Why Men Do Not Believe

Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, asked the brethren to “pray for us that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified, just as it did also with you; and that we may be delivered from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2 NAS) The question I want to deal with in this article is why men do not believe. This is a question that has bothered me over the years, for it seems only natural to believe. Yet, I cannot deny what is obvious to all, just as Paul said, “not all have faith.” What does the Bible have to say about the reasons for unbelief?

Paul said of himself, in talking about his past, how he was a persecutor of Christians, and then says, “I was shown mercy, because I acted ignorantly in unbelief.” (1 Tim. 1:13 NAS) Thus, there was a time in Paul’s life when he was an unbeliever. Yet Paul, then known as Saul, was an honest man, for he said, as recorded by Luke in Acts 23:1, while he stood before the Council or Sanhedrin, that “I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day” (NAS) or, as the NKJV puts it, “in all good conscience.”

It would be easy to say unbelievers are all dishonest, but that will not work. Paul’s case proves just the opposite. Paul, or Saul, was present from the very beginning of the Christian religion. In Acts 7, we are told that those who stoned Stephen “laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul.” (Acts 7:58 NAS) And then we read in chapter 8, the first verse, that “Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death.” (NAS) This was in the earliest days of Christianity.

One wonders why Saul was blinded to the miracles that were occurring in Jerusalem. Working back from Acts chapter 7, back from the time of Stephen’s stoning, we find in Acts 6:8, “Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.” (NAS) The footnote to verse 8 in the NAS says “attesting miracles.” Even earlier in Acts 5:12, we are told, “By the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people.” (NKJV) Is it likely that Saul was totally ignorant of these events, of what had been going on? Read also Acts 5:15-16. Was he unaware of how Ananias and Sapphira had been miraculously struck down? Was he unaware of Peter healing the lame man at the temple gate in Acts 3? Was he unaware of the veil of the temple being rent on the day of Christ’s crucifixion? Were the priests denying that? More questions could be asked.

It is highly unlikely that Saul was totally unaware of everything that had been transpiring. He says in Acts 22:3 that he was raised in Jerusalem. That does not necessarily imply he was an eyewitness to everything that went on there, but one is reminded of what Cleopas said to Jesus, unknowingly, on the road to Emmaus, “Are You the only one visiting Jerusalem and unaware of the things which have happened here in these days?” (Luke 24:18 NAS) That was said before the disciples generally knew that Jesus had risen from the dead, but one wonders if much the same could not be said of Saul in the days of which we speak. Are you the only one who does not know of the miraculous events occurring here in the name of Jesus Christ?

Yet, Saul was an honest unbeliever. My point is this: here we have a man with a world of evidence before him, but he is not willing to accept it. Why not? How do we explain it? I cannot explain it except for one statement that Paul made later.

I refer to Gal. 1:13-14, “For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.” (NAS) Vine says the Greek word here for zealous means “an uncompromising partisan.” Thayer says “one burning with zeal.” Not just zealous but burning with zeal.

With unbelievers who are extremely zealous, even in their error, their misguided zeal blinds the mind and heart to the extent that even miracles have no effect upon them. Those who were responsible for crucifying Jesus were aware he had raised Lazarus from the dead and that he had done “many signs” (John 11:43-47). Paul, evidently, was of that type of unbeliever for a time. No doubt, this is one reason it is so hard to convert one who holds false doctrine zealously. It seems they are untouchable with the truth; they are truly blind.

Paul says in Rom. 10:2 of his fellow countrymen, “I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.” (NAS) They were where he once was—religious but unbelievers—zealots. The Bible teaches that zeal itself is not a bad thing (Gal. 4:18); it is good, but it must be based on knowledge.

Looking back over all of this, the one lesson that ought to be burned into our minds is that zeal does not make right. Zeal proves nothing about truth or error. The Catholics were zealous centuries ago, while burning men and women at the stake, just as Saul was in agreeing that Stephen ought to be put to death. ISIS was zealous in its radical Islamist beliefs while slitting men’s throats in Syria some years back. Zeal is no measure of truth.

Extreme zeal blinds. It gives one tunnel vision, all the while destroying one’s ability to reason. Many hold to atheism with extreme zeal, along with the theory of evolution, especially in the academic world. The Nazis of Germany of WW II come to mind as another example. People often have extreme zeal for whatever they believe in, resulting in the truth being hidden from them.

