s use of the word “per-sonal,” but one thing is true in develop-ing a biblical definition of the word. Wemust as Paul first turn away from recog-nizing Jesus “according to the flesh,” andstart recognizing Him as the blessed andonly Potentate, the Lord of lords andKing of kings. If one continues to usethe word “personal” after throwing him-self before the Lord of lords and King of

kings, then we would assume that theword “personal” is appropriate. But wemust keep in mind that our personalfriend Jesus “will be revealed fromheaven with His mighty angels in flam-ing fire, taking vengeance on thosewho do not know God and who donot obey the gospel .... These will bepunished with everlasting destructionaway from the presence of the Lord ...”(2 Th 1:7-9). We can claim Jesus asour friend, but He is a friend who will even-tually banish from the presence of Godthose who do not obey Him.

Individual members of the body arefriends who have all things in common.But kings as friends demand obedi-ence. The problem with some is thatthey want a friend who makes no de-mands. Add to this the fact that peopleoften rebel against a King who has laiddown the law, and subsequently, de-mands obedience in order to be savedfrom the wrath to come. If we would bea friend of Jesus, then we should startsearching to see what this friend de-mands of us in order to reap the salva-tion that He provides. In this search,we must always keep in mind that our“personal” Savior said to all, “He whorejects Me and does not receive Mywords, has one who judges him. Theword that I have spoken, the same willjudge him in the last day” (Jn 12:48).Jesus is our friend who laid down Hislife for us. But He said, “You are Myfriends, if you do whatever I com-mand you” (Jn 15:14). He is a sacrifi-cial friend. He is now our reigning Godbefore whom we throw ourselves downprostrate before His throne (Ph 2:8-11).Abraham was called the friend of Godbecause he did what God commanded

The Faith

6 3

(Js 2:23). His faith moved Him to obeyhis Friend. If we would have Jesus asour friend, then we must do what Hecommands His friends to do.

Chapter 15

THE NECESSITY OF FAITHTHE NECESSITY OF FAITHTHE NECESSITY OF FAITHTHE NECESSITY OF FAITHTHE NECESSITY OF FAITH

In our zeal to encourage obedienceto the will of God, we must not assumethat our salvation is a matter of “obedi-ence only.” The Bible teaches that thefoundation upon which we base all obe-dience is faith. This makes faith abso-lutely necessary for one’s salvation,though Bible faith assumes obedience.

Faith does not make law obsolete,either for the alien sinner or the child ofGod. On the contrary, it is faith thatmotivates obedience to law. This is themeaning of what Paul wrote. “Do we thenmake void law through faith? Certainlynot! On the contrary, we establish law”(Rm 3:31). Therefore, the law of God isnot established in one’s life without faith.But at the same time, faith is not evi-dent in one’s life without obedience tolaw. We are saved by faith, therefore,as long as the faith of the sinner moveshim to obey the law of God in referenceto what is required for his salvation.

When discussing the matter of “Biblefaith,” we must understand that there isan inseparable link between faith andobedience that permeates the HolyScriptures. When the word “faith” isused in any context wherein one is ac-ceptable to God, we must always as-sume that obedience is in the action ofthe word “faith.” There is no accept-able faith that is void of obedience,for through faith obedience to thewill of God is established in our lives.

When we read those passages that em-phasize faith, we must always under-stand that there is a response on thepart of the one who has faith. Faith aloneas a simple mental recognition of Jesusas the Son of God never stands aloneas “faith only” when used in any salva-tional context of the Scriptures. This istrue both in the faith of the disciple ofJesus, as well as the faith of the aliensinner.

A. Faith is necessary to please God.Is faith necessary in order to be a

child of God? The Hebrew writer an-swered this question two thousandyears ago. “But without faith it is im-possible to please Him, for he whocomes to God must believe that He is...” (Hb 11:6). Jesus added that “he whobelieves has everlasting life” (Jn 6:47),but “he who does not believe will be con-demned” (Mk 16:16). So the conclu-sion would be, “He who believes in theSon has everlasting life. And he whodoes not believe the Son will not seelife, but the wrath of God abides on him”(Jn 3:36). The believer “will not comeinto condemnation, but has passed fromdeath into life” (Jn 5:24). Once one hascome into the life that Jesus offers, Hewill walk by faith (2 Co 5:7; see Jn 3:14-16; 20:30,31; At 15:9; Rm 1:16,17; 3:28;Gl 3:23,24, Ep 3:8).

The preceding thought is brought outclearly in what Jesus said in Mark 16:16.“He who believes and is baptized willbe saved. But he who does not be-lieve will be condemned.” At least twoconditions are here given for salvation:belief and baptism. These two condi-tions are inseparably connected in ref-erence to the salvation of the alien sin-

The Faith

6 4

ner. In the last phrase of what Jesussaid, this point is emphasized. “But hewho does not believe will be condemned.”There is no need to discuss the responseof baptism without belief. Since beliefis manifested through baptism, then con-demnation is manifested through a lackof belief that leads one to be baptizedfor remission of sins (See At 2:38; 22:16).There is no need to discuss baptismwhen one does not have the faith thatwould move him to be obedient to thelaw of baptism. Baptism is not estab-lished in one’s life if he does not believe.The result of the “faith alone” theology isthat people continue in a state of con-demnation because their “faith” does notmove them to do that which God saysone must do in order to wash away one’ssins.

Look at it from the view of how Paulstates that true faith establishes God’slaw in our lives (Rm 3:31). We can takethe liberty of inserting the word “bap-tism” in the text of Romans 3:31 in or-der to understand what Jesus said inMark 16:16. In reference to any law ofGod, Paul meant, “Do we make voidbaptism through faith? Certainly not!On the contrary, we establish baptism.”Paul’s statement of Romans 3:31 wasdirected to Christians, but the same prin-ciple would apply to the alien sinner whowould come to the law of God. Faithestablishes the law of God in one’s life.It does not lead one to ignore what Godwould have one do in order to be savedaccording to the law of God.

When one goes on a journey throughthe Scriptures, there is no question thatfaith is demanded in order to be pleas-ing to God, for it is through faith thatGod’s will is established in our lives. We

can better understand Paul and Silas’statement to the Philippian jailor if wekeep faith in the context of what is nec-essary to validate it as a faith that ispleasing to God. The jailor asked, “Sirs,what must I do to be saved?” (At 16:30).Paul and Silas responded, “Believe onthe Lord Jesus Christ and you and yourhousehold will be saved” (At 16:31). Inreference to the salvation of his entirehousehold, the jailor was instructed tolead in his belief in the Lord Jesus. Pauland Silas knew that his belief would movehim and his household to do all that wasrequired to comply with the law of God.As a result of his belief, the jailor wouldbe moved to do all that was necessaryto lead his family to be saved. As allthose who walk by faith, the jailor had toact on his belief on the Lord Jesus Christ.He had to act in order to be deliveredfrom a state of condemnation.

This thought was emphasized bywhat John wrote in John 1:12,13. “Butas many as received Him, to them Hegave the right to become the childrenof God, even to those who believe inHis name” (vs 12). Those who receivedJesus, believed in Him. But this onlygave them the right to become thechildren of God. Believing and receiv-ing did not make one a child of God. Itonly gives one the right to become achild. Keep in mind that John was writ-ing the book of John as an historicaldocument concerning the ministry ofJesus and the reception of Jesus bythose who after His ascension wereborn of the water and the Spirit (Jn3:3-5). Those who believed and receivedHim “were born, not of blood nor of thewill of the flesh nor of the will of man,but of God” (Jn 1:13). When one be-

The Faith

6 5

lieves, receives Jesus, and is born of thewater and Spirit, then this salvationalwork is not of man, but of God, for it isGod who determines what one must doin order to become one of His children.Being born of the water and Spirit is fromGod, not man. And thus, when one isborn again, His birth is not the inventionof man, but the result of a revelation fromGod that one must be born again.

B. Faith moves us into action.The principle that James set forth

in James 2:14-26 is critical in under-standing the definition of the faith that isnecessary to please God. It is a faiththat responds in obedience to the willof God. The principle applies to boththe alien sinner and the Christian. Inhis letter to the Roman disciples, Paulreferred to an “obedience of faith” (SeeRm 1:5; 16:26). This is the faith that is“working through love” (Gl 5:6). It is thefaith that moves one to “obedience fromthe heart” to do the will of God (Rm6:17,18). And thus, it is the faith that is“made perfect by works” (Js 2:22). Ourresponse to the will of God becomes a“work of faith” (2 Th 1:3; see 2 Th 1:11).In this way, the law of God is establishedin our lives (Rm 3:31).

Before the Israelites attacked thecity of Jericho, God promised that Hehad already given them the city (Ja6:2,3). Before they made one step inobedience to take the city, it had beengiven into their hands. God made thepromise, but they had to act on the prom-ise. Hebrews 11:30 says of the occa-sion, “By faith the walls of Jericho felldown after they were encircled forseven days.” Though the Israelites knewthat the city had been given into their

hands before they started their obedientmarch around the city, they still had tomake the march. If they had disobeyedGod by not marching around the city,then the city would not have been giveninto their hands. Their faith in the prom-ise of God, moved them to march.

We have the promise of salvation inChrist. However, we must “marchthrough the waters of baptism” in orderto receive the promise. If we do not“march,” then our belief in the promiseof God is unproductive in reference toour desire to receive the promise.

We are now beginning to understandthe nature of the “saving faith” aboutwhich we read so much in the Bible. Wecan be told the result of our faithbefore our obedience, but withoutour obedience, the promised resultcan never be realized. This was ex-actly what Paul and Silas were sayingto the Philippian jailor. The result of thejailor’s faith would be his salvation. How-ever, between his faith and his salvationthere had to be obedience to somethingthat would bring about the desired end.Israel was promised their conquest ofJericho, but that promise could be real-ized only through obedient faith. It wasby their faith, therefore, that they re-sponded to march around the city ac-cording to the will of God.

That faith which is pleasing to Godis inseparably connected to obedience.It is defined by obedience. Salvationalfaith is never separated from a responseon the part of man to obey the will ofGod. The principle of obedient faith isdefined by James. “But someone maysay, ‘You have faith and I have works.’Show me your faith without your works,and I will show you my faith by my

The Faith

6 6

works” (Js 2:18). God wants to see ourfaith. The only way He can see our faithis by our works. This definition of faithis maintained throughout the Bible. It isa principle of faith that is so defined thatany who would question it are not see-ing the whole picture of biblically-definedfaith. It is for this reason that we seri-ously consider this definition of faith thatis clearly illustrated in some key scrip-tures.

1. Hebrews 3:18,19: In referenceto the disobedient Israelites who cameout of Egyptian captivity, the Hebrewwriter wrote of them, “And to whom didHe swear that they would not enter intoHis rest, but to those who were disobe-dient?” (Hb 3:18). This verse states thatsome Israelites were not able to enterinto the rest of the promised land be-cause of their “disobedience.” The He-brew writer repeated the same thoughtin Hebrews 4:6, but in different words.In Hebrews 3:18 he stated that the dis-obedient Israelites could not enter “be-cause of disobedience.” But in verse19 of Hebrews 3 it states, “So we seethat they could not enter in because ofunbelief.” There can be only one de-fining conclusion to the parallel use ofthe words “disobedience” and “unbelief.”The Israelites’ unbelief was manifestedin their disobedience. They had receivedthe promise of the land. However, be-cause of their lack of faith in God they

did not obey. When we seek to definebelief in the Bible that is pleasing to God,we must understand that belief and obe-dience have parallel meanings, as dis-obedience and unbelief.

2. Hebrew 11: Hebrews 11 is thedictionary of Bible faith. Readingthrough this chapter is thrilling in thesense that great men and women ofGod acted on their faith in order to“please Him” (Hb 11:6). In their livesthey gave testimony to the fact that “faithis the substance of things hoped for, theevidence of things not seen” (Hb 11:1).It is evidence of things not seen becausewe can see the obedient behavior ofthose who believed in the things thatcannot be seen. In using Hebrews 11as our dictionary to define that faithwhich is pleasing to God, notice belowthe obedience of God’s people that re-sulted from their faith:

“By faith Abel offered . . . (vs 4).

“By faith Enoch . . . had this testimony,

that he pleased God” (vs 5).

“By faith Noah . . . prepared an ark. . .” (vs 7).

“By faith Abraham . . . obeyed . . .” (vs 8).

“Through faith even Sarah . . . bore a child

. . .” (vs 11).

“By faith Abraham . . . offered up Isaac”

(vs 17).

“By faith Moses . . . refused to be called

the son of Pharaoh’s daughter” (vs 24).

Romans 1:5: “OBEDIENCE ... of faith”Galatians 5:6: “WORKING ... through love”Romans 6:17: “OBEDIENCE ... from the heart”James 2:22: “BY WORKS ... faith made perfect”1 Thessalonians 1:3: “WORK ... of faith”

The Faith

6 7

These great people of God acted ontheir faith in the promises of God. Wecan see their faith through their obedi-ence. They all, as Sarah, acted on theirfaith because they “judged Him faithfulwho had promised” (Hb 11:11). WhenGod makes promises, He expectsthose who have faith in Him to obeythat which is necessary in order toreceive the promises. This definitionof faith must be understood throughoutthe Bible when discussing faith that ispleasing to God.

There is no such thing as an inac-tive faith that is pleasing to God. Jamescalled inactive faith a dead faith (Js2:26). One may have faith that Godexists, but this does not mean that sucha faith is pleasing to God. James com-mended some for at least their faith inGod, “You believe that there is one God.You do well” (Js 2:19). But Jameswanted to remind these unresponsivereaders, “The demons also believe andtremble” (Js 2:19). At least the demonsrespond by trembling. Any lack of re-sponse of one’s faith is a mockery ofthe word of God. Those with an unre-sponsive faith must answer the questionthat James asked, “But are you willingto know, O foolish man, that faith with-out works is dead?” (Js 2:20). Thosewho would arrogantly declare their ownsalvation without responding to the willof God to fulfill all righteousness mustanswer this question. Would one be sopresumptuous as to declare his or herown salvation without responding in obe-dience to the gospel of Jesus throughbaptism? We must not forget the prin-ciple that both the Hebrew writer andJames have established, that unrespon-sive faith is dead, and thus, not pleas-

ing to God.

3. John 6:47: John 6:47 furthersour definition of responsive faith that isacceptable to God. Jesus said, “Truly,truly, I say to you, he who believes haseverlasting life.” Paul made a similarstatement to the Philippian jailor. “Be-lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and youand your household will be saved” (At16:31). It is here where one of the mostcommon failures of correct Bible inter-pretation occurs. In reference to our dis-cussion of the inseparable connectionbetween baptism and salvation, this er-ror of interpretation has led to a misun-derstanding of more key scriptures onfaith than any other misapplication of bib-lical interpretation. The misinterpreta-tion here is over a very common gram-matical structure of communication thatwe use every day.

What both Jesus and Paul used inthe grammatical structure of John 6:47and Acts 16:31 was a synecdoche. Apart was used for the whole. In theirstatements they used the word “believe”as the part that stood for the whole ofwhat was necessary to receive eternallife. When Jesus said that one mustbelieve in order to have eternal life, hewas including in the word “believe” allthat God required of the alien sin-ner in order to have eternal life.However, He said nothing about repen-tance in His statement. But in Luke 13:3He said, “But unless you repent, you willall likewise perish.” Even in this state-ment He used the word “repent” as asynecdoche. He did not mention belief,as He did in John 6:47. Does repen-tance exclude belief, or does belief ex-clude repentance?

The Faith

6 8

Some Bible interpreters have diffi-culty here because they fail to see thewhole context of Scripture concerningwhat God would have one do in responseto the gospel. Use of a word as a syn-ecdoche means that the word “believe”in reference to eternal life includes re-pentance. Likewise, the word “repent”includes belief. The part, “believe” or “re-pent,” is used for the whole, or every-thing that is necessary to bring aboutthe desired end, that is, our salvationand eternal life.

When Peter stood up before theJews in Acts 3 he said, “Repent and beconverted so that your sins may be blot-ted out ...” (At 3:19). But in this state-ment he never said anything about be-lief ... or baptism. One might respondby arguing that we would assume thatin the word “repent” he meant that theyshould believe on Jesus. Right! Nowwe get the point. When a grammaticalsynecdoche is used, one must alwaysassume that all that is required to ob-tain the final stated objective is in-cluded in the use of only one wordin a particular text. In every text whereeither eternal life, remission of sins, orsalvation is mentioned, the New Testa-ment writer did not have to mention ev-ery required act of obedience that wasnecessary to obtain the desired resultof that which was promised by God.One word is sufficient when we under-stand that we must discover in the Bibleall that God requires of us to be saved.

Understanding the principle of thesynecdoche is vital to our understand-ing of what God requires of us as a re-sult of our faith. If our faith does notmove us to do all that is necessary tobe saved, then either one of two things

is true. Either we have an “ignorant” faith,that is, our lack of knowledge of all thatGod would require of us to obey Himleads us to be disobedient. Or second,we do have a knowledge of all that Godrequires of us to obey Him, but becauseof our rebellious spirit we seek to trustalone in our inactive faith. In either casewe must remind ourselves of whatJames reminded his readers, “The de-mons also believe and tremble.” Wouldwe seek a faith that is greater than thefaith of demons?

4. John 3:36: Jesus’ statement inthis verse summarizes the focus of thischapter. “He who believes in the Sonhas everlasting life. And he who doesnot believe the Son will not see life, butthe wrath of God abides on him.” Nowconnect this statement to a review ofHebrews 3:18,19. Those Israelites whowere not allowed to enter into the landof promise were not allowed to enterbecause they were disobedient. Theywere disobedient because of their un-belief. When Jesus said that the onewho believes has everlasting life, Hemeant that the one who is obedient haseverlasting life. If one does not trulybelieve, then he will not obey. It wouldbe correct to state that Bible beliefis obedience, and obedience is theexpression of acceptable faith. Thisis exactly what Jesus said in John 6:29.“This is the work of God, that you be-lieve in Him whom He has sent.” Thisis the connection that Paul made inRomans 10:16 in his quotation of Isaiah53:1. “However, they have not all obeyedthe gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, whohas believed our report?’”

Millions today claim to believe in

The Faith

6 9

Jesus, but they have not obeyed the gos-pel. This is a most frightening thought.There are countless preachers standingup throughout the land proclaiming tothose who are ignorant of the Bible thatthey should only believe in Jesus andthey will be saved. But they leave outeverything that God would require of oneto wash away sins (See At 2:38; 22:16).We live in a world where a “demon’sfaith” is preached that only brings on thetrembling of a “sinner’s prayer,” but noth-ing else. Eloquent and powerful preach-ers move people to tremble in sin, butthey say nothing of what God requiresof the alien sinner to take care of hisproblem of sin. Proclaimers are preach-ing the promises of God, but they arefailing to tell the people how to march tovictory over sin. Such misleading prog-nosticators are merchants of theologi-cal mischief. They take people to thecross of repentance and leave them therewithout assisting them to fulfill all righ-teousness for the remission of their sins.They ignore the cleansing waters of be-ing buried with Jesus in order to be raisedto walk in newness of life (See Rm 6:3-6). These are not the “feet of those whobring glad tidings of good things” (Rm10:15). They are those who leave thecity of Satan unconquered because theyfail to tell the people to march. Theypreach a part of what is required to re-ceive eternal life and leave out the whole.They have preached a percentage of therighteousness of God, and thus failed topreach all His righteousness.

Chapter 16

A THEOLOGYA THEOLOGYA THEOLOGYA THEOLOGYA THEOLOGYOF ELIMINATIONOF ELIMINATIONOF ELIMINATIONOF ELIMINATIONOF ELIMINATION

Any theology that is developed byemphasizing one requirement for salva-tion to the exclusion or minimization ofother requirements becomes a theologyof elimination. Those who would pro-mote the teaching that baptism is thesole requirement for salvation have of-ten minimized other requirements asfaith and repentance. Those who wouldemphasize a repentant experience at amoment of emotional outpouring over acommand to “repent and be baptized”have also marginalized, if not rejectedwhat is necessary to wash away one’ssins. We have also found that thosewho overemphasize baptism fail to em-phasize that one’s faith should first moveone to be a disciple, and then, as Jesussaid, disciples must obey the gospel inbaptism (Mt 28:19,20). If there is nocommitment to discipleship, then bap-tism often becomes a simple legal ac-tion of works. If one assumes his salva-tion only by faith, then baptism againbecomes a legal ceremony. Some-times the action of baptism is empha-sized so much that its purpose in obe-dience to the death, burial and resurrec-tion of Jesus has long been forgotten.When discovering what God would havethe alien sinner do in order to be saved,we must never emphasize a part of whatis required by God to the exclusion ofall other essential requirements for sal-vation. For this reason, the word “only”can never be used in reference to anypart that is required for salvation. In ref-erence to salvation, we either take all ofthe requirements, or we take ourchances with only one part.

The religious world does not lack inthe number of voices who proclaim a“faith only” condition for the salvation of

The Faith

7 0

the alien sinner. However, the commonacceptance of a salvational teachingamong most religionists makes us sus-picious. It makes us suspicious be-cause it is Satan’s work to deceive asmany people as possible in referenceto the salvation of the alien sinner. Heseeks to deceive as many people as pos-sible not to do that which is necessaryfor salvation. He simply does not wantthe lost to obey the gospel. Therefore,he seeks to hold the alien sinner up shortof being buried with Jesus in obedienceto the gospel for the remission of sins(At 2:38). This is the work of Satan.And looking at his scheme from a purelylogical point of view, he has performed abrilliant deed. His greatest deception isto encourage the multitudes to follow themultitudes.

For all the preceding reasons, there-fore, everyone must take a fresh lookat all that is necessary to bring one intoa covenant relationship with God. Wemust come to the word of God with theattitude that whatever is stated in Scrip-ture concerning what is necessary forour salvation we must believe and obey.No requirement for our salvation mustbe minimized or rejected. We wouldseek to do all that God asks of us inorder that we become and remain Hischildren. And in order to remain Hischildren, we would not minimize or elimi-nate any command that must be obeyedin order to be pleasing to our Father.

A. Accepting the whole:As soon as one says that salvation

is by “faith only,” he has eliminated anyother necessity, or obedience connectedwith one’s salvation. This poses a prob-lem since in the New Testament many

different conditions are mentioned in ref-erence to the salvation of the alien sin-ner. As illustrated in the preceding state-ments, Jesus said, “But unless you re-pent, you will all likewise perish” (Lk 13:3;see At 3:19; 17:30; 2 Co 7:10; 2 Pt 3:9).But if salvation is by “faith only,” then wehave eliminated the necessity of repen-tance about which Jesus made a require-ment for salvation. Paul wrote that “withthe mouth confession is made to salva-tion” (Rm 10:10; compare Mt 10:32; At8:37). But if salvation is by “faith only,”then there is no need to confess thatJesus is the Son of God. Peter wrote,“The like figure whereunto even baptismdoes also now save us ...” (1 Pt 3:21;see Mk 16:16; At 22:16). But if salva-tion is by “faith only,” then there is noneed for immersion into the death, burialand resurrection of Jesus (See Rm 6:3-6). Again, as soon as one uses the word“only” in connection to any requirementfor the salvation of the alien sinner, hehas eliminated every other requirement.He has made the Bible contradict itselfin reference to what God would requireof one in order to be saved. Becausethe word “only” is connected to faith inreference to one’s salvation, manypeople are confused concerning whatGod would require for a saved relation-ship with Him.

Add to the preceding the concept ofthe faithful Christian life. John wrote, “Butif we walk in the light as He is in thelight, we have fellowship with one anotherand the blood of Jesus Christ His Soncleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7). Inreference to the life of the disciple, thereis no such thing as “faith only.” In hisaddress to Christians, James made thisperfectly clear when he wrote, “... faith

The Faith

7 1

without works is dead” (Js 2:26). Forthis reason the early evangelists ex-horted the first disciples “to continue inthe faith” (At 14:22). Their exhortationwas not to simply keep believing inJesus, but to continue obediently to fol-low the word of Jesus. Jesus is the au-thor of the salvation of all those who obeyHim (Hb 5:9). Therefore, we must “con-tinue in His goodness” by being obedi-ent to His word (Rm 11:22; see Cl 1:23;Hb 1:11; 3:12,13; 13:1). The point isthat if the beginning of our salvation isby “faith only,” and we continue to claima relationship with Jesus by “faith only,”then we have eliminated faithful obedi-ence to the word of God.

Faithful Bible students discover allthat God would require of them to havea faithful Christian walk with Jesus.They do not stop at one passage ofscripture, and then claim that all that isrequired for salvation is found in that onefavorite passage. We must challengeourselves with the following question:

WHICH DOCTRINE IS CORRECT?Salvation by faith only (Jn 6:47).

Salvation by repentance only (Lk 13:3).Salvation by confession only (Rm 10:10).

Salvation by baptism only (1 Pt 3:21).

The conclusion is that salvation isnot by any one particular requirement,but by a collective response of the whole.In any particular scripture a part may bementioned for the whole. (Rememberthe synecdoche?) Since all the abovelisted scriptures teach something thatrefers to the alien sinner’s salvation, thenit is imperative to conclude that ev-erything that is mentioned in refer-ence to our salvation is necessary for

one’s salvation. This is what is called“rightly dividing the word of God” in orderto apply everything the Bible says in ref-erence to one’s relationship with God (2Tm 2:15). We do not want to divide outof the context of the Scriptures any oneBible requirement for salvation that wemay feel is the only thing that is neces-sary for salvation. We seek to acceptall that God stated in the entirety of Hisword. Therefore, faith, repentance, con-fession and baptism are all necessaryfor the salvation of the alien sinner.

If any one of the preceding pointsconstitutes salvation in and of itself, thenone can be saved without the others. Ifone is saved by “repentance only,” thenhe can be saved without faith, confes-sion and baptism. If one is saved by“baptism only,” then he can be savedwithout faith, repentance and confes-sion. The one who would seek to followthe direction of God will study the en-tirety of the word of God in order to dis-cover everything that God would requireof one in order to be saved and live afaithful Christian life.

B. Response to all that God hasgiven:A very important point is made in 2

Corinthians 4:15. “For all things are foryour sakes, so that the grace that isreaching many people may causethanksgiving to abound to the gloryof God.” This is an evangelistic pas-sage that refers to the response of thealien sinner to the preaching of the gos-pel of grace.

It is the desire of the obedient to re-spond with thanksgiving to all that Godrequires for one’s salvation by Hisgrace. As the manifestation of the grace

The Faith

7 2

of God on the cross, Jesus calls on allmen to obey the good news of the crossin order to walk in newness of life. It isappreciation for God’s gift of grace onthe cross that causes obedient thanks-giving on the part of the alien sinner.

Now consider this thought in view ofthe impact that Hebrews 5:8,9 shouldhave on us. The message of this state-ment is overwhelming. It should shockthose who think that they can bring thegrace of God into their lives with a cheapfaith.

Though He was a Son, He learnedobedience by the things that He suf-fered. And having been made per-fect, He became the author of eter-nal salvation to all those who obeyHim.

Think about this statement and rea-son from the Son of God to yourself. Ifwe are somewhat arrogant with our faith,it would be difficult to understand the im-pact of this verse. Though Jesus wasthe Son of God, He “learned obedience.”He learned obedience through the ne-cessity to manifest His faith throughsuffering on the cross (Gl 2:16). He wasthus made perfect through His obedi-ence by going to the cross for us. There-fore, He was given the right to be the“author” of eternal salvation. But thiseternal salvation is reserved for thosewho follow after His example of obedi-ence. Now would we deceive ourselvesinto thinking that we can have eternallife without the obedience of which theSon of God is the author? We need tothink about this for a moment. In orderto be saved, would we entertain a belief

that the alien sinner can get by with acheap inactive faith in the One who paidsuch an incredible price of obedience onthe cross? We need to keep in mindthat we will all give account of our obedi-ence before the Son who learned obedi-ence through the suffering of the cross(2 Co 5:10).

Paul wrote, “For the grace of Godthat brings salvation has appeared to allmen” (Ti 2:11). If the loving grace of Godon the cross does not cause an obedi-ent response in the life of the alien sin-ner, then one is ungrateful. And no onecan be saved with an ungrateful faith.The fallacy that is embedded in the “faithonly” doctrine is that it allows an indi-vidual to believe that he or she is savedwithout any thankful response to thegrace of God on the cross. Truethanksgiving means that God calls formore than water from tears. He calls forthe tearful to be born of the Spirit andthe water with the One who went to thecross for our sins. God requires morethan believing in what one must do. Godrequires a faith response to the One whothrough faith took Himself to the cross.One does not believe himself into salva-tion, but believes unto obedience of thegospel that brings salvation. We mustremember that the faith of the alien sin-ner only gives him the right to become ason of God (Jn 1:12). It is the gospelthat saves, not our faith. Therefore, onemust connect with the gospel that savesthrough faith. This connection is madeby being immersed with Jesus in Hisdeath, burial and resurrection (See Rm6:3-6). A “saving faith” is thus definedby a faith that moves one to do that whichone must do in order to be saved.

The Faith

7 3

Chapter 17

THE FEAR OF THE LORDTHE FEAR OF THE LORDTHE FEAR OF THE LORDTHE FEAR OF THE LORDTHE FEAR OF THE LORD

Any theology that discourages anobedient respond to the grace of Godthat was manifested on the cross, mustimmediately be suspect. An obedientresponse to God is a matter of respect.It is a matter of respecting the word ofGod. Our respect for God is manifestedin our obedience to what He tells us todo. And unless we do what He says,then there is no respect for God or Hisword. The fear of the Lord that is men-tioned in the Bible is defined as an obe-dient respect to what God tells us to do.

A. The fear of the Lord:The phrase “fear of the Lord” satu-

rates the Old Testament. Some unfor-tunately misunderstand the meaning ofthis phrase by minimizing its meaningto an emotional “terror” of the Lord. Themeaning of “terror” is certainly within themeaning of the phrase, but the contextin which the phrase is used refers to theobedience of the people out of their re-spect for God and His commands. Inthe context of its use, this respect meansthat the people obeyed the Lord. 1Samuel 11:7 states, “And the fear of theLord fell on the people, and they came....” The Israelites obediently “struck allthe cities around Gerar, for the fear ofthe Lord came on them” (2 Ch 14:14).“Now let the fear of the Lord be uponyou. Take heed and do it ...” (2 Ch19:7). “Thus you will do in the fear ofthe Lord, faithfully and wholeheartedly”(2 Ch 19:9).

The fear of the Lord is respect andobedience for what the Lord instructs. Ifone does not respect the word of the

Lord, then he will devise some othersystem of salvation than that which isgiven by the Lord. He will declare hisown salvation in order to escape his re-sponsibility to do all the will of the Lord.If one would declare his own salva-tion with little or no regard for whatthe word of God teaches concerningsalvation, then there is no fear of theLord in him. There is no fear of theLord in him because he has so little re-spect for what the Lord says in His wordconcerning all that one should do for hisown salvation. Those who are ignorantof the word of God, therefore, validatetheir salvation on the foundation of theirown emotional experience rather thanwhat God declares in His word. Thosewho do not fear the Lord have little re-gard for the word of the Lord, and thus,they will devise other systems of salva-tion than what is taught in the word ofGod. One manifests his fear of the Lordby studying and obeying the word of theLord. There is absolutely no otherway to validate one’s fear of the Lord.

It is for the above reason that salva-tion can never be based solely on theemotional experiences of man. Expe-riential religion is validated by the emo-tions of the adherents. Theexperientialist contends that if he hasemotionally experienced something,then it must be right. The validation ofhis faith thus stands on himself, not ona pronouncement from the word of God.But if his reasoning is correct, then thereneed be no reference to what the Biblesays concerning the salvation of thealien sinner. The experientialist hasdeceived himself into believing that hecan declare his own salvation apart fromthe fear of the Lord, which fear refers to

The Faith

7 4

one’s emotional response to what theBible says one must do in order to besaved. This is the danger of the charis-matic preacher who can bring people totears and fear, declare the salvation ofthe people, and then go on his way with-out ever reading a passage from the wordof God as to when God says one issaved. He thinks he has brought peopleto the “fear of the Lord.” But no one canbring one to the fear of the Lord withoutproclaiming what the Lord says in Hisword.

B. The fear of the Lord is manifestedin obedience.As Bible believers, there should be

no need for a discussion over any sys-tem of salvation that requires no obedi-ence to the commandments of God. Ifsomeone devises a doctrine concerningsalvation that is void of obedience to thecommandments of God, then we can beassured that such a doctrine is a doc-trine of demons. But this is exactly whatthe doctrine of “self-declared salvation”by faith only is all about. This teachinghas removed obedience by the directionof the word of God. It is an experientialdoctrine that has led its adherents toscoff at any obedient response to theword of God for salvation on the part ofthe alien sinner. It has thus removedthe fear of the Lord from the hearts ofmen.

