Saved By Faith Alone in Acts 2

What is required to become a Christian and be saved from one’s sins? The Protestant world seems to have convinced itself that salvation comes to a person by faith alone without any further actions on an individual’s part. It is especially adamant in its stand that baptism has no part in salvation. It is hard to understand, but it is without any doubt the majority position of the Protestant world.

They use passage after passage that teaches we are saved by faith, which no one doubts, but they add the word “alone.” And yet the only time the phrase “faith alone” is used in the Bible, the text says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24 ESV; see also the CSB, NAS, NET, NIV, and the NLT) The King James Version and the New King James Version read “not by faith only.”

One has to remember that faith has to be defined. When the Bible speaks of us being saved by faith, is it speaking of a dead faith or a living faith? If it is a living faith, it does not stop at mental assent but is moving and active. To stop is to be dead in its tracks.

Let me ask a question. In Acts 2 we read of the first gospel sermon ever preached. Were those people in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, who responded to Peter’s gospel preaching saved by faith? Certainly! They were, but they were saved with a living faith that responded to Peter’s preaching by believing and obeying it, by repenting and being baptized; Peter said, for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Peter’s command was, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

Now make no mistake about it; the faith-only or faith-alone crowd would have those saved that day saved before obedience to Peter’s preaching to be baptized. Their doctrine demands it. They would say you must repent, but to do that you have to split Peter’s command in half, taking part of it, repentance, while rejecting the other, baptism. One wonders what good conjunctions are in grammar if you can do that to a sentence, or in this case to Peter’s command. Or should we say the Holy Spirit’s command? Yes, we should.

But if they include repentance in their faith-alone doctrine, then they ought to quit referring to it as “faith alone,” for that it would not be.

It is plain enough that this crowd on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 had not repented when Peter issued the command to repent and be baptized, but they had developed faith. We know they had come to faith, for the text says, “they were cut to the heart” by Peter’s preaching and asked Peter and the apostles “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) We know Peter’s response. Why command people to repent who have already repented? Peter commanded them to repent; thus they had not done so, even though they had come to faith through his preaching.

Repentance is not just sorrow for sin. These people were clearly sorry about crucifying Jesus, as evidenced by their asking “what shall we do?” The text says they were cut to the heart. Godly sorrow leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10), but godly sorrow by itself is not repentance. To repent, one must turn from sin to righteousness. It is a state of mind and will. It is a determination to cease sinning and to live righteously. One may be sorry about a thing for a number of reasons without any determination to change his/her ways; this is the sorrow of the world that leads to death (2 Cor. 7:10).

Peter’s preaching that day had produced faith. The question to be answered was whether it would produce repentance and baptism. The question the Bible student must answer in Acts 2 is exactly when the people present on that day were saved. The only options are (1) at the point of faith, (2) at the point of faith and repentance, (3) at the point of faith, repentance, and baptism.

In the past, some have argued that the word “for” in the passage means “because,” because of the remission of sins. There is no truth in it, but, for the sake of argument, let us pursue the thought. If that was so, then you have forgiveness of sins before repentance of sins. You can be forgiven without repentance. If you repent and are baptized because your sins were already forgiven, forgiven by faith, then you were saved before you repented of your sins. Saved without repentance. Now it is easy to see that will not work.

I suppose another question, in due order, that would be good to ask the faith-only people is this—had you been in the crowd that day on the Day of Pentecost and heard Peter’s preaching, being subject to it yourself, one of the guilty ones, could you have walked away from it having believed it, repented, and been saved, without obeying Peter’s command to be baptized? Their doctrine demands that, if they are consistent. And in such a scenario, could it truly be said you believed Peter’s preaching if you refused his Holy Spirit-inspired command to be baptized?

Jesus said in a disputed passage, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) It is disputed because the ending of Mark is disputed. But in an undisputed passage, Jesus says, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NKJV) You cannot go to heaven without baptism.