We also learn from Paul’s case that truth is not dependent on my feelings about it. I may be totally opposed to the truth in all good conscience, but that will not turn my error into the truth, nor will it transform the truth into error. Jacob believed a lie and was sure Joseph was dead upon seeing the blood-stained robe of many colors (Gen. 37:33). His feelings did not make the error true. Trust your feelings and you risk your eternal life. “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool.” (Prov. 28:26 NKJV) We must trust what God’s word says and not our feelings about it.

Yet, I think there is little doubt that in religion today, feelings generally prevail over what is plainly recorded in scripture. How I feel about an issue is what matters. It is also what will destroy. It is what God says about an issue that counts, not how I feel about it. Too many of us want to tell God how he ought to view matters, view them the way we think he ought to.

Men also fail to believe when their minds will not allow them to think otherworldly. The truth is incomprehensible to them, beyond belief. They can only believe what they see or know with their senses. They live by human instinct. They cannot think beyond the physical flesh and blood realm of existence. Life after death, the resurrection of the dead, God, all these things are beyond comprehension to them. It just cannot be. It is incomprehensible. They see themselves as advanced evolutionary animals, but never consider the first cause or source.

A good Bible example of this was when Jesus went back to his hometown—Nazareth. The Bible reads in Matt. 13:54-58, “And coming to His home town He began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they became astonished, and said, ‘Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?’ And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.’ And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.” (NAS)

They said of him, “Where did this man get this wisdom, and these miraculous powers?” That should have been easy to answer if you were willing to admit the man did miracles. They admitted he did. However, all human reasoning was against Jesus being associated with deity, for they had known him and his family all their life. It made no sense to them. It just could not be. It was impossible.

Another example was when Jesus was resurrected. You remember when Mary Magdalene saw Jesus after he was resurrected and then went back to the disciples and told them. The Bible says, “They refused to believe it.” (Mark 16:11 NAS) Then, when the two who were with Jesus on the road to Emmaus came back and reported the same to the disciples, after Mary had, the Bible says, “They did not believe them either.” (Mark 16:13 NAS)

They were like Saul on the road to Damascus; they had to personally experience the miracle to believe. Jesus had to come into their presence, and when he did, he rebuked them for their unbelief (Mark 16:14). Men do not rise from the dead. How is it possible? It was beyond the realm of all human reason and experience, too wild to imagine.

What do we learn from these two examples—Jesus’ trip to his hometown and the disciples’ refusal to believe the resurrection? We learn that some cannot believe because their mindset is such that if a thing is outside the realm of human experience and personal knowledge, it is unfathomable and cannot be. The mind is closed to such things.

Today, we would say they have a scientific mindset. If a matter is outside the realm of scientific study, unrelated to all known laws of physics and science, then there can be no truth to the thing. Much of the world today does not believe in life after death or a resurrection of the dead. Their mindset will not allow it. Nothing exists that is beyond the realm of human scientific knowledge, as they see it, for that would be impossible, nothing otherworldly, that is, nothing of another dimension or realm of existence.

They are so stuck in this way of thinking about life that they have come up with what they consider the scientific answer to the earth’s creation and life on earth. They will tell you what happened millions and millions of years ago with a straight face and will consider you a fool if you doubt them. They are convinced that men evolved from who knows what over eons of time. They do not think that is an incredible thing. They can believe that because they think they can reason that out scientifically. The only foolishness with them is the idea of God.

But what else does the Bible have to say about why men do not believe? Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:3-4, “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (NAS)

When a person is young and seemingly has what he or she perceives to be 40 or 50 years of productive life left in this world, it is easy to get so caught up in education, acquisition, achievement, career building, marriage, and raising a family that there is no time or interest in a spiritual life. This continues once started pretty much on into old age.

These are people who don’t believe because they have never given themselves a chance to believe. There is always too much to do, too much going on, to even give thought to God or the gospel.

Luke describes these people as those beside the road, “who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved.” (Luke 8:12 NAS) The Bible says, “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor. 2:14 NAS) The natural man is the man caught up in that which is natural to man—the desire for the life of this world. The things related to God are foolishness to him, the Bible says.

