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.]

The Circumcision of Christ

Most everyone is aware that in Old Testament times, beginning with Abraham, God required that the males among whom he was in covenant relationship be circumcised or else be cut off (excluded) from among his people. We first read about this commandment when God made a covenant with Abraham in Gen. 17 (read especially verses 10 through 14). It was a fleshly circumcision (v. 11), it was to “be a sign of the covenant between Me and you” (v. 11), it was to be done on the eighth day after birth (v. 12), and for any male that was not circumcised “that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” (v. 14)

Those who were not fleshly descendants of Abraham were not totally excluded from having a spiritual relationship with God among the Jews. They could become what we call proselytes as shown by Exodus 12:48, “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.” (NKJV) To be uncircumcised was to be unclean and unholy.

Circumcision was to be a sign of a relationship, of a covenant that was being kept. It was meant not to be just an outward act but an act that tied the heart of man to the heart of God. True, an 8-day-old child knows nothing of any of this, but as he grew up and was taught, it was to have meaning to him, importance. Even so, it did not work out that way. God says in Jer. 9:26, “All the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (NKJV) Fleshly circumcision did not set them apart to God as it should have, for their heart was not into a relationship with God where they would allow God to rule over them.

Paul says of the Jews of his own day that they sought “to establish their own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3 NKJV) and did not submit to the righteousness of God. Of Israel of old he says they pursued the law of righteousness but did not attain it because they sought it by works rather than by faith (Rom. 9:31-32). The circumcised of the Old Testament were to “walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.” (Rom. 4:12 NKJV) This the majority of them did not do. There is an important lesson in this that needs a little explanation.

One must obey God. Disobedience is sin and will condemn a man. The question is not whether or not a man ought to obey, for he must. Many see an emphasis on obedience as being the same as trying to obtain heaven by works. That is a misguided view of the matter. The real key to the matter is within the heart of man, with the question being “why am I obeying?” Is it because I think I can keep the commandments of God so well that he will almost owe me heaven (salvation by works), or is it because God gave me a command, I have faith in him to know that he knows best, I love him, and thus my heart is such that I am driven to obey? It becomes a matter of the heart. Never let yourself be misled by one belittling obedience to a command. In reality, such a person is encouraging rebellion against God and has a heart that is not right with God.

This brings us up to the era of Christianity. When Christ died on the cross, was buried, resurrected, returned to heaven, and then sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, an old era ended (the Law of Moses) and a new era began (the era of Christianity). The Jews continued to circumcise their male children, but it was no longer required in the law of God. “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.” (1 Cor. 7:19 NKJV) “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” (Gal. 5:6 NKJV) “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.” (Gal. 6:15 NKJV)

However, while circumcision of the flesh no longer matters, there is a circumcision that does matter and always has—the circumcision of the heart. “Circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” (Rom. 2:29 NKJV) “For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Phil. 3:3 NKJV) The “we” in this passage are Christians. Yes, circumcision matters—circumcision of the heart, not circumcision of the flesh. The heart must be right in God’s sight.

In Col. 2:9-13 Paul talks about spiritual circumcision when he says:

(9) “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; (10) and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. (11) 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, (12) 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. (13) 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.” (NKJV)

Forgiveness of sins is found in Christ. Salvation is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 2:10). The phrase “in Him” is used 3 times in the passage just quoted. According to Paul elsewhere, we are “baptized into Christ Jesus,” placing us “in Him.” (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27 NKJV) It is in Christ where forgiveness takes place, but we enter into Christ by the process of “putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” (Col. 2:11 NKJV) Paul, in Rom. 6:3-8, teaches that in baptism our old man dies “that the body of sin might be done away with” (Rom. 6:6 NKJV). We have here parallel passages, the Colossian passage and the Roman passage, teaching the same thing, both having been written by the same man inspired by the Spirit of God. One could really summarize all of verse 11 by simply saying, “In Him, you were forgiven.”

The phrase “with Him” is also used 3 times in this passage of Col. 2:9-13. We were “buried with Him in baptism” (compare with Rom. 6:4), we were “raised with Him” (compare with Rom. 6:4-5), and we were made “alive together with Him” (compare with Rom. 6:4—the last phrase). Also, take a close look at Rom. 6:8-11 on being made alive to God and compare it to Col. 2:13.

The last phrase of our passage (Col. 2:9-13) confirms the connection of this spiritual circumcision with baptism. Paul says, “having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col. 2:13), which ties in perfectly with Peter’s command to the crowd on the Day of Pentecost when they were told to repent and be baptized “for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38 NKJV) We have forgiveness in both passages, for when sins are remitted, they are done so by God’s forgiveness of them.

To develop this line of thought further, we have Peter’s statement in 1 Peter 3:21 where he says, “There is also an antitype which now saves us—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.” (NKJV) Baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God,” thus a matter of the heart. Let us take a look at some examples showing this.

On the Day of Pentecost, when Peter required those who believed to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), if you were a believer, could you have turned your back and walked away and said, “I am a believer and I can have a good conscience (a good heart) even if I defy Peter’s Holy Spirit-inspired command?” Could you have done that and been truthful?