Finally, the faith-only position belittles the Great Commission, for in it Jesus commanded baptism. “Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Can you disobey Jesus and be saved? He is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) Obedience included baptism on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and it still does today.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

On Bless The Bread

“God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 NKJV)

Whose job is it to bless the bread and bless the fruit of the vine when the Lord’s Supper is being observed in the communion service? One hears prayers or petitions to God continually to “bless the bread” and to “bless the fruit of the vine” leading up to their serving at the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Why? I have no idea other than it has been done so long that it has become a habit. It is not scriptural.

A little thinking on the subject ought to convince most. How do you bless an inanimate (non-living) object? Rain after a long drought is certainly a blessing, but it is not the rain God blessed in sending it to man, but the man who received the rain. God blessed man, not the rain, unless you want to say the rain was blessed in the sense that God provided more of it.

It is true that in Deut. 7:13 you will find inanimate objects being blessed, but if you turn there and take a look at the passage you will see that those objects (fruit of the land, corn, wine, oil) are being increased by God’s blessing, being made abundant for the sake of his people. Do we want God to “bless the bread” and “bless the fruit of the vine” at the communion table this way—by making more bread and more fruit of the vine? I think not.

When we ask God to bless the bread and/or the fruit of the vine at the communion table, those who ask do not know or understand what it is they are asking for or what they are expecting from God. We want God to bless it, but we do not have the slightest idea of what we expect as a result of his doing so. What is supposed to happen when he does bless the bread (assuming he is doing it, which I deny)?

Sometimes the one who leads the prayer will qualify his request for a blessing on the bread and/or fruit of the vine by adding a qualifier saying “bless it to its intended use.” How does that help? What is the intended use of the bread and fruit of the vine—is it spiritual or physical? All agree the intended use lies in the spiritual realm, but that means for the bread and the fruit of the vine to be of benefit to me personally, it is not what God does to the emblems (as they are frequently called by man) but my attitude, my spiritual state of mind, my approach to the supper, that makes the difference as to whether or not it proves a blessing to me. It is not what God does that makes it a blessing.

The Lord’s Supper is meant to be a blessing to us, but it is already that without further action on God’s part. God long ago did all that was needed to make the Lord’s Supper a blessing to man.

It is what man does, not what God does, that counts now as to whether or not the Lord’s Supper will be a blessing to man or not. Paul teaches that the Lord’s Supper, instead of being a blessing, can become a condemnation, not because of God but because of our reckless partaking of it if we play the fool while partaking. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27 KJV) “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (1 Cor. 11:29 KJV) I have, over the course of a few decades, seen once in a great while someone talking or visiting while the Lord’s Supper was being observed. Do they understand what they are doing? I think not. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper is serious business. It needs to be done showing all respect, reverence, honor, and thanksgiving.

I do not believe there is the least bit of evidence in scripture for the idea that Jesus ever blessed the bread or the fruit of the vine in instituting the Lord’s Supper, based on what is recorded in the word. If he did, where is it found? Furthermore, where is the example of any man in New Testament times asking God to bless the bread and/or the fruit of the vine?

What does the word “bless” mean as it relates to prayer? There is one passage that is so clear on the matter as to settle the issue. That passage is 1 Cor. 14:16-17:

“Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1 Cor. 14:16-17 KJV)

This is so simple as to be nearly impossible to misunderstand. To bless in prayer means to give thanks.

Since the word “bless” is only used 10 times in a total of 9 verses in the King James Version of the New Testament, it will not take long to run through those listings, check them out, and see what we can find, namely, see if we ought to continue this practice of asking God to bless the emblems at the Lord’s table. Since we have already looked at 1 Cor. 14:16-17, we only have 8 other verses to look at. Those verses are: Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:28, Rom. 12:14, 1 Cor. 4:12, Acts 3:26, 1 Cor. 10:16, Heb. 6:14, and James 3:9.

Four of these eight verses teach the same message, so we can deal with them as a group. I will use the passage of Luke 6:28 for this purpose, which reads as follows:

“Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.” (KJV)

If the reader will check out Matt. 5:44, Rom. 12:14, and 1 Cor. 4:12, he will find the same doctrine being taught. I did not start with Matt. 5:44 for the reason that most modern versions do not have the word bless in them at that verse in view of the fact that there is a textual variant there.