In Matthew’s account of the parable of the sower, Jesus says of such a one of whom we are speaking that he did not understand the word and thus “the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.” (Matt. 13:19 NAS) He does not say why such a person does not understand, but we know without his saying simply by asking a couple of questions. Did God give us his word in such a way that it could not be understood and thus was to be hidden from man? No! What was God’s intent when he gave us his word? That we know it and understand it!

A man who does not understand God’s word is a man who has no desire to give it the time and attention necessary to learn it, for he has other things of more interest on his mind. He is Paul’s natural man of 1 Cor. 2.

The natural man here is one whose mind is centered solely on achievement and enjoyment of this world. Jesus said, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” (John 5:44 NAS) This is the kind of man we are talking about, a man centered on achievement or acquisition in this world.

Then there are men who simply enjoy sin, which the Bible speaks of as the “passing pleasures of sin.” (Heb. 11:25 NKJV) Jesus said, John 3:19-20, “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (NAS) “Men loved the darkness” is just another way of saying they loved sin. These are people who do not want to believe, for they love sin (love the darkness) and thus are unwilling to believe.

I have not at all exhausted this study of why men do not believe. I am always searching to understand better, but it is time to conclude for now. I conclude with this: belief is a choice. If it were not, how could we be condemned for not believing? “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

We believe what we want to believe, and we can always find a way to justify our belief. That said, there is always a motive for believing the way we do. This is not to say evidence does not exist for what we may or may not believe, but it is to say our heart’s desire often leads us to not weigh the evidence fairly and impartially. We become subjective rather than objective in our reasoning process. Truth does exist, but the heart makes it hard to find in the minds of men.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it frees us up to enjoy what the Bible calls “the passing pleasures of sin” (Heb. 11:25 NAS) without any threat of retribution. We can achieve and receive the adoration and praise of men. It is a lot more convenient if God does not exist, at least in the here and now. We do not want him to exist; we do not want the Bible to be true, if our love is for this life and this world.

Those who do not believe have the same evidence as those who do believe. What makes the difference then? Often it comes down to just this one thing. The believer has a desire for “a better, that is, a heavenly country.” (Heb. 11:16 NKJV) The unbeliever is satisfied with this world and does not want another. One wants and desires God, the other does not. The evidence remains the same for both.

If the unbeliever came to belief he would have to change his life. He loves this world. It is soothing to his soul to not give the Bible a thought. We believe what we want. The unbeliever wants to believe it is not so, for he has a great stake in it not being true. He has staked his eternal life on it not being so. The Bible cannot be true for if it is he stands condemned. He has no desire to believe that. We believe what we want to believe. That is why disbelief is a sin. It is a sin because it was and is a choice, at least among those who could have known. Bad choices in life just about always lead to disaster. The Bible being true, surely the choice of disbelief will be no exception.

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

The Hem Of His Garment

A lot of times we read accounts of events that happened in scripture accounting them to be a historical record but of no special importance to us today. The account of the woman healed from her flow of blood is one such event that can easily be overlooked as having no importance for us today—that is until we look closer at it. The account of this healing can be found in Matt. 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, and Luke 8:43-48. Because Matthew’s account is so short, I will quote it here.

“And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment; for she said to herself, ‘If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.’ But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, ‘Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.’ And the woman was made well from that hour.” (Matt. 9:20-22 NKJV)

At the time this event occurred Jesus was on his way to raise from the dead Jairus’ daughter. Jesus and the disciples were accompanied by a great multitude on their journey to Jairus’ home, and in that crowd was the woman who is the subject of our study.

We live in a day and age where the idea seems to prevail that faith alone saves. The idea is that no effort on our part is required for that would be, we are told, salvation by works. Jesus said this woman was healed by her faith, but, according to today’s thinking, why did she have to leave home to be healed? She believed in Jesus and his powers before ever making the journey to meet him, else why leave home to go? Why did she, if faith alone is sufficient? Why would her faith not heal her at home?