Nevertheless, the fact is that onemust obey God in order to be saved.If this statement is erroneous, then thereneed be no respect for anything the Biblesays one must do in order to be saved.The alien sinner can experientially de-clare his own salvation, and then go onhis way without being washed of sins.

He can ignore God’s declaration that onemust obey the gospel by being baptizedinto Christ (Gl 3:26,27). But we wouldreject such a theology. We reject suchbecause of our respect for the word ofGod, which word requires that the aliensinner must do something to manifesthis fear of the Lord.

The following words of Jesus arestrikingly appropriate in this discussion:“Not every one who says to Me, ‘Lord,Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom ofheaven, but he who does the will ofMy Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21).The inconsistency of some is revealedby their quotation of this statement ofJesus. They will proclaim faith only inJesus in order to be saved, and yet, theywill quote this passage that says onemust obey the “will of My Father” in or-der to be saved. If salvation is experien-tial by faith only, then one does not haveto obey the will of the Father in refer-ence to anything He might require towash away the sins of the sinner.

Jesus said in another context, “Andwhy do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ anddo not do the things that I say?” (Lk6:46). Would one dare come to Jesusand say, “I believe on You and acceptYou as my personal Savior, but I willnot do the things You say.” This iswhat many are telling alien sinners whoare trying to come to Jesus in order tobe saved from their sins.

In the first century, those who fearedthe Lord, obeyed the word of God in ref-erence to their salvation. Peter spokeof disciples who had purified their souls“in obeying the truth” (1 Pt 1:22). Theseare those of whom Jesus is the authorof their salvation. Jesus “became theauthor of eternal salvation to all those

The Faith

7 5

who obey Him” (Hb 5:9). If one has notobeyed Jesus, then Jesus is not his “au-thor.” If one has obeyed the good newsof His death, burial and resurrection, thenthis person seeks Jesus as his guidethroughout his life (See 2 Th 1:7,8). Inview of all the statements made in Scrip-ture concerning what one must do in obe-dience to the will of God, any teachingthat would negate or neglect obediencein reference to receiving Jesus as one’sSavior must be questioned.

C. Works of obedience versusworks of merit.Many confuse obedience to the

commands of God and meritoriouslaw keeping in order to merit salvation.Several passages are used out of con-text that reveal that some do not under-stand the difference between these twoconcepts. For example, Paul wrote, “Forby grace you are saved through faith,and that not of yourselves, it is the giftof God; not of works, lest anyone shouldboast” (Ep 2:8,9). Some have used theconcept of this passage to refute theteaching that the alien sinner must beobedient to the will of God in order to besaved. Those who promote such ateaching forget the context in which Paulmade this statement. This statementwas made to Christians, not to aliensinners.

In the context of Ephesians 2 Paulwas explaining that Christians are notsaved by meritorious works of law, norby good works by which one might sup-posedly atone for his sins. Since theChristian cannot keep law perfectly inorder to save himself, then he cannot besaved by perfect law keeping or merito-rious good works to atone for sins (See

Rm 3:9,10,23). Therefore, the Christianis not saved by works lest he have anoccasion to boast, not only before otherChristians, but also before God. Pauladded that if we are saved by grace, “thenit is no more by works, otherwise graceis no more grace” (Rm 11:6).

There is an inconsistent theologytaught here by some of those who teachthat there is no obedience to law in ref-erence to the salvation of the alien sin-ner. Some will use passages as Eph-esians 2:8,9 and Galatians 2:16 in or-der to teach that the sinner is “saved byfaith alone,” and not by any works oflaw. But at the same time, they willteach that the Christian is saved by hisgood works that supposedly atone forone’s sins. They eagerly argue thatthere is no meritorious work in referenceto the salvation of the lost, but at thesame time believe that the Christian’ssins find atonement in good works. In-teresting inconsistency, isn’t it?

As in the context of Ephesians2:8,9, Galatians 2:16 is also a statementby Paul that is made in reference to theChristian walk, not the salvation of thealien sinner. To Christians, Paul wrote“that a man is not justified by worksof law, but by the faith of Christ Jesus... for by works of law no flesh will bejustified.” In this statement to the Ga-latians Paul stated the same principlethat he revealed in Ephesians 2:8,9. NoChristian can be saved by perfect keep-ing of law, nor can a Christian atone forhis sins with meritorious works. Butkeep in mind that in the statements tothe Ephesians and the Galatians Paulwas addressing his thoughts on merito-rious law-keeping and meritorious worksto Christians, not to alien sinners who

The Faith

7 6

are outside Christ. These are not scrip-tures that should be quoted before thealien sinner in reference to his salvation.If we do use these scriptures in refer-ence to what God would require of aliensinners, then we will “shut out of the king-dom” those who would be baptized intoChrist in order to become sons of God(See Gl 3:26-29).

We must keep in mind that Chris-tians must work in response to the graceof God. Immediately following the state-ments in Ephesians concerning the im-possibility of the Christian to work forhis salvation, Paul makes the followingstatement in Ephesians 2:10: “For weare His workmanship, created inChrist Jesus for good works, whichGod prepared before that we should walkin them.” Now did Paul contradict him-self by what he said in verses 8 & 9 andverse 10? We think not. In the contextof Ephesians 2 Paul is writing to Chris-tians, to those who had already obeyedthe gospel in order to be saved. Thoughone is not saved by meritorious worksof law or good works, he is saved inChrist Jesus for the purpose of doing“good to all men, especially to those whoare of the household of the faith” (Gl6:10).

The commentary of the statementsof Ephesians 2:10 is Philippians 2:12.“Therefore, my beloved, as you havealways obeyed, not as in my presenceonly, but now much more in my ab-sence, work out your own salvationwith fear and trembling.” These peopleto whom Paul was writing were Chris-tians (“beloved”). As Christians they werealways doing good works in obedienceto the will of God. We must rememberthat they were already saved. As the

saved, they were to work out the salva-tion they already had. This is the mean-ing of the Ephesians 2:10 passage. Weare created in Christ Jesus for goodworks. We are not created in ChristJesus by good works.

Christians do not meritoriously workin order to guarantee their salvation.However, they work out their salvationbecause they are thankful for their sal-vation that they have in Christ. In hisinstructions to the Corinthians, Paulused his own life as an example. “Butby the grace of God I am what I am.And His grace toward me was not invain, but I labored more abundantlythan they all, yet not I, but the grace ofGod that was with me” (1 Co 15:10).Paul’s abundant work as a disciple washis work of obedience, not works to meritsalvation. He, as all disciples of Jesus,work in appreciation for what they havereceived through the grace of God. Theywork in thanksgiving of the cross (2 Co4:15). Such is the “obedience of faith”that characterizes the children of God(Rm 1:15; 16:26).

The alien sinner becomes a newcreature when he works in obedienceto the law of Christ to be baptized intoChrist (Gl 3:26,27). “In Christ he is anew creature” (2 Co 5:17). As a newcreation in Christ, he seeks to work inthanksgiving of his salvation (2 Co4:15). His faith goes to work in responseto grace. It is as Paul wrote to the Ga-latians, “For in Jesus Christ neither cir-cumcision avails anything noruncircumcision, but faith workingthrough love” (Gl 5:6). Again, this state-ment was written to those who had al-ready been created in Christ Jesusthrough their obedience to the gospel.

The Faith

7 7

They were disciples who were obedientby being “baptized into Christ” (Gl 3:27).Our salvation in Christ is by faith in thegrace of God, but it is a faith that is work-ing through love. It is as James wrote,“You see then that a man is justified byworks and not by faith only” (Js 2:24). Itis an obedient faith that brings one intoChrist. Once in Christ, it is an obedientresponse to the grace by which we havebeen saved that makes our faith profit-able unto salvation (See Rv 14:13).

Chapter 18

LOST IN BELIEFLOST IN BELIEFLOST IN BELIEFLOST IN BELIEFLOST IN BELIEF

The fact that obedience through per-fect keeping of law does not save theChristian does not excuse the alien sin-ner from his responsibility to obey thecommandments of God concerning whatis necessary for him to do in order to besaved. In rightly dividing the word of Godwe must not confuse ourselves by us-ing passages of scripture that deal withthe salvation of Christians to refer to thelost state of the alien sinner. Doing suchhas brought great confusion into theworld of theology in reference to the sal-vation of those outside Christ. Too manytheologians have committed this error ofinterpretation, and thus, they have failedto recognize that there are responsibili-ties on the part of the sinner for him tomanifest his “fear of the Lord” in obedi-ence to the gospel. The faith that onehas in the Lord that begins before beingbaptized into Christ must move him toobey the gospel by immersion into Christ.The baptized believer must then continuein a labor of love, working out his salva-tion that he has in Christ. In order tobegin one’s lifetime of obedience, there

must be an initial manifestation of obe-dience.

In the first century, there were manywho “believed,” but their belief was notmanifested by obedience to what Jesussaid. Many maintained an unresponsivefaith in the presence of the One in whomthey were to believe. If such happenedduring the personal ministry of Jesus,then we would expect the same today.We would expect people to believe inJesus, but at the same time be rebel-lious to the word of God. If you believethat this unfortunate situation cannotexist today, then take a closer look atthe following examples:

A. Jews lost in belief.In John 8, John recorded an inter-

esting event during the ministry of Jesus.Jesus was at the time in the presenceof some who to some extent believed inHim. In verse 31 He challenged these“believers.” “Then Jesus said to thoseJews who believed in Him, ‘If you con-tinue in My word, then you are trulyMy disciples.’” The mark of true dis-cipleship is obedience to the word ofJesus (See Jn 12:48). Obedience to theword of Jesus is the signal to everyonethat one is a disciple of Jesus. There-fore, in order to begin one’s discipleshipof Jesus he must obey the word ofJesus. If there is no obedience, thenthere is no discipleship.

Now in the context of Jesus’ ex-change with some Jews in John 8, therewere those in His presence who believed,but they did not want to obey the wordof Jesus. So in verse 44 Jesus said tothem, “You are of your father the devil,and the desires of your father you wantto do.” These Jews whom Jesus ad-

The Faith

7 8

dressed “believed in Him” (Jn 8:31).However, their belief did not move themto obey the word of Jesus. They werethus of the faith of their father the devil,and it was his will that they desired toobey.

If one believes, but his belief doesnot move him to obey Jesus, then he isstill under the influence of the devil.Jesus stated, “He who believes and isbaptized will be saved” (Mk 16:16). Bythe Holy Spirit Peter said, “Repent andbe baptized ...” (At 2:38). The Spiritthrough Ananias said, “Arise and bebaptized ...” (At 22:16). Would we darebelieve, but refuse to obey the simplecommand to be baptized? If we do notobey, can we declare our own salvationwithout obedience to the command tobe baptized? Obeying God to be bap-tized is not a work of merit. It is a workof obedience whereby we are manifest-ing that we seek to be an obedient dis-ciple of Jesus.

B. Rulers lost in belief.During the ministry of Jesus there

were also many rulers who believed onJesus. However, they remained in theirstate of condemnation because theywould not confess who He claimed tobe. John wrote to them, “Nevertheless,among the chief rulers also many be-lieved in Him. But because of thePharisees they did not confess Himlest they should be put out of the syna-gogue. For they loved the praise of menmore than the praise of God” (Jn12:42,43).

These rulers had faith. However, theirfaith was not strong enough to movethem to confess that Jesus was the Sonof God. Their love for the glory of man

was stronger than their faith in Jesus.Would we consider these men saved byfaith only? Did they have a saving faith?In answer to these questions, Matthew10:32,33 gives the answer. “Therefore,whoever will confess Me before men, himI will also confess before My Father whois in heaven. But whoever will denyMe before men, him I will also denybefore My Father who is in heaven.”The rulers were guilty of being con-demned in their faith. Their faith withoutobedience left them spiritually dead intheir faith. It is for this reason that wewould question any teaching that as-sumes one’s salvation is by faith alone.Faith alone does not manifest one’s will-ingness to obey God. Faith alone canleave us in a state of condemnation.

C. Kings lost in belief.In conjunction with the unresponsive

faith of the Jewish rulers, there is alsothe case of King Agrippa who remained“lost in belief.” Paul asked Agrippa, “KingAgrippa, do you believe the prophets?”(At 26:27). Agrippa did not have to an-swer this question because Paul knewthat he believed the prophets concern-ing the coming of the Messiah. So Paulgave Agrippa’s answer for him. “I knowthat you believe” (At 26:27). Agrippaknew that Jesus was the fulfillment ofthe Old Testament prophecies concern-ing the Messiah. Acts 26:28 is an inter-esting statement of Agrippa that was re-corded by Luke. “Then Agrippa said toPaul, ‘In a short time you almost per-suade me to become a Christian.’”Agrippa remained spiritually dead in hisfaith because it did not move him to dothat which would make him a Christian.He remained spiritually dead in his faith

The Faith

7 9

because he was not moved to obedi-ence.

D. Demons lost in belief.We would be correct in believing

that all demons are lost. But considerthe fact that demons have faith. Of theirfaith, James wrote, “You believe thatthere is one God. You do well. Thedemons also believe and tremble” (Js2:19). At least these demons hadenough faith to tremble. They were notcompletely dead in their faith. They hadmore faith than most people who claimto be Christians. The demons tremble,but many people have so little faith thatthey do not tremble at the possibility oflosing their souls. They trust in theirinactive faith, which faith will be pro-nounced dead upon the coming of ourLord.

So again we ask the question, “Canone be lost in belief?” The answer isthat some Jewish rulers were lost inbelief. Agrippa was lost in belief. De-mons are lost in belief. The fact thatone can be lost in belief should cau-tion us about teaching any doctrinethat faith only will save the alien sin-ner. In every case where one was lostin belief, the belief did not spark obedi-ence to confess Jesus as the Christ.This “confessing of Jesus” was not sim-ply a verbal proclamation, but a livingsacrifice on the part of the one who be-lieved. Bible faith is manifested by obe-dience to become a child of God, as wellas to remain His child in His care.

Chapter 19

FAILURE TO FULFILLFAILURE TO FULFILLFAILURE TO FULFILLFAILURE TO FULFILLFAILURE TO FULFILLALL RIGHTEOUSNESSALL RIGHTEOUSNESSALL RIGHTEOUSNESSALL RIGHTEOUSNESSALL RIGHTEOUSNESS

This will not be a comfortable chap-ter for many evangelists to read. Thefollowing discussion will stir a great dealof guilt in the hearts of those who aresincerely trying to do their best to pleaseGod. To these we would say that youhave done the best you could with whatyou knew. God’s grace will cover ourpast erroneous teaching as we all studytogether and learn more of His will. Webelieve in a God of mercy, a God whoknows that we continually grow in thegrace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus(2 Pt 3:18). What is important is to con-tinue to grow in this knowledge, trustingthat God has a lot of mercy and gracefor our incomplete knowledge of His wordthat we have taught in the past.

Regardless of the past, however, wemust take another look at the responsi-bility of the evangelist who seeks topreach the good news of Jesus. Wehave studied the responsibility of the au-dience that they must move beyond asimple belief in Jesus. As previouslyproved, the biblical definition of faith isobedience to the will of God. In refer-ence to the alien sinner, saving faithmoves one to respond to the will of Godin obedience to the gospel. In referenceto the Christian, saving faith moves oneto work in thanksgiving for the grace ofGod. In both situations faith must al-ways be understood to manifest obedi-ence to the will of God.

The responsibility to fulfill all righ-teousness in reference to the will of Godbegins at the point of baptism. At thebeginning of His ministry, “Jesus camefrom Galilee to the Jordan to John, tobe baptized by him” (Mt 3:13). But be-cause John knew who Jesus was, heinitially had some objections. As a di-

The Faith

8 0

rect revelation from God, John was al-ready baptizing people in the wilderness(Mt 3:6). He was baptizing in Aenon be-cause there was much water there (Jn3:23). So when Jesus came to him,John did not try to prevent Him from be-ing baptized. He just thought that hewas not spiritually suitable to baptize theMessiah. But notice carefully whatJesus said to John. “Permit it at thistime, for thus it is appropriate for us tofulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15). No-tice Jesus’ use of the plural pronoun “us.”In the “fulfilling of all righteousness,” bap-tism is not just about the one beingbaptized. In this case, the baptism wasnot just about Jesus being baptized. The“us” included John. God had com-missioned John to baptize for the remis-sion of sins (Mk 1:4). Baptism was partof the righteousness of God that was re-vealed to John. Therefore, in obedienceto God, it was necessary for Jesus tobe baptized. But as part of the work ofbeing an evangelist of the good news ofJesus, John too had to participate in the“righteousness” of God by baptizingJesus. When one is baptized, boththe one who is baptized and the onebaptizing are together fulfilling allrighteousness. Evangelists who are notbaptizing those to whom they preach thegospel, therefore, are not fulfilling allrighteousness. Their message is fall-ing short of all righteousness.

We must keep in mind that Jesusused the word “all” in reference to ful-filling the righteousness of God. Theuse of this word means that no one partof the “all” can be emphasized to theexclusion of any other part that com-pletes all the righteousness of God. The“all” would include faith, but it would not

exclude other requirements to completethe righteousness of God. Faith is notexclusive. Faith would not exclude bap-tism, for it was baptism that resultedin the fulfillment of all righteousnessin the baptism of Jesus. Therefore,unless one is baptized, all the righteous-ness of God has not been fulfilled in hiscoming to Christ.

An example of this truth is seen inthe case of the eunuch from Ethiopia.In Acts 8 Philip was instructed by anangel to go to a desert and connect withan Ethiopian who was returning to hishomeland in Ethiopia. The Ethiopianwas a eunuch under Candace, thequeen. As a religious person, he wasreading from Isaiah 53 concerning aprophecy of the Messiah. Now noticewhat is stated in Acts 8:35. “Then Philipopened his mouth, and beginning at thisscripture he preached Jesus to him.”All that is stated in this context is thatPhilip preached Jesus to him. In thefollowing verses we discover at least onevery important subject that is includedin the “preaching of Jesus.”

We have no idea how long Philippreached Jesus to the eunuch. But asthey went on their way they came tosome water. Now consider what theeunuch initiated. “Now as they wentalong the road they came to some wa-ter. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here iswater! What hinders me from beingbaptized?” (At 8:36). Nothing was saidin the text about Philip teaching the eu-nuch about baptism. The initiative tobe baptized came from the eunuch.Therefore, we would correctly con-clude that in preaching Jesus, oneas an evangelist, must speak of bap-tism. Philip fulfilled all righteousness

The Faith

8 1

by carrying out his responsibility tospeak of baptism when he preachedJesus. When the two came to somewater, both Philip and the eunuch workedtogether to fulfill all righteousness by thebaptism of the eunuch.

How many preachers today thinkthey are preaching Jesus but actuallyare not fulfilling all righteousness by fail-ing to teach the people that they mustbe baptized into the death, burial andresurrection of Jesus? If one does notteach on baptism, then he is notpreaching the full message of Jesus.If one does not assist people in beingbaptized, then he is not an evange-list who is fulfilling all righteousness.

How many preachers are there whohave finally realized that they left out oftheir message any reference to baptism?They have preached for years, but nevermentioned baptism to the point that theiraudiences would respond as the eunuch,“See, here is water! What hinders mefrom being baptized”? We have found ahost of preachers who have actuallybeen the ones who have hindered thepeople from being baptized. When themembers of their churches have stud-ied the Bible to the point of realizing thatone must be baptized, some preachershave said to the people that they are al-ready saved by faith only. They thenoften refuse to baptize the people.These preachers have shut out of thekingdom the members of their churches.It is truly a sad situation when those whoare supposed to increase the borders ofthe kingdom are those who supposedlypreach Jesus.

We are sure there are many preach-ers out there who are filled with regretbecause they forgot to fulfill all the righ-

teousness of God by telling the peoplethat they needed to obey Jesus in bap-tism for the remission of their sins inorder to fulfill all righteousness.

We can know that the kingdom ofdarkness hangs heavy over the peoplewhen those who supposedly preachJesus among the people are actually notfulfilling all righteousness by failing topreach all the word of God about Jesus.These are truly dark days inChristendom. They are dark becauseof those whom we trust to show us theway are stopping short of preaching thecomplete message of the gospel. Manyof the preachers among the people cannever say what Paul said to theEphesians. “... I kept nothing backthat was profitable, and teaching youpublicly and from house to house” (At20:20). He reminded the Ephesians ofsomething that most preachers todaycannot say. “Therefore, I testify to youthis day that I am innocent of the bloodof all men. For I have not shunned todeclare to you all the counsel of God”(Ep 20:26,27). How many preachers canconfidently say this to those to whomthey have preached the word of God?

There are few repentant evangelistsamong the people as Peter who had pre-viously denied Jesus during the finalhours before the cross. But after theresurrection he boldly stood up beforethose to whom he had previously deniedJesus, and said, “Whether it is right inthe sight of God to give heed to you morethan to God, you judge. For we cannotbut speak the things that we have seenand heard” (At 4:19,20).

On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2,Peter boldly preached Jesus to thepeople. “Therefore, let all the house of

The Faith

8 2

Israel know assuredly that God hasmade this same Jesus whom you havecrucified, both Lord and Christ” (At 2:36).Now notice the believing response of thepeople. “Now when they heard this, theywere cut to the heart. And they said toPeter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Menand brethren, what will we do?’” (At2:37). How would you answer this ques-tion if you believed in a “faith only” doc-trine? Would you hinder the people fromentering the kingdom by failing to preachthe whole counsel of God? If you do notrespond to this question of the peopleas Peter did, then you have shut up thekingdom of God to people who believeon Jesus. You have not truly preachedJesus to them. You have not fulfilled allthe righteousness of God.

Peter’s preaching of Jesus movedthe people on the day of Pentecost tobe cut to the heart because of their sins.Now the people wanted to know what todo. They were certainly mournful overcrucifying Jesus. Some mourned andpossibly others cried. They believed be-cause they responded by knowing theyhad to do something to rectify their re-bellion against Jesus. Some preacherstoday would have simply cried out to thepeople, “Accept Jesus as your personalSavior. Repeat the ‘sinner’s prayer’ af-ter me.’” But in this case, Peter did nottell the people to “believe on Jesus.”They already believed. However, theirbelief did not relieve them of their sinagainst the Christ they had crucified andwas now reigning as Lord (At 2:36). Theirbelief did not save them from their sin.Peter did not tell them to say some“sinner’s prayer” in response to theirgrief. He did not shut them out of thekingdom by refusing to tell them to be

baptized for the remission of their sins.In verse 38 Peter assumed his re-

sponsibility to fulfill all righteousness asan evangelist by responding to thepeople, “Repent and be baptized ev-ery one of you in the name of JesusChrist for the remission of sins. Andyou will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”If Peter had never told them to be bap-tized, he and the other apostles on thatday would not have fulfilled all righteous-ness by baptizing about 3,000 people(At 2:41). The people would never havereceived the gift of the Holy Spirit upontheir baptism.

Another example might help. Re-member Paul and Silas praying and sing-ing the gospel in prison in Philippi (At16:25)? After the earthquake the jailorrushed before the presence of the twoevangelists “trembling with fear” (At16:29). He believed! He believed to thepoint of trembling with fear. But did trem-bling with fear save him? It did not ac-cording to what he asked of the two evan-gelists. “Sirs, what must I do to besaved?” (At 16:30). It was as if he weresaying, “I believe, but what must I do tobe saved?” The two evangelists simplyresponded, “Believe on the Lord JesusChrist and you and your household willbe saved” (At 16:31). Now did trembling,fear and belief save him? Take anotherlook at the text. Verse 32 states, “Andthey spoke to him the word of theLord, and to all who were in his house.”What does speaking “to him the wordof the Lord” include? The two evange-lists certainly spoke to him about theLord Jesus. At least this is all that isstated in the text. But when somethingstarted to happen in the jailors’ life inanswer to his plea, “what must I do to

The Faith

8 3

be saved?”, verse 33 states, “And im-mediately he was baptized, he and allhis household.” Speaking the “word ofthe Lord,” therefore, includes speakingabout baptism, for where did the jailorget the idea that he had to be bap-tized? As in the “preaching of Jesus”by Philip, and in “speaking the word ofthe Lord” by Paul and Silas, speakingabout baptism is included. So theobvious conclusion is that if an evange-list does not speak to the people aboutbaptism for the remissions of sins, thenhe has not preached Jesus, neitherhas he spoken the word of the Lordto the people. He has been negligentin carrying out his responsibilities as anevangelist for Jesus.

And now we have a problem of guilt.When a preacher realizes that he hasspent a lifetime preaching faith only sal-vation without fulfilling his responsibilityof informing his audiences about bap-tism in obedience to the gospel, he of-ten realizes that he has actually notpreached Jesus to the people. He failedin his preaching to mention baptism inwater for remission of sins in order thathe join with people in fulfilling all righ-teousness. He has failed to fulfill hispart as an evangelist to baptize those towhom he has preached. He has failedto preach Jesus and the whole counselof the Lord. Guilt often sets in whenone realizes that he has left many of his

past audiences just short of beingwashed of sins in the waters of baptism.Because of this guilt, most preacherswill not turn from their “faith only” mes-sage simply because they remember themasses of people to whom theypreached, but never mentioned how hecould join with them in fulfilling all therighteousness of God in baptism. Theresult is that their failure leads them tooften vehemently argue against anyteaching that would infer baptism asimportant for the remission of sins inorder that one come into a covenant re-lationship with God. Their preaching ofa “faith only” salvation has long sepa-rated salvation from the washing of sinsin the waters of baptism. They thus con-tinue to preach an “incomplete” righ-teousness by subtracting from the wordof God (Please read Rv 22:18,19 withemphasis on the phrase “take away.”)

It is our goal to call for a restorationin preaching. This restoration includesfirst the preaching of the whole counselof God in order that representatives ofJesus throughout the world fulfill all righ-teousness by preaching a completemessage of Jesus. It is our prayer thatdisciples of Jesus will lead alien sinnersto believe in Jesus, and then participatewith them in fulfilling all righteousnessby assisting them to wash away theirsins in the cleansing waters of baptism.

The Faith

8 4

Section III

THE BAPTISMTHE BAPTISMTHE BAPTISMTHE BAPTISMTHE BAPTISMThroughout the history of man, God has worked with man through cov-enant relationships. He has worked through covenants for the purpose ofbringing to man a guarantee that He will fulfill His promises to those whocome to Him through obedient faith. However, since He is the one whowill bring about the promises that result from His covenants, it is His privi-lege to determine the conditions upon which His covenants are estab-lished. It is His choice to determine the conditions by which the covenantis maintained. It is man’s responsibility to take the initiative through obe-dient faith to accept God’s covenants, and subsequently, to maintain thecovenant by obediently conforming to God’s conditions. When men sub-mit to a covenant relationship with God, eternal blessings are the result. Itis the responsibility of all men, therefore, to seek a covenant relationshipwith God who will bring into eternity only those who have established acovenant with Him. The new covenant that God now offers to all men isestablished with God at the time of the new birth when one is born of thewater and the Spirit by obedience to the gospel. The promise that comeswith this covenant is the opportunity to dwell with God in His presence foreternity.

This discussion is based on the foun-dation of a profound need of every indi-vidual on earth. That need is deliverancefrom separation from our God. Sincethe fall of Adam, sin has separatedpeople from God. We all live with thecurse of spiritual death that is broughton by our own sins. “Therefore, asthrough one man sin entered into theworld and death through sin, and sodeath passed to all men because allsinned” (Rm 5:12). Spiritual death fol-lowed sin because sin and separationfrom God always come together. Isaiahproclaimed, “But your iniquities haveseparated you from your God” (Is 59:2).When one is separated from God, he orshe is eternally lost, eternally doomedto hopelessness in a destruction that

has eternal consequences. Because ofthis separation from God, all people mustseek reconciliation. All men must bereconciled to God if they would enjoythe promised blessing of eternal life.

Before the sin of Adam, God prede-termined a plan of reconciliation. Heknew that man was subject to his ownfallibility. After He had created all menwith the gift of free-moral choice, Godknew that sooner or later men wouldrebel against His will. The rebellion camesooner than later, and thus, the eternalplan of redemption was activated. Man’sfallibility resulted in sin. Sin resulted inseparation. As a result of separationfrom God, spiritual death and eternaldoom came into the lives of Adam andEve. The fall of man activated the need

The Baptism

8 5

for reconciliation. Before the creation ofthe world, God had planned the way ofreconciliation because He knew that sinwould enter into the world.

God’s plan for reconciliation was firstannounced to Adam and Eve. “And Iwill put enmity between you and thewoman, and between your seed and HerSeed; He will bruise your head, andyou will bruise His heel” (Gn 3:15). Thisannouncement of the coming Savior ofthe world was vague, though Adam andEve knew that God would do somethingto rectify the sin problem they had intro-duced into the world.

Throughout the generations of man,indications of salvation were sprinkledthroughout God’s revelations to theprophets before the cross. Prophetswere inspired to prophesy of the Seedto come, but they did not understandthe significance of the prophecies of Godthat something was coming. Peterspoke of their anxiety of what was tocome. “Of this salvation the prophetshave inquired and searched diligently ...searching what, or what manner of time,the Spirit ... did signify when He testi-fied beforehand the sufferings of Christ...” (1 Pt 1:10-12). The prophets knewthat all men were dead in sin, and couldnot through keeping of law, save them-selves from condemnation.

But eventually the greatest an-nouncement of all time was repeated tosome shepherds of Israel over two thou-sand years ago. “Do not fear, for be-hold, I bring you good tidings of greatjoy that will be to all people. For to youa Savior is born this day in the city ofDavid, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk2:10,11). John proclaimed, “Behold, theLamb of God who takes away the sin of

the world” (Jn 1:29). Thus Jesus came.He came to go to the cross for our sins,for our reconciliation. He “bore our sinsin His own body on the tree, so that we,having died to sins, might live to righ-teousness ...” (1 Pt 2:24). The Father“made Him who knew no sin to be sinon behalf of us so that we might bemade the righteousness of God in Him”(2 Co 5:21). Atonement, justification,reconciliation, redemption, and thus,salvation, were all made possible at thecross by the suffering Servant.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth,and the life. No one comes to the Fa-ther but through Me” (Jn 14:6). Peterreaffirmed, “And there is salvation in noother, for there is no other name underheaven given among men by which wemust be saved” (At 4:12). Jesus is themedium through whom repentant believ-ers can save themselves from sin. Heis the solution to man’s greatest prob-lem which is the problem of sin. Jesusis the only escape from the eternal de-struction that awaits those who have notbeen reconciled to God.

There is, therefore, only one way tolife. That way is through Jesus and Hisatoning blood on the cross. The mostimportant questions for every individualto ask and answer are: How can oneapply to his or her own life the savingplan of God through the blood of Jesus?How can one be saved? Jesus saves,but how can one come into contact withthe saving blood of Jesus?

This brings us to the subject of thisdiscussion. From John the Baptist toJesus, and from Jesus to this day, bap-tism has played a significant part inman’s salvation. The word “baptism” ismentioned over one hundred times in our

The Baptism

8 6

English New Testaments. The action ofbaptism in water is specifically men-tioned in case after case in the conver-sions recorded in the New Testament.With such great emphasis on immer-sion, any serious student of God’s wordwould conclude that there is somethingvery significant about the action of bap-tism in relation to one’s salvation. Thatsignificance is the subject of this dis-cussion, for it is our belief that baptismis inseparably linked to one’s salvation.God established it as such. And be-cause He did the alien sinner must fol-low through with obedience to what Godhas commanded.

It is not that baptism is some meri-torious work or a church sacrament. Itis simply that God has made baptism aresponse of faith in Jesus and a point ofreference at which He forgives us oursins. It is a point of reference to whichthe obedient believer can always lookback and say that God saved him at thatpoint by bringing him into a covenantrelationship with Him.

With this purpose in mind we mustlaunch into this study. If baptism is in-separably linked to our salvation, then itis absolutely necessary that we under-stand its significance. Traditions and“church doctrines” will not help us in thisstudy. Our only source of informationmust come from God’s revelation on thematter, and thus, the Bible can be ouronly textbook.

We must never forget that whatis most important for man to do inorder to be saved is where Satan willcertainly do his best work to deceivemen. Since the subject of baptism hasbeen a highly controversial subject inreligious circles for centuries, then we

would assume that Satan is at work. Ifbaptism is necessary for salvation, thenwe would assume that Satan would bedoing some of his greatest deceptivework with man’s understanding of thissubject.

Some would question why we shoulddevote such a lengthy discussion to thissubject. There are two reasons for this.The first reason is because of the pre-ceding work of Satan. Since Satan hasworked so well in confusing religiouspeople concerning the importance ofbaptism, every Christian should thor-oughly understand the Bible’s teachingon the subject.