Anyone can see from a quick reading that man, not God, is to do the blessing in all four of these passages. It is also obvious that one man can only bless another in one of two ways, either by word or by deed. Most commentators agree with Barnes’ remarks who says, “The word ‘bless’ here means to ‘speak well of’ or ‘speak well to.’” I am not sure I would want to limit it to that alone, but I am just passing on this famous commentator’s remarks. (Barnes’ comments are on the parallel passage—Matt. 5:44.)

This only leaves four other times the King James New Testament uses our word “bless,” and the reader will realize that so far we have not found an instance where the word bless is used as man commonly uses the term today.

The next verse is Acts 3:26:

“Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (KJV)

In this passage, the meaning of the word bless is self-explanatory as it is plainly stated. Jesus does bless us by “turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” The ESV is even plainer for it reads, “God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” This blessing came to man by means of the cross and the gospel which, if believed and obeyed, results in the greatest blessing possible that could be bestowed upon a man—eternal life.

We next come to the word “bless” as found in 1 Cor. 10:16, which deals with the Lord’s Supper. It reads:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (KJV)

All agree that Paul is talking about the communion service. The “cup of blessing which we bless” (please notice we do this, not God) is the fruit of the vine used in that service. Paul says he was told by the Lord what was to be done at the Lord’s Supper, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’” (1 Cor. 11:23-25 KJV) Please note this 1 Cor. 11 passage comes in the very next chapter after 1 Cor. 10:16, the verse just quoted in the prior paragraph.

Paul says that Jesus gave thanks for the bread and then says of the fruit of the vine Jesus did the same (gave thanks), for he says “after the same manner,” that is, he followed the same procedure for the fruit of the vine as he had done for the bread. Bless thus means to give thanks in prayer to God or else Paul, in 1 Cor. 10:16, is asking us to do something different from what he said Jesus did in 1 Cor. 11:23-25. I also remind the reader again of 1 Cor. 14:16-17 which defines the word “bless” when used in prayer to mean give thanks.

In the last half of chapter 11 of First Corinthians, Paul deals with the subject of the Lord’s Supper so that the Corinthians (and all later generations) might observe it properly. He begins with the words (verse 23), “For I have received of the Lord.” (KJV) If you want to do what Jesus did and follow his example, do as Jesus did. It is safe; it is what ought to be done.

Here is the summary of the points that need to be learned from these Corinthian passages. (1) We are indeed to bless, give thanks, while at the Lord’s table, but that means we do it, not ask God to do something mysterious to the emblems, nor ask him to give thanks himself. (2) Jesus’ example shows that he did not bestow a blessing (as modern-day man perceives of the thing) on the bread and/or fruit of the vine in instituting the Lord’s Supper, but merely gave thanks for the emblems. (3) Jesus did not ask God to bless the bread and/or the fruit of the vine.

I think it is very possible that modern-day error on this subject has come from a bad rendering in the King James Bible of Matt. 26:26-27 where a word was added to the text by the translators but generally read by readers as though it was a part of the original Greek manuscripts. The text there reads as follows:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” (Matt. 26:26-27 KJV)

In the original Greek, there is only one “it” in this entire passage, and that is the very last one. The reader is likely aware that in the King James Bible the italicized words were not in the original text but were added by the translators for clarification. All the “it” words in this passage were added by the translators except for the very last one.

Thus, the King James Version makes the text sound as though Jesus blessed the bread, and people have been led astray by that little word added by the translators.

Here is the way the two verses read when words added by the translators, words that are not in the original Greek, are omitted (as they should have been):

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.” (Matt. 26:26-27 KJV)

Jesus thus just blessed, which means, as we have already shown, that he gave thanks for the bread. In fact, one ought to be able to see this easily enough, for with regard to the cup, the text clearly says Jesus gave thanks. Did he do one thing for the fruit of the vine while doing something entirely different for the bread? Did he give a supernatural blessing to the bread while not doing so for the fruit of the vine? We know better.