The answer is really quite simple and is written all through the Bible and taught time and time again. Faith must act if it is to be of any value. This unnamed woman had undoubtedly heard from others that those who touched Jesus were often healed of whatever disease they had. Luke’s account of the story is found in chapter 8, but in chapter 6, earlier in time, we read that “the whole multitude sought to touch Him, for power went out from Him and healed them all.” (Luke 6:19 NKJV)

Mark’s account of the event of the woman’s healing is found in chapter 5, but in the next chapter, a little later in time, we are told, “Wherever He entered, into villages, cities, or the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged Him that they might just touch the hem of His garment. And as many as touched Him were made well.” (Mark 6:56 NKJV) It must have been well-publicized throughout the country that by touching Jesus one could be healed. The woman left home based on some things she had heard and believed. That much is obvious. The test of her faith was whether or not she would leave home to go to Jesus. Was her faith strong enough to get her to act? It was a test of her faith.

Many people today do not believe faith is tested. God, however, has always tested faith. Adam and Eve had a test before them of their faith in God while in the garden. Would they believe God or the serpent? Would Noah believe God concerning a flood to come and build the ark, or would he not believe and thus not build it? Would Abraham offer up Isaac, or would he not do it? The Bible specifically calls this a test, for it says, “God tested Abraham.” (Gen. 22:1, Heb. 11:17 NKJV) We can call these events and many others like them tests of obedience if we want to, for they are that, but if we stop there, we have stopped short and failed to see the big picture. Why does one obey in the first place? There is only one reason—one obeys because one believes. He believes the word of God and believes it is essential to obey it to achieve the end he desires.

The Hebrew writer reminds us of the reason the children of Israel failed to enter the Promised Land when he says in Heb. 3:18-19, “And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” (NKJV) They did not obey God, for they did not believe God. Moses reminds the children of Israel of what happened when he says, “And I said to you, … Look, the Lord your God has set the land before you; go up and possess it, as the LORD God of your fathers, has spoken to you … Nevertheless you would not go up, but rebelled against the command of the LORD your God.” (Deut. 1:20, 21, and 26 NKJV) God had given them the promise of victory over the inhabitants of the land, but they did not believe God and thus feared and failed to act. Moses says plainly, “You did not believe the LORD your God.” (Deut. 1:32 NKJV)

A man acts when a man believes. We strictly obey the speeding law when we see a state trooper parked along the side of the road because we believe he will indeed come after us if we violate the law. The first thing we do when we see an officer is look at our speedometer, and if it shows us over the speed limit even a tiny bit, we will do whatever is necessary to get ourselves slowed down. We act because we believe. Genuine belief leads to action. So it is also in religion. This is why only a deeply committed faith can save because it is the only kind of faith that is strong enough to act, to obey God.

Our lady with the issue of blood acted on her faith. Today one often hears that baptism, clearly a command of God (I have never heard anyone disagree with that), just does not matter. Many seem to believe you can disobey God and not be baptized, and you can and will still be saved. Have you ever given thought to the idea that baptism might well be a test of your faith?

When we say this command matters, and I will obey it on the one hand but then, on the other hand, say that this other command does not make that much difference, so I will be negligent in my obedience to it, then we have displaced the King of glory as the lawmaker, we have displaced King Jesus and made ourselves king. James puts it this way, “if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.” (James 4:11 NKJV)

We do not get to decide what laws ought to be obeyed and which ones can be discarded. James goes on to say “there is one Lawgiver” (James 4:12 NKJV) and that is not you or me. Disobedience can expose ignorance of the word of God, or weakness of the flesh, but it also in many cases exposes unbelief, unbelief being the root cause of the disobedience.

Most of us are probably familiar with Heb. 11:6, “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.” (NKJV) The part of this verse that is overlooked is the last part, a thing the text says must be believed—“that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” No person who is willfully disobedient to the commands of God can be said to be a diligent seeker after God. Why are they not diligent seekers? They lack the faith to be such. Faith and action (we might well call it obedience) must travel together or, as James says, faith is dead and thus useless. “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:20 NKJV)

What have we learned from the woman who was healed of her blood flow issue? For healing to take place, faith must be accompanied by action. That is as true of spiritual healing as it was of her physical healing. It was not enough to travel to where Jesus was. Once there, she had to follow through and touch Jesus’ garment. That is what her faith required. Would Jesus have healed her without her faith following through with this act? He didn’t; he didn’t heal her until she reached out and touched his garment. That was in accord with her faith.