Secondly, in Ephesians 4:4-6 Paullisted baptism with seven fundamentalteachings that must be maintained asone. If baptism is listed as a fundamen-tal doctrine, then certainly it is not asubject to be avoided. It seems that theHoly Spirit knew that misguided theolo-gians would allow Satan to deceive themconcerning the importance of baptism.For this reason the Holy Spirit listed itwith such fundamental beliefs as “oneGod,” “one Spirit” and “one Lord.” There-fore, anyone who would assume that thissubject is inconsequential to Christianbelief and salvation has allowed himselfto believe a deception of Satan concern-ing the importance of baptism.

In the year A.D. 62 it is believed thatthe apostle Paul wrote the letter to theEphesians from a prison in Rome. Inthis letter he stated that there was atthat time only one baptism (Ep 4:4-6).Taking into consideration the book ofActs and the history of the church afterActs 2, that one baptism was the bap-tism obeyed by the Ephesians (At 19:1-6), the Corinthians (At 18:8), the Samari-

The Baptism

8 7

tans (At 8:5-13), and thousands of oth-ers who responded to the gospel ofJesus in the first century. This one bap-tism was immersion in water for re-mission of sins.

Baptism for remission of sins wasfirst mentioned in Mark 1:4 in the preach-ing of John the Baptist. “John came inthe wilderness baptizing and preachingthe baptism of repentance for the re-mission of sins.” This baptism was notin the “name of Jesus,” for Jesus hadnot yet come upon the scene preachingthe coming of the kingdom of God.

The second time we encounter abaptism for the remission of sins is inActs 2:38. Peter proclaimed to a Pen-tecost audience, “Repent, and be bap-tized every one of you in the name ofJesus Christ for the remission of sins....” By the time Peter had made thestatement of Acts 2:38, Jesus had diedon the cross. He had been resurrected.He had ascended into heaven. Acts 2:38is the one baptism about which Paulwrote in Ephesians 4. This is the bap-tism that supersedes all other baptismsthat are mentioned in the New Testa-ment.

The mode or manner of the one bap-tism is by immersion. In fact, baptismis immersion. This is the true meaningof the Greek word from which we con-struct the transliterated word “baptize.”Nevertheless, there has always beengreat debate in the religious world con-cerning the mode or manner of baptism.(In this book we will use the words “im-merse” and “baptism” interchangeably.However, we do this only to accommo-date present religious discussion. Theword baptism is so common in religiousdiscussion that it is difficult to ignore it

when talking about the subject.)Many religious groups have made

unbiblical changes concerning the man-ner of baptism. Some have stated thatbaptism may be “performed” in any oneof three ways: by sprinkling, pouring orimmersion. It is claimed by some thatone manner is just as good as another.As long as one has some type of a “con-version experience,” it is assumed thatthe manner by which he or she is bap-tized is not relevant. It is thus affirmedthat one has the right to choose themanner by which he or she will be bap-tized.

There are many religious leaderstoday who have totally rejected the prac-tice of immersion. In the religious worldthere has developed the belief that bap-tism in any form is not linked to one’ssalvation. The new birth can be either aconversion experience or an emotionaleuphoria. If one wants to be baptized,then such is optional.

With many religious groups there isno longer any debate over either themanner of baptism or the necessitythereof. Baptism has simply droppedout of the discussions of many religiousgroups. Preachers have become indif-ferent to discussion surrounding the sub-ject, believing that because baptism issupposedly not necessary for salvation,there is no need for debate.

There is also the host of religiousgroups that practice infant baptism. Thispractice originated out of an unfortunatebelief that babies are inherent sinnersbecause of a supposed “original sin” withwhich one is born as a result of the sinof Adam. It is believed that at birth ba-bies inherit the supposed sin of Adam.They are thus in need of baptism for the

The Baptism

8 8

remission of sins.We do not pretend to write a com-

plete study of the subject on baptism.However, we do want to present someof the most important aspects of thesubject as they are stated in the Scrip-tures. Since the word “baptism” in ei-ther a noun or verb form is mentionedover one hundred times in the New Tes-tament, we must assume that this is avery important subject for discussion.We cannot simply pass over this sub-ject if we claim allegiance to the Bibleas a standard for faith and obedience.The movement to relegate baptism tosome practice of ancient religious sac-raments is not acceptable. We mustdeal with this subject that has been apoint of confrontation in the past andpresent because it is mentioned somany times in the New Testament.

It will be noticed from the material ofthis discussion that immersion in wateris necessary in order to establish a cov-enant relationship with God. Without thisrelationship, there is no salvation. It isour prayer that each reader will considerthe main points of each of the followingchapters with a desire to fully understandthe nature and purpose of baptism.

Some wonder why we need to con-tinually discuss the matter of baptism.The fact that they wonder about discus-sions on baptism is part of the problem.We live in a generation of Christendomthat has gone in two directions on thesubject. There is a legal oriented groupthat views baptism as some kind of“church sacrament.” Such is evidencedin how we approach our youth. Somesay, “Isn’t it time, young man, that youget baptized?” The problem is that weoften do not focus on commitment to

Jesus. There is no call to commit one’slife to Jesus. Only perform an immer-sion act and one is accepted. Some havedigressed to the point of simply “mak-ing sure someone knows what he or sheis doing” before they are baptized. Sowe sit down and go through the facts.As long as one knows the facts, thenwe assume the one is ready to be bap-tized. Dedicated commitment from theheart to live the sacrificial life for Jesusis only incidental. Understanding thecovenant relationship one is establish-ing with God in baptism is secondary.Some have, therefore, encouragedpeople to just “get baptized” in order tofulfill a requirement, and then take one’sseat in a pew. Is this the only signifi-cance we should place on baptism?

The second group that is in troubleare those who have run through Jerusa-lem in search of unity with anyone whowould mention Jesus. This group hassacrificed baptism for fellowship withanyone who shows up at the churchassembly. As long as one claims to havesome kind of conversion experience andmanifests some type of commitment,then he or she is accepted into fellow-ship. Obedience to the gospel in im-mersion is not important. We seriouslydo not believe that the New Testamentteaches such universal salvation.

In this discussion we would chal-lenge the preceding misconceptions.We believe there are too many peoplewho are missing the point of a most im-portant New Testament teaching. Forthis reason it is time for another look atthe subject, always remembering thatwe must be willing to submit to anyteaching of the word of God on the sub-ject.

The Baptism

8 9

Chapter 20

DEFINITION OF DEFINITION OF DEFINITION OF DEFINITION OF DEFINITION OF BAPTIZOBAPTIZOBAPTIZOBAPTIZOBAPTIZO

Much of the confusion that arises outof discussions over religious mattersresults from a misunderstanding con-cerning the definition of words. In ourstudy of the subject of baptism, muchof the controversy would be eliminated ifjust one word in the New Testament hadbeen properly translated in 1611 by theKing James Version. This one word isthe Greek word “baptizo.”

There are two things to understandconcerning the word baptizo. First, theEnglish word “baptize” is a translitera-tion of the Greek word baptizo. Sec-ond, this Greek word was used in thefirst century to express the action of im-mersion, dipping, plunging or overwhelm-ing. All Greek lexicons (dictionaries) andchurch historians agree on this defini-tion.

A. Transliteration of baptizo:Transliteration is the practice of writ-

ing in alphabetical characters the soundof the words of one language into thesame sound of alphabetical charactersof another language. This is what tookplace when the Greek word baptizo wastransliterated in 1611 by the translatorsof the King James Version.

When the King James translatorstranslated the King James Version of theNew Testament in 1611, they chose totransliterate the Greek word baptizoinstead of translating it. They did thisbecause there were many religiousgroups of that day who were sprinklingpeople and calling it baptism. There-fore, by transliteration, the Greek wordbaptizo became “baptize” in the English

language. We thus live today with thisunfortunate action of past translators.The unfortunate transliteration hascaused much confusion in the study andpractice of baptism. In fact, if this wordhad been properly translated, there wouldbe no need for this discussion on whatthe word means.

B. Lexicon definition of baptizo:In studying the Greek word baptizo

there is no misunderstanding of the ac-tual meaning of the word as it is definedby Greek lexicons. In the Greek lexi-con of Arndt and Gingrich, baptizo isdefined as “dip,” or “immerse.” InThayer’s lexicon the word is defined “todip repeatedly,” “to immerse,” or “sub-merge.” The Abbott-Smith lexicon says,“to dip, immerse, sink, or to overwhelm.”In his comprehensive book on New Tes-tament words, W. E. Vine said that bap-tism is “the process of immersion, sub-mersion and emergence.” There are noGreek lexicons that define baptizo in anyother way than the definition that is givenby accepted Greek lexicons. Therefore,when reading the New Testament, Biblestudents should almost always read theword “immerse” when they see the word“baptize” in the text.

The well known church historian,Philip Schaff, wrote, “Unquestionably,immersion expresses the idea of bap-tism ....” The world accepted Interna-tional Standard Bible Encyclopediastates, “It is noteworthy that here [Mark7:4] rhantizo [the Greek word for“sprinkle”] is used in contrast withbaptizo showing that baptize did notmean sprinkle.” All church historians willagree with these statements.

Anyone who defines baptizo to mean

The Baptism

9 0

“sprinkle” or “pouring” is arguing againstthe best scholarship of the biblical world.All accepted Greek lexicons and churchhistorians affirm that the primary mean-ing of the word baptizo is immersion.This fact cannot be denied. Therefore,no matter what one has been taught pre-viously on the matter, he or she mustaccept this definition of the word. Thisis the correct definition and the one thatmust be understood when the word “bap-tize” is read in the text of the Scriptures.

The fact is that defining the word“baptism” should never have to be in-cluded in a book on the subject of bap-tism. If the word was translated correctlyin Bibles throughout the world therewould be no need to define the word. Itwould be like defining the word “immer-sion” by trying to convince people thatimmersion means “immersion.” How-ever, Satan has done his work well.Millions of people throughout Christen-dom today are confused concerning thedefinition of baptism. They are confusedbecause religious leaders who know thetruth on this matter are not teaching thetruth that the meaning of the wordbaptizo is immersion, not sprinkling orpouring.

C. Textual definition of baptizo:The final “dictionary” on determining

the meaning of any word is the contextin which it is used. When we turn to thepages of the New Testament, there is avery clear definition of the word baptizo.There are two key passages in the NewTestament that clearly demonstrate thatbaptism is a burial, and not sprinkling orpouring.

1. Colossians 2:12: To the Coloss-

ians, Paul wrote that they were “buriedwith Him in baptism, in which you werealso raised with Him through faith in theworking of God who raised Him from thedead.” The action of baptism could notbe stated more clearly. One is buriedin baptism, after which he is raised fromthe grave of water just as Jesus wasraised from the grave by the Father.

In order for one to be raised, he orshe must first be buried. The phrase“raised with Him” assumes a burial.There can be no resurrection with Jesusunless there is first a burial with Him.

2. Romans 6:3-5: In Romans 6:3-5Paul gives a very descriptive account ofthe relationship between baptism and thegospel. The gospel is the death of Jesuson the cross for our sins. It is His burialand resurrection to give us hope of a fu-ture resurrection. Baptism in water isobedience to the gospel. (More on thislater.)

In Romans 6:3-5 Paul explainedwhat happened to Jesus in His redemp-tion for man. Jesus died on the cross.He was buried in a tomb. On the thirdday after His death on the cross, He wasresurrected from the tomb. However,Paul’s emphasis in Romans 6:3-5 is onwhat Christians have done in obedienceto the gospel event.

Paul is saying that as Jesus wasburied in the tomb, so we are buriedby baptism in a tomb of water. As Jesuswas resurrected from the tomb, so weare also resurrected from the waters ofbaptism. In order to be in the likenessof Jesus’ burial, we must be buried inwater. Jesus was not sprinkled into thetomb. Neither is one sprinkled with wa-ter for burial today. Water cannot be

The Baptism

9 1

sprinkled on the candidate and it becalled baptism.

In conjunction with Colossians 2:12and Romans 6:3-6, there is an impor-tant rule of Bible study to consider. Thisrule is, the true meaning or synonymof a word can be put in the place ofthe word in the text or sentence with-out changing the meaning of thattext or sentence in which the origi-nal word is used. If baptism means“sprinkling” or “pouring,” then these defi-nitions can be substituted in the textwhere the word “baptism” is used with-out any change in the textual meaning.If we substitute the meaning “sprinkling”or “pouring” in the text of Romans 6:3-5and Colossians 2:12 for the word “bap-tism,” then the meaning of the textchanges because the meaning of bap-tism is not sprinkling or pouring. Noticehow this substitution would change themeaning of the text of Romans 6:3-5.

Or do you not know that as many of usas were [sprinkled] into Christ Jesuswere [sprinkled] into His death? There-fore we were buried with Him through[sprinkling] into death ....

The reason Romans 6:3-5 and Co-lossians 2:12 sound contradictory withthe above substitution is because bap-tism does not mean “sprinkling” or “pour-ing.” The word means “immerse.” Thissynonym can be substituted in the textsof Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12without any change in the meaning ofwhat the inspired writer is trying to con-vey. And what the writer is trying to con-vey is that we are immersed in obedi-ence to the gospel

D. Circumstances surrounding bap-tism:The events that took place during

various cases of baptism in the NewTestament show that only immersioncould have been the correct action ofbaptism.

1. Much water is needed in orderto accomplish the action of baptism.In John 3:23 we read that John the Bap-tist “was baptizing in Aenon near Salim,because there was much water there....” Why would John be baptizing in alocation where there was much waterif baptism required only a little water? Ifbaptism were by sprinkling or pouring,then he could have brought the water ina jug or jar to the ones who were to bebaptized. But the fact that John had totake the ones who were to be baptizedto a place of much water assumes thatbaptism was by immersion, and muchwater is needed for immersion.

2. “Going down into the water”is required in order to accomplish theaction of baptism. In Acts 8:26-40 theEthiopian eunuch was taught of Jesusand baptized by Philip, the evangelist.As he and Philip went on their way in achariot, the eunuch “commanded thechariot to stand still. And they bothwent down into the water, both Philipand the eunuch, and he baptized him.Now when they came up out of the wa-ter, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philipaway ...” (vss 38,39). We would wonderwhy both Philip and the eunuch had togo down into the water in order for theeunuch to be baptized if only sprinklingwas involved in the baptism. Why getcompletely wet when one could just

The Baptism

9 2

stand on the bank of a river, dip out alittle water, and then sprinkle it on thesubject’s head? The fact that Philip hadto dip or immerse the eunuch completelyunder water made it necessary to takethe eunuch down into the water.

This same example for immersionis also seen in the baptism of Jesus.Matthew 3:16 reads, “And Jesus, whenHe was baptized, went up immediatelyout the water ....” John and Jesus hadgone down into the water in order thatJesus might be immersed by John inmuch water. The action of immersionnecessitates that one go down into thewater.

The historical evidence that definesbaptizo to mean immersion is consis-tent and in agreement with all Greek lexi-cons. There is no evidence to the con-trary. It would seem, therefore, that inthis area of study of baptism there canbe no debate. Baptism is by immer-sion. To ignore this fact is to becomevery unbiblical in one’s studies becauseone has refused to accept the scholar-ship of the world with reference to thedefinition of the word baptizo.

The English words “baptize” and“baptism” have now become so acceptedin the world of theology and translationthat there are few publishing houses whohave the courage to translate the wordsproperly in published translations of theNew Testament. We have found that theintimidation of the religious world is sostrong, that book publishing houseshave rejected a literal translation ofbaptizo for the sake of many religiousgroups who continue to sprinkle peopleand call it baptism. What is encourag-ing, however, is that the religious world

to a great extent is accepting the factthat baptism is by immersion. The ex-ception are those groups who continueto cling to their traditional practice ofsprinkling. However, most of the evan-gelical religious groups have given upsprinkling in order to retore the originalaction of immersion.

Please be reminded again that whatis most important for one to do in orderto be saved is where Satan will do hisbest work. In the area surrounding bap-tism in obedience to the gospel, Satanhas done well to confuse many peopleby leading them to believe that they havebeen baptized when they have only beensprinkled with water. There are still manyreligious groups throughout the worldwho have substituted sprinkling for theaction of baptism. However, this situa-tion is rapidly changing, and thus wewelcome the discussion concerning bap-tism by immersion. It is a discussionthat is bringing forth a great deal of fruitas people throughout the world are be-ing immersed for the remission of sins.It has now become the exception thatpeople are sprinkled. The general prac-tice today among religious people isimmersion.

Chapter 21

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

CHURCH HISTORYCHURCH HISTORYCHURCH HISTORYCHURCH HISTORYCHURCH HISTORY

There is actually little discussion inthe theological world today that centersaround the practice of baptism in theearly church. Anyone who has studiedchurch history has discovered at leastone common fact concerning discus-sions on baptism by the Christian writ-

The Baptism

9 3

ers of the second and third centuries.That one fact is that the early churchimmersed people. There is no historyof sprinkling or pouring for baptism in thefirst, second and third centuries, andthus, present day liberal theologians ig-nore the fact that their teaching that bap-tism is by sprinkling or pouring has noevidence of early church history. There-fore, if we are to restore the ancient or-der of baptism, then we must go all theway back to the first century. In doingthis, the only valid book for research onthis subject is the New Testament.Though the documents of ancient churchhistorians after the writing of the NewTestament are valuable resources, theNew Testament must always be our fi-nal authority.

As one studies church history, thosewho have identified themselves withChristianity today in some form haveprogressed from a true emphasis onbaptism in the first century to a total in-difference toward it today. In manychurches today the subject is not evenon the agenda for discussion. Thisseems to be the normal drift of thosereligious groups who have ceased hav-ing the Bible as their standard of author-ity in matters of faith. The result of thislack of emphasis on the Bible as ourfinal authority in religious matters todayhas led to some interesting admissionson the part of different theologians. Theyhave researched the mode of baptism inthe early church writings and have con-fessed that the early church practicedimmersion.

The following are a few brief state-ments of some religious groups concern-ing the historical practice of baptism.These statements indicate both the

change of the mode and the purpose ofbaptism in various religious groups.

A. Ancient religious documents af-firm immersion for baptism:Baptism was by immersion in the

first century. However, many years af-ter the first century men started the prac-tice of baptism by sprinkling or pouring.The first recorded case of sprinkling forbaptism was that of Novatian who wassprinkled in bed no earlier than A.D. 250.When it was certain that Mr. Novatianwould soon die, his friends hastened toperform some rite over him and call itbaptism. Eusebius (260 - 340) wroteconcerning this case,

Novatian, being relieved thereof by theexorcists, fell into a grievous distem-per: and it being supposed that hewould die immediately, he receivedbaptism, being sprinkled with water,on the bed whereon he lay, (if that canbe termed baptism).

In this first recorded case of sprin-kling, it seems that Eusebius was ap-prehensive about calling sprinkling bap-tism. From this earliest recorded caseor sprinkling, not only is the manner ofbaptism being changed, but also the ap-proach by which some use the Bible. Areligious practice was carried out onNovatian. Water was sprinkled on him.In order to make the practice “biblically”oriented, those who carried out the deedstole the Bible word “baptism” in orderto justify their act. They applied a Bibleword to an invented action of man.

This is still a common practiceamong religions today. Religious pla-giarists are still stealing words from the

The Baptism

9 4

Bible and applying them to their religiouspractices that they have invented aftertheir own desires or traditions. In an ef-fort to make their religious practicesappear to be biblical, they have usedBible names in reference to practicesthat have been developed by man. Thisis one of Satan’s greatest tools to de-ceive and confuse people concerning thetruth about baptism.

The Didache, an ancient documentthat was written in the second century,also states a time when sprinkling orpouring was substituted for immersion.

Concerning baptism, you baptize thus,having first said all these things, bap-tize into the name of the Father and ofthe Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living[running] water. But if you cannot incold, in warm. But if you do not haveeither, pour out water three times uponthe head into the name of the Fatherand Son and Holy Spirit.

Here again is another substitutionthat has led to erroneous religiousdogma today on the subject of baptism.In the above statement of the Didache,a religious act is again being called bap-tism. In this case, if what God requiresis not convenient, then it is believed thatone is justified to change God’s will. Thisis not an uncommon practice among re-ligious groups today. This is probablyone of the greatest forces among reli-gious people concerning the changingof immersion to sprinkling. If immersionis not convenient, it is believed that wehave a right to change to sprinkling. Inthe book, Faith of Our Fathers, JamesCardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Churchauthority admitted,

For several centuries after the estab-lishment of Christianity Baptism wasusually conferred by immersion; butsince the twelfth century the practiceof baptizing by infusion has prevailedin the Catholic Church, as this man-ner is attended with less inconve-nience than Baptism by immersion[emphasis mine, R.E.D.].

Do religious counsels of men havethe right to change the meaning of theGreek word baptizo? Such seems tobe what has happened with those whoproduce religious writings for theirchurches.

What has happened among somereligious groups is that the word “bap-tism” has moved so far away from theoriginal meaning of baptizo that it hasassumed a different meaning. In orderto solve this confusion, men have takenit upon themselves to determine theirown meaning for the word. They havedetermined the meaning of baptizo bytheir traditional practice of sprinkling. To-day, when people read their Bibles, manypeople understand the word “baptism” tomean sprinkling because their particularreligion practices sprinkling for baptism.

Most religious leaders today and allancient church historians agree that firstcentury baptism was by immersion.However, after the first century, an apos-tasy led people to believe that sprinklingwas the right manner of baptism. Rec-ognition of this historical digressionposes a challenge to those today whohave been practicing either sprinkling orpouring and calling it baptism. Eitherthey restore the New Testament prac-tice of immersion, or they continue afterthe tradition of men who have counter-

The Baptism

9 5

feited a most sacred teaching of Jesus.“He who believes and is baptized [im-mersed], will be saved ...” (Mk 16:16).What men often do in cases as this iswhat the Jews did. Jesus said of them,“All too well you reject the command-ment of God so that you may keep yourown tradition” (Mk 7:9).

B. Religious leaders agree that bap-tism was by immersion.Reference is made to important reli-

gious leaders here, not as an authorityto establish biblical truth, but to showthat many leaders of the past have con-tended that the manner of baptism is byimmersion. These and many other reli-gious historians unanimously contendthat baptism was by immersion in thefirst century.

Martin Luther said,

The name baptism is Greek; in Latin itcan be rendered immersion, ... we im-merse anything in water, that it may beall covered with water. And althoughthat custom has now grown out of use... yet they ought to be entirely im-mersed, and immediately drawn out.

John Calvin said,

The very word baptize signified to im-merse; and it is certain that immer-sion was the practice of the primitivechurch.

John Wesley said,

We are buried with Him, alluding tothe ancient manner of baptizing by im-mersion.

The religious groups today who prac-tice sprinkling and pouring and call suchbaptism, are faced with a challenge.They have no authority of the first cen-tury church, nor one Greek scholar onbiblical languages to support theirpresent practice. They must make adecision. Either they take the positionthat man has a right to arbitrarily changeBible teachings and practices, or theymust discard those religious practicesthat conflict with Bible teaching.

The power of traditional thought inthe minds of men is very strong. Tradi-tional patterns of belief and behavior arestrong in the realm of religion. It is sostrong that men will reject God’s wordin order to maintain a traditional belief orpractice. Again, we must rememberJesus’ words to the Jewish religiousleaders. “All too well you reject the com-mandment of God so that you may keepyour own tradition” (Mk 7:9).

Men are no different today than whenJesus spoke these words. For this rea-son, the vast majority of people whopractice sprinkling and pouring will con-tinue to do so. They are unfortunatelycaught in a religious scenario that is notbiblically oriented. They have created areligion after their own traditions. Theyare in bondage to their history and tothe majority of those of their faith. Nev-ertheless, it is the duty of all to knowthe truth on the subject and to teach thetruth. We do so to set men free fromtraditional religion that has been createdafter the desires of men. In reference tobaptism, these traditions have now be-come the validation to identify particularreligious groups. Once traditional teach-ing becomes the standard upon which aparticular religious group determines its

The Baptism

9 6

identity, then it is very difficult to returnto the word of God as our final authorityin matters of faith.

Chapter 22

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPELOBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPELOBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPELOBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPELOBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL

In the world of Christendom through-out history there has probably been morediscussion concerning the purpose andimportance of baptism than any otherNew Testament teaching. By a casualreading of the New Testament one canclearly see that the subject of baptismis very important. In many passages ofthe New Testament, baptism is simplymentioned as a statement of fact. Nodetail is usually given concerning itspurpose simply because it is understoodthat we should gather from other con-texts the full significance of baptism.And indeed, the full significance of whattranspires in immersion is very impor-tant to understand from the entire NewTestament teaching on the subject.

For many centuries in the religiousworld there have been those who havebelieved that remission of sins, regen-eration, and consequently, salvation,preceded one’s obedience to the gos-pel in immersion. It is believed by somethat there is an actual and real remis-sion of sins at the point one believes inJesus as his personal Savior, or goesthrough some “conversion experience.”It is affirmed that when one truly repentsand believes in Jesus that he or she isborn again. Baptism is only a confirma-tion of one’s salvation. However, the NewTestament clearly teaches that this be-lief is contrary to God’s plan for man’s

part in his salvation.Another doctrine that seems to be

prevalent today is the “salvation experi-ence” doctrine. In other words, as longas one has had some type of salvationexperience in his or her life, such is anindication of one’s acceptance by God.Baptism is only one in a selected cata-log of optional experiences in which onemay participate after a supposedly sal-vation experience. The result of thisteaching is the same as all teachingsthat do not emphasize the importanceof immersion in reference to salvation,or a consideration of all that the NewTestament teaches concerning what isrequired for salvation. Baptism is oftenrelegated to a simple legal work. It isclaimed to have little or no importancein reference to one’s salvation. For thisreason, in the following material we wantto emphasize the purpose of baptism inrelation to the salvation of one’s soul.Baptism is not a church sacrament. Itis not some meritorious work for salva-tion. It is not an inconsequential workthat follows remission of sins.

Contrary to the host of religiousgroups who deny the fact that baptismis essential to salvation, the New Testa-ment clearly connects immersion inwater to obedience of the gospel. If oneconcludes that this is true, then therecan be no argument against the teach-ing that at the point of baptism, that isobedience to the gospel, one is saved.

What one must understand that “obe-dience to the gospel” is the action ofimmersion. But obedience to the gos-pel is more than a legal action of immer-sion in water. This thought is introducedby Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. Paulwrote,

The Baptism

9 7

... rest with us when the Lord Jesus isrevealed from heaven with His mightyangels in flaming fire, taking ven-geance on those who do not know Godand who do not obey the gospel ofour Lord Jesus Christ. These will bepunished with everlasting destructionaway from the presence of the Lordand away from the glory of His power.

This statement teaches some en-couraging things if one is a believer.Jesus is coming again. He is comingwith His angels. If one is not a Chris-tian, however, the teaching of 2 Thessa-lonians 1:7-9 may be quite disturbing.Jesus is coming to take vengeance onthose who have not obeyed the gos-pel.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 clearlyteaches that one must obey the gos-pel in order to escape the coming judg-ment and destruction. This biblical con-cept is also stated as a question byPeter in 1 Peter 4:17. Peter asks, “Forthe time has come for judgment to be-gin at the house of God. And if it firstbegins with us, what will be the end ofthose who do not obey the gospel ofGod?” Both Peter and Paul revealed amost important truth concerning the gos-pel and our obedience. 2 Thessalonians1:7-9 and 1 Peter 4:17 were written inorder to deliver themselves from the com-ing destruction. It is at the point of bap-tism that our deliverance from destruc-tion was made. Our obedience of thegospel connected us with the gospelwhen we were immersed into the savingdeath, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

We must ask and answer two ques-tions that arise from 2 Thessalonians1:7-9 and 1 Peter 4:17. We must ask:

“What is the gospel?” and “How canone obey the gospel?” Answeringthese two questions answers all ques-tions in reference to the importance ofimmersion in relation to one’s salvation.

All agree that the gospel is the powerof God unto salvation (Rm 1:16). Wewould also agree that the verb “obey” inthe phrase “obey the gospel” refers toaction on the part of man. The gospel isGod’s work in reference to our salvation.Obedience is our response to God’swork. Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9and 1 Peter 4:17 connect the work ofGod through the gospel with the obedi-ence of man in order to be delivered fromthe coming judgment. Once we deter-mine the answers to the two precedingquestions, therefore, we will determinethe necessity of baptism in reference toone’s salvation. Since both Paul andPeter connected God’s work through thegospel and man’s response through obe-dience, we cannot separate the gospelfrom our obedience in reference to oursalvation. Baptism is not an option. Itis a necessity in reference to salvation,for by baptism one obeys the gospel.The following points will clearly manifestthat man must obey the gospel by im-mersion in water for remission of sins inorder to be saved:

A. What is the gospel?There are some very important points

here to review concerning the definitionof the gospel. The question is oftenasked concerning what the gospel is.The most common response is, “Thegospel is the good news.” This is par-tially right but partially wrong. “Goodnews” is actually the meaning of the NewTestament Greek word that we translate

The Baptism

9 8

with the English word “gospel.” It mightbe better to ask, “What is the goodnews?” This question will often bringmixed responses. At least, it gets uscloser to understanding the gospel.

Unfortunately, many people affirmthat the gospel (good news) is the teach-ing of Jesus or the Bible. Others affirmthat Jesus is the gospel. This would bea correct answer if we understand thatJesus was more than a man, more thana good teacher, and that His coming toearth was for a salvational purpose. Butwe must determine how Jesus is goodnews in our relationship with God, withlife, and with the judgment to come.

We once stood before approximatelyseventy-five preachers at a seminar onpersonal evangelism. We held up a copyof the Bible and asked, “Is this the gos-pel?” Almost everyone held up his hand.We then said, “This is not the gospel.”The preachers uncomfortably squirmedand thought that we were certainly miss-ing a commonly accepted truth. How-ever, after less than ten minutes of ex-planation, every preacher agreed that thegospel was an historical event thattook place over two thousand years ago.

In the first century, men and womenheard the gospel. They believed thegospel. They repented because of thegospel. They confessed Jesus as theChrist and Son of God. And finally, theywere baptized in obedience to the gos-pel. In order to clarify this, consider thefact that the gospel is an event that hap-pened in history and is reported to ustoday in the inspired New Testament.We thus read the New Testament as aninspired report from the Holy Spirit con-cerning the gospel event.

The gospel was an event that hap-pened in history. It happened almosttwo thousand years ago and was re-corded as a report in the pages of theNew Testament. As in any newspaper,the event happens before the report iswritten. Such is the case with the gos-pel and the report of its historical occur-rence.

The report is not the event. We be-lieve the events because we trust thereliability of the reporter. By affirmingthat the gospel is an event we are sim-ply saying that it took place in history.People personally experienced its oc-currence. Matthew personally experi-enced the gospel event and wrote aninspired letter about it. Luke did not per-sonally experience the gospel event.However, he interviewed eyewitnesseswho had (Lk 1:1-4), and then, he wrotea narrative of theevents surroundingthe gospel event.Therefore, the recordswe have concerningthe gospel event areinspired reports.They are reports of thegreatest news-breaking story that hashappened in the history of the world.When we read the New Testament weare reading about this great historicalevent that has changed the lives of mil-lions.

REPORT

EVENT

REPORT

The Baptism

9 9

In 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 Paul ex-plained, “For I delivered to you first of allthat which I also received, that Christdied for our sins according to the Scrip-tures, and that He was buried, and thatHe rose again the third day accordingto the Scriptures.” Jesus died for oursins. He was buried and rose again inorder to give us hope of eternal life. Thegospel event, therefore, is the death,burial and resurrection of Jesus. Thisis the good news that solves the prob-lems of both spiritual and physicaldeath.

We must remember that the gospelis good news. But how is the death,burial and resurrection of Jesus goodnews for us today? The answer is simple.“... all have sinned and fall short ofthe glory of God” (Rm 3:23). The re-sult of sin against God is death. Isaiahwrote, “But your iniquities have sepa-rated you from your God” (Is 59:2).Therefore, when we think about sin, wemust think about separation fromGod. And when we think about separa-tion from God, we must think about spiri-tual death. Paul stated, “For the wagesof sin is death” (Rm 6:23).

Sin, separation and death always gotogether. When we think about death,we must recognize our two greatestproblems for which we need good news.Both problems involve death. The fol-lowing are these two problems for whichevery man must find good news:

1. Spiritual death: Sin separatesone from God, and thus, the alien sin-ner is spiritually dead in sin. This is whatPaul meant in Romans 5:12. “There-fore, just as through one man sin en-tered the world and death through sin,

and so death passed to all men be-cause all sinned.” When Adam person-ally sinned against God, he was person-ally separated from God by his sin. Wedo not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.Adam was responsible for his own sinbefore God. However, God says thatevery man has sinned. Spiritual deathpasses to all men because “there is nonerighteous, no, not one ... for all havesinned and fall short of the glory ofGod” (Rm 3:10,23). Without the goodnews of the cross one is “dead in tres-passes and sins” (Ep 2:1). This is man’sfirst and greatest problem! This prob-lem means that we must be reconciledto God. We must be brought back to asaved relationship with our Creator. Thegospel event answers this problem, forJesus died for our sins on the cross(1 Co 15:3). Jesus died for the purposeof reconciling man to God. The gospelis good news, therefore, because it givesevery man an opportunity to be recon-ciled to God through the cross.