Let the reader beware; the King James Version is not the only translation that has done this sort of thing with this verse, namely, added words not in the original Greek text. I am not going to go through all the various versions, but I can tell you the English Standard Version (ESV) is guilty of the same thing, and the problem with the ESV is that it does not italicize words added by the translators that are not in the original Greek. Overall, the ESV is an excellent translation, but I hate this failure to italicize added words.

Before leaving Matt. 26:26-27, here are some comments from Barnes’ commentary on the passage. He says, and I quote, “or ‘gave thanks’ to God for it. The word rendered ‘blessed’ not unfrequently means ‘to give thanks.’”

The word bless is used in the sense of giving thanks in prayer in all passages relating to the Lord’s Supper. One can find the record of the Lord’s instituting the Lord’s Supper in Matt. 26:26-27, Mark 14:22-23 (again, the word “it” was added by the translators), and Luke 22:19-20. Matthew and Mark say Jesus “blessed” with regard to the bread, while Luke says he “gave thanks,” as does Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23-24. (As already stated, blessed means to give thanks when we are talking about prayer.) Matthew and Mark are not contradicting Luke and Paul. In every instance, as it related to the fruit of the vine in these passages, it was not blessed but “gave thanks” as far as what terms were used in describing what was done. Luke says “likewise,” but says about the bread that Jesus gave thanks, thus “likewise” means Jesus gave thanks.

The New International Version never uses the word bless in any of the passages related to the Lord’s Supper. It always says gave thanks.

If the reader will just remember 1 Cor. 14:16-17, he/she will never be confused again with regard to this subject. Many years ago, when I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, it was common when people were gathered together for a meal to hear the one in charge ask another “to give the blessing.” People back in those days knew what the blessing was. As times have changed, so has the vocabulary people use. However, to bless or give the blessing is to have a prayer of thanksgiving to God. This is not to say that this is what the word bless means in every instance in the Bible, but it is to say that it is what it means in reference to the Lord’s Supper and in prayers surrounding that observance.

That pretty much covers the discussion, which is the subject of this paper, for the last two verses where the word “bless” is used in the New Testament do not relate to the Lord’s Supper. The first passage is Heb. 6:13-14, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” (KJV) The reader will readily see we are not dealing with the subject of prayer here. The words blessing and bless here refer to what we commonly think of when we hear the phrase “blessings from God.”

The last time the word “bless” is used in the King James New Testament is in James 3:8-9. “But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” Here again is another passage showing that bless in prayer means to give thanks. The TEV, or as it is sometimes called “The Good News Bible,” translates these two verses as follows:

“But no one has ever been able to tame the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison. We use it to give thanks to our Lord and Father and also to curse other people, who are created in the likeness of God.” (James 3:8-9 TEV) To bless is to give thanks, as is easily seen by comparing the King James translation with that of the TEV.

We should follow the example Jesus gave in giving thanks to God the Father for the bread and the fruit of the vine when instituting the Lord’s Supper, and should stop this business of asking God to bless the bread and fruit of the vine. What do we expect him to do after all?

Many who give thanks at every meal and would not think of doing otherwise observe the Lord’s Supper regularly, where thanksgiving is never or rarely given, and that at the most important meal a person will ever take part in—the Lord’s Supper. Jesus gave thanks but we often don’t. We need to be educated on the subject. Jesus gave his life for us, and yet in observing that event, we do not give thanks. Friends, if you are a Christian, you ought to think long and hard about that.

Instead of doing what we ought to do, we do that which was unheard of in scripture, and that which no one can explain about what it is they want God to do. We say we want him to bless the bread, to bless the fruit of the vine, but when asked to explain, who can? What is he supposed to do in blessing it? The reality is, he gave us the Lord’s Supper as a blessing. It is up to us now, not him, to make it what he intended it to be for us.

Finally, there is the matter of conscience involved in this. If one believes as I do that we are to give God thanks for the bread and the fruit of the vine at the Lord’s table, how are we to worship in good conscience if the one leading prayer does not give thanks? What are we to do? We know we are to thank God, but the one in charge wants God to bless the bread, an inanimate object, and does not thank God. If we are to worship God “in spirit and truth,” are we doing so when we do not give thanks? Where is the truth part if we do not give thanks? I do not have any answers since I am like all others in that I am subject to whatever the speaker says; he is in charge, not me. I do all I can and offer a silent prayer of my own. This is certainly not the preferred route to take, but what are you going to do?