Her faith in Jesus’ power to heal was just as great before she touched him, when she left her home to travel to meet him, as it was when she actually reached out and performed the act, but the act was required. She was not healed a single second before she reached out, and her faith was made perfect by her works.

It is a simple lesson taught time and time and time again in the Bible—faith without works is dead. Faith must act.

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

The Great Commission and Cornelius

Many people believe that Cornelius was saved the moment the Holy Spirit fell on him. I disagree. The account of his conversion is recorded in Acts 10.

It is clear that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his household before their baptism (Acts 10:47). At its core the issue is whether or not water baptism is for the remission of sins as stated in Acts 2:38 and many other passages (1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, John 3:5, Mark 16:16). Or, is there some other way God has designed for man to receive remission of his transgressions?

I want to address something I had overlooked until I was doing some reading where it was brought to my attention. In his preaching to Cornelius and his household about Jesus, Peter said in Acts 10:43, “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (NKJV) In the very next verse (verse 44), we are told that “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” (Acts 10:44 NKJV)

I want you to take a closer look at verse 43, three words there that I had overlooked. What were they? The words “through His name.” It was pointed out to me that words do have meanings and they are not just written to take up space. “Through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43 NKJV)

Here is the point: the phrase “through His name” designates a relationship with the name. Meaning what? For that, we have to go back to the Great Commission Jesus gave in Matt. 28:18-20. Let me quote that:

“And 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.’ Amen.” (Matt. 28:18-20 NKJV)

Here is something the reader may not be aware of, a thing easily overlooked. Do you know the word translated “in,” where it says “in the name,” should correctly be translated by the word “into”? That is to say, the Greek means “into.” If you do not believe that, check it out for yourself by getting a New American Standard original edition reference Bible and checking the side margin or center column references. If you do not have one, here is what you will find: the exact words, “Lit., into.” Lit. means literal, meaning “into” is the literal translation. The original American Standard translation of 1901 used the word “into” in the text itself, as does the more recent Literal Translation of the Bible.

So what is the big deal, you may ask? Jesus is teaching that when we are baptized in water, as per Acts 2:38, we are being baptized into a relationship not only with Him but also with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Does this comport with other scriptures? Yes, it does. Here are some passages that do not just teach that we are baptized into Christ but specifically state it. (I add that no one doubts that the baptism of the Great Commission is water baptism since man is directed to perform it.)

“Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV) Gal. 3:27, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (NKJV) One gets into Christ by water baptism.

Please note what Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:13, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (NKJV) Do you know that the word “in” here should be the word “into”? Again, check it out using the references I have already alluded to. The Corinthians were not being baptized into a relationship with Paul, or any other man, but with Christ, and he wanted them to know that.

I think it goes without saying that all agree the Christian has a relationship with the Holy Spirit, and the scriptures also teach the same relationship with the Father and the Son, Jesus. Hear Jesus, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (is baptism for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38, a part of the word?—DS); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.” (John 14:23 NKJV) Jesus again speaks in John 17:20-21, “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” (NKJV) See also Rom. 8:9-11.

The point I am trying to make is that when we are baptized according to Jesus, the baptism of the Great Commission, we are put into that relationship with Him where He dwells within us, as does the Father, and the Holy Spirit—we in them, they in us. In voluntarily coming into this relationship, we are willingly and gladly bringing ourselves into submission to their authority and receive all the blessings that go along with that.

That the baptism of the Great Commission was water baptism goes without saying, as the command was made to men to do this. Only God, not man, can baptize one in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, those they taught and baptized were to go out and do the same thing (“teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” Matt. 28:20 NKJV) and that, perpetually, down through time. This is the “one baptism” of Eph. 4:5 and the baptism that establishes a relationship with Christ.

Now, let us make the application to the case of Cornelius. I quote again Acts 10:43, “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (NKJV) So here is the argument. That which we are to receive through His name (the remission of sins) is a little hard to receive, is it not, unless and until we have some relationship with that name (with Him)? That relationship is granted by way of obedience to the Great Commission, wherein we are baptized into a relationship with Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

But, there is more. What did the Great Commission of Jesus in Matt. 28 demand of a man? Two things—faith and baptism (Matt. 28:19). Disciples were first to be made, from which it is evident that believers were to be made, and then they were to be baptized. Mark 16:16 makes it even clearer. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) I have said before and say again, the problem with denominational teaching on this subject is that the import of what they teach is the same as if Mark 16:16 read, “He who believes and is not baptized will be saved,” for they say it is not essential. I believe Jesus’ words are clear.