2. Physical death: Physical deathentered into the world when Adam wasseparated from the tree of life. After Adamsinned, God stated, “Behold, the manhas become as one of Us, to know goodand evil. And now, he must not be al-lowed to put forth his hand and take ofthe tree of life and eat, and live for-ever.” Therefore the Lord God sent himout of the garden of Eden” (See Gn 3:22-24). All humanity was thus separatedfrom the tree of life. As a result, it isappointed unto all of us that we mustphysically die (Hb 9:27). The Bible says,“For as in Adam all die ...” (1 Co 15:22).All of us suffer from the consequencesof Adam’s sin. But again, the gospel is

The Baptism

100

good news concerning this secondgreatest problem of man, the problem ofphysical death. Paul continued, “... evenso in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Co15:22). Therefore, in Christ the obedi-ent will be made alive. They will live for-ever. This is good news!

We must remember that our firstgreat problem is our spiritual separa-tion from God that has resulted fromour personal sins against God. WithoutChrist and the cross we are “dead in ourtrespasses and sins” (Ep 2:1). The gos-pel is good news because Jesus cameto die for our personal sins against God.Man’s second greatest problem is thateach one of us will eventually physicallydie. We needed good news for this prob-lem. Jesus was raised to never dieagain. He was raised with an eternal,incorruptible body. Those who are inChrist will also be raised when He comesagain (See 1 Th 4:13-18).

Since the gospel event is the death,burial and resurrection of Jesus, thisdefinition of the gospel must be appliedto what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians1:7-9. The application of this definitionemphasizes the necessity of baptism inreference to one’s salvation.

B. How can one obey the gospel?Romans 6:3-6 answers this ques-

tion. One must first believe the gospelevent. Jesus came preaching, “The timeis fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is athand. Repent, and believe in the gos-pel” (Mk 1:15). In order to be saved bythe good news one must believe in thecross, Jesus’ burial and His resurrec-tion. John came preaching that Jesuswas the Savior of the world, the Lamb of

God who takes away the sins of theworld (Jn 1:29). Men must believe inwho Jesus is before they will respond tothe work of Jesus on the cross and Hishope-giving resurrection.

In Romans 6:3 Paul asked the Ro-man brethren a question. “Or do younot know that as many of us as werebaptized into Christ Jesus were bap-tized into His death?” We must keepin mind that the theme of Romans 6 isour death to sin. Read through thechapter and count how many times thewords “death,” “die,” “died” and “dead”are used in reference to the Christian’slife in relation to the past life of sin.

In the phrase “baptized into Hisdeath,” the English word “into” is fromthe Greek word eis. In the context ref-erence must be to a metaphorical useof eis. In Matthew 28:19 one is bap-tized into (eis) “the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.” In both texts (Rm6:3; Mt 28:19) the meaning is related bythe use of the Greek word eis. Whenone is baptized, he or she is baptizedinto a relationship with the Father, Sonand Holy Spirit. In Romans 6, Paul’semphasis is on being baptized into arelationship with the death of Jesus onthe cross. Herein, therefore, is the themeof Romans 6. “How will we who died tosin live any longer therein?” (Rm 6:2).In this chapter, Paul’s argument is clear.Christians have come into a relationshipwith Jesus by putting to death the oldman. And, “he who has died has beenfreed from sin” (Rm 6:7). But when didthe old man die? When was the old manburied? When was the new man resur-rected?

Jesus died in Jerusalem. He diedalmost two thousand years ago. Never-

The Baptism

101

theless, today one can be “baptized intoHis death.” Paul explains this in Ro-mans 6:4. “Therefore we were buriedwith Him through baptism into death,that just as Christ was raised up fromthe dead by the glory of the Father, evenso we also might walk in newness oflife.” Thus the answer to the questionof Romans 6:3 is verse 4.

It would be hard to miss Paul’s ex-planation of how to be baptized into thedeath of Jesus in obedience to the gos-pel. Notice the preposition “with.” Byimmersion in water one goes to the gravewith Jesus.

Something great, something spiritualhappens in baptism. Jesus was buried.In obedience to the gospel event, weare also buried with Him. In baptism,the alien sinner comes into a spiritualunion with Jesus. A covenant is beingformed. A relationship with God is es-tablished when one comes into contactwith the cleansing blood of Jesus. Be-cause of the seriousness of this teach-ing, Paul repeats the answer to the ques-tion of Romans 6:3 again in verse 5, butwith different words and phrases. “For ifwe have been united together in the like-ness of His death, certainly we also willbe in the likeness of His resurrection.”

By immersion into Jesus one isunited together in the likeness ofJesus’ death. As Jesus went to the tombalmost two thousand years ago, so wecan also go to the tomb of water togetherwith Him today. Subsequently, we areraised with Him in order to walk in new-ness of life. This is great news! In Co-lossians 2:12 Paul stated that the Co-lossians were “... buried with Him in bap-tism, in which you also were raised withHim through faith in the working of God

who raised Him from the dead.”In immersion, therefore, one is bur-

ied with Jesus. He or she is also raisedwith Jesus. In baptism one obeys thegospel, which is the death, burial andresurrection of Jesus. However, beforeone goes to the grave with Jesus, he orshe must also go to the cross. Paulexplains this in verse 6.

... knowing this, that our old man was cru-

cified with Him so that the body of sin

might be done away with, that we should no

longer be the bondservants of sin.

Here again is the preposition “with.”Jesus was crucified. We must also becrucified with Him. The old man of sindied with Jesus on the cross. Our oldman of greed, selfishness, drunkenness,worldliness or pride died on a cross withJesus. Paul wrote concerning his per-sonal crucifixion, “I have been crucifiedwith Christ. And it is no longer I wholive, but Christ lives in me ...” (Gl 2:20).Everyone must be crucified with Jesusbefore they can be buried with Him inthe waters of baptism. Peter said it thus,“Repent and be baptized every one ofyou in the name of Jesus Christ for theremission of sins and you will receivethe gift of the Holy Spirit” (At 2:38). WhenJesus died on the cross, He took withHim the sins of all men. Our old man ofsin died with Jesus on the cross. It isdead. But in order for one to live, theremust be a burial and resurrection. Thereis no life, therefore, without burial in wa-ter for remission of sins.

Now the second question that 2Thessalonians 1:7-9 poses has beenanswered. How can one obey the gos-pel in order to escape the coming de-

The Baptism

102

struction? The answer is simple. Byimmersing the old man of sin into thedeath, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

The gospel “is the power of God tosalvation to everyone who believes” andjoins with Jesus in His death, burial andresurrection (Rm 1:16). The gospel canbe the power of God unto salvation onlyto those who connect with Jesus throughobedience to the gospel. Obedience tothe gospel by immersion explains whyand how the gospel is the power of Godunto salvation. The gospel is the deathof Jesus for our sin problem. This isgreat news! The gospel is the resurrec-tion of Jesus for our physical death prob-lem. This is great news! When one isimmersed into the death, burial and res-urrection of Jesus, then he or she hasobeyed the gospel, and thus, is savedby being connected with the saving bloodof Jesus. The death, burial and resur-rection of Jesus is the power of God untosalvation to all those who are baptized.Because the gospel is the mediumthrough which all men must come to Godin order to be saved, it is imperative thatwe accept God’s command on how toconnect with the event of the cross. Ifwe try to establish our own conditionsfor salvation, then certainly we are ig-noring God and all that He has accom-plished through His Son on the cross inorder to bring us into eternity.

Chapter 23

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

THE BLOOD OF JESUSTHE BLOOD OF JESUSTHE BLOOD OF JESUSTHE BLOOD OF JESUSTHE BLOOD OF JESUS

God has always ordained that “with-out shedding of blood there is no remis-sion” (Hb 9:22). He required a blood

sacrifice of Abel and of all who lived be-fore the giving of the Old Testament lawon Mount Sinai (Gn 4:4,5). The Old Tes-tament law itself was dedicated with the“blood of calves and goats” (Hb 9:19).God established a covenant with Israelthat demanded a continual offering ofblood sacrifices because “it was not pos-sible that the blood of bulls and goatscould take away sins” (Hb 10:4). Thepriests, therefore, had to offer animalsacrifices that could never take awaysins either temporarily or on a continualbasis (See Hb 10:1-4). Fortunately,these sacrifices were “a shadow of thegood things to come ...” (Hb 10:1). Theyhad to be offered in obedience to God’scommandments and in preparation forthe outpouring of the blood of Jesus thatwas to come (See Rm 3:25; Hb 9:15).

The “good things” of which the OldTestament sacrifices were a shadow ofJesus and the cross. The cross was agood thing because Jesus “offered onesacrifice for sins forever” (Hb 10:12). Bythat “one offering He has perfected for-ever those who are being sanctified” (Hb10:14). Jesus was the sacrificial Lambof God who “takes away the sin of theworld” (Jn 1:29). He did this act of sanc-tification by bearing “our sins in His bodyon the tree ...” (1 Pt 2:24). Thus, Jesus’blood was the “blood of the new cov-enant” (Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20). He madea new covenant with those who submit-ted to His lordship through their obedi-ence of the gospel. Those who submit-ted were called the church. The churchis thus sanctified and purchased by Hisblood which all the saints contactedupon their baptism into Christ (At 20:28).

It is essential to understand that thechurch, the fellowship of the submitted,

The Baptism

103

is a blood-purchased group of God’speople. All those who are a part of thisbody have been redeemed “through Hisblood” (Ep 1:7). The church has been“justified freely by His grace through theredemption that is in Christ Jesus, whomGod set forth to be an atoning sacri-fice by His blood” (Rm 3:24,25). Chris-tians have “now been justified by Hisblood” (Rm 5:9). They “have beenbrought near by the blood of Jesus” (Ep2:13).

Not only does the blood of Jesusoffer a one-time cleansing when onecomes into a covenant relationship withJesus, it functions as a continual cleans-ing of sins as we walk in the light of God’swill. John wrote, “But if we walk in thelight as He is in the light, we have fel-lowship with one another and the bloodof Jesus Christ His Son cleanses usfrom all sin” (1 Jn 1:7). It is imperativeto understand, therefore, that those whoare in Christ are in a relationship withGod, and thus, continually cleansed bythe blood of Jesus. These are those whohave “washed their robes and made themwhite in the blood of the Lamb” (Rv 7:14).It is only the church that is sanctified bythe blood of Jesus. Only Christians havethe privilege of the continual cleansingby the blood of Jesus.

The important question to ask here

is: How does one come into thechurch of the sanctified, and thus,into contact with the cleansing bloodof the Lamb? It is obvious that Jesus’cleansing blood does not uncondition-ally cleanse everyone in the world of sin.If everyone were unconditionallycleansed of sin, then the entire worldwould not be lost. Everyone would besaved. Therefore, there must be some-thing that people must do in order tocontact the saving blood of Jesus. Theremust be something that will bring oneinto this relationship with Jesus wherebyhe or she contacts the saving and sanc-tifying blood of Jesus. There must alsobe a specific point in time at whichJesus’ cleansing blood is made appli-cable in the regeneration of theindividual’s soul. The New Testamentaffirms here that at the point of baptismthis regeneration takes place.

God knew that people needed a spe-cific time to which they could refer andconfidently affirm that they were saved.This point in time could not be a subjec-tive emotional experience. Such “expe-riences” would occur throughout the lifeof the Christian. Each experience wouldbe based on greater knowledge and spiri-tuality than previous experiences.Therefore, with the occurrence of each“experience,” the individual would ques-tion previous self-proclaimed experi-ences of his or her supposed salvation.For this reason, God knew that weneeded an exact point in time for oursalvation when He declared us saved.Concerning the Christian’s salvation,that specific time is baptism. This isthat time in the life of a person when heor she comes into contact with the bloodof Jesus by obedience to the gospel.

SACRIFICE

BLOODOF JESUS

BLOODOF ANIMALS

VE

RS

US

The Baptism

104

A. One contacts the blood of Jesusat baptism.Everyone would agree that contact

with the blood of Christ is absolutelynecessary for the forgiveness of sins.There are two points which must be con-sidered here that introduce us to theconclusion that baptism into Christbrings one into contact with the blood ofJesus.

1. Redemption by Jesus’ bloodis “in Christ.” John wrote in Revelation5:9 that Jesus redeemed us by Hisblood. Notice in Ephesians 1:7 that itis in Christ that “we have our redemp-tion through His blood.” It is in Christthat “we have redemption through Hisblood, the forgiveness of sins” (Cl 1:14).Keep in mind that redemption is inChrist and that redemption is by theblood of Christ. One must be in Christ,therefore, in order to be redeemed bythe blood of Jesus. One must establishan “in Christ” covenant relationship withJesus in order to benefit from the sanc-tifying power of His blood. Without this“in Christ” relationship with our Re-deemer, there can be no sanctificationby the blood of Jesus.

2. Sanctification is by Jesus’blood “in Christ.” Hebrews 13:12

reads, “Therefore Jesus also, that Hemight sanctify the people with His ownblood, suffered outside the gate.” Johnwrote, “... the blood of Jesus Christ HisSon cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7).Christians have “washed their robes andmade them white in the blood of theLamb” (Rv 7:14). We cannot questionthe fact that sanctification is accom-plished by the blood of Jesus. It is alsonecessary to recognize that sanctifica-tion is in Christ. Paul wrote to the“church of God that is at Corinth, tothose that are sanctified in ChristJesus” (1 Co 1:2). These same Chris-tians in Corinth had been washed andsanctified “in the name of the Lord Jesus...” (1 Co 6:11). Can anyone questionthe fact that one must be in Christ inorder to be sanctified by the bloodof Jesus? Certainly not! For this rea-son we strongly affirm that one must bein Christ—in the body of Christ—in or-der to have the privilege of the sanctify-ing power of the blood of Jesus.

From the above two points anyonewould obviously conclude that redemp-tion is accomplished by the blood ofJesus and that redemption is in Christ.Sanctification is accomplished by theblood of Christ and sanctification is inChrist. Therefore, it is necessary todetermine how one comes into Christ.

Romans 6:3 clearly answers thequestion concerning how one comes intoa covenant relationship with Jesus andHis cleansing blood. “Or do you not knowthat as many of us as were baptizedinto Christ Jesus were baptized into Hisdeath?” Paul said the same thing inGalatians 3:27. “For as many of you aswere baptized into Christ have put on

IN CHRISTRedemption

andSanctification

by theBlood of Jesus

BAPTISM

The Baptism

105

Christ.” One must therefore be bap-tized into Christ in order to come intocontact with the redemption andsanctification that is provided by theblood of Jesus in Christ. We can con-clude that sinners come into contact withthe blood of Christ when they are bap-tized.

If one is saved by the blood ofJesus on the basis of a self-pro-claimed “salvation experience,”then the condition for one’s salva-tion would be proclaimed by man,not God. However, if one is saved atthe point where God says he has re-mission of sins through the blood ofHis Son, then it is God who proclaimsour salvation. Therefore, one has thechoice of basing his salvation on his ownself-proclamation or on the fact that Godhas stated in Scripture that those whohave obeyed the gospel for remission ofsins are redeemed and sanctified.

B. Washing by the blood of Jesustakes place at baptism.Christians have “washed their robes

and made them white in the blood of theLamb” (Rv 7:14). To the Corinthians Paulwrote, “... you were washed ... you weresanctified ...” (1 Co 6:11). This is thesame as the “washing of regeneration”that Paul discussed in Titus 3:5. Jesushas “washed us from our sins in His ownblood” (Rv 1:5). The “washing of regen-eration” is the result of sanctification bythe blood. When one is cleansed (sanc-tified) of sin, he or she is regeneratedinto a new life.

Acts 22:16 connects baptism withthe washing of sins by the blood ofJesus. Ananias said to Paul, “And nowwhy are you waiting? Arise and be bap-

tized and wash away your sins, callingon the name of the Lord.” It would beright to conclude that one’s washing bythe blood of Jesus is accomplished atthe point of baptism. Past sins arewashed away when one is baptized be-cause it is at the point of baptism thatthe blood of Jesus comes into contactwith our souls. John taught that thiswashing (cleansing) by the blood con-tinues throughout the life of the faithfulChristian. He said that if we walk in thelight “the blood of Jesus cleanses usfrom all sin” (1 Jn 1:7). It is at the pointof immersion that the application of thiscontinual cleansing begins. Therefore,in order for one to have the cleansingblood of Jesus in his life, he must beimmersed into Christ.

C. Baptism produces a good con-science through the blood.The Hebrew writer contended that

“the blood of Christ” would “purge yourconscience from dead works ...” (Hb9:14). We are created in Christ Jesusfor good works (Ep 2:10). These worksof obedience are made profitable by theblood of Jesus. One may do good worksoutside a covenant relationship withJesus. However, these works are in vain;they are useless in reference to theirfollowing with us into eternal heaven.John recorded, “Then I heard a voicefrom heaven saying to me, ‘Write:blessed are the dead who die in theLord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit,‘so that they may rest from their labors,and their works follow them” (Rv 14:13).Compare this thought with what Paulsaid in 1 Corinthians 15:58, “... yourlabor is not in vain in the Lord.” Ourworks are not dead or useless when we

The Baptism

106

are in a covenant relationship with theLord. We can conscientiously know thatour works are not useless in the Lord.Baptism brings one into this realm of“useful” works that will follow one intoeternity, for baptism brings one into theLord.

Everyone realizes that he or shemust obey the Lord. We must “keepHis commandments” (Jn 15:14). Wemust also “do good to all” (Gl 6:10). Hewho knows to do good and does not doit, to him it is sin (Js 4:17). If we do notdo good, our conscience hurts us. Weknow when we are not being obedient.And, we know we can never do enoughgood works in order to be justified byour good works, for by works no one canbe justified before God (Rm 3:20; Gl2:16). We therefore have a conscienceproblem. We know we must be obedi-ent. Our conscience is disturbed whenwe are not obedient. We know that wecannot do enough good works in orderto atone for one sin. Our conscience isthus ladened with guilt before God.Therefore, how can one deal with thisconscience problem before God? Theanswer is in the blood of Jesus.

In obedience to Jesus we purify oursouls and cleanse our conscience be-fore God (1 Pt 1:22). Jesus commanded,“He who believes and is baptized will besaved ...” (Mk 16:16). Baptism is anaction of submission that Jesus askedall those who believe on Him to do. Inconjunction with this command, Peterstated, “The like figure whereunto evenbaptism now saves us, namely bap-tism—not the putting away of the filth ofthe flesh, but the appeal of a goodconscience toward God—through theresurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pt 3:21).

In submitting to Jesus’ command tobe immersed, one cleanses his or herconscience before God, for he or sheknows that baptism is commanded byGod. One cannot have a good con-science toward the commandments ofGod unless he has submitted to the willof God. At the point of immersion onecan intellectually and biblically recognizethat he has completed everything thatis necessary to that point in his life tohave his sins washed away.

However, there is still the problem ofsin the Christian will commit while strug-gling to live the obedient life. Good worksdo not atone for this sin. The blood ofJesus does. Therefore, “if we walk inthe light” the blood of Jesus keeps oncleansing us of all sin (1 Jn 1:7-9). Wecan have a good conscience toward Godthrough the blood of Jesus, for it is Hisblood that cleanses all our sins.

D. We contact the blood in the bodyof Christ.We contact the blood of Jesus by

being immersed into the blood-boughtbody of Christ. In Acts 20:28 Paul saidthat elders should feed “the church ofGod which He purchased with His ownblood.” Jesus is the “Savior of thebody,” having given “Himself for it, thatHe might sanctify and cleanse it ...” (Ep5:23,24,26). He accomplished such bypouring out His blood upon the cross.But notice carefully what Paul says in 1Corinthians 12:13. “For by one Spirit wewere all baptized into one body ....”The church is the blood-bought body ofChrist. In order to come into this bodyone must be baptized. One must bebaptized into Christ, into the body ofChrist (Rm 6:3; Gl 3:27). Therefore, in

The Baptism

107

order to come into contact with theblood-bought body of Christ onemust be immersed.

Because of their obedience, Chris-tians have come into a covenant rela-tionship with Jesus. The first covenant,the Old Testament covenant, was dedi-cated with blood (See Hb 9:18). By thisdedication it was assumed that the sec-ond covenant, the covenant of Jesus,would also be dedicated by blood. Butthis dedication would be by a better sac-rifice. It would be the sacrifice of Jesus,the Son of God (Hb 9:18-27).

Only the sacrifice of God can takeaway sins. Jesus used the fruit of thevine in the Lord’s Supper to representthe blood of His covenant (Mk 14:24;Lk 22:20). When one is in a covenantrelationship with Christ, he is sanctifiedby the blood of Christ. The Hebrew writerstated that the apostate Christian“counted the blood of the covenant bywhich he was sanctified a common thing”(Hb 10:29). Faithful Christians are in acovenant relationship with God. Theblood of the covenant was made pos-sible by the sacrifice of Jesus. To rejector turn away from this blood is to con-sider the divine atonement of the bloodof Jesus an unholy thing.

One must purify himself in order tocome into a covenant relationship withDeity. One must have his or her sinswashed away by coming into contactwith the blood of Christ in immersion (At22:16). Immersion, therefore, is neces-sary in order to contact the blood of thecovenant. It is also necessary to becontinually sanctified while in the cov-enant relationship with Christ (1 Jn 1:7).We cannot, therefore, separate the bloodof Christ from baptism.

Chapter 24

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

REMISSION OF SINSREMISSION OF SINSREMISSION OF SINSREMISSION OF SINSREMISSION OF SINS

One of the most important scripturesconcerning baptism for remission of sinsis the text of Acts 2:38. The messageof this passage was stated by theapostle Peter in A.D. 30 at the conclu-sion of his preaching the gospel for thefirst time in history. It is a statementthat has been discussed for many years,and rightly so, for if Peter’s statement istaken for what it says, then many peoplehave been deceived into believing manyfalse teachings concerning baptism. Itis the purpose of this chapter, therefore,to examine in some detail this statementof Peter and the concept that he wantedto convey concerning remission of sins.

Repent and be baptized every one ofyou in the name of Jesus Christ forthe remission of sins. And you willreceive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

One cannot be saved with the sinsof his past life standing between him andGod, for sin separates one from God (Is59:1,2). One is dead to God as a resultof sin (Rm 5:12). Therefore, every manmust take care of his sin problem be-fore he can be reconciled to God. Sinmust be forgiven in order that the indi-vidual be brought back to a saved rela-tionship with God. This is a clear bibli-cal teaching that few people will rejector question.

In Acts 2:38 Peter states that one’ssins are remitted (forgiven) by God atthe point of immersion. This is that spe-cific time where God says that the old

The Baptism

108

man of sin is buried and the new mancomes alive (Rm 6:3-6). The conclusionis that baptism is necessary for the re-mission of sins. This is the conceptPeter wants us to understand from hisinspired statement of Acts 2:38.

However, every effort has been madeto deny the fact that at the point of bap-tism one’s sins are forgiven. For thisreason, it is necessary here that westudy some of the principal argumentsused against the teaching that at thepoint of obedience to the gospel by im-mersion God forgives all our past sins.One of these arguments involves the in-terpretation of the Greek word eis. Amisunderstanding of this word has ledto some confusion on the part of thosewho do not believe that baptism is nec-essary for salvation. However, when weunderstand the proper meaning of theword as it is used in Acts 2:38, we un-derstand that baptism is inseparablylinked with remission of sins.

A. The Greek word eis means “for,”“unto,” “toward,” or “into.”Some have argued that the Greek

word eis, which is translated “for” (or,“unto,” depending on your translation) inActs 2:38 in the King James Version,actually means “because of.” Hence,Peter would have been saying, “Repentand be baptized because of the remis-sion of sins.” But this assumption isnot correct. The Greek word eis in thispassage does not mean “because of.”

All accepted Greek dictionaries (lexi-cons) define the Greek word eis as usedin Acts 2:38 to mean “for, unto, towards,into, among, or, in order to.” Thayer’sGreek lexicon states that eis means“into,” “to,” “towards,” “for,” or “among.”

The Abbott-Smith lexicon says it means“into,” “unto,” “to,” “upon,” “towards,” “for,”or “among.” The Arndt and GingrichGreek lexicon states that eis means “inorder to,” or “to.” In reference to Acts2:38, Arndt and Gingrich state that eis,in conjunction with the forgiveness of sinsin Acts 2:38, should be translated “forforgiveness of sin” or “so that sins mightbe forgiven.” There are no Greek lexi-cons or translations that use themeaning “because of” in Acts 2:38as a translation of the Greek wordeis. Therefore, if one takes the positionthat eis means “because of,” then hemust take a position that is against allaccepted translations of Acts 2:38.

B. All accepted translations cor-rectly translate Acts 2:38.It would be good here to note some

major versions of the English New Tes-tament and how the translators havetranslated Acts 2:38. All accepted trans-lations of this passage render the Greekword eis according to the preceding ac-curate lexical definitions. Note the fol-lowing examples:

Translations of Acts 2:381. King James Version: “Repent and

be baptized ... for the remission ofsins.”

2. English Revised Version: “Repent ye,and be baptized ... unto the remissionof sins.”

3. American Standard Version: “Re-pent ye, and be baptized ... unto theremission of sins.”

4. New English Bible: “‘Repent,’ saidPeter, ‘repent and be baptized ... forthe forgiveness of your sins’.”

5. New International Version: “Repent

The Baptism

109

and be baptized ... so that your sinsmay be forgiven.”

6. International King James Version:“Repent and be baptized ... for the re-mission of sins.”

One could also refer to other Englishversions as the Twentieth Century NewTestament, Knox’s Translation, The Riv-erside New Testament, The AmericanBible Union Translation, Moffatt’s Trans-lation, Philips’ New Testament, TheAmplified New Testament and a host ofothers. Such is a great testimony ofmodern-day scholarship behind thetranslation of eis to mean that one isimmersed in order to reap the benefit ofremission of sins.

The best Greek scholarship in theworld stands behind these translationsand their correct translation of Acts 2:38.This scholarship states that in Acts 2:38eis means either “to,” “for,” “unto,” or “to-ward.” Therefore, according to Acts 2:38one must be immersed in order to havethe remission of sins. Without immer-sion one cannot have the remission ofsins. And without the remission of sinsthere is no salvation. One cannot standbefore God in judgment with the stain ofhis own sins. God has provided the sac-rifice for sins, and all men must submitto the conditions of accepting His sacri-fice. This means that one must be im-mersed in water in the name of Jesus inorder to have the remission of sins.

C. Matthew 12:41 does not define eisto mean “because of.”In conjunction with Acts 2:38, there

are two important passages that mustbe considered. They are Matthew 12:41and Matthew 26:38. The context of

Matthew 12:41 is often misunderstoodby those who are prejudiced against thesubject of baptism for remission of sins.This misunderstanding has led some tomaintain an incorrect definition of theword eis. This incorrect meaning is thenapplied to Acts 2:38. The result is anincorrect interpretation of Acts 2:38.

1. Matthew 12:41: This passageis often used to prove that eis should, orcould, be translated “because of” in Acts2:38. Jesus said to the Jews, “The menof Nineveh will rise in the judgment withthis generation and will condemn it, be-cause they repented unto (eis) thepreaching of Jonah ...” (International KingJames Version).

The word translated “unto” here isthe Greek word eis. A misunderstand-ing of this passage has led some to be-lieve that Jesus was emphasizing thatthe people of Nineveh repented becauseof the preaching of Jonah. The Ninev-ites did truly repent because of Jonah’spreaching. However, the emphasis ofMatthew 12:41 is that the Ninevitesturned unto the way of life thatJonah was preaching.

Jonah preached in Nineveh what Godwanted the city to do in order to averttheir coming punishment. He preacheda body of truth to which they had to con-form their lives. When they repented,they turned to this behavioral pattern oflife that Jonah preached. In this sense,therefore, they repented unto (eis) or atthat which Jonah preached.

2. Matthew 26:28: Compare Mat-thew 12:41 with what Jesus said in Mat-thew 26:28. Jesus said, “For this is Myblood of the new covenant that is shed

The Baptism

110

for many for (eis) the remission of sins.”Here is the exact phrase (“for remissionof sins”) that is used in Acts 2:38. TheGreek word that is translated “for” in thisscripture is the same Greek word thatis used in Acts 2:38 and Matthew 12:41.It is the word eis. Was Jesus’ bloodpoured out “because of” the remissionof sins? Or, was it poured out in orderthat men might have the forgiveness ofall sins? We believe the latter questionfocuses on the correct answer.

If one contends that eis means “be-cause of,” then we can claim that menhad the remission of sins without thedeath of Jesus on the cross. If this istrue, then we would naturally ask, Whydid Jesus even have to die on the crossin the first place?

This is not to say that the blood ofJesus did not cover the sins of thosewho lived before the cross. Sins beforethe cross were forgiven through the of-fering of Jesus (Rm 3:25). However, theywere forgiven in view of the coming deathof Jesus on the cross. All sin has beenforgiven because of Jesus’ death on thecross. But Jesus had to die on the crossin order that all sin be forgiven at thecross.

The correct meaning of Matthew26:28 is that Jesus died on the cross inorder that men might have the remissionof sins. Therefore, men are immersedaccording to Acts 2:38 in order to haveremission of sins, for without remissionof sins one cannot be saved. In immer-sion one comes into contact with thatwhich produces the remission of sins.One comes into contact with the bloodof Jesus. It is the blood of Jesus thatproduces the remission of sins, not theact of immersion or the water. It is at

the time of immersion that God appliesthe blood of Jesus to one’s life. It is forthis reason that the blood is directlyconnected with baptism. And withoutthe blood of Jesus, there is no remis-sion of sins. And without remission ofsins, there is no salvation.

Chapter 25

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

BEING IN CHRISTBEING IN CHRISTBEING IN CHRISTBEING IN CHRISTBEING IN CHRIST

The New Testament uses manymetaphors when discussion is centeredaround one’s relationship with God. Incontexts of the Scriptures that deal withour salvation, the Spirit has used meta-phors in order to exemplify the nature ofthe believer’s covenant with God. Thereason for this is simple. When discuss-ing relationships between that which isof this world to that which is of God, thereare no human words that can adequatelyexplain these relationships. Therefore,the Holy Spirit had to use human wordswith human definitions in order to takeour minds beyond human experiences.In metaphor, therefore, we must think be-yond the literal and earthly definition ofthe actual words. The Spirit wants us tostretch our imagination to a realm of re-lationship that is beyond this world.

One of the important metaphors ofthe New Testament is a phrase that iscommonly used by Paul. This meta-phor is his use of the Greek word en inreference to one’s relationship withChrist. The metaphor is used in thephrase “in Christ.” The literal or actualmeaning of the word en is not meantwhen the phrase “in Christ” is used. Inother words, we are not physically in-

The Baptism

111

side the literal body of Jesus. Some-thing greater than the literal and actualphysical meaning is being emphasizedwhen Paul used the phrase “in Christ.”Therefore, we must look for a greater, orspiritual meaning when studying con-texts in which the phrase “in Christ” isused. In other words, when Paul is talk-ing about being “in Christ,” he is not say-ing that we are literally and actually in-side the actual physical body of Jesus,whatever that body may now be. Hewants us to understand that we are in aspiritual body relationship with the LordJesus.

In the New Testament the phrase “inChrist” refers to a relationship one haswith Christ. It is a Master-slave rela-tionship, a Head-body union. Jesus isthe Master. Christians are the slaves(See Rm 6:17-20). He is the controllinghead (Cl 1:18). We are the controlledbody (1 Co 12:27). Jesus commands;we obey. He speaks; we follow. Thosewho are in Christ have Jesus as the cen-ter of reference of their lives.

In this relationship with Christ, Chris-tians have the benefit of many spiritualblessings that come from God concern-ing their salvation. In order for one toreceive these spiritual blessings, how-ever, he or she must come into an “inChrist” relationship with God.

A. One has access to all spiritualblessings “in Christ.”Paul wrote, “Blessed be the God and

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hasblessed us with every spiritual bless-ing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Ep1:3). This passage teaches that all spiri-tual blessings that God has for everyman concerning salvation are “in Christ.”

It is assumed, therefore, that “outside”Christ one does not have these bless-ings. Outside Christ there are no bless-ings that one would have in relation tothat which is necessary for his salvation.

In order for one to reap spiritualblessings that relate to salvation, hemust establish a relationship with God.Specifically, this relationship must beestablished with Jesus who made oursalvation possible.

We must emphasize the point thatfor one to establish this relationship, con-ditions must be fulfilled. If spiritual bless-ings concerning one’s salvation are un-conditional, then all would be saved bythe sufficient sacrifice of Jesus. How-ever, God has determined that men mustact upon His free gift of grace. Men mustrespond by obedience. Our obedienceis the condition for our relationship withGod.