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Circumcision and Baptism

Many believers in Christ teach that baptism is just a sign of salvation that has already been received, and thus whether or not one is baptized is of no great consequence as it pertains to the soul’s salvation. Many see baptism in the same light they see circumcision in the Old Testament, as just a sign. Is baptism just a sign of salvation by faith that is already in one’s possession?

In the Old Testament, long before the Law of Moses, it was said of Abraham, “He believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” (Gen. 15:6 NKJV) Certainly, no Bible believer would doubt Abraham’s salvation at that point in time.

Many years later the Lord appeared to Abraham and commanded him and all the males in his household to be circumcised (Gen. 17:10-14). The Lord declared it to be “a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” (Gen. 17:11 NKJV)

Even though circumcision was just a sign, it was not unimportant. The male child that was not circumcised “shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” (Gen. 17:14 NKJV) How seriously did Abraham take this command that was but a sign? Abraham obeyed it immediately, “that very same day.” (Gen. 17:23-27, specifically v. 23 NKJV)

In Romans 4 Paul talks about this event and again reiterates that circumcision was a sign (Rom. 4:11) and makes the declaration that Abraham was saved, prior to circumcision, by his faith (Rom. 4:3-12, specifically vv. 9-10 NKJV).

In thinking about this specific command of God to Abraham, his household, and his descendants, one must keep in mind the relationship of faith to obedience. Without faith, believing God, Abraham would never have obeyed. Faith had already obtained a righteous standing before God, but it was a living, active faith that willingly obeyed God that kept Abraham’s standing firm before God. No one ever seems to ask the question, “What if Abraham had not obeyed?”

Faith is primary in the lives of God’s people whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Faith always has primacy, for without it nothing else follows. Men do not obey or follow after one, unless coerced to do so, without belief in the one they follow. Atheists do not seek to follow God, and looking at it from their point of view, we readily understand why. Why would they? Abraham obeyed because Abraham believed.

Well, how about baptism? Is baptism just the New Testament’s version of circumcision? There is no doubt about there being some similarities, but just because two things are similar does not mean they are equivalent, serving the same purpose. Horses and mules share similarities, but it is error to not distinguish between them, for there are some real differences. Mules do not race at Churchill Downs for a reason.

Circumcision and baptism share the necessity of faith for either act to have spiritual meaning. Circumcision itself had no spiritual significance for man until God gave the command, at which time man (Abraham) had the option to either trust and obey or disobey. Would Abraham honor God by obedience or would he rebel? In that sense, baptism shares a similarity with circumcision. As a man of faith, Abraham obeyed. Because of faith, his descendants had their sons circumcised on the eighth day after birth.

One Hollywood actor can baptize another on film, but it amounts to nothing before God. One can be baptized to please mom or dad, husband or wife, or even the church community, but it amounts to nothing other than getting wet until such a time as the person does the act out of faith in God in obedience to God’s command.

Those who talk about people believing in water salvation are generally in error in doing so. I never knew a person who believed just going down into the water and coming up out of it saved the person who lacked faith in the command giver, faith in the God who commanded it. Without faith, nothing can save a man. “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” (Heb. 11:6 NKJV)

Faith leads to things that, accompanying faith, make faith alive and active versus the dead faith that James says cannot save (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26). Faith leads to repentance, and where is the man who would deny that repentance is required for salvation? There is no motive for repentance toward God outside of faith. “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness…” (Acts 17:30-31 NKJV). “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3, 5 NKJV)

Peter, in the first gospel sermon ever preached, in Acts 2 tied repentance with baptism: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV) He repeated himself years later in regard to baptism when he wrote 1 Peter, saying, “There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 3:21 NKJV)