Do I think it was certain that Cornelius would be saved prior to his baptism? If we are talking about God’s foreknowledge, yes, absolutely, just as were the faithful Old Testament prophets who were given the Holy Spirit, but neither were saved without the blood of Jesus which we come into contact with via baptism in our dispensation of time, the Christian dispensation. Paul says we are baptized into Christ’s death, which is where He shed his blood, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV)

Now, would God place his Spirit upon one not yet in a saved condition (Cornelius)? He could; none of us would deny his power to do so. Would He do it? Who is to say He would not if he had a purpose in doing so? Might there be a purpose here? What?

The gospel was not being taken to the Gentiles as God intended. Some say as much as 10 years had transpired between that first sermon on the Day of Pentecost and Peter going to Cornelius, a Gentile. Even with Peter, an inspired apostle, it took a direct intervention from God himself to convince him he needed to go and talk with a Gentile about salvation. And, as all Bible students know, he took flak for it from the Jews back in Jerusalem and had to defend himself. What convinced those Jews that it was acceptable? Peter’s recounting the fact that the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Would they ever have gone on their own to the Gentiles had this not happened?

When God has a purpose, He may give His Spirit to even a vile sinner. Certainly, I do not place Cornelius in any such class, but I do know he needed the blood of Jesus. But, what I have reference to here is the case of one so vile he was a ringleader in the death of Jesus—Caiaphas.

The Bible says, “And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.’ Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.” (John 11:49-51 NKJV)

Do I think the Holy Spirit remained with Caiaphas? Of course not. But, for a short period of time, because God had a purpose, it was given to him. God had a purpose in giving the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his household. He accomplished that purpose. The Holy Spirit was not given to Cornelius to save him, nor was it given to him because he was already saved. Like everyone else, Cornelius had to believe and obey the gospel to be saved, and that included being baptized for the remission of sins, or as Jesus put it, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV)

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

Religious Titles in Christianity

Years ago, I got into a discussion with a Messianic Jew who insisted he had the right to use the title “Rabbi” without any violation of scripture. I pointed him to Matt. 23:8, “but you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren” (NKJV) to no avail. He is not alone, for you could point a Catholic priest to Matt. 23:9, “do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven” (NKJV), and it would have no effect upon him either.

Not only are men accepting religious titles, contrary to Jesus’ teaching, but the general public is just as guilty in consenting to apply these titles to them. I have never seen a single instance in my lifetime of a Catholic priest being interviewed on TV without the interviewer calling him Father. Indeed, I suspect any interviewer who neglected to do so would lose his job. There is little doubt his superiors would call him on the carpet and accuse him of being disrespectful. There is no problem being disrespectful to Jesus and his command, but just do not offend the Catholic priest or the Catholic Church.

What did Jesus teach on this subject? The answer is found in Matt. 23:1-12:

“(1) Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, (2) saying: ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. (3) Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. (4) For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. (6) They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, (7) greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ (8) But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. (9) Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. (10) And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. (11) But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.’” (NKJV)

In his condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus says (verse 5), “all their works they do to be seen by men.” The desire to be seen as a man superior to his fellowman, a man who ought to be bowed down to figuratively, if not literally, was the desire of the heart and the sin of the pride that resided within them. Jesus gives several examples of things they were doing and things they enjoyed that manifested this attitude. One of those things was to be called Rabbi, Rabbi. These men were being called Rabbi and loved it. It was wrong then to do that, but my messianic Jew says it is fine to do it today.

Albert Barnes, in his commentary on Matthew, says of the word Rabbi used here that, “It was a title given to eminent teachers of the law among the Jews; a title of honor and dignity, denoting authority and ability to teach.” No doubt Barnes was correct in also saying that each time the word was used, “it implied their superiority to the persons who used it.” (comments on Matt. 23:7) They thus reveled in having the title, for their desire was to be seen (recognized) by men (verse 5).