Being “in Christ” focuses on a spiri-tual covenant relationship with Christ.We come into this relationship throughour commitment to the conditions thatare God-determined and given throughHis word. Because Jesus took our oldman of sin with Him to the cross, werepent. We are then buried with him inthe waters of baptism. When we havebeen baptized into the Father, Son andHoly Spirit, we come into Christ in a cov-enant with God. The following are spiri-tual bless-ings that re-sult in thelife of thosewho respondin a positivemanner tothe grace ofGod:

IN CHRISTAll

SpiritualBlessings

Baptism

The Baptism

112

SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS IN CHRISTForgiveness of sins (Ep 1:7)

Redemption (Cl 1:14; Rm 3:24)

A new creature (2 Co 5:17)

All sons of God (Gl 3:26,27)

Eternal life (1 Jn 5:11)

The seal of the Spirit (Ep 1:13)

A state of no condemnation (Rm 8:1)

Sanctification from sin (1 Co 1:2; 6:9-11)

SALVATION (2 Tm 2:10)

All these blessings are “in Christ.”Therefore, in order for one to have ac-cess to these blessings he or she mustbe in Christ. We must clearly under-stand that one cannot be saved withouthaving these blessings of God. In fact,the summation of all these blessings issalvation. This is why Paul wrote, “There-fore I endure all things for the sake ofthe elect, so that they also may obtainthe salvation that is in Christ Jesuswith eternal glory” (2 Tm 2:10). In or-der to receive the blessings that are inChrist, one must be immersed intoChrist.

Satan will do his best to keep peopleoutside Christ. Since one is redeemedby the blood of Jesus when he is inChrist, then certainly we must assumethat Satan will deceive people into be-lieving that they are redeemed outsideChrist. Since one is not in a state ofcondemnation in Christ, then we mustalso assume that Satan will deceivepeople into believing that they are not ina state of condemnation outside Christ.In order for Satan to accomplish thisgreat deception, he must work with reli-gious people who do not have a love ofthe truth (See 2 Th 2:10-12). God will

allow such people to be deceived. Hewill allow them to be deceived becauseall men must be held accountable fortheir own conduct and unwillingness toobey the word of God.

B. One is baptized into Christ.The questions now are, How does

one come into Christ? How does onecome into this spiritual relationshipwhere he or she has all spiritual bless-ings? The answer to these questions issimple. Romans 6:3 answers, “Or doyou not know that as many of us as werebaptized into Christ Jesus were bap-tized into His death?” Paul also statedin Galatians 3:27, “For as many of youas were baptized into Christ have puton Christ.” Therefore, if one desires tobe in Christ where lie all spiritual bless-ings concerning his salvation, he mustobey the gospel by immersion inwater.

According to 2 Timothy 2:10, salva-tion, and thus all spiritual blessings, arein Christ. Galatians 3:27 and Romans6:3 teach that one is baptized into Christ.Therefore, one is baptized into Christ inorder to be saved. This one thought istrue of all the spiritual blessings of thepreceding point that are mentioned tobe in Christ. The final conclusion wouldbe that immersion is absolutely neces-sary in order to bring one into a savingrelationship with Jesus.

The metaphor “in Christ” conveys avery fundamental teaching of the NewTestament. One must have a spiritualrelationship with Jesus in order to enjoythe spiritual blessings that result fromthe sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Inorder to come into this relationship, wemust be crucified with Christ (Rm 6:6;

The Baptism

113

see Gl 2:20; Cl 3:3). We must die withChrist (Cl 3:3; 2 Tm 2:11). We must beburied with Christ (Rm 6:4,5; Cl 2:12).We must be raised with Christ (Rm6:4,5; Cl 3:1). In other words, we mustobey the gospel by immersion in waterfor the forgiveness of sins in order tocome into a saved relationship withJesus. In this “in Christ” relationship weare within the realm of God’s savinggrace.

Since all spiritual blessings are inChrist, and one is baptized into Christ,then we can understand why the NewTestament places so much emphasis onimmersion into Christ. We can under-stand why the “one baptism” is listed inEphesians 4:4-6 among other fundamen-tal teachings as “one God,” “one Lord,”“one body,” “one faith,” “one Spirit” and“one hope.” The “one baptism” bringsus into a covenant relationship with Godin the body of Christ, and thus, brings tolife the “one hope” of being resurrectedto eternal life when Jesus comes again.Therefore, anyone who would deny thefact that baptism is essential to one’ssalvation has played into the hand ofSatan, and thus, accomplished Satan’swork to keep men and women outsideChrist. The truly unfortunate thing aboutthis is the fact that thousands of reli-giously sincere people are being de-ceived by uninformed religious leadersinto believing that one does not have tojoin with Jesus in His death, burial andresurrection. We must remember thatSatan is working “with all deception ofwickedness among those who perish,because they did not receive the loveof the truth so that they might besaved” (2 Th 2:10).

Chapter 26

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

DIVINE RELATIONSHIPSDIVINE RELATIONSHIPSDIVINE RELATIONSHIPSDIVINE RELATIONSHIPSDIVINE RELATIONSHIPS

There is a connection made in God’splan of salvation between Himself andthe baptized. This connection will re-sult in eternal salvation for the obedient.It is this connective relationship that isestablished in a covenant that must formthe bond between God and man. In or-der to initiate this covenant relationship,immersion is God’s condition that peopledemonstrate their faith. People must re-spond to God’s desire to connect withall those who seek to covenant with Him.The very fact that we must respond toGod negates the thought that salvationis unconditional. In order to connect withGod we must take the initiative to acton what God has said we must do inorder to be brought into a saving cov-enant relationship with Him.

God has revealed the conditions bywhich we establish a covenant relation-ship with Him. He has revealed the gos-pel which is His power to make this con-nection. Therefore, men and womenmust be obedient to the death, burial andresurrection of Jesus in order to estab-lish a covenant relationship with the Fa-ther, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus responded to our sin problemthrough the cross. We must respond tothe cross by our own death and burialwith Him (Rm 6:3-6). Jesus brought asolution to our physical death problem.He was resurrected in order to give ushope (Hb 2:14,15). His resurrection re-sulted from His death and burial. Ourresurrection from the grave of water is

The Baptism

114

the result of death and burial. If there isno death and burial, then there can beno resurrection to a covenant relation-ship with God. Subsequently, there canbe no physical resurrection to life whenJesus comes again, for only those inChrist will be raised to life (1 Co 15:22).

Baptism brings us into this relation-ship of hope with Christ. To be “of Christ”means to belong to Him. It means to beof His heritage and to be in a relation-ship with Jesus as the Son of God.Those who are not “of Christ” cannot bein a saved relationship with God. In or-der to belong to Jesus one must obeythe gospel. And one obeys the gospelby immersion into Christ.

A. We are baptized to be “of Christ.”In 1 Corinthians 1:12,13 Paul stated,

“Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘Iam of Paul,’ and ‘I am of Apollos,’ and ‘Iam of Cephas,’ and ‘I am of Christ.’ IsChrist divided? Was Paul crucified foryou? Or were you baptized in thename of Paul?” Paul asked the Corin-thians these questions in order to drawfrom them that which they already knew.What he was asking was that two thingsmust happen before one can be eitherof Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ.

1. The one to whom allegiance is givenmust have been crucified on behalf ofthe individual who is giving the alle-giance (vs 13).

2. The individual who is giving allegiancemust be baptized into the name of theone who was crucified on his behalf(vs 13).

In reference to the first point, the

New Testament teaches that Jesus isthe One who has been crucified for us(Rm 5:6-8; 2 Co 5:14; 1 Th 5:10). Hewas crucified for all who would give alle-giance to Him. Neither Paul, Apollosnor Cephas have been crucified for aliensinners. Therefore, this first act that isnecessary for one to be of Christ (thatis, “Christian”) has already been accom-plished. Jesus has been crucified. Hehas been crucified for us. This wasGod’s part to bring us into a covenantrelationship with Him. The first part ofwhat is necessary for us to be of Christ,and thus Christian, was accomplishedby God when He poured out His graceon the cross through Jesus (Ti 2:11).

The second point of 1 Corinthians1:13 must be accomplished by thosewho believe on Jesus. They must re-spond to the cross. Alien sinners arenot baptized in the name of either Paul,Apollos or Cephas. They are baptizedin the name of Jesus (See At 2:38;19:1-6). Therefore, in order for one to be“of Christ,” he or she must be baptizedin the name of Christ. One cannot beof the heritage of Christ without beingbaptized. This conclusion brings usagain to an irrefutable conclusion. Thisconclusion is that baptism is absolutelynecessary in order to be “of Christ.”Without immersion in the name ofChrist, one cannot be “of Christ,” andthus, be considered “Christian.”

B. One must be baptized in the“name of Christ.”When those on Pentecost in Acts

2, who were cut to the heart by their sin-ful behavior asked Peter what to do tobe saved, Peter responded that theymust “... be baptized in the name of

The Baptism

115

Jesus Christ ...” (At 2:38). After Paulhad discovered that some disciples inEphesus had been baptized for thewrong reasons, these disciples were“baptized in the name of the LordJesus” (At 19:5).

The phrase “in the name of” refers tobeing associated with the authority ofthe one with whom one identifies him-self by name. If someone sent you on amission “in his name,” then you wouldgo by the authority of his name. If some-one sent you to the bank with the en-dorsement of his name in order to drawmoney on his account, then the moneycomes from the account of the onewhose name is on the bank account. Ifwe are to go forth with the great com-mission of Jesus, then we must go forthwith the authority of His name. In fact,our entire Christian life is based on ourassociation with the name of Jesus.Paul wrote, “And whatever you do in wordor deed, do all in the name of the LordJesus ...” (Cl 3:17).

In order for one to carry the name ofJesus, he must be baptized into thename of Jesus. In order for one to iden-tify himself with the authority of Jesus,he or she must be baptized. In orderfor one’s works to be sanctioned byChrist, one must have been baptized intothe name of Christ. One cannot claimthe name of Jesus unless he has sub-mitted to the gospel by immersion intothe name of Jesus. All those who areclaiming the name of Jesus without be-ing baptized into his name are actuallyplagiarizing the name of Jesus in orderto justify their own unwillingness to dowhat Jesus commanded concerning bap-tism.

At the time one is baptized in the

name of Jesus, he is at the same timebaptized into a relationship with the Fa-ther, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus em-phasized this when He gave the greatcommission to the apostles in Matthew28:19.

When the New Testament statesthat one is to be baptized in the nameof Jesus, a different Greek word is usedthan the one that is used in Matthew28:19 where Jesus said, “... baptizingthem in (eis) the name of the Father andof the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” TheGreek word eis in Matthew 28:19 refersto being baptized into a relationshipwith the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thisis what happens when people are bap-tized in (eis) the name of Jesus. How-ever, when one is baptized in (en) thename of Jesus, a different Greek wordis used. It is the word en. This wordrefers to one being baptized upon theauthority or sanction of Jesus. Whenone is baptized in (en) the name of Jesus,reference is to the authority of Jesus.When one is baptized into (eis) the nameof the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, refer-ence is to one coming into a covenantrelationship with the Father, Son andHoly Spirit. In either situation, one mustbe baptized. Without baptism, there-fore, one cannot come into a covenantrelationship with the Father, Son andHoly Spirit that is sanctioned by the Sonof God.

We must mention in this context thatJesus is not commanding in Matthew28:19 that something be said at the timeone is baptized. In other words, He isnot saying that the one baptizing shouldstate, “I baptize you in the name of theFather, and of the Son, and of the HolySpirit.” What Jesus means in Matthew

The Baptism

116

28:19 is that something is happeningat the time of baptism. When one isbaptized, he or she is being baptizedinto a covenant relationship with the Fa-ther, Son and Holy Spirit. The one whois being baptized should know this be-fore he or she is baptized. In otherwords, being baptized into a covenantrelationship with the Father, Son andHoly Spirit is something that must betaught to disciples who would be bap-tized. They must be taught before thepoint of baptism. This is not somethingthat is pronounced immediately beforeone goes down into the grave of water.In Matthew 28:19 Jesus is not giving acommand for some formal statement thatis to be made by the one assisting inthe baptizing. What he is stating issomething that the one being baptizedshould already know by the time he orshe is baptized. In fact, the one who isbaptized is actually doing such becausehe or she seeks to be baptized into acovenant relationship with the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

C. We are baptized into the body ofChrist.Being “of Christ” refers to belonging

to Jesus. Those who belong to Jesushave submitted to His headship in theirlives. Jesus is the head of the body,and as the head of the body, He con-trols the lives of men through His word(Jn 12:48; Ep 5:23; Cl 1:18).

In order to become a part of the bodyof Christ, one must be immersed intothe body. When Jesus comes again, Hewill save out of the world for heaven onlyHis body. Therefore, it is necessary thatone be a part of His body at the time ofHis final coming.

1. Jesus is the Savior of the body.The New Testament teaches that Jesusis the Savior of the body, the church.He “is the head of the church; and He isthe savior of the body” (Ep 5:23). Hegave Himself up for His body “that Hemight sanctify it ... that He might presentit to Himself a glorious church, not hav-ing spot or wrinkle or any such thing ...”(Ep 5:26,27). Jesus purchased thechurch “with His own blood” (At 20:28).He will eternally save only this blood-bought body when He comes again.

2. We are baptized into the bodyof Christ. The New Testament teachesthat the body is the church. Paul wrote,“He [Jesus] is the head of the body, thechurch ...” (Cl 1:18). Paul even empha-sized that Jesus is the “head over allthings to the church” (Ep 1:22). Onecomes into this body by immersion.Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “Forby one Spirit we were all baptized intoone body, whether Jews or Greeks,whether bondservants or free, and wereall made to drink of one Spirit” (See At2:41,47).

It must be concluded from the abovetwo points that only those who have beenimmersed into the body of Christ will bedelivered from this world when Jesuscomes again. This corresponds withwhat Paul said in 2 Timothy 2:10 andGalatians 3:27. It was in these two pas-sages that Paul said that salvation is “inChrist.” Salvation is in the body. One isbaptized into Christ, that is, he is bap-tized into the body of Christ. It is nec-essary, therefore, that everyone be im-mersed in order to come into the bodyof Christ that will be saved out of this

The Baptism

117

world when Jesus comes again.In order for one to be of Christ, he or

she must be baptized in the name ofJesus. Without baptism in the name ofJesus, no one can truly represent theauthority of Jesus in his life. Those whoare not baptized in the name of Christare only counterfeiting the name “Chris-tian” when they claim to be of Christ.How can one preach by the authority ofJesus if he has not first submitted to theauthority of Jesus to be baptized? Reli-gious people may do good deeds in thename of Christ, but if they have notobeyed the gospel by immersion in thename of Christ, then they fall short ofwhat the Bible defines as being “ofChrist.” Some have thus stolen from theBible the name “Christian,” and goneforth to represent Christ with whom theyhave not been crucified, buried and res-urrected through baptism. In order toclaim allegiance to Jesus, and thus, rep-resent Him in the world, one must be “ofChrist.” And to be “of Christ,” Paul saysthat we must be immersed in the nameof Christ who was crucified for us.

Chapter 27

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMAND OUR COVENANTAND OUR COVENANTAND OUR COVENANTAND OUR COVENANTAND OUR COVENANT

RELATIONSHIP WITH GODRELATIONSHIP WITH GODRELATIONSHIP WITH GODRELATIONSHIP WITH GODRELATIONSHIP WITH GOD

Throughout history God has main-tained a covenant relationship with Hispeople. He established a covenant withNoah after the flood of Noah’s day (Gn6:18). He established a covenant withAbraham (Gn 15:18). He established acovenant with the nation of Israel (Rm9:4). God works through covenant rela-tionships with man in order to bring aboutHis eternal purpose to bring the obedi-

ent into eternal dwelling with Him.Those with whom God establishes

a covenant relationship will be saved foreternal dwelling if they maintain the con-ditions of the covenant. In establishingsalvational covenant relationships, Godhas always placed conditions on the con-tinuation of the covenant that men mustkeep. In other words, a covenant rela-tionship is not unconditional. God is nota respecter of persons, and thus, Hedoes not establish a covenant relation-ship apart from the faith of man. It mustalso be noted that He has never estab-lished a covenant relationship with anunbeliever.

Baptism in the name of Jesus forremission of sins is part of the new cov-enant. As a result of our faith, we indi-cate by immersion that we desire to joinin a covenant relationship with God. Allwho would come into a covenant rela-tionship with the Father, Son and HolySpirit, therefore, must be immersed inwater for remission of sins as an expres-sion of faith. Baptism washes away sinsthat separate one from God. It bringsus into contact with the continualcleansing of sins by the blood of Jesuswhich is the primary blessing of our cov-enant with God (1 Jn 1:7).

Before the cross of Jesus, God hada covenant relationship with Israel. Jewswere physically born into this covenantrelationship. As they grew up after birth,Jewish children were instructed concern-ing the covenant that God had with thenation of Israel. However, this covenantwould eventually change to a new cov-enant that would demand a differentmeans by which one would covenant withGod.

In Jeremiah 31:31-34 God stated

The Baptism

118

that He would establish a new covenantwith the houses of Israel and Judah,which covenant would include all nations.Conditions for entering this new covenantwould be different from the old covenant.Notice carefully how Jeremiah stated thenature of this new covenant relationshipbetween God and man.

31Behold, the days are coming, saysthe Lord, that I will make a new cov-enant with the house of Israel andwith the house of Judah, 32not accord-ing to the covenant that I made withtheir fathers in the day that I took themby the hand to bring them out of theland of Egypt, which covenant theybroke, although I was a husband tothem, says the Lord. 33But this will bethe covenant that I will make with thehouse of Israel after those days, saysthe Lord, I will put My law in their in-ward parts and write it in their hearts.And I will be their God and they will beMy people. 34And they will no longerteach every man his neighbor andevery man his brother, saying,“Know the Lord,” for they will allknow Me, from the least of them tothe greatest of them, says the Lord.For I will forgive their iniquity and I willremember their sin no more.

In verse 33 God explained that thenew covenant would be different in thesense that God would put His law in theirhearts. In other words, when one wouldcome into a covenant relationship withGod under the new covenant, the law ofGod would already be in one’s heart inthe sense that he or she would be anobedient subject. One would alreadyhave been taught to know God be-

fore coming into a covenant relation-ship with God.

Here is the point. Before one is bornagain, He is taught to “know God” andthat which is necessary to come into acovenant relationship with God. He istaught what he must do to remain faith-ful to his covenant with God (See Jn 6:45).One is taught these conditions for thecovenant relationship before he or shecomes into that covenant relationship.This is what Jesus meant when He in-structed the apostles to first disciple aperson before baptizing them (See Mt28:19,20).

Under the old covenant, when a Jew-ish baby was born, he or she was auto-matically in a covenant relationship withGod. Physical birth of Jewish parentsbrought one into a covenant relationshipwith God because the nation of Israelas a whole was already in a covenantwith God. When the small child grewup, he or she had to be taught to “knowGod,” that is, the child had to be taughtwhat to do in order to maintain a cov-enant relationship with God. However,under the new covenant, one would knowGod from “birth.”

Under the new covenant one must

COVENANTWITH

ISRAEL

COVENANTWITHALL

BELIEVERS

THECHURCH

From

BIRTHTaught

toKnow God

BIRTH

Firsttaught

toknow God

The Baptism

119

first be taught before the covenant isestablished with the individual. This iscertainly the thought behind Jesus’ state-ment of John 6:45. “It is written in theprophets, ‘And they will all be taught byGod.’ Therefore, everyone who hasheard and learned from the Fathercomes to Me.” When one is taught thelordship of Jesus and the gospel, hisresponse should be the same as thosein Acts 2 who heard, “God has madethis same Jesus whom you crucified,both Lord and Christ” (At 2:36). “Nowwhen they heard this, they were cut tothe heart” (At 2:37). These on Pente-cost were taught of God by the inspiredpreaching of the apostles. They re-sponded to what they had been taught.Peter instructed them, “Repent, and bebaptized every one of you...” (At 2:38).About three thousand people came intoa covenant relationship with the Fatheron this day of Pentecost when they wereimmersed for the remission of their sins(At 2:41). Therefore, they were firsttaught by God, and then, they came intoa covenant relationship with God throughobedience to the gospel.

Both in the covenant God had withIsrael before the cross and in His cov-enant with all believers today, there hasbeen remission of sins. When one is ina covenant relationship with God thereis always remission. Remission of sinsunder both the old and new covenantswas accomplished through the samething, the blood of Jesus. The Hebrewwriter stated, “And for this reason He isthe Mediator of the new covenant, bymeans of death, for the redemption ofthe transgressions committed underthe first covenant, those who have beencalled may receive the promise of the

eternal inheritance” (Hb 9:15; see Rm3:25). Since it was impossible for theblood of bulls and goats to take awaysin under the old covenant, the sacri-fices of the old covenant were only ashadow of the cross that was to come(Hb 10:1-4). Therefore, when Jesus of-fered Himself on the cross, He becamethe blood offering for all men who havebeen in a covenant relationship with Godthroughout all history.

With the above in mind, review againsome of the following concepts that aretaught in the New Testament. Under-standing the nature of the covenant re-lationship that God’s people now havewith Him helps us understand New Tes-tament teachings concerning covenantrelationships:

A. Remission of sins before the crossof Jesus:Before the cross, remission of sins

through the sacrifices of bulls and goatsdid occur in the life of the obedient. How-ever, remission took place only in viewof the coming sacrifice of Jesus. Theprimary conditions for salvation thatwere established by God for man havealways been the same throughout his-tory. On God’s part salvation has beengrace, for no man can keep God’s lawsperfectly in order to save himself (Rm3:20; Gl 2:16); neither can good worksatone for sin. On man’s part the condi-tion has been faith (Hb 4:2; Rm 1:17).However, this faith must be expressedin some way, for the demons also be-lieve and tremble, and yet, they are notsaved (Js 2:19). Therefore, under theOld Testament covenant God’s part inman’s salvation was the same as it istoday. Salvation was and is by grace.

The Baptism

120

Our part is also the same. We mustbelieve. But this belief must manifestitself in obedience to the conditions thatGod has established in order for one toestablish and maintain a covenant rela-tionship with Him. Our response by faithto God’s conditions for remission of sinsis different today than under the Old Tes-tament law.

1. Remission of sins came fromthe cross under the Old Testament law:Under the Old Testament covenant man’sresponse to God was obedience to Hiswill. It was His will in relation to forgive-ness that the obedient believer offeredanimal sacrifices. However, since thedays God instituted blood sacrifices itwas “not possible that the blood of bullsand goats could take away sins” (Hb10:4). Animal sacrifices could not makeperfect the Jews who lived under the law(Hb 10:1). Nevertheless, they had to offerthe sacrifices. Such sacrifices were ashadow of the sacrifice of Jesus that wasto come. Of the sacrifice of Jesus, Paulwrote in Romans 3:25, “Whom [Jesus]God set forth to be an atoning sacrificeby His blood, through faith in orderto declare His righteousness for theremission of sin in the past becauseof the forbearance of God. ” (Rm 3:25;see Hb 9:15).

When Jesus died on the cross,therefore, He completed the Father’splan of forgiveness for those under theold covenant. Romans 3:25 is not teach-ing that the sins committed before thecross were “rolled forward” in order to beforgiven at the cross. Before the cross,sins were forgiven in view of thecross.

Because God is timeless and not

confined to time as men, He sees ordeals with history as a whole. The sac-rifice of Jesus had to be an historicalevent that had to take place at a spe-cific time in history. In other words,Jesus could not have been offered con-tinually upon the cross throughout his-tory. Because God entered into the con-finement of time through the incarnation,a specific time in man’s history had tobe chosen when the one-time sacrificewould be made. That time was in A.D.30 in Jerusalem of Palestine.

Since Jesus was incarnate Deity inthe flesh of man, He was confined toman’s time while on earth (Ph 2:5-8).Therefore, His crucifixion had to be anhistorical event according to the calen-dar of man. However, the sacrificial bloodof the cross was not something that wasconfined to time. Though the cross hadto happen at a specific time in history,the application of the blood of Jesus didnot. For this reason, God can easilyapply the blood of Jesus to those wholived before this historical event, as wellas to those who live after the event. Justbecause the faithful in the Old Testamentera did not have knowledge of the com-ing sacrifice of Jesus, does not meanthat Jesus’ blood was not working in theirlives. We must remember that the for-giveness of sins through the blood of the

REMISSION

IN VIEW OFTHE CROSS

REMISSION

BECAUSE OFTHE CROSS

GOD

A.D. 30

The Baptism

121

sacrificial Servant is God’s work, notman’s. And God is not confined to time.He sees and works in history on a time-less basis.

God has forgiven all sin of the faith-ful obedient of all history through thecross. He sees all the sins of mankindin all history through the cross. With-out the cross, there would have been noforgiveness of sins before or after thecross. At the time Jesus was crucified,God saw all the sins of humanity bothbefore and after the cross. Paul statedin Romans 1:17, “The just will live byfaith.” Romans 1:17 is a quotation fromHabbakuk 2:4 in the Old Testament.Thus the justified lived by faith beforethe cross as we live by faith after thecross. God’s response to forgive sinsis conditioned upon man’s faith bothbefore and after the cross.

In some way this may help us tounderstand why Jesus said on the cross,“My God, My God, why have you forsakenMe?” (Mt 27:46). Jesus took upon Him-self on the cross all the sins of all hu-manity of all history. All the sins of thosebefore the cross and all the sins of allthose after the cross were upon Him atthe cross. Could it be that it was in thenature of God in whom is no darkness(1 Jn 1:5) to turn away from such dark-ness of sin? Though we do not under-stand all that transpired in the heavenlyrealm at that moment on the cross, wedo know that in some way Jesus took itupon Himself to accept the burden of allthe sins of those who have obedientlyresponded to God by faith.

For us today, the cross was God’smanifestation of grace for sins in the pastthat carries forgiveness to us in thepresent (Ti 2:11). This is why the He-

brew writer made the following statementin Hebrews 9:15 concerning Jesus be-ing our Mediator: “And for this reasonHe [Jesus] is the Mediator of the newcovenant, by means of death, for theredemption of the transgressions un-der the first covenant, that those whoare called may receive the promise ofthe eternal inheritance.”

The cross is God’s manifestation ofgrace to those who would sin after Jesusdied on the cross (Ep 2:6-9). All forgive-ness of sins, therefore, centers aroundand proceeds from Calvary. Forgivenessoccurs instantaneously in the life of thebeliever upon the believer’s complianceto the conditions for forgiveness that Goddemands at any time in history. Beforethe cross, the Israelites had to keep theOld Testament law as a manifestationof faith. Today, we must submit to thelaw of Christ. Our submission to God’swill is our condition for the application ofGod’s grace to our lives.

We must keep in mind, however,that perfect submission to all of God’slaw is not a condition for salvation sim-ply because no man can keep God’s lawperfectly. We are not saved by perfectlaw-keeping (Rm 3:20; Gl 2:16). Andbecause we are not, God must save usby His grace that was revealed at thecross of Calvary (Ti 2:11).

2. Remission of sins comes di-rectly from Jesus: The conditions forthe remission of sins were different be-fore the ascension of Jesus and estab-lishment of the new covenant, than af-ter the establishment of the new cov-enant. Before the new covenant, andwhile on this earth, Jesus could sayduring His personal ministry, “Your sins

The Baptism

122

are forgiven” (Lk 7:48,49). Jesus couldforgive sin personally while on earth. Hesaid such in Matthew 9:6. “But that youmay know that the Son of Man haspower on earth to forgive sins ....”

Jesus could forgive sins personallywhile on this earth because He was Godagainst whom sin was committed.Therefore, before His death, He couldsay to the thief on the cross, “Today youwill be with Me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43).While on this earth, Jesus could forgivesins personally, and thus, He could di-rectly save the thief on the cross. Hispower to forgive sins was evidence thatHe was God on earth, for only God canforgive sins.

One must also keep in mind that theOld Testament law was still in force dur-ing Jesus’ life on earth. The New Testa-ment law was brought into force onlyafter the official announcement of thelordship of Jesus in Acts 2 (See Hb9:16,17; At 2:36). Under the Old Testa-ment law the conditions for forgivenessof sins were different from the conditionsfor forgiveness under the New Testamentlaw of Christ. Jesus, as God and origi-nator of the Old Testament law, had au-thority to forgive sins personally on earthwhile that law was in force.

3. Remission of sins was accom-plished by John’s baptism: During theministry of John the Baptist and Jesus,God ordained by commandment thatJohn baptize people for the forgivenessof sins. He did this in order to preparepeople to be baptized for the forgivenessof sins in the name of Jesus after thecross. Therefore, John baptized in thewilderness and preached the “baptismof repentance for the remission of sins”

(Mk 1:4).John’s baptism was a baptism for

the remission of sins. The same Greekphrase that is used in Mark 1:4 is alsoused in Acts 2:38 where Peter toldpeople to be baptized “for the remissionof sins.” The difference is that the bap-tism of Acts 2:38 was to be in thename of Jesus, that is, in subjection toJesus’ lordship for He had already diedand ascended by the time of the pro-nouncement of Acts 2:38. Though John’sbaptism was for the forgiveness of sins,his baptism was replaced by the bap-tism of Acts 2:38 when the new cov-enant was established in Acts 2 with allthose who submitted to baptism in thename of Jesus (At 2:41). If any werebaptized by John’s baptism after Acts2, they needed to be rebaptized. Suchhappened in Acts 19 when Paul had torebaptize about twelve disciples in Ephe-sus (At 19:1-7).

B. Remission of sins after the cross:After His death, Jesus’ new cov-

enant was brought into force, “for a cov-enant is ratified upon death...” (Hb9:16,17). After His death, therefore,when the new covenant was in force,Jesus’ disciples preached baptism forthe remission of sins (At 2:38;8:12,13,35-39; 10:48; 22:16). Therefore,the conditions for salvation were differ-ent before the death of Christ and theestablishment of the church than theywere after the official announcement ofJesus’ lordship on the day of Pentecostin A.D. 30. The conditions for remissionbefore the cross differed from what isnecessary for remission under the NewTestament law of Christ today.

Jesus could personally forgive sins

The Baptism

123

while on earth when He was living underthe Old Testament law. Those who livedbefore the cross were also under the OldTestament law. But that law was takenaway at the cross when the new cov-enant came into force in Acts 2 with thefirst official “reading” of the testament ofthe Testator who was at that time reign-ing in heaven (See Cl 2:14). Christiansare not under the Old Testament law orcovenant today (Rm 7:4). They are un-der a law and covenant today that sayseveryone must be baptized in the nameof the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit(Mt 28:19,20) for the remission of sins(At 2:38). In order to come into Christ(Rm 6:3), or be of Christ today (1 Co1:12-15), we must obey the gospel byimmersion. Baptism for remission of sinsis necessary in order to establish a cov-enant with God. If anyone would be sub-missive to the conditions of the new cov-enant, he must be baptized into thiscovenant.

Jesus’ blood has now become the“blood of the covenant” (Mt 26:28). Hisblood is the sacrificial blood of the newcovenant that has now been establishedbetween God and those who are obedi-ent to the conditions of the covenant.Those who are obedient to the thingsthey have been taught, come into thisnew covenant relationship of Godwherein they have forgiveness throughthe blood of the new covenant. The sinsthat would separate God’s covenantedpeople from Him are continually washedaway by the blood of Jesus (1 Jn 1:7).

Chapter 28

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

SALVATIONSALVATIONSALVATIONSALVATIONSALVATION

For years in the debate centeredaround baptism, argument was madethat immersion stood between one’sstate of being lost and a state of salva-tion. This simple approach to empha-size the importance of immersion hasnot lost its force. When the New Testa-ment is studied we cannot discount thefact that baptism is portrayed in the NewTestament to stand between a conditionof being lost or saved. In every case ofconversion in the New Testament, im-mersion stands as the point of referencebetween being in a state of condemna-tion and a state of salvation. Bible stu-dents who ignore this fact have over-looked a very important fact concerningthe conversion records of the Scriptures.

If baptism is not important in refer-ence to one’s salvation, then we wouldassume that there would be little atten-tion paid to it in the conversion casesrecorded in the New Testament. How-ever, if it stands as a place of great im-portance in reference to one’s salvation,then we would assume that it wouldbe emphasized in the records of con-version in the New Testament. Whatis recorded in the cases of conversionis that all salvational blessings come af-ter one is baptized.

A. Baptism stands between beingsaved and being lost.Paul wrote that “our old man was

crucified” with Jesus and that “we areburied with Him through baptism intodeath” (Rm 6:4-6). After baptism onewalks “in newness of life” (Rm 6:4).Jesus said that “unless one is bornagain, he cannot see the kingdom ofGod” (Jn 3:3-5). Before one comes intoChrist, he or she is outside Christ.