Peter certainly did not mean to say water will save you without faith and repentance, water salvation, but was merely making the point he desired to make regarding baptism. Baptism is a part of God’s plan for mankind in the age of Christianity as much as circumcision was a part of God’s plan for his people in Old Testament days. The failure to be circumcised in Abraham’s day and afterwards would cut a man off from God’s covenant. In the Christian era, baptism is the initiatory rite by which man comes into covenant relationship with Christ, for man is “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV; see also Gal. 3:27; 1 Cor. 12:13)

While the Bible speaks of circumcision as a sign, it nowhere speaks of baptism as being a sign. I searched the concordances for the word sign in seven major Bible translations in a context where baptism was also mentioned. Not one translation yielded a result. Man may call baptism a sign, but that is man; the Bible does not do so.

The one passage in the New Testament that relates circumcision to baptism is found in Col. 2:11-13: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” (Col. 2:11-13 NKJV)

Paul wrote this Colossian passage and provides the best commentary on it in something else he wrote back in Rom. 6:2-4: “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:2-4 NKJV)

Paul makes it clear that there is a “circumcision made without hands.” It is Christ’s circumcision. This is a circumcision that is performed on a person spiritually dead in sins, one whose sins have not yet been forgiven. That spiritually dead person is buried in baptism into death to sin but arises from his burial with Christ a new creation (Gal. 3:27; 2 Cor. 5:17), “raised with Him through faith” (Col. 2:12 NKJV) to “walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) The circumcision of Christ is the cutting off of the person’s sins, which is done in baptism when preceded by faith and repentance. Only Christ (God) can forgive sins; thus it is the circumcision of Christ.

Peter says in the passage quoted earlier, the passage talking about baptism, that he (the baptized person) now has “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1 Pet. 3:21 NKJV) That person is a new creation, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) He was “baptized into Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)

It is only through faith that one arises from baptism with an answer of a good conscience. Only through faith can such a person believe that old things have passed away and all is new in his life. Only through faith can he believe he has been forgiven of all trespasses.

When a person submits through faith to be baptized into Christ, he is submitting himself to accept in that act of faith Christ’s circumcision. It is not a sign; it is the reality itself.

As a final note, one should not confuse the “circumcision…of the heart” in Rom. 2:28-29 with the “circumcision of Christ” in Col. 2:11-13. In Romans, Paul is making the point that physical circumcision alone without obedient faith accompanying it was of no avail to the Jew. God cares about a man’s heart toward God. “He is a Jew who is one inwardly.” (Rom. 2:29 NKJV) In Romans, it is man who circumcises his own heart, it is man’s circumcision, that which he is responsible for. In Colossians, it is Christ’s circumcision, what Christ does for man when man complies with God’s will by faith. Man can circumcise his heart as he possesses free will; man cannot forgive his sins. That is God’s dominion, Christ’s circumcision.

This is a teaching that was found in scripture long before Paul’s time or writings. Moses spoke of the need for the Jews to circumcise their hearts in Deut. 10:16, and the Lord spoke of the same need in Jer. 4:4. This did not mean physical circumcision was unnecessary but that more was needed than just the physical act.

For more on this general topic, see my article entitled “The Circumcision of Christ.” No doubt, there will be some repetition of points made here.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

Doing What You Can

Sometimes even when we do well we receive criticism and blame as though what we did was evil rather than good. Such was the case with Mary of Bethany, a friend of Jesus and one whom Jesus loved (John 11:5). If you are not familiar with the story of Mary who anointed Jesus with some very expensive oil of spikenard not long before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, you can read the account in Matt. 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, and John 12:1-8.

I will summarize the story for you briefly. A supper had been made for Jesus (John 12:2) in the home of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3). Jesus was there as the invited guest along with others, which included His disciples (Matt. 26:8), and Martha, Lazarus, and Mary (John 12:2-3), the latter three being a brother and his two sisters. This was the same Lazarus that Jesus had raised from the dead (John 12:1, 9). While Jesus was reclined at the table, according to the custom of the time, Mary came up behind him with a flask of fragrant oil (John 12:5), opened it, and anointed both His head and feet with the oil (Matt. 26:7, John 12:3).