Jesus clearly gave the command, in verse 8 of Matthew 23, to not accept the title of Rabbi, for he says, “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.” (NKJV) He gives two reasons. (1) Christ only is our teacher. (2) You are all brethren. The individual I was in discussion with says that what Jesus wanted us to understand from this passage was only that Christ is our ultimate teacher, that we need to keep that in mind, and that we are not specifically forbidden from using the word Rabbi as a title. He never considers the second reason Jesus gave for forbidding the use of the title—“you are all brethren.” We all stand on equal footing before God. No one is special, no one gets a pass, and no one gets to exalt himself above the rest of the brethren.

The reader might find it interesting to know that you will not find the word Rabbi in the Old Testament. The Bible commentator Adam Clarke says of the word Rabbi, “None of the prophets had ever received this title, nor any of the Jewish doctors before the time of Hillel and Shammai, which was about the time of our Lord.” You will find this in his comments on Matt. 23:8. Man had come up with a title to give to himself that pleased his vanity.

Jesus likewise forbids our calling anyone Father, as a religious title, in Matt. 23:9 already quoted. The word father is used in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament many times in many different ways. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words lists nine different applications of the noun father as used in the New Testament alone. This means, obviously, that the word father can be used by men when used appropriately and not in the way Jesus condemned. What did Jesus condemn?

Jesus forbade me, you, and the neighbor next door, from calling any man Father as a title in the spiritual realm. Reread Matt. 23:1-12 as many times as it takes to get the gist of what Jesus is getting at. There was a problem among men (the scribes and Pharisees in particular) in that they were seeking the praise, honor, and glory of men. They are proud and puffed up. They want to be recognized and acknowledged as superior. They desire titles. They do not want to be the servant of Matt. 23:11. They want to be exalted among men (Matt. 23:12). The warning to you and me is don’t do it, don’t allow it, don’t call them what they want to be called, and don’t reward their pride and vanity.

I am in full agreement with what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on the word father in Matt. 23:9 where he says, “But the word ‘father’ also denotes ‘authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command, and a claim to particular respect.’ In this sense it is used here. In this sense it belongs eminently to God, and it is not right to give it to people. Christian brethren are equal.”

Yes, Paul said to the Corinthians, “For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” (1 Cor. 4:15 NKJV) Paul also referred to Timothy as his “true son in the faith.” (1 Tim. 1:2 NKJV) He referred to Titus (Titus 1:4) and to Onesimus (Philemon 1:10) in a similar way.

In 2 Cor. 12:14, Paul implies that the church at Corinth are his children (making him their father), and likewise in Gal. 4:19 with reference to the churches of Galatia. John, the apostle, does the same sort of thing when he says, “My little children, these things I write to you.” (1 John 2:1 NKJV) There are other passages with similar import.

It is said that Paul, John, and Peter also (1 Peter 5:13) are referring to themselves as spiritual fathers, so we can use the word father as a title in reference to priests who are spiritual fathers over their flock. There is a lot wrong with that line of thinking. Neither Paul, nor John, nor Peter was using the word as a title. They were rather simply describing the fact that by teaching and preaching the gospel, children of God had been begotten. That they felt some duty or obligation toward those whom they had taught the gospel, there is no doubt. Those who had obeyed the gospel under their preaching felt like children to them. They had a love for them and felt a kinship to them, much like a father toward his children, but that is as far as it went. They did not adopt the title Father and attach it to their name.

All three of these apostles would have recoiled in horror at the thought of being given the title Father. Paul says, “There is one God and Father of all.” (Eph. 4:6 NKJV) Paul was not seeking the title of Father, had no desire to be called Father Paul, and that is just the opposite of the desire of the Catholic Church for their priests. I wonder what would happen in a Catholic congregation if all the membership suddenly stopped calling their priest Father and refused to do so. Would the fur start to fly?

[Paul compared himself and his companions not only to a father but also to a mother. In 1 Thess. 2:7-8 Paul says to the church of the Thessalonians, “But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us.” (NKJV) Dear to us like a mother’s children are to her.]