The Baptism

124

However, Paul wrote, “For as many ofyou as were baptized into Christ haveput on Christ” (Gl 3:27). Before baptism,one is without Christ, but after baptismone is “of Christ” (1 Co 1:12,13). One isbaptized into Christ (Rm 6:3). Beforebaptism, one is in a state ofunregeneration. After baptism, however,one is in a state of regeneration. Paulwrote, “... according to His mercy, bythe washing of regeneration and re-newing of the Holy Spirit” (Ti 3:5). Bap-tism, therefore, stands between ei-ther being in a condition of salva-tion or in a state of condemnation inrelation to God. One cannot changethis fact concerning immersion.Throughout the New Testament this con-cept is affirmed, and thus, in order tohave a good conscience toward God con-cerning those things that God demandsof us, one must be immersed for the re-mission of sins. This is the right thingto do in obedience to God.

B. Baptism saves one’s soul.Those things that result from bap-

tism are those things that pertain toone’s salvation. Peter said that one must“be baptized for the remission of sins”(At 2:38). Remission of sins is herestated to come after baptism. Ananiascommanded Paul to “be baptized, and

wash away your sins ...” (At 22:16). Thewashing of sins comes at the point ofbaptism. Peter adds that baptism “nowsaves us ...” (1 Pt 3:21). Peter is say-ing that salvation comes at the point ofbaptism. This is true, not because thereis any power in the water, but becausethis is the point at which one contactsthe saving blood of Jesus. Jesus statedthat one is saved at the point of bap-tism. In Mark 16:16 He said, “He whobelieves and is baptized will be saved;but he who does not believe will be con-demned.” The New American StandardVersion translated Mark 16:16 thus, “Hewho has believed and has been bap-tized will be saved.” Salvation, there-fore, comes at the point of baptism, notbefore. Paul reminded the Christians inRome that “as many of us as were bap-tized into Christ Jesus were baptizedinto His death” (Rm 6:3; See Gl 3:27).The “into Christ” and “into His death” arethings that take place at the point ofbaptism. One is not in Christ before heis baptized into Christ. One has notbeen baptized into the death of Christuntil he has been baptized.

From the teachings of the passagesthat have been reviewed in points A andB, notice the following chart. It is obvi-ous that immersion stands betweensome very important things concerning

(Romans 6:4,5)(Romans 6:3)

(Galatians 3:27)(1 Corinthians 1:12,13)

(Titus 3:5)(Acts 22:16)(Acts 2:38)

(1 Peter 3:21)(Mark 16:16)

New ManInside ChristPut on Christ

Of ChristRegenerated

WashedRemission of Sins

SavedNo Condemnation

Old ManOutside ChristWithout ChristNot of Christ

UnregenerateUnwashed

No RemissionNot Saved

Under Condemnation

BAPTIS

MBAPTIS

MBAPTIS

MBAPTIS

MBAPTIS

M

The Baptism

125

one’s salvation. If immersion stands be-tween these very important points con-cerning our salvation, then we must con-clude that it is necessary for our salva-tion.

The things mentioned above that re-sult from immersion are not present inthe life of the unbaptized person. It isbecause these things take place at thepoint of baptism that the eunuch re-joiced after he was baptized in Acts 8.The Scriptures say that Philip “baptizedhim ... and the eunuch ... went on hisway rejoicing” (At 8:38,39). The eu-nuch could rejoice because of what hap-pened as a result of his obedience tothe gospel. There was no reason to re-joice before he was baptized becauseremission of sins and salvation wereblessings in his life only after obediencein baptism. The same is true of us to-day. Only after we are baptized is therereason for rejoicing.

It may be that the simplicity of thispoint is what confuses people. Anyonewho studies the cases of conversion inthe New Testament can clearly under-stand the relationship newly immersedbelievers had with God. The contrastbetween their behavior before and afterimmersion is quite evident. It is surpisingto see the lengths to which individualswill go in order to explain away this mostobvious fact of the New Testament sur-rounding baptism. Then on the otherhand, we can also understand that if onehas traditionally denied the importanceof immersion for years, it is hard tochange in the face of clear teachings ofthe Bible and the intimidation of fellowworkers. Again, we must not underesti-mate the power of traditional thought inthe minds of men. After all, Jesus said,

“All too well you reject the command-ment of God so that you may keep yourown tradition” (Mk 7:9). Most men willusually consider traditional theologymore binding than the law of God.

We must remind ourselves that be-cause baptism stands between condem-nation and salvation, it is not a legal actof obedience whereby God is obligatedto save the one who is baptized. In otherwords, one does not put God in debt byobedience to the gospel through theaction of immersion. The action of im-mersion does not save. Immersion isnot a work whereby we earn God’s sal-vation or put God in debt to save us. Wemust remember that by works of law noone can be saved (Rm 3:20). This istrue when alien sinners come to God sim-ply because no one can save himself.However, one cannot be saved withoutan obedient faith response to the law ofGod. In other words, one cannot besaved by ignoring or rejecting whatGod says one must do in order towash away sins. He cannot becauseobedience is the alien sinner’s responseto God’s grace. It is by obedience thatlaw is established (Rm 3:31).

The point of baptism is the time inthe alien sinner’s life where God saysthat He will apply the blood of Jesus toone’s soul. Baptism is an action of im-mersion in water on earth that is visibleto men. However, the forgiveness of sinsthrough the blood of Jesus is somethingthat takes place in the spiritual realm inour relationship with God through Jesus.Therefore, the action of baptism is morefor our benefit in the sense that we havea point of reference where we can affirmthat God worked in the spiritual realm inorder to forgive our sins. Baptism is our

The Baptism

126

witness before men and God that weaccept the conditions of God’s covenant.This would answer our questions con-cerning why God instituted that at thepoint of baptism we could be assured ofour salvation.

God could forgive our sins at any timein our lives. Some have led themselvesto believe that an emotional “salvationexperience” or an intellectual “receivingof Jesus” is the point at which God for-gives sins. However, these are mangenerated and man conditioned pointsof reference. Anything that would de-pend on the emotions or intellect of manwould not suffice in order to activate thework of God in the heavenly realm. Thework of a “sinner’s prayer” is not suffi-cient because such originates from menand not God. Only God has the right todeclare who is saved. And we can onlyknow His declaration by what weread in the New Testament.

Baptism is God’s declaration of oursalvation. From the revelation of theScriptures we discover that God has saidHe will forgive sins at the point of im-mersion in water. Therefore, when oneis baptized, his confidence for his salva-tion does not originate in some personalemotional experience wherein oneclaims his own salvation. His confidenceis in God who said in His word that Hewould forgive our sins if we would sim-ply respond to the cross through immer-sion into the death, burial and resurrec-tion of Jesus. Baptism is thus an ac-tion of trusting (faith) in God to unleashthe saving blood of Jesus on our souls.It is a manifestation of our faith (trust) inthe grace of God.

In concluding this point, it would begood to consider again the case wherein

Philip shared the gospel with the Ethio-pian eunuch. Many people have pre-sumed their own means by which theyclaim to be saved. In their presumptionto claim salvation through a “sinner’sprayer,” they have not been told thewhole story.

When the eunuch asked Philip con-cerning the meaning of the text of Isaiah53 which he was reading, Philip beganfrom this text and preached Jesus untothe eunuch (At 8:34,35). However, whenthey came to a certain water, it was theeunuch who said, “See, here is water!What hinders me from being baptized”(At 8:36). Since this question of theeunuch mentions the subject of baptism,then we could correctly assume that thepreaching of Jesus includes the teach-ing of baptism. Therefore, people todaywho claim to be saved without immer-sion into the death, burial and resurrec-tion of Jesus have assumed a presump-tuous belief. They have founded theirsalvation on the presumption of their ownfeelings and inventions, and not the dec-laration of the word of God. They havethus stopped short of the whole teach-ing of Jesus.

Chapter 29

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

LOGICAL CONCLUSIONSLOGICAL CONCLUSIONSLOGICAL CONCLUSIONSLOGICAL CONCLUSIONSLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

Common sense combined withsimple logic is sometimes all that isneeded to prove a point. When it in-volves biblical teachings, one’s logicalapproach to form deductions is not theprimary foundation upon which funda-mental doctrine is established. Thatwhich is fundamental for salvation is al-

The Baptism

127

ways stated somewhere in the Bible insimple declarative or imperative state-ments. In other words, nothing that isfundamental for salvation has to be firstdeducted through a process of reason-ing. When it comes to essential teach-ings that are necessary for salvation, theBible simply says what it means andmeans what it says. However, that whichis fundamental to salvation logically fol-lows any deduction of thought that isrelated to fundamental teachings.

If a clearly stated fundamentalteaching is made, then that teachingmust be the premise upon which all figu-rative passages must be interpreted thatrefer to that teaching. It must be thefoundation upon which all passages thatrefer to the fundamental teaching mustbe based. This is true simply becausethe Bible does not contradict itself.Therefore, when we study teachings con-cerning what God requires on man’s partin order to be saved, we must first deter-mine that which is fundamental in refer-ence to man’s obedience. What isclearly stated must be our interpretiveguide to understand all passages thatrefer to salvation concepts.

Baptism is first established as a fun-damental teaching in reference to oursalvation by declarative or imperativestatements. Mark 16:16 is a declara-tive statement that makes baptism afundamental teaching that is necessaryfor salvation. Jesus said, “He that be-lieves and is baptized will be saved ....”Now when we study other contexts thatrelate to the salvation of individuals inthe first century, we must logically con-clude that baptism played an importantpart in every case of salvation. This isthe same with the fundamental teach-

ing on salvation concerning belief andrepentance. Though a particular con-text of a reported case of conversiondoes not specifically mention all neces-sary requirements on the part of man forsalvation, we must conclude from clearstatements in other texts that all that isnecessary for salvation is assumed inany one case of conversion. If God hadto state in every single case of conver-sion all that was necessary on man’spart for salvation, the New Testamentwould be a cumbersome volume of re-dundancy. He has thus kept it simple,assuming that we can discover all thatis necessary for salvation in all passagesthat deal with salvation.

Since baptism is a fundamental partof one’s salvation, then we can makelogical deductions from other texts thatcome to a common conclusion. The fol-lowing points are logical thoughts whichshow that baptism is a necessary partof one’s salvation. Under each majorpoint there are three statements. State-ments 1 and 2 are teachings from keyscriptures. The third point is true be-cause of the truth of points 1 and 2.

A. Baptism is necessary for eternallife.It is God’s eternal plan to bring obe-

dient men into eternal dwelling in a newheavens and earth (2 Pt 3:13). In orderto accomplish this, God has required ofmen certain conditions upon which theywould be qualified as candidates for eter-nal life. In order for any man to comeinto the eternal presence of God, Godrequires that we submit to His conditionsfor eternal dwelling.

1. John states that God has given to us

The Baptism

128

eternal life “and this life is in His Son”(1 Jn 5:11). In order to have eternallife, therefore, one must be “in HisSon.”

2. The New Testament says that the aliensinner is baptized into Jesus Christ.Paul wrote, “Or do you not know thatas many of us as were baptized intoChrist Jesus were baptized into Hisdeath?” (Rm 6:3; see Gl 3:27).

3. Therefore, we can logically concludethat one must be baptized into Jesus,“into His Son,” in order to have eter-nal life.

B. Obedience is necessary for sal-vation.

1. Hebrews 5:9 says that Jesus becamethe author of eternal salvation “to allthose who obey Him.” Thus, Jesus isthe “originator” of salvation to all thosewho are obedient to His will.

2. Baptism is a command of Jesus. “Gointo all the world and preach the gos-pel to every creature. He who believesand is baptized will be saved ...” (Mk16:15,16). “Truly, truly, I say to you,unless a man is born again, he cannotsee the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3).

3. Therefore, we can conclude that onemust obey Jesus’ command to bebaptized in order to have “eternal sal-vation.”

C. Washing of sin in baptism is nec-essary for salvation.

1. Titus 3:5 says that Christians are

saved by the mercy of God “by thewashing of regeneration.” In salva-tion, therefore, there is regeneration.In this regeneration we are washed ofall sin.

2. In Acts 22:16 Ananias referred Paul tothis washing action by stating to him,“And now why are you waiting? Ariseand be baptized and wash away yoursins ....”

3. Therefore, we can conclude that oneis saved by the washing away of sinsin baptism which is the point in one’slife where one is regenerated. Becauseof this action at the point of baptism,Peter could say of baptism in 1 Peter3:21 that it does “now save us ....” Thisis the washing of regeneration.

D. Baptism is necessary in order tobecome a new creature.

1. One can be a new creation, or crea-ture, only in Christ. Paul wrote this in 2Corinthians 5:17. “Therefore, if anyman is in Christ, he is a new creature....”

2. The New Testament says that we arebaptized into Christ (Rm 6:3; Gl 3:27).

3. Therefore, we must be baptized intoChrist in order to become a new cre-ation or new creature. We must bebaptized in order to “walk in newnessof life” (Rm 6:4).

The necessity to be baptized is alogical conclusion in any New Testamentcontext wherein salvation is discussedafter the day of Pentecost in A.D. 30.

The Baptism

129

One must be immersed into Christ inorder to have the blessing of eternal life.One must obey the commands of Jesusin order to be saved. Baptism is one ofthose commands. In immersion Godwashes away sin, and thus, one be-comes a new creature only after bap-tism. Baptism is therefore essential forsalvation because of logical deductionsfrom clear statements that are made inthe Scriptures.

At the risk of being redundant, wewould stress again the point that sincethe subject of baptism is discussed bythe New Testament writers in the con-text of so many crucial teachings onsalvation, that something must be veryimportant about it. Why is immersiondiscussed in the context of Romans 6in relation to one being crucified withChrist? Why is immersion discussedin the context of 2 Corinthians 5 whenPaul talks about becoming a new crea-ture? These and a host of other salva-tion contexts contain the subject of bap-tism. If baptism does not play an im-portant part in one’s salvation, then wewould wonder why the subject is so of-ten mentioned in those contexts of theNew Testament where discussion iscentered around one’s salvation.

Again, we must reemphasize thefact that when a requirement for salva-tion is mentioned in any text of the NewTestament that would apply to man af-ter the establishment of the church inA.D. 30, then we must automaticallyassume that God intends that we fulfillthat requirement. Since repentance ismentioned as a necessity on the part ofman for salvation in texts wherein nei-ther faith nor baptism are mentioned,then we must assume that repentance

is a requirement for salvation eventhough it is not mentioned in a specificsalvation text. If immersion for remis-sion of sins is not mentioned in any pas-sage where repentance or faith are men-tioned as requirements for salvation,then we must assume that it is a re-quirement for salvation because it isclearly stated to be so in other scrip-tures.

When a requirement for salvation isstated alone in any one passage, thatdoes not negate the necessity of otherrequirements for salvation that are men-tioned in other passages. God does notplay guessing games with us through-out the New Testament. He does notstate in one passage that repentance isnecessary while negating the require-ment of faith when faith is not specifi-cally mentioned in a salvational passage.He does not negate the requirement offaith when only baptism is mentioned.The New Testament must be understoodas a whole in determining all that is re-quired by God for the salvation of oursouls. No man has a right to extractonly that which he likes, for that whichhe may extract could be that which isnecessary for his salvation. And whenit comes to extracting things from God’sword concerning all those things that arenecessary for salvation, then we aredoing what Peter warned concerningthose who twist the Scriptures. Theydo so to their own destruction (2 Pt3:15,16).

Chapter 30

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

RESPONSE TO THE GOSPELRESPONSE TO THE GOSPELRESPONSE TO THE GOSPELRESPONSE TO THE GOSPELRESPONSE TO THE GOSPEL

The Baptism

130

If immersion is a necessary part ofman’s response to God in order to besaved, then it would logically follow thatwe could say that the New Testamentconnects immersion with other teach-ings that are fundamental to salvation.All that is necessary on man’s part tobe saved must be interconnected. Noone essential teaching concerning sal-vation would stand alone. When westudy the subject of baptism, therefore,we would assume that if it is necessaryfor salvation, then it cannot be discon-nected from other essentials that areconnected with salvation. We say thisto emphasize the fact that baptism can-not be disconnected from the gospelevent and all that is necessary to bringforgiveness of sins into one’s life.

If we also contend that one can besaved without being immersed into acovenant relationship with God, then weare saying that there are some basicNew Testament teachings that are notimportant that are connected with bap-tism. But if one says that these basicNew Testament teachings are not im-portant, then he is advocating some se-rious false conclusions. The followingare some logical conclusions that mani-fest some unfortunate exclusions if wehold the position that baptism is notnecessary for salvation:

A. Logical conclusions concerningbaptism:If one can be saved without obedi-

ence to the gospel by immersion, thenthe following are some conclusions thatmust be faced. These conclusions leadus to affirm that immersion is directlyconnected to salvation, and thus, a nec-essary part of God’s plan to bring the

alien sinner into a saving covenant rela-tionship with Him.

1. If one is saved without baptism, thenhe or she can be saved without obey-ing Jesus, for Jesus commanded thatone be baptized in order to be saved(Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5).

2. If one is saved without baptism, thenone can be saved without obeying theinspired apostles, for they com-manded that one be baptized in orderto be saved (At 2:38; 10:47,48).

3. If one is saved without baptism, thenone can be saved without obeying themessage of the great commission,for in commanding His apostles toevangelize the world Jesus com-manded them to baptize those whobelieved (Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15,16).

4. If one is saved without baptism, thenone can be saved without believingor obeying one of the fundamentalteachings of Paul in Ephesians 4:4-6that there is “one baptism.”

5. If one is saved without baptism, thenone can be saved without followingthe example of those in the first cen-tury who responded to the preach-ing of the gospel by immersion for theforgiveness of their sins (At 2:38,41).

6. If one is saved without baptism, thenone can be saved without obedienceto the death, burial and resurrectionof Jesus, for baptism is obedience tothe gospel (Rm 6:3-5).

7. If one is saved without baptism, then

The Baptism

131

one is saved without recognizing theimportance of immersion as a fun-damental teaching of the New Testa-ment that is mentioned over one hun-dred times.

Because of the emphasis that isplaced on baptism in obedience to thegospel of Jesus, thousands of people inthe first century were immersed intoChrist. They were immersed becausethey knew that such was in obedienceto the gospel. All men today must fol-low their example. If we desire to re-store the faith of the early Christians,we must obey the gospel as those whowere baptized into the body, the church(1 Co 12:13). This obedience would in-clude our response to the gospel.

B. Examples of response to the gos-pel:A subtle departure from emphasis on

baptism has occurred in most religiouscircles concerning the cases of baptismas they are mentioned in the documentof Acts. This subtle departure has evenaffected some who formerly believed thatbaptism was essential to salvation. Onereason for this apostasy has been inunderstanding the New Testamentteaching concerning “obedience to thegospel.” The gospel is the good newsof Jesus’ death for our sins, His burial,and subsequent resurrection for our hope(1 Co 15:1-4). When the gospel waspreached in the first century, people re-sponded to this message. Their re-sponse was recorded in the book ofActs. Their baptisms were in responseto the gospel message that waspreached. When they heard the preach-ing of the gospel event, they were

touched in their hearts. They respondedby immersion into the death, burial andresurrection of Jesus.

In the theology of some, an over-emphasis has been placed on the re-sponse to the gospel (baptism) whichoften led to less emphasis placed onwhat caused the response, that is, thegospel itself. Some were taught that onehad to go through a series of prelimi-nary steps in order to become Christian.The steps were to hear, believe, repent,confess, and then, be baptized. Butthese responses are not the gospel.They were recorded in the New Testa-ment and directly connected with obe-dience to the gospel and salvation. How-ever, these” were responses to thepreaching of the cross.

In the first century, multitudes ofpeople responded to the preaching of thecross. Their faith in Jesus moved themto respond obediently to Jesus by beingcrucified, buried and resurrected withHim. The people heard the gospel. Theybelieved the gospel. They were baptizedin order to fulfill all righteousness. Whenthe gospel is preached today, the sameresponse is generated in the hearts ofthe people. The response is not the gos-pel. The gospel causes the response inthe hearts of the people today just as itcaused a response in the first century.

We must not overemphasize the re-sponse to the gospel to the exclusion ofthe gospel. One can teach others tohear, believe, repent, confess andpresent baptism as a legal act withoutever mentioning the event of the crossof Jesus for our sins and resurrection forour hope. One can actually persuadepeople to hear, believe, repent, confessand be baptized without ever mention-

The Baptism

132

ing the gospel of Jesus’ death and res-urrection. In our preaching, therefore,we must continue to focus the minds ofthe people on the cross.

Paul said to the Corinthians, “I de-livered to you first of all that which I alsoreceived” (1 Co 15:3). What he had re-ceived was that “Christ died for our sinsaccording to the Scriptures, and that Hewas buried, and that He rose again onthe third day according to the Scriptures”(1 Co 15:3,4). This is the gospel! Inevery major sermon of Acts the gospelwas preached to the people. When sin-cere people heard of the redemptive workof Jesus on the cross for their sins andHis resurrection for our hope of eternalliving, they listened, they believed, theyrepented, and finally, they were im-mersed in order to be saved.

What has often happened is that wehave overemphasized the response tothe gospel to the point of losing our fo-cus on the gospel itself. But we mustnever forget that our obsession must al-ways be on the suffering Servant of Godon the cross. The Son of God was in-carnate to give us an opportunity foreternality. So we must never forget thatit was the incarnate Son of God whogave up His being in the form of God inorder to bring those of faith into His eter-nal presence (Ph 2:5-11).

Now when we come to a study ofthe cases of conversion that are men-tioned in the document of Acts, we un-derstand that these recorded responsesare the result of men and women whorecognized who Jesus was. They sub-sequently responded to everything thatJesus commanded in order to come intoHis eternal presence. The message ofthe cross touched their hearts. It was

this gospel message that had the powerto bring them into an eternal saved rela-tionship with God.

1. The Jews on Pentecost (At 2:31-47): Peter preached the gospel in Acts2. He proclaimed that the Jews, by law-less hands, crucified and put Jesus todeath (At 2:23). However, God raisedHim up (At 2:24). “This Jesus God hasraised up, to which we are all witnesses”(At 2:32). God has now made JesusLord and Christ (At 2:36). “Now whenthey heard this, they were cut to the heart...” (At 2:37). In this context, it was thegospel of the cross that caused a re-sponse of belief in the hearts of men.Peter instructed that they must obey thegospel in baptism (At 2:38). Subse-quently, “those who received his wordwere baptized” (At 2:41). The point isthat at the time the audience of Peterwas cut to the heart, Peter had not yetsaid anything about hearing, believing,repenting, confessing or being baptized.This was not the message that movedthe audience to respond in being cut tothe heart. What moved the people wasthe message of the cross. The responseof the people was that they heard andbelieved the message. They subse-quently repented and were immersed inresponse to what Peter said they mustdo in verse 38.

2. The Samaritans (At 8:5-13):“Philip went down to the city of Samariaand preached Christ to them” (At 8:5).As Paul said, he “determined not to knowanything among you except Jesus Christand Him crucified” (1 Co 2:2). This waswhat Philip determined to know andpreach among the Samaritans. As a

The Baptism

133

result, “The people with one accord gaveattention to those things that were spo-ken by Philip” (At 8:6). Those who be-lieved were “baptized in the name of theLord Jesus” (At 8:12,13). Therefore, thegospel was not that the people believed.Believing was in response to what Philippreached. They believed his messageconcerning the death of Jesus for oursins and His resurrection for our hope.

3. The Ethiopian eunuch (At 8:26-39): The eunuch was reading Isaiah 53when he was approached by Philip on aroad from Jerusalem to Gaza. The proph-ecy of Isaiah 53 spoke of the crucifixionof Jesus (At 8:32,33). Beginning withIsaiah 53, Philip “preached Jesus to him”(At 8:35). Philip preached Jesus andHis crucifixion. He began from the pas-sage that spoke of the crucifixion andapplied the prophecy to Jesus who wascrucified and rose again. The result ofthe teaching was that the eunuch “com-manded the chariot to stand still. Andboth went down into the water, both Philipand the eunuch, and he baptized him”(At 8:38). Therefore, immersion in wa-ter for remission of sins was the re-sponse to the message that Philippreached. Philip preached the goodnews of the death, burial and resurrec-tion of Jesus. The eunuch respondedby believing and being immersed.

The message is not to believe, butJesus Christ and the cross. Some wouldpreach faith as the center of referenceof their message. But this is not whatwe see in the preaching of the New Tes-tament. The people were told to believe(At 16:31), but their believing was gen-erated by the preaching of Jesus andthe cross. Faith, therefore, was the ser-

endipity of Jesus and the cross. SinceJesus and the cross stimulated faith,then Jesus and the cross is our primarymessage (See 1 Co 1:17,23; 15:3,4).

4. Saul of Tarsus (At 9:10-19): InActs 9 the resurrected Jesus personallyappeared to Saul (Paul). After three daysof blindness in Damascus, Ananias saidto Saul, “And now why are you waiting?Arise and be baptized and wash awayyour sins” (At 22:16). The fact is thatat this time in Paul’s conversion, he hadcome to believe that Jesus was theChrist and Son of God. He knew thatJesus had died, and now, he had visualconfirmation through the vision that Hehad been raised from the dead. WhatAnanias called on him to do was to re-spond to the event of Jesus’ death andresurrection. The statement of Ananiaswas that he respond to what he knew.

5. Cornelius and his household(At 10:24-48): When Peter went to thehouse of Cornelius he rehearsed thegospel message that had been preachedthroughout all Judea and Galilee (At10:36,37). He preached that the Jewshad crucified Jesus (At 10:39). How-ever, God raised Jesus from the dead(At 10:40). “While Peter was still speak-ing these words, the Holy Spirit fell onall those who heard the word” (At 10:44).He subsequently “commanded them tobe baptized in the name of JesusChrist.” (At 10:48). In other words,Cornelius and his household believed.It was not that Peter commanded themto hear and believe. This they did whenthe message of the cross was preached.They needed to know how to respond tothat which they heard and believed.

The Baptism

134

Therefore, Peter informed them to do thesame thing that was stated on the dayof Pentecost in Acts 2:38.

6. Lydia and her household (At16:13-15): Lydia had an open mind, andthus, she responded to the things thatwere spoken by Paul. “She and herhousehold were baptized ...” (At 16:15).Paul’s message that caused the re-sponse was the message of the gospel.Her receptive heart moved her to respondin obedience to the gospel.

7. The Philippian jailor (At 16:25-34): While in prison in Philippi, Paul andSilas were “praying and singing hymnsto God” (At 16:25). An earthquake oc-curred that opened the prison doors. Thejailor was evidently “shaken” by the sce-nario of events, and thus, proceeded totake his own life because he believedthat the prisoners had escaped. How-ever, when he was stopped from doingsuch by Paul, he was moved by the mes-sage of what Paul and Silas sang whilein prison. He asked Paul and Silas,“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (At16:30). Their reply was, “Believe on theLord Jesus Christ ...” (At 16:31). Thisstatement was not made in the contextof establishing a conclusion to what wasnecessary for the jailor to do in order tobe saved. It was made in the context ofwhat the jailor must do in order to ini-tiate his response to the gospel. Thejailor was subsequently baptized in re-sponse to the gospel (At 16:33).

8. The Corinthians (At 18:8): WhenPaul went to Corinth, he preached JesusChrist and the cross (1 Co 2:2). He firstdelivered to the Corinthians that which

he first received, “that Christ died for oursins according to the Scriptures and thatHe was buried, and that He rose againthe third day according to the Scriptures”(1 Co 15:3,4). We could assume thatwherever Paul went, he first preachedthat which he first preached in Corinth.This was the gospel of Jesus’ death,burial and resurrection. When hepreached this gospel, he had the sameresponse as in Corinth. “Then Crispus,the chief ruler of the synagogue, believedon the Lord with all his household. Andmany of the Corinthians hearing, be-lieved and were baptized” (At 18:8). Thatwhich produces the response of hear-ing, believing and being immersed is themessage of the death of Jesus for oursins and His resurrection for our hope.When this message is preached, menand women will respond by doing thatwhich must be done in order to comeinto a covenant relationship with God.

9. The Ephesians (At 19:1-5): WhenPaul arrived in Ephesus he found abouttwelve disciples who had been baptizedinto John’s baptism. However, Paul saidthat they must believe on Jesus as Johnhad said (At 19:4). “When they heardthis, they were baptized in the nameof the Lord Jesus” (At 19:5). There-fore, their response to believing was im-mersion. We would conclude that any-one who has a sincere heart will do thesame when hearing of the death of Jesusfor our sins and resurrection for our hope.

The conversion of the Ephesiansalso emphasizes the fact that some-times people can be immersed for thewrong reasons. These disciples werebaptized unto John’s baptism at a timewhen John’s baptism was no longer valid.

The Baptism

135

When they heard of the baptism in thename of Jesus for the remission of sins,they were immediately rebaptized for theright reasons.

Someone might ask, “How manytimes must one be baptized?” The an-swer is, “Until you get it right and for theright reasons.” New Testament baptismis not New Testament baptism until it isa correct response to the right truth. Inthe cases of conversions that are men-tioned in the book of Acts, the right rea-son for immersion is that it must be inresponse to the cross of Jesus and forthe remission of sins.

It would be difficult for one to missthe emphasis of the preaching of thecrucified and resurrected Jesus in Acts.It was this gospel message that movedmen and women to respond by obedi-ence to this good news. That whichmoved men and women to initially re-spond to God was not the preaching ofchurch organization, the mission of thechurch, or its benevolent work. Evange-lists did not argue over names and dates,future speculations or present turmoils.They simply moved the hearts of adultmen and women by preaching the simplegospel. And when they did this, peoplewere moved to obey all that God requiredof them to be saved.

Chapter 31

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

PROPER CANDIDATESPROPER CANDIDATESPROPER CANDIDATESPROPER CANDIDATESPROPER CANDIDATES

Baptism is not a “church sacra-ment.” It is not a work or ritual one mustperform in order to be rewarded with amerit of religious excellence. Some-

where throughout the years of departurefrom the New Testament, religious peoplehave lost sight of the spiritual signifi-cance of immersion into Christ. Withthe practice of infant baptism, misguidedreligious people have completely lostsight of the personal response to God’swill on the part of adults who are to bebaptized.

The practice of infant baptism re-veals this digression from the true pur-pose of immersion. Infant baptism mani-fests in those religions that practice it aloss of personal conviction on the partof the one who is baptized. In infantbaptism, response to the grace of Godis counted to be of no importance onthe part of the candidate. When babiesare baptized, they know and understandnothing concerning the grace of God thatappeared on the cross (Ti 2:11). All re-sponse to God’s teaching concerningsalvation is placed on the shoulders ofthe parents, not the one being baptized.The “baptism” of the infant is simply thedesires of the parents to have watersprinkled on the head of their baby ac-cording to their own desires. “Baptism,”therefore is simply a church ritual of par-ents to have their babies dedicated tothe Lord. There is certainly nothingwrong with parents dedicating their ba-bies to the Lord. But we must be care-ful about wrongfully using Bible namesand actions that apply specifically to theobedience of adults to the message ofthe cross.

There are also those just this sideof infant baptism who would say to a verysmall child, “Isn’t it about time you getbaptized?” It is questionable that a fiveor six year old can comprehend the na-ture of our salvation by grace and faith.

The Baptism

136

Baptism in such cases has often beenrelegated to a type of legal requirementor “church sacrament” that one must per-form. Such belief is evident in the state-ment that is often said to children thatthey must, “get baptized.”

One must be encouraged to respondto obey the gospel from the heart, not tojust “get baptized” in order to fulfill whatwe might perceive to be a legal work inorder to earn salvation. We must un-derstand that when we are baptized weare obeying the good news of the deathof Jesus for our sins on the cross andHis resurrection for our hope. We arenot performing a meritorious work in or-der to put God in debt to save us.

There have also been those who em-phasize that all one must do is simplyunderstand what one must do in orderto be baptized. This could be referredto as “intellectual baptism.” When someyoung boy or girl wants to be immersed,our response is often to make sure thatthe probable candidate knows what heor she is doing. Emphasis is simply onknowledge and not commitment or re-sponse to the cross of Jesus. We of-ten, and correctly, sit down with suchprospects and proceed through a hostof passages in order that the one whodesires to be baptized knows all the rightpoints. In this interview, however, com-mitment passages in the New Testamentare generally not mentioned. Disciple-ship, servanthood, prayer life, spiritualcommitment, and a disciplined spirituallife are generally not subjects of the dis-cussion. The emphasis is usually onsimply understanding Acts 2:38 beforeone can be baptized. In such cases,we have sought to make one a commit-ted disciple of Jesus after he or she is

baptized. But such is the reverse ofJesus’ instructions in Matthew 28:19.“... make disciples of all nations, bap-tizing them ....” Jesus wanted us to firstdisciple people to Him. Once one is com-mitted to be a follower (a disciple) ofJesus, then he or she is ready to obeythe gospel by immersion. We must notreverse the order in order to get peopleto the water.