This angered some among them. “When His disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, ‘To what purpose is this waste? For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to the poor.’” (Matt. 26:8-9 NKJV) Mark says, “They criticized her sharply.” (Mark 14:5 NKJV) Jesus intervened on her behalf saying, “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me. … She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for burial. Assuredly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the whole world, what this woman did will also be spoken of as a memorial to her.” (Mark 14:6-9 NKJV)

Mary of Bethany loved Jesus deeply and had “sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word” gladly (Luke 10:39 NKJV) at an earlier time. On that earlier occasion, Jesus said of her, “Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:42 NKJV) Mary was still choosing that good part which would not be taken away as she poured the oil onto the Lord’s head and His feet, wiping His feet with her hair (John 12:3). The oil was not cheap. A footnote in the New Living Translation of the Bible at Mark 14:5 says that the 300 denarii cost of the oil would be the equivalent of 300 days’ wages.

What lessons can we learn from this account? There are several. (1) When you love someone, money doesn’t matter. If you have it, you are more than willing to give it whether little or much. Mary was not alone in this. Remember the poor widow who gave “all that she had, her whole livelihood.” (Mark 12:44 NKJV) Remember the churches of Macedonia of whom Paul spoke of their “deep poverty” (2 Cor. 8:2 NKJV), how that Paul says, “I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” (2 Cor. 8:3-4 NKJV) Loving God means we long and desire to give to Him and His work.

We cannot bestow our goods on Jesus directly as did Mary of Bethany, but we must remember that the church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18, 24). When Saul of Tarsus was persecuting the church and Jesus met him on the road to Damascus, he said to Saul, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 9:4 NKJV) When we give to the church (notice I said “the church,” not a denomination), we are giving to Jesus. Saul was persecuting the church, yet Jesus associated that with being persecuted himself. Why? Because the church is Christ’s body.

It is understood that in giving to the church, the funds given will be used for the purposes God would have them be used for, else they are not being given to God at all. One cannot take out of the church treasury funds to take a group to a recreational site to enjoy themselves and say, “It is God’s work.” God’s work is to preach the gospel, help the poor, and do the work God’s people are supposed to do. Entertaining ourselves is not a part of that.

I was recently watching a travel show on television showing some of the exquisite cathedrals of Europe, inside and out. Words fail one in speaking of the beauty and magnificence of some of these man-made monuments. Words like amazing, awe-inspiring, breathtaking, incredible, stunning all seem to fall short as descriptive terms for some of the most magnificent. Yet, God never meant money contributed to the church to carry on his work to be used to satisfy man’s vanity in building such structures. Their appeal is to the carnal, fleshly man, not to the spiritual man. It was the sinful side of man that built them, not the spiritual. Those vast sums of money spent to build these monuments should have been used in preaching and teaching the gospel and in benevolence.

(2) Another thing we can learn from the account of this story about Mary of Bethany is that worship of God is as important as good works. I would call what Mary did an act of worship on her part. No doubt those complaining about what they considered a waste of money were right about the fact that much good could have come from selling this expensive oil and using it to help the poor. God is all for helping the poor (a good work), but helping the poor is not all there is to being a disciple.

Should we stop worship services saying it is a waste of time and the time could be better spent out in the community helping the poor keep up their houses, doing errands for them, etc.? If every member was to cease assembling together for worship and use the time instead to do good works, no doubt much help could be rendered, but God is to be worshiped.

If all of our time, all of our money, all of our effort was used to simply help our fellowman, and we exclude God from it all, what we end up with is a social gospel of sorts, one that pertains to this world only, and that benefits man only on a temporal basis. The emphasis, in such a scenario, is on the natural man, not the spiritual man. One cannot exclude the spiritual, replacing it with the material, and hope for the eternal. We must have and must be continually building a spiritual relationship with God.

(3) One must accept the fact that one will be criticized even for doing good on occasion. Read your New Testament and see how many times Jesus was criticized for doing good. It would be interesting to add the total up. Anyone who has ever read the New Testament knows this happened to Him time and time and time again. If it happens to a follower of Christ, why should we be surprised?