None of the apostles even took the word apostle as a title. They claimed to be apostles, for such they were, but not one time in scripture (I just searched my online concordance) will you find the word apostle before their name. An apostle was what they were, just as a man might be an elder (a bishop) or an evangelist in the church. These words were never meant to be titles or given as titles, but were rather descriptive of the work or role one had.

But there is more wrong with the Catholic position than just this. Their idea is that only certain men are priests (one per local church) and they have a spiritual priesthood over “their flock.” Peter and John both teach that all Christians are priests, not just a select few. (Read 1 Peter 2:9 and Rev. 1:5-6.) There is also nothing in the New Testament giving authority to one man only to rule a congregation, or flock, if you want to designate it that way. This desire for position over others is what led to one-man rule. If you will read your New Testament, you will find that every congregation was to be overseen by a plurality of elders (bishops), not just by one.

Paul and Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, “appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23 NKJV). Elders is plural, not singular. Every church was overseen by a group of men known as elders or bishops, not by a singular man designated the one and only priest of the congregation with the title of Father. Paul told Titus, “Appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.” (Titus 1:5 NKJV) Remember, in New Testament times, there was only one church within a city, unlike today, so when Titus appointed elders in a city, he was appointing them within the church in that city. Every church had not a single elder but plural elders. The terms elder and bishop were used interchangeably and describe the same set of men (read Titus 1:5-7).

The Catholic position is thus wrong not just on a single count but on multiple counts. The desire for position and importance, for power and prestige, is what led to the concept of one-man rule and the title of Father within the Catholic Church, but, as all know, it did not end just within the local congregations. Indeed, it only started there, for there is now a hierarchy within the Catholic Church. The next step up after becoming a father or priest in a local parish is to become a bishop, then archbishop, then cardinal, and ultimately Pope. But, I say, with a little sarcasm, it is not about titles, power, and position—not in Catholicism.

It is said, by both the Messianic Jew I was in discussion with and by the Catholics, that we cannot take the passages literally in Matt. 23. Why not? Jesus did. He was describing a real situation that then existed—men being called rabbi—and he said to stop doing it. That is as literal as it can get. He was attempting to stop a practice then in existence. It is still in existence because men desire the titles and the glory that go with them, and thus want to get around Jesus’ command.

In Matt. 23:10 Jesus says, “And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.” (NKJV) The word rendered teachers here is in other versions rendered masters (ASV, KJV, HCSB), instructors (ESV, NRSV), leaders (NAS, LITV), or directors (YLT). All of these translations are helpful, when taken as a group, for they give us a better idea of the meaning of the Greek that is being translated, better than any single word alone would. God wants teachers of his word, or else the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled, but a man can go out and teach and preach the word without taking a title. It is good to teach, not bad. What is bad is to want to be exalted for doing so. Don’t allow men to give you a title. You do not need it.

Often, preachers are given titles like Reverend or Pastor. This is certainly a violation of the principle Jesus taught in Matt. 23 regarding the giving of titles. We can do the work God has given us to do without a title. Why desire a title? If I had a Ph.D., I could preach perfectly well without being called Dr. Smith. I wouldn’t need the title to do the work, and if my pride demanded it and I wanted the attention, then I would have a problem, wouldn’t I? If a man wants to be called Pastor or Reverend, yes, he has a problem.

It is not wrong to say what we do. If I preach, it is not wrong to say I preach. If I teach, it is not wrong to say I teach. But the desire for a title and the recognition that goes with it is where the wrong comes in. Who am I? Who are you? We are just brothers and sisters in Christ, all equal within the body of Christ.

Finally, we have to recognize that Jesus was talking about the spiritual realm of life and not the secular in Matt. 23. He was talking about religion, not about medicine, not about education, not about the military, not about secular government, not about home and the family. We must have titles in the secular world. But I think that is so obvious that a child can see it. Jesus was not talking about the things of the world.

In this world, in secular affairs, we must have titles to designate knowledge and authority, but that is the whole point of Jesus’ argument in Matt. 23, for he is saying in the spiritual realm it is different, as there is only one authority and that is God, so don’t go around acquiring titles and making some pretense of authority you don’t have. Don’t accept a title and don’t give one to others. That includes the uninspired Pope.

The teaching of scripture on these matters is plain enough, but men have sought out many inventions.

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