We must remember that Romans6:1-6 was written to Christians. Paulinstructed the Roman Christians con-cerning the great spiritual relationshipthat they had established with God whenthey were immersed into the death ofJesus. We would assume, therefore,that these brethren did not know all thefacts concerning their immersion whenthey were baptized. Nevertheless, theydid know about Jesus and what He hadaccomplished for their sin problem.Knowledge of what one is doing in bap-tism is very important. However, per-sonal commitment and a spiritual rela-tionship with the death of Jesus is justas important. It is easy to understandthat baptism is “for remission of sins.”It is not so easy to understand that weare “baptized into His death” and thatwe are crucified with Jesus (Rm 6:3-6).One concept deals with something thatGod takes care of in the heavenly realm.However, the latter deals with one’s com-mitment in life to no longer live in sin.

In order for one to be immersed intoChrist in obedience to the gospel, there-fore, he or she must be a proper candi-date. By proper candidate we mean thatone must respond to the gospel by faithand repentance. One must understanddiscipleship to the lordship of Jesus.Those in the New Testament who were

The Baptism

137

baptized were adults who heard thepreaching and teaching of the death,burial and resurrection of Jesus. Theybelieved on Jesus, and in submission toHis lordship, they repented of sins.These were the basic prerequisites forimmersion into Christ. Knowledge ofwhat God required was involved. How-ever, commitment to be a disciple ofJesus was a primary motivating factor.

In the religious world today there iswidespread controversy and confusionconcerning the proper candidates forimmersion. A great number of religiousgroups baptize babies by sprinkling orpouring water on their heads and callingsuch baptism. These groups often teachthat babies have “original sin,” and there-fore, they need to be baptized for remis-sion of that sin. It is believed by somethat baptism is parallel to the rite of cir-cumcision in the Old Testament. Infants,therefore, should be baptized soon afterbirth as babies were circumcised soonafter birth in the Old Testament.

We must first understand that thesimple action of immersion of an indi-vidual in water does not remit sins. Thereis no saving power in the water. Thereis no remission in the act of baptism.Immersion is a God-ordained action thatis required in order for one to obey thedeath, burial and resurrection of Jesus.That which “causes” the remission of sinsby God is the blood of Jesus that waspoured out on the cross. However, it isat the point of immersion that God saysHe will apply the blood of Jesus to oursins. Remission of sins through theblood of Jesus takes place in the heav-enly realm. On earth, the spiritual as-pect of the new birth takes place in theheart of the individual who is immersed.

The heart of the believer, therefore, mustbe spiritually acceptable through obedi-ence in order for God to forgive.

An unbelieving or unrepentant indi-vidual will not be forgiven though he orshe is immersed. In other words, thereis no “spiritual power” in a legal action ofimmersion to remit sins. One mustcome to the God-commanded action ofimmersion with a believing and penitentheart. Upon these prerequisites, Godsays He will “wash away” our sins.

The New Testament, therefore,teaches that there are certain things onemust do before he or she is to be im-mersed. The point to remember here isthat infants can do none of these pre-requisites in order to be immersed intoChrist. Since they cannot, then theyare not proper candidates for immersion.

A. Teaching is necessary beforebaptism.Infants cannot be taught, but one

must be taught the gospel before he orshe can be baptized (See Mt 28:19,20;Mk 16:15,16; Jn 6:45; At 8:35-38).Knowing what one is doing is important.This was evidently part of the problem inthe church at Rome. Some were bap-tized, but were still “servants of unrigh-teousness” (Rm 6:13). One cannot liveafter the flesh when he or she comesinto a committed relationship with Jesus.

In way of review, consider again Jer-emiah 31:31-34. Jeremiah recordedGod’s promise of a new covenant. Godhad said, “And they will no longer teachevery man his neighbor and every manhis brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ forthey will all know me” (Jr 31:34). Whenone is in a covenant relationship with theFather under the new covenant, he or

The Baptism

138

she already knows the Lord. One istaught of the Lord before coming into acovenant relationship with God. This isin contrast to Jewish babies who werephysically born into a covenant relation-ship with the Lord, but had to be taughtto know the Lord as they grew up. Inthe new covenant one is taught to knowthe Lord before he or she responds tothe gospel and comes into a covenantrelationship with the Lord. Therefore,before one is born again in baptism, heor she must first know the Lord.

B. Belief is necessary before bap-tism.Infants cannot believe, but one must

believe on the Lord Jesus before he orshe can be baptized. Jesus said, “Hewho believes and is baptized will besaved ...” (Mk 16:16). From this state-ment we would correctly assume thatbelief is inseparably linked to baptism.One must first believe on Jesus. Onemust believe in what he is about to com-mit his life. When Philip preached inSamaria, the Samaritans “believed Philippreaching the things concerning thekingdom of God and the name of JesusChrist. They were baptized, both menand women.” (At 8:12). Men andwomen believed. This belief movedthese men and women to be baptized(At 8:12). One could certainly go throughthe motions of baptism without belief.Such a baptism would be of no profittoward one’s salvation. However, it isdifficult to see how one could truly be-lieve in Jesus as the Son of God withoutobedience to Jesus by immersion into acovenant relationship with God.

When the Ethiopian eunuch wantedto be baptized, Philip asked for the obvi-

ous prerequisite for him to carry out hisdesire. “If you believe with all your heart,you may” (At 8:37). What Philip wassaying was that the eunuch could beimmersed if he believed. Philip placedbelief as a definite prerequisite for im-mersion.

The case of the eunuch helps usunderstand why Paul responded in asimilar manner to the Philippian jailor inActs 16:30-33. The jailor asked, “Sirs,what must I do to be saved?” (At 16:30).Paul and Silas responded, “Believe onthe Lord Jesus Christ, and you will besaved ...” (At 16:31). Belief, therefore,is the foundation upon which one’s re-sponse to the gospel is validated. Whenone truly believes, he or she will do thatwhich is necessary to carry out belief inobedience to God.

In Mark 16:16 Jesus said, “He whobelieves and is baptized will be saved;but he who does not believe will be con-demned.” We could illustrate this state-ment by saying that he who eats foodand digests it, will live. He who doesnot eat, will die. There is no sense talk-ing about digestion, if one does not eat.The same is true of baptism. “He whodoes not believe will be condemned.”There is no sense talking about baptismif one does not believe. The emphasisof Jesus in Mark 16:16, therefore, is onbelief. One must believe. Baptism with-out belief is useless. It is useless be-cause one has not responded to thegospel by belief in the death, burial andresurrection of the Son of God.

On the other hand, belief withoutbaptism is also useless. If one doesnot respond to God with obedient faith,then certainly his belief is as that of thoserulers who believed on Jesus, but were

The Baptism

139

intimidated by the misguided religiousleadership. John wrote of these rulers,“Nevertheless, even among the chiefrulers also many believed on Him. Butbecause of the Pharisees they did notconfess Him, lest they should be putout of the synagogue” (Jn 12:42). These“believers” remained condemned be-cause their belief would not move themto confess Jesus. Jesus said, “... who-ever will deny Me before men, him I willalso deny before My Father who is inheaven” (Mt 10:33). Jesus will not con-fess before the Father those who believe,and yet, are not baptized in obedienceto the gospel. One’s obedience to thegospel in baptism is a living confessonthat one truly believes that Jesus is theSon of God.

C. Repentance is necessary beforebaptism.Infants cannot repent of sins, but one

must repent before he or she can bebaptized. Peter said, “Repent, and bebaptized ...” (At 2:38). He also stated,“Repent therefore and be converted, thatyour sins may be blotted out ...” (At 3:19).Babies are not sinners. They have nosin of which to repent. If they did, thenthey could not even say the words toexpress their repentance. Therefore,they are not proper candidates for im-mersion because they cannot feel orexpress their repentance if they had sinof which to repent.

D. Obedience to one’s conscienceis necessary in baptism.In 1 Peter 3:21 Peter wrote, “The like

figure whereunto even baptism does alsonow save us—not the putting away ofthe filth of the flesh, but the appeal of

a good conscience to God ....” In thisstatement Peter is saying that one isbaptized in answer to a good con-science. It is not as in the case of in-fant baptism where the parents are work-ing on the basis of their own conscience.It is the conscience of the one who isbeing baptized that must be considered.Therefore, before one is baptized, hisconscience must be stirred by the wordof God. He is immersed in order to sat-isfy his conscience concerning what heknows the Bible tells him to do in orderto be obedient to the will of God. This isobviously not something infants can do.Therefore, they cannot be immersed forthe purpose of cleansing their con-science before God. Infants are bornwith a pure conscience, not one filledwith a sinful nature.

From the preceding points, we mustremember some very important concepts.One must be able to be taught beforehe can be baptized. He must be able tobelieve that which he is taught. He mustbe able to respond with repentance tothat which is taught. In answer to hisgood conscience to do that which ispleasing to God, he must be baptized.The prerequisites for immersion are notfor infants. In fact, babies cannot betaught the word of God. They cannotbelieve or repent. Therefore, infants arenot biblical candidates for obedience tothe gospel. They are safe with God andhave no need of being baptized for re-mission of sins.

In conjunction with this subject thereare usually discussions concerning thetime when one should be immersed af-ter hearing about Jesus. Many havetaught that one should be immersed “the

The Baptism

140

same hour of the night.” This was cer-tainly the response of the jailor in Acts16:33. Those on Pentecost were bap-tized the same day (At 2:41). There-fore, if one understands the death ofJesus for his sins and that Jesus wasraised for his eternal life, then certainlyone must be baptized the “same hour ofthe night.” However, this was not alwaysthe case in the New Testament.

The immediacy of one’s immersiondepends on the situation. The Scrip-tures certainly do not teach the conceptof delaying one’s baptism until he or sheis taken through a series of lectures ondiscipleship or whatever. Neither do theScriptures teach that the time one isbaptized is dependent on the judgmentof the one who does the teaching. Thetime when one is to be baptized dependssolely on the one who must be baptized.

One must be a committed discipleof Jesus before he or she is immersed.This much we can clearly understandfrom what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19.Jesus said, “... make disciples of allnations, baptizing them ....” Disciplesare baptized. We do not baptize andthen make disciples. Much of the prob-lem in churches lies in the fact that wehave reversed the order of what Jesussaid in Matthew 28:19. We have bap-tized unrepentant people who have be-come a thorn in the flesh to the leader-ship of churches. Uncommitted peopleare often baptized, and then have to becontinually exhorted to be faithful to theLord.

Jesus emphasized that the apostlesmake disciples, and then, baptize thedisciples. However, it is each disciple’schoice concerning his obedience to thegospel, not the choice of the one who

makes the disciples. It is the responsi-bility of the disciple to choose to servethe One he has chosen to follow. How-ever, when one realizes that his sinsmust be washed away in baptism, hewill be baptized as soon as possible.

We must consider that God gavePaul three days before he sent Ananiasto him in order to baptize him. God gavePaul time to think about what he wasgetting himself into. And then, there isthe case of the eunuch. He went toJerusalem to worship (At 8:27). Cer-tainly, he showed up at the temple andwas encountered by Christians who weredaily in the temple where they “did notcease teaching and preaching Jesus asthe Christ” (At 5:42). When Philip cameinto contact with the eunuch on theJerusalem/Gaza road, he asked if he un-derstood the prophecy of Isaiah 53 (At8:30-33). The Jews had taught thatIsaiah was talking about himself in Isaiah53. However, Christians taught at thetemple that Isaiah had prophesied of thecrucified Christ. The eunuch seems toindicate in the frustrated question of verse34 of Acts 8, that he had contacted Chris-tians in the temple of Jerusalem who hadtaught him that Isaiah was talking aboutJesus. Therefore, when Philip met theeunuch, he had already heard andlearned of Jesus (See Jn 6:45). Philiponly joined with the eunuch to fulfill allrighteousness by baptizing the eunuch.We would conclude, therefore, that theeunuch had some time to consider whathe must do with this Jesus about whomhe had been taught in Jerusalem.

When should one be baptized afterhearing the gospel? Again, the answerdepends on the individual. The key pointto consider is whether one has commit-

The Baptism

141

ted himself or herself to be a disciple ofJesus. To some this would be immedi-ate. Others might need “three days” asGod gave Paul. Whatever the case, theimportant thing to remember is that inobedience to the gospel one is makingthe most important transition in his orher life. One does not come into a cov-enant relationship with the Father, Sonand Holy Spirit on a notion. Dying withJesus and being buried with Him is seri-ous business. Infants cannot do this.This is why the practice of infant bap-tism degrades New Testament teachingconcerning the importance and mean-ing of baptism in the life of an adult. Thepractice degrades the New Testamentteaching on the subject because the NewTestament places much emphasis onthe responsibility of those who have beentaught that they sacrificially obey thegospel.

Chapter 32

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

HOUSEHOLD CONVERSIONSHOUSEHOLD CONVERSIONSHOUSEHOLD CONVERSIONSHOUSEHOLD CONVERSIONSHOUSEHOLD CONVERSIONS

Baptism of infants is a widespreadpractice among several religious groups.This has been a practice that has ex-isted for centuries. It is a practice thathas a strong emotional hold on the reli-gious thinking of many parents concern-ing their newborn infants. It is impor-tant, therefore, to study this subject inrelation to what the Bible teaches. Ourconclusions must not be based on whatwe as parents may find to be comfortingin our hearts, or what our religious tradi-tions may dictate. If this practice is bib-lical, then certainly it should be a part ofthe religious belief and practice of all who

seek to obey God. However, if thisteaching is simply a traditional practicethat has been bound on the consciencesof sincere parents, then we must con-sider it as simply a traditional teachingof men.

A. The baptism of men and women:In order to answer those who pro-

mote infant baptism, it is imperative tounderstand first who was baptized in theNew Testament. When we study theNew Testament cases of immersion, wediscover that those who were baptizedwere adult men and women. The em-phasis in conversion was on those whosincerely recognized their account-ability to God. Those who recognizedtheir accountability were those whocould discern between right and wrongwhen they heard the word of Godpreached concerning their accountabil-ity before God. Luke recorded in Acts5:14 that “believers were increasinglyadded to the Lord, multitudes of bothmen and women.” In Samaria Philippreached in order to appeal to adults.Luke wrote of what took place afterPhilip’s preaching in Samaria. “But whenthey believed Philip as he preached thethings concerning the kingdom of Godand the name of Jesus Christ, both menand women were baptized” (At 8:12).When Saul persecuted the church, heimprisoned only those who were “of theWay.” This included only men andwomen (At 9:2). No infants were bap-tized or imprisoned for being “of the Way.”Those baptized in the first century wereaccountable individuals who had re-sponded to the preaching of the gospel.

Both in Acts 5:14 and Acts 8:12“men and women” are specifically men-

The Baptism

142

tioned as those who were immersed. Itis significant that the inspired Scripturesmake specific mention of men andwomen. We wonder why adults wouldhave been stated specifically if infantswere included in these cases of immer-sion. By simply reading the narrative,the obvious conclusion would be that noinfants were included. The Holy Spiritwanted us to understand that only ac-countable men and women were bap-tized.

It was somewhat prophetic of theHoly Spirit to mention in these particu-lar cases that only men and women werebaptized. He possibly knew that thetime would come when infant baptismwould be introduced as a substitute forthe immersion of believing adults. Hethus made it perfectly clear that only menand women were baptized in the firstcentury.

B. The cases of “household bap-tisms”:In the New Testament there were

several “household baptisms.” Thesewere baptisms of entire families, includ-ing the servants who were included aspart of a household. Those who supportthe practice of infant baptism today be-lieve and teach that there were infantsin these household baptisms of the bookof Acts. But this is an unjustified de-duction. There is no proof that there werebabies in the baptisms of these house-holds. A brief survey of what took placein the household baptisms in the NewTestament clearly teaches that no in-fants were involved in the baptisms.

1. The household of Lydia (At16:14,15): This “household baptism” is

not justification for the baptism of infants.We cannot assume that there were in-fants in the household of Lydia for thefollowing reasons:

a. No infants are mentioned.b. Those who were baptized in this pas-

sage were those who “gave heed” orattended to the things that Paulpreached. Infants cannot give atten-tion to things that are spoken concern-ing their salvation.

c. To say that infants were included inthis baptism we would have to assumethat Lydia was married. There is noindication in the text that she was mar-ried. We would also have to assumethat she had infant children. And wewould have to assume that she hadher children with her. (Remember,Lydia was about four hundred kilome-ters away from her home which wasin the city of Thyatira.)

2. The household of the Philip-pian jailor (At 16:30-34): We cannotassume that there were infants in thishousehold baptism for the following rea-sons:

a. No infants are mentioned.b. All who were baptized in this house-

hold were able to hear and understandthe “word of the Lord.”

c. Those of this household were alsoable to believe on the Lord Jesus be-fore their baptism.

d. Those who were baptized, rejoicedgreatly after their baptism.

Infants can do none of these things.Therefore, we must rightly conclude thatthere were no infants in the household

The Baptism

143

of the Philippian jailor when he was bap-tized.

3. The household of Cornelius (At10,11): We cannot assume that therewere infants in this household baptism.This is true for the following reasons:

a. No infants are mentioned.b. All of Cornelius’ house feared God.c. All who were baptized in Cornelius’

house were able to do the following:(1) Hear the word (At 10:44)(2) Speak with languages (At 10:46)(3) Magnify God (At 10:46)

Infants can do none of these things.Therefore, we must conclude that therewere no infants baptized when thehousehold of Cornelius was baptized.

4. The household of Stephanas(1 Co 1:16; 16:15): The following twopoints will not allow infants to be includedin the baptism of the household ofStephanas:

a. No infants are mentioned.b. 1 Corinthians 16:15 states that

Stephanas’ household “dedicatedthemselves to the ministry of thesaints.” If we assume that infants wereincluded in the household baptism of1 Corinthians 1:16, then we could alsoassume that Corinth had “ministeringinfants” as stated in 1 Corinthians16:15. The church in Corinth had no“ministering infants,” and thus, wemust conclude that no infants wereincluded in the household baptism ofStephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16.

In order to make a correct inference

from a passage of scripture that doesnot specifically identify the inference,that which is inferred must be clearlytaught by either declarative or im-perative statements in other pas-sages. For example, Jesus made adeclarative statement concerning beliefin John 8:24. “Therefore, I said to youthat you will die in your sins. For if youdo not believe that I am He, you will diein your sins.”

In this declarative statement ofJesus, He said nothing concerning re-pentance. However, we could correctlyinfer that repentance is required in con-junction with the requirement of belief inorder that one not die in his sins. Wecan make this assumption simply be-cause repentance and baptism areclearly stated in declarative and impera-tive statements in other contexts. Pe-ter stated that the Lord is “... not willingthat any should perish but that all shouldcome to repentance” (2 Pt 3:9). Thisdeclarative statement in conjunction withJohn 8:24 makes repentance a correctinference in Jesus’ requirement that onebelieve.

This brings us to the practice of in-fant baptism in reference to the casesof household baptisms in the New Tes-tament. The point is that before onecan correctly infer that there wereinfants in the preceding cases ofhousehold baptisms, in which casesthere is no specific mention of in-fants, there must be declarative orimperative statements in other con-texts that require infants to be bap-tized. The difficulty facing the propo-nents of infant baptism is the completesilence of the Scriptures on this matter.There are absolutely no statements

The Baptism

144

throughout the entire Bible concerningthe practice of infant baptism. To prac-tice such is thus an addition to the wordof God. If one binds the practice on theconsciences of men, then he is addingto that which God requires of one to besaved.

C. Infant baptism is not authorizedby the Bible.It is a serious thing to add to God’s

word and bind on the consciences ofreligious people those things that Goddoes not bind. The principle John statedin Revelation 22:18 is applicable to thesubject under discussion here. Johnwarned, “If anyone adds to these things,God will add to him the plagues that arewritten in this book.” Infant baptism isan addition to that which God requiresof man to obey in order to be saved. Itis an addition simply because there isno scripture that binds such on the con-sciences of men. Since there is noscripture binding such on men, then wemust conclude that such is not neces-sary for salvation, but is simply a reli-gious tradition of men.

The fact that infant baptism is notfound in the Bible is a major argumentagainst its practice as a binding com-mand. As in Revelation 22:18, the NewTestament makes several other warningsagainst adding to the religious practiceswhich God desires that man do. Paulexhorted that we should learn “not tothink above what is written ...” (1 Co 4:6).In his letter to the Galatians, he warnedthe Christians not to be turned aside toanother gospel. He wrote, “But even ifwe or an angel from heaven preach anyother gospel to you than what we havepreached to you, let him be accursed”

(Gl 1:8). The problem in the Galatianchurch was that there were those whowere binding on the Galatian Christiansthings that God had not bound. Theywere making such unbound legal require-ments for salvation (See At 15:1,2). Butdoing this is inventing “another gospel”after the traditions of men.

The message that was first preachedtwo thousand years ago contained ab-solutely nothing concerning infant bap-tism. Adding this practice to Christian-ity as a binding religious law would begoing beyond the authority of the Scrip-tures.

To practice infant baptism is to gobeyond the teaching of the New Testa-ment, for the New Testament says noth-ing about it. The entire Bible says noth-ing about it. Those who teach infant bap-tism as a religious practice have no Bibleauthority for doing such.

D. The testimony of religious schol-arship:Religious scholarship confirms that

the practice of infant baptism originatedafter the first century. Concerning thisthought, it is interesting to note the earlycomments of Origen (A.D. 185 - 254) onthis subject.

Having occasion given in this place, Iwill mention a thing that causes fre-quent inquiries among the brethren.Infants are baptized for the forgivenessof sins. Of what sins? Or where havethey sinned? Or how can any reasonof the saved in their case hold good?But according to that sense we men-tion even now: None is free from pol-lution, though his life be but the lengthof one ray upon the earth. And it is for

The Baptism

145

that reason because of the sacramentof baptism that pollution of our birth istaken away, that infants are baptized?(Works, Vol. 1).

The above is one of the earliest state-ments that was made in history on thesubject of infant baptism. However, whatis important to note in church history isthat there is no mention of any kind ofinfant baptism that dates to the firstcentury. Many religious leaders whopractice infant baptism are honest in theiradmission that their practice did not origi-nate in New Testament times. TheCatholic religious leader BertrandConway wrote that “there is no expressmention of the baptizing of infantsin the New Testament ...” (The Ques-tion Box, p. 155). In the Catholic book,Teachings of the Catholic Church, it isstated, “The baptism of infants is notpositively directed in the Gospel”(Quoted in The Question Box, p. 23).Such an admission should urge thosewho practice infant baptism to take an-other look at what is said in Galatians1:6-9 and Revelation 22:18,19 concern-ing God’s judgment of those who wouldadd to the word of God.

God is serious about our not bind-ing upon the consciences of men thosethings that He has not bound. If reli-gious practices are bound upon men andclaimed to have originated from God, theScriptures pronounce harsh condemna-tions on those who would bind such man-made religious traditions. Unbiblical re-ligious traditions that are bound on theconsciences of men lead men to ignorethe authority of God’s word. When menignore the authority of the word of God,they will create a religion after their own

desires, and thus, eventually reject thecommandments of God in order to keeptheir religious traditions (Mk 7:1-9). Oncepeople are faithful to their traditions, theyusually do not return to the authority ofthe word of God after they have departedfrom such. They have set their courseto maintain their own religion, which re-ligion is an invention of man. It is forthis reason that we encourage peopleto reconsider their practice of infant bap-tism. If infant baptism cannot be foundin the New Testament, then it is an in-vention of men. And since it is a reli-gious invention of men, then no parentswill be held accountable before God fornot baptizing their infants.

Chapter 33

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

INFANT SALVATIONINFANT SALVATIONINFANT SALVATIONINFANT SALVATIONINFANT SALVATION

As previously emphasized, infantbaptism is a major practice and belief inthe religious world. Changing from thisbelief to the truth concerning true candi-dates for baptism is often quite difficultfor parents. When one has been forgenerations in a religious group that hasbaptized babies, it is psychologicallychallenging to leave this tradition behind.For this reason, we must give some spe-cial attention to the nature of the soul ofbabies and their relationship to God.

An important Bible teaching is theinnocence of newly born babies. Theyare pure of sin and safe from condem-nation. However, a truly false teachinghas been developed by some religiousgroups that centers around the theologythat babies are born sinners. Becauseof this belief, it is affirmed that infants

The Baptism

146

must be baptized for the remission ofsins. However, if we fully understandsome simple truths, there will be no rea-son to believe in the necessity that ba-bies should be baptized because theyare supposedly sinners in the sight ofGod.

A. Infants are pure of sin.In the sight of God, infants are pure

of sin, and thus, do not need to be bap-tized for the remission of sins. Pure ofsin means they have no sin. They arenot born sinners, neither do they havethe ability as infants to sin by voluntarilyrejecting the will of God. Jesus usedthe innocence of little children to illus-trate the nature of servanthood in thekingdom. He said, “Assuredly, I say toyou, unless you are converted and be-come as little children, you will by nomeans enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt18:3). We wonder why Jesus wouldmake this statement if children are of asinful nature. Why would He illustratethe pure nature of the kingdom by thatwhich is not pure? The answer to thisquestion is that He would not.

Jesus also said of little children, “...for of such is the kingdom of heaven”(Mt 19:14; see 18:2-5; Mk 10:14,15).The point is that the kingdom originatesfrom heaven. It is the kingdom “ofheaven.” Since it originates from heaven,then it is pure, for all that originates fromheaven is pure. It is not of sin. If weunderstand this point, then we can un-derstand what Jesus is saying about thenature of infants and children until theyreach the age at which they can make achoice concerning the will of God. WhatHe is saying is that the soul of infants isas pure as that from which their spirits

originated. Since God, in whom thereis no darkness (1 Jn 1:5), is the Fatherof our spirits (Hb 12:9), then we mustconclude that there is absolutely no dark-ness in an infant at the time of birth.

Jesus told Nicodemus, “... unless aman is born again, he cannot see thekingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). Being “bornagain” and becoming “as little children”refer to the same concept. When oneis born of the water (baptism), his sinsare washed away (At 2:38; 22:16). Onecomes out of the grave of water a newcreature in order to “walk in newness oflife” (Rm 6:4-6; 2 Co 5:17). At the pointof immersion one is washed of every sinand becomes pure as a little child.The kingdom of heaven is without sin.Jesus keeps the submitted subject ofHis kingdom continually cleansed of sinby His blood (1 Jn 1:7). When one con-tinues to allow the sovereign will of Jesusto rule in his or her heart by walking inthe light, the blood of Jesus continuesto wash one of all sin.

The very concept that one must be“born anew” assumes that in physicalbirth one is pure. Why would Jesus usethe statement “born anew” in His instruc-tions to Nicodemus, if infants are withsin when they are physically born? WhatJesus was saying was that one mustbe born anew in order to become pureas an infant when newly born.

One is cleansed of sin by immer-sion. He is born again to be pure as hewas when first born as a baby. The king-dom is free of sin because of the con-tinual cleansing work of the blood ofJesus. These basic New Testamentteachings are illustrated by the fact thatchildren are pure of sin. And if childrenare pure of sin, they do not need to be

The Baptism

147

baptized for remission of sins.It is often argued that in Matthew

19:14, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 Jesuswas urging the little children to come toHim in order that they be baptized. Butthis is an unjustified assumption. It isan addition to the context. The word“baptism” is not mentioned in any ofthese three chapters. It is not even un-der consideration. In order for one tomake the assumption that Jesus wasurging children to come to Him for bap-tism, he must first find such a teachingin declarative or imperative statementsin other contexts of the New Testament.The fact is that there are absolutely noother statements concerning infant bap-tism throughout the entire New Testa-ment.

B. Infants are safe from condemna-tion.If infants are sinless, then it follows

that they are safe from condemnation.Children who die in infancy will not becondemned to hell because they havenot lived in rebellion to God’s laws whileon earth. A baby that does not recog-nize his accountability to the laws of Godcannot sin. Infants do not recognizeGod’s laws, and therefore, cannot beheld accountable to those laws. If a childdies, that child is safe from any condem-nation. This is a most comforting teach-ing of the New Testament.

Sin is man’s free-moral rejection ofGod’s law. John wrote, “Sin is lawless-ness” (1 Jn 3:4). When one voluntarilyrefuses to live according to God’s law,then he or she sins against God. Onecan do this by doing that which God saysnot to do, or by not doing that which Godsays one must do. In either situation, it

is the individual who is making a free-moral decision to either do good or evil.Babies cannot sin after this manner be-cause they do not recognize God’s law.They simply behave according to theirneeds to preserve life. They cannot sinafter the Bible’s definition of sin.

James adds another manner bywhich we sin. “Therefore, to him whoknows to do good and does not do it,to him it is sin” (Js 4:17). One must beable to recognize a biblically defined prin-ciple of good before he can respond. Ifhe recognizes the good, and refuses torespond in a positive manner, then hesins. Babies cannot respond to bibli-cally defined principles of good. There-fore, they do not sin when they do notrespond in order to do good.

Sin is defined in relation to anindividual’s response to law or biblicallydefined principles of good. Babies cando neither. Therefore, babies are notsinners. They do not need to be bap-tized for remission of sins.

Ezekiel said that children will notinherit the guilt of the fathers’ sin (Ez18:20). What Ezekiel was saying wasthat the children are not responsible forthe sin of the fathers. Everyone willgive account of his own sin beforeGod. Paul wrote, “For we must all ap-pear before the judgment seat of Christ,so that everyone may receive the thingsdone in the body, according to what hehas done, whether good or bad” (2 Co5:10). To the Romans Paul stated, “Forwe will all stand before the judgmentseat of God. ... each one of us will giveaccount of himself to God” (Rm14:10,12). We will not give account forthe sin of any other person, includingour fathers. Therefore, we do not inherit

The Baptism

148

the sin of Adam or our fathers. Everyindividual will be responsible for his orher own sin before God on the day offinal judgment. Each person must giveaccount of his own deeds before thejudgment seat of Christ (2 Co 5:10). Thepoint is that babies are not accountablefor sin. They are pure.

Chapter 34

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

COVENANT RELATIONSHIPSCOVENANT RELATIONSHIPSCOVENANT RELATIONSHIPSCOVENANT RELATIONSHIPSCOVENANT RELATIONSHIPS

In a previous chapter we discussedthe biblical teaching of remission of sinsin relation to those who are in a covenantrelationship with God. Only those in acovenant relationship with God have re-mission of sins and can benefit from the“blood of the covenant” (Lk 22:20; 1 Jn1:7). In this chapter we must considerthe conditions for coming into this cov-enant relationship with God in view ofthe practice of infant baptism. Becauseinfant baptism is often paralleled withteachings concerning the Jews’ covenantrelationship with the Father, it is impor-tant here to review the principal condi-tions of this covenant and its nature.

We must first understand that allmankind today lives under the sovereignreign of Jesus (Ep 1:20-23). Those whowould be saved must establish a cov-enant relationship with Jesus. Beforethe establishment of the new covenantof Jesus, the Jews were in a covenantrelationship with the Father. God hadestablished this covenant with the na-tion of Israel at Mount Sinai. However,the establishment of a covenant relation-ship with the Father under the Old Tes-tament law was different from the New

Testament covenant relationship that onemust establish with God today.

A. Inclusion into the new covenantis for accountable people.In order for one to become a part of

the new covenant, he or she must beone who is able to be accountable forhis or her own behavior. One must beable to respond to the law of God.

1. One is baptized into a covenantrelationship with Jesus. One is im-mersed into the body (1 Co 12:13). Heis born anew by baptism in order to en-ter the body of those who have allowedthe kingdom reign of Jesus in their hearts(Jn 3:3-5; Lk 17:20,21). These are thosewho have come into Christ (Rm 6:3; Gl3:27). But one is immersed only afterhe or she has heard the gospel mes-sage, believed on Jesus, and repentedof sins. Only accountable people cando this. Therefore, only those who havegrown to a mature age where they canintellectually and emotionally respond tothe gospel can come into a covenantrelationship with Jesus.

2. Jewish babies were physicallyborn into a covenant relationship withGod in the Old Testament. Under theOld Testament law one was born a Jew.He did not choose to be a Jew. A maleJew was circumcised the eighth day af-ter birth and that circumcision was a signof his covenant relationship that he hadwith God as a citizen of the nation ofIsrael (Gn 17:9-14).

Jeremiah 31:31-34 explains the dif-ference between the old and new cov-enants. In verses 31 through 33 Godpromised, “Behold, the days are com-

The Baptism

149

ing says the Lord, when I will make anew covenant ....” Under this new cov-enant, God said, “I will put My law intheir inward parts and write it in theirhearts....” This meant that they wouldknow God and His laws before theyestablished a covenant relationship withHim.