“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!” (Matt. 10:24-25 NKJV)

Do not misunderstand; I am not comparing the disciples who criticized Mary of Bethany over the use of the oil with those who criticized Jesus during his ministry, but I am only saying we need to expect criticism while doing good and learn to live with it. Our real problem comes when we never receive criticism. “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26 NKJV)

(4) Finally, this is the point I have been wanting to get to. The text (Jesus speaking) says of Mary, “She has done what she could.” (Mark 14:8 NKJV) What more could be asked of a man or a woman? What more does God ask of any man or woman? When a person has done all they can do, that is it, it is the end of the line; they have gone as far as it’s possible for a man or woman to go and have done all God expects from them. God does not expect of man more than man is capable of doing. What a great epitaph this would make at one’s passing from this life into the next. He/she has done what he/she could do.

Every man and every woman is capable of obtaining just such an epitaph from God. I would like to mention three of whom I believe this could be said.

The Poor Widow. I have already mentioned this poverty-stricken woman, but one who was rich spiritually. As you recall, Jesus was sitting opposite the treasury watching people putting money into it. The Bible says, “And many who were rich put in much. Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.’” (Mark 12:41-44 NKJV) She had done what she could.

Tabitha or Dorcas. Of this lady, the Bible says, “This woman was full of good works and charitable deeds which she did.” (Acts 9:36 NKJV) As you recall the Bible story, Tabitha died. Peter in a nearby town was sent for and when he came raised her from the dead. Just before he raised her from the dead, the Bible says, “And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them.” (Acts 9:39 NKJV) Tabitha was a Christian lady who had done what she could while living.

Lazarus the beggar. Of this man the Bible says, “But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom.” (Luke 16:20-22 NKJV) You may well be wondering why I would include Lazarus in a list of those who had done what they could. The answer is we need to realize that no matter how desperate a man’s plight is, no matter how little it seems he has accomplished, no matter how great a failure he seems to be to other men, still it matters none to God if he has done what he could in his life. This ought to be encouraging to us, for it ought to give the lowliest of us hope.

You may be saying, “How do I know this man had done what he could?” Because God saved him. God will not save a man who will not try, who does not care, who is indifferent. We are not saved by works. If we were, Lazarus the beggar would probably have little to show. His condition was such as to not be able to help himself, let alone help others. Yet, he did all he was capable of, and if that consisted only of faith, then that was all that was required of him.

There will come a time most likely, if we live long enough, where we will be unable to do a lot in God’s kingdom. People often get to the point physically where they can no longer assemble with the saints, which would under normal circumstances be sinful, for we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25), but do we think God is going to hold that against those too frail and aged to attend, some even confined to nursing homes? No, for they have done what they could, everything else being equal. God is not a God without mercy and understanding. No doubt Lazarus was a condemned man in the eyes of many a man, but not in God’s eyes.

I have deliberately picked the three people I did here as examples because of their station in life. None held positions of importance. None were well known or known at all outside the immediate area. One suspects that two of them were hardly spoken to during a normal day (the poor widow and Lazarus) and yet we have three saved people who, as little as it might have been, did what they could.

We must remember there is no partiality with God. Our station in life is inconsequential to him as far as our eternal destiny is concerned. His ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8-9), and He does not see as man sees (“for the Lord seeth not as man seeth,” 1 Sam. 16:7 KJV). “Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (James 2:5 NKJV) “Not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” (1 Cor. 1:26 NKJV)

The person who is saved is the person who has done what he or she could do (read the Parable of the Talents). We can all obey the gospel if we will. There is no reason the epitaph “she has done what she could” needs to be reserved exclusively for Mary of Bethany. God would have us all have that epitaph.

One final admonition, “Do not say it is too late for me; I have not done what I could.” None of us has done so one hundred percent. Surely, none of us think the poor widow, Tabitha, or Lazarus always lived sin-free. If so, why did they need Jesus? Mary of Bethany was not sin-free. Those who wrote about Mary—Matthew, Mark, and John—were not sin-free. Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV)

The question is not about the past but the here and now and now on. What are we going to do here and now and now on? While we will never be perfect, we can do what we can.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]