Under the old covenant, the one whowas born into a covenant relationship withGod as a child of Jewish parents, hadto be taught to know God and Hislaws after he was physically born aJew. Under the new covenant, however,people are already taught of God andHis laws before they are spiritually bornagain through immersion into a covenantrelationship with God (Jr 31:34; Jn 6:45).This fact is emphasized in Hebrews 8:11when the Hebrew writer quotes Jeremiah31 in order to apply this thought to theChristian age and Jesus’ new covenant.The point here is that only those whocan be taught to know God and Hislaws can be brought into a covenantrelationship with God in the newcovenant (See Jn 6:45).

The new covenant of the Son is inforce today. Therefore, only accountablepeople can be taught to know God andbrought into this new covenant. Onecan come into a covenant relationshipwith God only when he or she reachesthe age of accountability at which timeone can be taught. But until that time,infants are pure of sin and safe fromcondemnation. They are not subjectto the law of the new covenant of Christin the sense that they must recognizethe law and obey it. They cannot, there-fore, come into a covenant relationshipwith the Father according to the require-ments set forth in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

B. Circumcision and baptism arenot parallel conditions.Some have taught that baptism re-

placed circumcision under the new cov-enant. Therefore, children must be bap-tized today as children were circumcisedunder the Old Testament covenant. TheBible, however, does not teach that the“circumcision of the heart” in the NewTestament is parallel to the act of cir-cumcision in the Old Testament. InRomans 2:29 Paul stated, “But he is aJew who is one inwardly, and circumci-sion is that of the heart, in the spirit....” In Colossians 2:11 he also stated,“In Him you were also circumcised withthe circumcision not made with hands,in the removal of the body of the fleshby the circumcision of Christ.” In thesepassages Paul is not making the spiri-tual circumcision of the Christian’s hearta replacement of the physical circumci-sion of the Jewish males on the eighthday after birth. He is talking aboutcutting off the old man of sin whenone comes into a relationship withJesus.

The Bible does not state or teachthat baptism took the place of circumci-sion. Nowhere does the New Testamentmake a direct comparison between bap-tism and circumcision. The fact is thathere is a difference between the pur-pose and function of baptism and cir-cumcision. This difference clearly mani-fests that baptism did not take the placeof circumcision.

1. The age of the subjects is dif-ferent. Circumcision of the Old Testa-ment took place on the eighth day afterbirth (Gn 17:12; Lv 12:3). But under thenew covenant, candidates for baptism

The Baptism

150

must be old enough to understand, be-lieve and obey the gospel in baptism.There is no set date or age for beingbaptized. There was a set day for cir-cumcision under the old covenant law,but not for baptism under the new cov-enant.

2. Baptism is obedience to thegospel, but circumcision was a token.Circumcision was a token, or sign, of acovenant between God and Abraham (Gn17:9-14). It later became a sign of thecovenant between God and the nationof Israel. Baptism, however, is an obe-dience to the death, burial and resurrec-tion of Jesus (Rm 6:3-5). Therefore, thepurposes of baptism and circumcisionare completely different.

3. The candidates for baptism andcircumcision are different. Circumci-sion was a religious rite under the oldJewish law. It was administered tomales only (Gn 17:10). But since theestablishment of the new covenant, bap-tism is required of both males and fe-males (At 8:12). Circumcision was neveradministered to females under the OldTestament law. If baptism is to be ad-ministered to the same persons as wascircumcision in the Old Testament, thenfemales should not be baptized todaybecause females were not circumcisedunder the Old Testament law. This truthclearly manifests the fact that baptismdid not take the place of circumcision.

4. Candidates for circumcisionhad no choice, whereas candidates forbaptism choose. On the eighth dayafter birth, the small Jewish infant hadno choice as to whether he would be

circumcised. He was circumcised be-cause God had commanded that all Jew-ish males be circumcised. However,under the new covenant, individuals havea choice as to whether they want tocome into a covenant relationship withGod. They can choose to either acceptor reject the gospel.

In Colossians 2:11-14 Paul meta-phorically uses the Jewish circumcisionof the flesh to refer to a circumcision thatis not made with hands. His referenceis to what the individual does in his orher own life in making a personal choiceto turn from the sins of the flesh (SeeEp 2:1-3). The repentant believer in this“circumcision” chooses to cut off the oldman of sin (See Rm 6:6; Gl 2:20). Thistakes place before one is “buried withHim in baptism ...” (Cl 2:12). Verse 13of Colossians 2 is a parallel passage ofRomans 6:6-8. One is dead in tres-passes and the uncircumcision of theflesh while the old man still lives (SeeEp 2:1-3). However, one is “made alivetogether with” Christ when he comesforth from the grave of baptism (Rm 6:8).In Colossians 2, therefore, Paul is usingthe Jewish practice of circumcision (thecutting off of the foreskin) as a meta-phorical figure to represent the cuttingoff of the old man of sin when one isimmersed for the remission of sins.

Religious people must be carefulabout allowing traditional teachings todirect their religious behavior. Severalreligious traditions concerning baptismhave been handed down from generationto generation in religious groups through-out the world. It is the responsibility ofevery generation to reexamine the Scrip-tures in order to reaffirm their stand upon

The Baptism

151

what the Bible teaches. It is the respon-sibility of this generation to restore NewTestament teachings concerning thattruth which is most important to do inorder to be saved.

We must urge every Bible studentto study thoroughly God’s word on thismatter. Sometimes, these most funda-mental teachings are the teachings thatare neglected the most in our studies.We too often take for granted simple fun-damental teachings. However, we needto continue in every generation to re-study those fundamentals upon whichour faith is built. If we do not, then ourchildren will forget those essential teach-ings that identify the church to be differ-ent from the man-made religions of theworld. It is important to re-affirm ourbeliefs lest the religious culture in whichwe live influences or intimidates us toaccept teachings that are foreign to theBible. One must keep in mind that theintimidation of one’s religious culture isvery strong, and often stronger than loy-alty to the Bible. But the mark of a gooddisciple of Jesus is that he will hold tothe word of God regardless of traditionalteachings.

Chapter 35

BAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMBAPTISMANDANDANDANDAND

COMMON OBJECTIONSCOMMON OBJECTIONSCOMMON OBJECTIONSCOMMON OBJECTIONSCOMMON OBJECTIONS

Tradition is a tremendous mentalforce. It is a mental force that is sostrong that it nailed the Son of God tothe cross, for those religious leaders whorejected Jesus had already done whatJesus said to them in Mark 7:9, “All toowell you reject the commandment ofGod so that you may keep your own

tradition.” The religious leaders of Is-rael were so bound by their traditionalbeliefs that they would not accept eventhe Son of God who came to them inperson. Since they had already rejectedthe commandments of God, it was easyfor them to reject the Son of God. Sincethey had already substituted their tradi-tions for the will of God, it was easy forthem to add any religious practice theyso chose to their religious system. Tra-ditional thought still binds people todayfrom accepting the truth of the gospel.Men are still binding on the consciencesof men those things God has not bound.

The result of traditional thinking con-cerning man-made concepts concerningbaptism has led to many twisted con-cepts of the subject of baptism. Someof these twisted objections have alreadybeen considered in this book. Furtherstudy of these objections will help usbetter understand and clarify the neces-sity of immersion in relation to one’ssalvation. Each point below is a com-mon objection that has been madeagainst the teaching that immersion intoChrist is essential for remission of sins.Here is what people often say:

A. “Baptism is only a symbol of sal-vation.”Some have affirmed that baptism is

an “outward manifestation of an inwardgrace.” In other words, baptism is amanifestation of salvation that one hasalready received after he has made aself-proclaimed emotional declaration ofhis own salvation. When one simply “ac-cepts the Lord as his or her Savior,” orutters a “sinner’s prayer,” then he or sheis supposedly saved. Immersion, there-fore, is only an option. Baptism to some

The Baptism

152

becomes a “symbol” of something thathas already taken place in the life of theone who has accepted Jesus as his orher Savior.

In arguing the above position, somehave used Colossians 2:11 as a support-ing passage. “In Him you were also cir-cumcised with the circumcision notmade with hands, in the removal of theflesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” Ascircumcision was a “sign” of the covenantthat one had with God when he was borna Jew, it is stated that in like mannerbaptism is a “sign” of salvation that hehas before he is baptized.

Though Colossians 2:11 has alreadybeen discussed, we must emphasize thecontext of what Paul is stating. Coloss-ians 2:13 explains the context of Colos-sians 2:11. Paul stated, “And you, be-ing dead in your trespasses and theuncircumcision of your flesh, He hasmade alive together with Him, havingforgiven us all trespasses.” Paul ismetaphorically discussing the “cuttingoff” of the old man of sin. His contexthere is the exact same context as Ro-mans 6 where he stated in relation tobaptism, “Knowing this, that our old manwas crucified with Him so that the bodyof sin might be destroyed, that weshould no longer be bondservants to sin”(Rm 6:6). Paul’s argument is this: “ButGod be thanked that though you wereslaves of sin, yet you have obeyedfrom the heart that form of teachingthat was delivered to you.” (Rm 6:17).

At the point of immersion, the oldman of sin was buried in a tomb of wa-ter. The old man, according to the meta-phorical phraseology of Colossians 2:11,was “cut off” by being buried with Christ.This was done “by the circumcision of

Christ,” not the individual who is bap-tized. In other words, when one is bap-tized, it is Christ who cuts off the oldman of sin. At the cross, Christ ac-complished the spiritual action of “cut-ting off” that is mentioned in the contextof Colossians 2, but the old man of sinis buried at the time of baptism in orderto be raised a new man in Christ.

The old man of sin is “circumcised”at the point of baptism. This is wherethe remission of sins is activated in thelife of the repentant. Paul metaphori-cally uses the term “circumcision” in Co-lossians 2:11 in reference to this cuttingoff of the old man of sin. It is not used torefer to something that has already takenplace in the personal life of the individualwho is baptized. Therefore, baptism isnot a symbol of salvation that has al-ready taken place in the life of an indi-vidual. Baptism is a time when an oldman of sin is buried. It is a time whenJesus’ crucifixion of the old man with Himon the cross is finally buried in a gravein order to be raised a new creation (Rm6:6; 2 Co 5:17).

In immersion there is both a physi-cal and spiritual action that takes place.There is the physical action of immer-sion in water. There is also the spiritualaction of burying the old man of sin thatwas crucified with Him at the cross. Thetwo actions are combined together at thepoint of baptism when the old man ofsin is buried. The repentant believer vol-untarily partakes of the physical actionof immersion in water. Jesus took careof the spiritual part at the cross. Theold man of sin is finally buried; all sinsare washed away. Once one believes,Jesus is ready to take care of the spiri-tual death problem with a spiritual new-

The Baptism

153

ness of life (Rm 6:6). For this reason,Ananias said to Saul, “And now why areyou waiting? Arise and be baptized andwash away your sins, calling on the nameof the Lord” (At 22:16).

Though Paul believed, he had to ariseand be baptized in order to receive for-giveness of sins. Ananias did not askPaul to say some sinner’s prayer in or-der to declare his own washing away ofsins. His emphasis was on what Godwould declare, that at the point of bap-tism one’s sins would be washed away,and thus be declared a new creature inChrist. Acts 22:16 is an inspired decla-ration of God. That declaration is thatone must arise and be baptized in orderto wash one’s sins away.

B. “Baptism is a meritorious work onthe part of man.”James stated a very important prin-

ciple concerning the relationship be-tween faith and works with reference tothe life of a Christian. The same prin-ciple would apply to the alien sinner inbecoming a Christian. “Even so faithby itself, if it does not have works, isdead” (Js 2:17). This is an inescapableprinciple that permeates the Bible. Faithmust be manifested by obedient works.When one recognizes the grace of Godthat is revealed for the salvation of man,his faith must move him to respond byobedience. This is what Paul meantwhen he wrote, “... through whom[Jesus] we have received grace andapostleship, for obedience of faithamong all nations for His name” (Rm 1:5;see also Rm 16:26).

Neither the Christian nor aliensinner is saved by meritorious works.That is, one cannot meritoriously work

in order to save himself. This principleapplies to the keeping of law, as well asthe performance of meritorious works.Paul stated this clearly in Galatians2:16. “Knowing that a man is not justi-fied by works of law, but by the faith ofChrist Jesus, even we have believed inChrist Jesus ....” (See Rm 3:20). How-ever, in the same book and in the samecontext, Paul wrote, “For in Jesus Christneither circumcision avails anything noruncircumcision, but faith workingthrough love” (Gl 5:6). Does Paul con-tradict himself? Certainly not! His pointis simple. Legalistic Jews were teach-ing that through meritorious law-keep-ing one was justified before God. Paul’sargument against this belief is that noone can keep law perfectly in order tobe saved. Neither can one do meritori-ous works in order to atone for a singlesin. Therefore, one must trust in thegrace of God for salvation. However,Paul agrees with James when it comesto responding to the grace of God.Simple, inactive faith will not do. Loveof and faith in God must respond. Indi-viduals must respond to the grace of Godthat was manifested on the cross. Thatresponse is obedience. It is not merito-rious obedience. It is obedience in re-sponse to the grace of God. This bringsus to why one is baptized.

Baptism is an obedient response toone’s faith in the grace of God to savehim. One is baptized, not to perform ameritorious work in order to be justifiedbefore God. One is baptized in responseto the plan of grace that God revealedfrom heaven through Jesus Christ. It isafter the principle Paul spoke in 1 Corin-thians 15:10 concerning the labor of hislife. “But by the grace of God I am what

The Baptism

154

I am. And His grace toward me was notin vain, but I labored more abundantlythan they all, yet not I, but the grace ofGod that was with me.”

If the principle of 1 Corinthians 15:10can be clearly understood, then we haveanswered the argument that some useto say that baptism is a meritoriouswork. The same principle is in 2 Corin-thians 4:15. “For all things are for yoursakes, so that the grace that is reach-ing many people may cause thanksgiv-ing to abound to the glory of God.” Whenthe grace of God is preached and un-derstood, it causes people to respondin thanksgiving for the good news ofthe cross and resurrection. If there isno response, then there is either no un-derstanding of the grace of God or ap-preciation. Whatever the case in anindividual’s life, if one does not obedi-ently respond in thanksgiving to thegrace of God, then he is not manifestingan appreciation for the cross.

Paul stated that as a disciple he “la-bored more abundantly” in response tothe grace of God. Was he stating thathis labors were works of merit in an ef-fort to save himself? If one obedientlyresponds in thanksgiving to the grace ofGod, does this mean that one is work-ing meritoriously in order to earn hissalvation? Certainly not! Notice care-fully to what Paul said. God’s grace to-ward him was not in vain. That is,God’s grace was not useless, or unprof-itable. The grace was not in vain be-cause of Paul’s labors of thanksgiving.Paul responded to the grace of God inhis life; he worked in thanksgiving to whathe had, that is, his salvation in Christ.This is why he said, “... yet not I, butthe grace of God that was with me.”

When Paul saw his salvation becauseof the grace of God, he responded. Hiswork was by faith in the grace of Godthat saved him. His work, therefore, wasa response, a response of his faith inGod’s grace by which he was saved. Forthis reason, he gives credit to God forhis work. And so it is with baptism.Baptism is the alien sinner’s responseto the grace of God that appeared on across outside Jerusalem (Ti 2:11).

One is baptized because of faith.Baptism is a response of faith to God’sgrace that was manifested on the cross.It is not that one has already been justi-fied by grace before he is baptized, forwhere there is grace, there is the for-giveness of sins. Faith must precedethe application of God’s grace in orderto forgive our sins. If one expresses noobedience of faith, then certainly Godcannot respond with grace. Therefore,one must respond by faith through bap-tism in order to receive the forgivenessof sins by the grace of God (At 2:38;22:16). Forgiveness comes from grace,and thus, one is baptized when he rec-ognizes that God, through grace, willforgive him.

Our faith responds through baptism.God responds to our faith by grace. Thisis exactly what Paul said in Romans5:1,2.

Therefore, having been justified byfaith, we have peace with God throughour Lord Jesus Christ, through whomalso we have access by faith into thisgrace wherein we stand and rejoice inhope of the glory of God.

We have access to the grace of Godthrough our faith. But this must be an

The Baptism

155

obedient faith. James was clear. “Faithwithout works is dead.” Our faith, there-fore, must respond; it must be obedi-ent. Obedient faith is the door throughwhich we must enter in order to receivethe grace of God. In conversion, obedi-ent faith in baptism is the access doorthrough which all must pass in order toreceive the forgiving grace of God. Thusbaptism can never be a meritoriouswork. It is a work of thanksgiving inresponse to one’s faith in the savinggrace of God. Those who teach thatbaptism is not necessary are actuallysaying that the grace of God is insuffi-cient to move one to respond with thanks-giving to the gospel. In other words, ifone does not faithfully respond to thegrace of God in obedience by immer-sion, then God’s grace is useless in ref-erence to one’s salvation.

C. “Paul said we are not sent to bap-tize.”In 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul said, “For

Christ did not send me to baptize, butto preach the gospel.” Because peoplemisunderstand the context of this state-ment, they unfortunately contend thatbaptism is not necessary for salvation.However, in the very context in which thisstatement is made, Paul affirmed thatone is “of Christ” only if he has beenbaptized in the name of Christ (1 Co1:13). He also testified concerning thefirst converts of Corinth whom he hadpersonally baptized (1 Co 1:14-16).

What Paul is affirming in 1 Corin-thians 1:17 is the principle of the pre-ceding point. He preached the gospelof God’s grace. As Philip preached thesame to the eunuch, the response wasthe same. The eunuch responded by

requesting that he be baptized (At 8:36).Crispus, Gaius and the household ofStephanas in Corinth responded in thesame manner. They manifested theirresponse to the death, burial and resur-rection of Jesus by being immersed forthe remission of their sins. The fact thatthey responded by immersion empha-sizes the fact that Paul preached whatmen and women must do in order to re-spond to the gospel. What they mustdo in response to the gospel is obey thegospel by immersion into Christ (Rm 6:3-6; see 2 Th 1:7-9).

The message of Paul’s preachingwas Jesus Christ and His crucifixion (1Co 1:23). We must read the entirety of1 Corinthians 1:17. “For Christ did notsend me to baptize, but to preach thegospel, not with wisdom of words, lestthe cross of Christ should be made void.”The gospel was the first thing that Paulpreached in Corinth (1 Co 15:3,4). Whenthe good news of the cross is preached,men and women naturally want to con-nect with Jesus. They want to connectat the cross, and then join with Jesus inburial and resurrection. Therefore, whenwe preach the cross, the burial and res-urrection naturally follow. The cross isthe motivation. Baptism and resurrec-tion are the response. One has not fullyresponded to the message of the crossunless he manifests his response byjoining with Jesus in burial and resur-rection (See Rm 6:3-6).

D. “The thief on the cross was savedwithout baptism.”In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief

on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, todayyou will be with Me in Paradise.” Fromthis statement some have affirmed the

The Baptism

156

teaching that baptism is not necessaryfor salvation simply because the thief onthe cross was not baptized, and yet, hewas saved by Jesus.

The above argument manifests atleast three critical misunderstandingsconcerning biblical interpretation. First,those who make this argument do notunderstand the New Testament concern-ing the baptism to which we today areto submit in order to be saved. Second,this argument also manifests both amisunderstanding concerning the cov-enants of God, as well as, God’s require-ments on the part of man for his salva-tion under the New Testament covenant.And third, those who make this unfortu-nate argument against baptism truly donot understand who Jesus was and is.Now consider the following answers tothe objections to baptism because Jesuspersonally saved the thief who lived un-der the Old Testament covenant:

1. The thief could have been bap-tized unto John’s baptism. John camebaptizing for the remission of sins (Mk1:4). As a result of his preaching, manywent out to the wilderness where he waspreaching. They heard and were bap-tized (See Lk 3:21; 7:29; Mt 3:5,6;21:32). Since the thief on the crossshowed repentance and knowledge ofwho Jesus was, it is not unlikely that hehad been a student of John. The manfeared God for he said to the other thief,“Do you not even fear God, seeing youare under the same condemnation?” (Lk23:40). The thief also knew that Jesuswas a man who had done nothing wrong(Lk 23:41). Would it be too much toassume that he had contact with bothJohn and Jesus during their ministries?

Who is to say that he was not baptizedfor the remission of sins unto John’sbaptism? Simply because the text doesnot say that he was not baptized doesnot mean that he was not.

2. The thief lived under the OldTestament covenant. The new cov-enant of Jesus did not come into forceuntil the death of the testator, Jesus, andits official announcement in Acts 2. Atestament is in force when the testatoris dead (Hb 9:16,17). “For a covenantis ratified upon death, since it has noforce while the one who made it lives.”(Hb 9:17). When Jesus was still aliveon the cross, His testament had not yetbeen brought into effect. Even when thedeath of the testator occurs, his testa-ment is not brought into force until itsofficial announcement.

Under the Old Testament covenant,baptism in the name of Jesus for re-mission of sins was not a conditionfor salvation. This baptism was notannounced as a part of the new covenantuntil the day of Pentecost in A.D. 30.The thief lived under the old cov-enant, not the new. He was not sub-ject to the new, but the old. Therefore,he was not subject to immersion for re-mission of sins in the name of Jesus.Only those who lived after the officialannouncement of the kingdom reign ofJesus in Acts 2 were subject to baptismin the name of Jesus (See At 2:38).

3. The thief could personally besaved by Jesus. It is certainly not agood illustration to use Jesus’ saving ofthe thief as a model for our salvation to-day. Those who would use the thief toargue against the necessity of baptism

The Baptism

157

prove too much. If the thief is a modelfor how one should be saved today, thenwe would have to have the personalpresence of Jesus in His incarnate statein order to be saved, for Jesus was therein the presence of the thief. Jesus onthe cross was the conclusion of Hisearthly ministry. This event took placebefore His death and resurrection. Onthis occasion Jesus personally spokethe words of salvation to the thief. Mustwe have Jesus today personally speak-ing words of salvation to each alien sin-ner in order that they be saved?

We must remember that whileon earth, Jesus as the Son of God,had the authority to personally for-give sins since He was the incarna-tion of God on earth. In the healing ofa paralytic, Jesus said to the scribeswho questioned His authority, “But thatyou may know that the Son of Manhas authority on earth to forgive sins...” (Mt 9:6). While Jesus was on earth,and during His personal ministry, He asthe Son of God could personally forgivesins. He could because sin that wascommitted was sin against God whoJesus was. This was Jesus’ argumentagainst the religious leaders who ac-cused Him in the context of Matthew 9.Jesus’ forgiving of the thief on the crosswas His last effort to prove to us that Hewas the Son of God on earth with theauthority to forgive sin. While on earthJesus could grant forgiveness of sinsbecause sin was against God. Today,forgiveness is through His blood. Andone comes into contact with Jesus’blood through obedience to the gospelin immersion.

4. The thief could not obey the

gospel. In order for one to be savedtoday, he or she must obey the gospelwhich is the death, burial and resurrec-tion of Jesus (1 Co 15:3,4; see 2 Th 1:7-9). One obeys the gospel by immer-sion (Rm 6:4,5). One is baptized intothe death of Jesus and resurrected fromthe tomb of water.

The thief lived before Jesus had diedand was resurrected. How could he havebeen baptized in obedience to the gos-pel when the gospel event had not yettaken place? He could have been bap-tized unto John’s baptism. However,John’s baptism was not in obedience tothe gospel. It was a baptism “unto re-pentance” (Mk 1:4). The baptism of thenew covenant is in the name of Jesusinto His death, burial and resurrection.

Those who were baptized unto John’sbaptism after the establishment of thenew covenant in Acts 2, had to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus. This wasthe situation with some disciples in Ephe-sus who had been baptized with John’sbaptism (At 19:1-6). When Paul learnedthat they had been so baptized, he re-baptized these disciples in the name ofJesus (At 19:4,5).

E. “One is saved by faith when thereis no water.”In Matthew 12 the Pharisees un-

justly accused Jesus and His disciplesof working on the Sabbath by pluckingears of maise from the fields and eatingthe grain in the fields. They accused,“Your disciples do what is not lawful todo on the Sabbath” (vs 2). Jesus’ re-sponse to their accusation can be ap-plied to answer the argument that salva-tion is by faith only because there arecases where people believed, but could

The Baptism

158

not be baptized for lack of water.Consider closely Jesus’ response to

the Pharisees. “Have you not read whatDavid did when he was hungry, he andthose who were with him.” (vs 3). Davidhad entered into the tabernacle andeaten the showbread that legally couldbe eaten only by the priests (vs 4). Thelaw said that this bread was reservedonly for the priests (Ex 29:32). But whenDavid was fleeing from Saul for his life,he and his men broke this law in orderto live. A higher law was in place in thiscase that the Pharisees knew. Thehigher law was that God’s anointed,David, should be preserved as the futureking of Israel. For this reason, whenDavid ate of the showbread, he did notbreak the written law of Exodus 29:32because there was a higher principle oflaw that came into force.

Because the higher principle of lawof the preservation of the future king ofIsarel, David’s breaking of the law by eat-ing the showbread did not make hima lawbreaker, nor did his actionschange the law. The occasion wasunusual, and thus, the higher law of hispreservation was greater at the time thanthe law that only the priests eat theshowbread. But his breaking of thelaw did not change the law.

Now some have asserted that if oneis in the middle of the desert and hearsthe gospel and believes, then he is savedat that point, for there is no water intowhich the believer can be immersed.Therefore, he is saved by “faith only.”And because he is saved without immer-sion in water, everyone is similarly savedby “faith only.”

There are two things to consider inreference to this argument. First, hypo-

thetical situations do not change thelaw. By hypothetical we mean circum-stances that are dreamed up in order toestablish a foundation upon which oneinterprets the Scriptures, and thus, es-tablishes a law by the hypothetical cir-cumstance. We would also add thatunusual circumstances as David’s eat-ing of the maise does not change thelaw.

If one is saved by faith until he findssufficient water into which he can be im-mersed, then we would assume that Godknows the heart of this person as Heknew the heart of David. When Jesuswas preached to the eunuch, we under-stand that baptism for remission of sinswas also taught. And thus, the travelerwould do what he was taught to do assoon as he came upon some water. Wewould also assume that because Godknew his heart between the time he be-lieved and the time when he was bap-tized, that God’s mercy and grace wouldsave him if he somehow died before hereached sufficient water at his soonestopportunity. We have never heard ofsuch a circumstance where one believedand died before he was baptized. Nev-ertheless, we would trust in God’s gracein such cases, for God would know thatthe believing traveler would be baptizedas soon as he arrived at some water andwas able to say, “See, here is water!What hinders me from being baptized”(At 8:36). We would assume that hewas saved before he went down into thewater, but this exception does notchange the law that one is to be bap-tized to wash away his sins. If thetraveler knowingly passed up the wateron his way to his destination, then wouldwe conclude that his refusal to be bap-

The Baptism

159

tized in the water changed the law ofbaptism?

Second, please keep in mind thatwe are not in the business of establish-ing law through either hypothetical or realcircumstances as in the case of David.David’s eating of the showbread that wasto be eaten only by the priests did notchange the law. If it did, then every Jewcould scratch from their Bibles the lawof Exodus 29:32. Neither hypotheti-cal nor real circumstances wherethe law cannot be obeyed changethe law. Rahab the harlot lied, but was“justified by works when she receivedthe messengers and sent them out an-other way” (Js 2:25). Because she liedto preserve Israel’s conquest of the landof promise did not forever change the lawthat it is sinful to lie (see Rv 21:8).

Those who live in this dispensationof time will be judged by the word ofChrist. Jesus said, “He who rejects Meand does not receive My words, has onewho judges him. The word that I havespoken will judge him in the last day”(Jn 12:48). The word of Jesus will bethe standard by which we will be judged.“For we must all appear before the judg-ment seat of Christ, so that everyonemay receive the things done in the body,according to what he has done, whethergood or bad” (2 Co 5:10). Preachersand teachers of the word of Christ mustcommunicate to others those thingsJesus commanded in His word, for it willbe by this word that all will be judged.Baptism in obedience to the gospel is apart of the word of Jesus, for He said,“He who believes and is baptized will besaved; but he who does not believe willbe condemned” (Mk 16:16). Simply

because Jesus made this statement ne-cessitates that those who proclaim theword of Jesus, must also proclaim thisteaching of Jesus. Those who do not,are not proclaiming the complete wordof Jesus that will be the standard bywhich people will be judged. They arenot proclaiming an essential for salva-tion that all men must hear and obey.

The arguments presented in thisbook will not convince some concerningthe proposition that has been maintainedand proved. The reason they will not beconvinced is because of an erroneousreligious world view. This world view isbased on the idea that man is saved re-gardless of any obedience he may do inreference to his faith in God. The his-torical foundation for this belief came outof a religious movement wherein it wastaught that men were individually predes-tined to either heaven or hell, regardlessof the free-moral choice of the individual.Since one could not do anything tochange his destiny, then it was con-cluded that salvation could never bebased on any voluntary obedience theindividual did to save himself (See At3:19). Salvation, or condemnation, wasalready predestined by God. No onecould change his or her destiny.

From this erroneous belief evolvedthe concept that no person who was notpredestined to be saved could free-mor-ally respond to the grace of God in orderto be saved. Though one recognized thegrace of God on the cross, he could notrespond in any manner in order to savehimself unless God had already individu-ally predestined that person to be saved.In relation to the subject of this book, noone could of his own will respond in bap-tism for remission of sins in order to gain

The Baptism

160

access to the saving grace of God.The above world view permeates

many religious groups today. Thoughsome groups have changed in theirteaching concerning individual predesti-nation, they have yet to accept the factthat one has the privilege of free-morallyresponding to the grace of God by im-mersion in the name of Jesus for remis-sion of sins. And without this individualand voluntary response, one cannot besaved.

We would conclude that man is afree-moral agent and that he will be heldaccountable for his sin against God. Andbecause he will be held accountable,then he must do something about hisproblem of sin. The New Testament isclear on what one must do. The mostimportant thing one must do is to be-lieve and obey the gospel by immersioninto the death, burial and resurrection ofJesus. The apostles called on men todo such. The New Testament writerscalled on men to do such. And now wecall on men to do such today simplybecause the New Testament so instructsus. No one can say that baptism forremission of sins is not important. Be-cause so much emphasis is placed onbaptism in the New Testament, all thosewho believe the Bible to be the revela-tion of God must also emphasize theimportance of baptism for remission ofsins.

God’s grace is made active in thelife of repentant believers at the point ofbaptism. It is this grace that saves.There is no magic in the water or savingpower in the action of immersion. How-ever, at the point of immersion God de-clares that all our sins are washed away.They are washed away by the blood of

Jesus that flows from the cross of grace.Therefore, we are sent forth to preachthe grace of God, the gospel of Jesus.Those who respond today will respondin the same manner as those in the firstcentury. Both men and women will beimmersed for the remission of their sins.

We have completed a very extensivestudy of the subject of baptism. Morecould be said on the matter. Unfortu-nately, we live in a world of Christendomwhere there is great controversy over thissubject which should be so easy to un-derstand. The existence of the contro-versy is striking because the New Tes-tament says so much about people be-ing baptized. One would think that ifthere is so much teaching on the sub-ject, then there would be little contro-versy over the matter. But Satan wouldnot be idle in his attack against that whichis so important in reference to one’s eter-nal salvation.

We must never underestimate thehold tradition has on the minds of people.This is especially true in the area of reli-gious tradition. Traditional churcheshave for centuries established variouserroneous views concerning baptism. Allsorts of beliefs surround this subject thatis so clearly explained in the New Tes-tament. For men to give up misguidedbeliefs in view of clear teachings in theBible seems somewhat ridiculous. Butwe must always keep in mind that thedesire of men to create religious beliefsafter their own desires and traditions isoften stronger than their desire to studyobjectively and submit to the word ofGod. Israel is a historical lesson thatmen seek to go their own way, regard-less of the word of God (See Hb 2:1-3;10:39).

The Baptism

161

At the end of all arguments concern-ing the necessity of obeying the gospelby immersion in water for remission ofone’s sins, the final argument is simply,“He who believes and is baptizedwill be saved” (Mk 16:16). Nothingcould be more clear. If one truly wantsto do what Jesus has told us to do, thenhe will simply obey Jesus’ statementthat he be baptized and follow His ex-ample. “Jesus came from Galilee to theJordan to John, to be baptized by him”(Mt 3:13). This puzzled John, not thatJesus wanted to be baptized, but to bebaptized by him (Mt 3:14). But Jesusresponded, “Permit it at this time, forthus it is appropriate for us to fullfill

The Baptism

all righteousness” (Mt 3:15). If onewould seek to follow the example ofJesus, then as an adult he or she mustbe baptized.

One must forget his traditional teach-ings in reference to this matter. Oursalvation is not about the tradition of ourfathers. It is not about us. It is totallyabout Jesus in His efforts to bring usinto eternal dwelling with Him. And ifone seeks to make Jesus the Lord ofhis life, then certainly he will seek outwater in order to obey the death, burialand resurrection of the One who gaveHimself on a cross for our reconciliationto God.