When Paul was directed by Ananias to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16), could Paul have walked away from it, disregarding the command, and said, “My conscience (my heart) is clean?” How about the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) who could have said, “See here, it is already past midnight; let’s just put this thing off (baptism—Acts 16:33) to a more convenient time when we are not all so worn out?” Yes, circumcision is a matter of the heart—what kind of heart? I think the answer is clear enough when you give it a little thought about what happened versus what could have happened. The good heart acted, obeyed the command, and was baptized.

In fleshly circumcision, a part of the physical body was cut off and cast away. In spiritual circumcision (the circumcision of Christ), the old sinful man (sinful in heart, mind, and actions) is cast off and replaced by a new man of the spirit. Christ does this, but he uses means to do it. By his word faith is created, the heart is changed, and then in baptism the old man is put away and one arises from the water to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4-5), a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

This is not water salvation but salvation by faith, for Paul says in Col. 2:12, one of our principal verses, “you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God,” (NKJV) raised, that is, after being “buried with Him in baptism.” (Col. 2:12 NKJV) There is no such thing as a scriptural baptism that is not first preceded by faith. Without faith in what God, not man, has said about baptism, and faith in what God has said he will do for us as a result of faithfully obeying him in baptism, without that faith, baptism amounts to nothing. If you do not believe what God said about baptism, speaking through Peter by means of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, why waste your time with it? There is no point.

Quickly, I want to run through three or four other passages found later in the book of Colossians confirming what has been said. In Col. 2:20 we have this, “Therefore, if you died with Christ” (NKJV) why do you subject yourselves to various things—things Paul then lists. How and when do we die with Christ? Paul, the writer of the book of Colossians, says in Rom. 6:3-8 that it was in baptism. Combine that with what Paul says here in Col. 2:20 and in Col. 2:12 and you come to the conclusion, inevitably, that the Colossians were a baptized group of believers. So what, you might say?

Here is the what—what if you did not die with Christ in baptism? Well, if you didn’t, then don’t worry about what Paul has to say (Col. 2:20), for he is talking only to those who have died with Christ. Thus for those who claim to be Christians without baptism, the circumcision performed by Christ, parts of the Bible do not pertain to you, for you never died with Christ. You die with Christ in baptism. You were not baptized.

Another similar passage is Col. 3:1 where the text says, “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above.” (NKJV) Well, if you were never buried with Christ in baptism, you were not raised with him, you have to be buried before you can be raised, thus you need not concern yourself with seeking things above, for this passage relates to only a certain class of people—those who were raised with Christ.

Col. 3:3 is another like passage. It says, “For you died.” (NKJV) This is not for you if you never died with Christ in baptism. “We were buried with Him by baptism into death.” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) I do not know of any passage in the Bible anywhere that teaches one can die to sin or die with Christ other than in baptism.

The last Colossian passage we will look at is Col. 3:9-10, “Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him.” (NKJV) We have already given the passages that show us where the old man with his deeds was put off and the new man put on (read Rom. 6:3-8 again and Col. 2:11-13). But what if you have never put off the old man?

Sometimes people grow upset with the idea that God uses means to accomplish his ends. When a text says God does a thing, they seem to have the idea he must act alone—that he is not allowed to use means to accomplish ends. If we applied that to life as we live it daily, we would readily see how ridiculous that kind of thinking is. Am I not allowed to build a house using hammers, saws, tape measures, squares, and even engage other men to help me do it? God punished Judah, but the reality is he used the Babylonians to do it (read Ezekiel). What does this have to do with our topic?

Just this much—men seem to be determined that God cannot use baptism as a means to an end he has chosen, the end being the salvation of man. He can use other tools if he so desires, but just not this one. Why not this one? Because they see it as being something a man must perform, and salvation is a work of God, not man. Let me ask a question. Who and what cleansed Naaman of leprosy in 2 Kings 5? He was told by Elisha to go dip in the Jordan seven times. Naaman had something to do. When he did it, he was cleansed.

Now let us think about that just a little. Who really cleansed Naaman of leprosy, was it the water, or was it God? Was Naaman saved by works or by faith? Had Naaman never heard of Elisha and had just gone down on his own to the Jordan and dipped in it seven times with no idea of being cleansed but just dipping as in bathing, would the water have cleansed him? We all know the answer. God cleansed him, but on a condition. What was that condition? Faith! “Do you, Naaman, believe me enough (Elisha was speaking to Naaman as God’s spokesperson) to go do this?” No, God did not say this to him but that is what it amounted to.  He was being tested.

As you recall, Naaman refused at first. He wanted God to heal him merely by having Elisha speak the word—let it all depend on God, put no burden on me, seems to have been the thinking. Only when time had elapsed, others spoke to him, reasoning with him, and he humbled himself and gathered enough faith to obey was he cleansed. However, one must always remember it is not the process that saves but God.

God could have cleansed Naaman any way he wanted to or not cleansed him at all. It was God’s call, God’s decision. But once God has made up his mind as to how he wants to go about achieving an end, man has no choice in the matter but either comply or rebel. Naaman had that choice and came close to going back home the way he came—as a leper. His change of heart leading to compliance saved him.

It is no different with baptism. It takes a change of heart to get a man into the baptismal waters. Jesus uses means to cleanse us and puts us to the test. It is not only a test of obedience but also one of faith. The man without faith will never submit to a baptism that is acceptable to God. He may be baptized to please his family, or to join some manmade denomination, or for some other reason, but until he believes the scriptures and what they say about baptism and acts out of faith in those scriptures in obedience, he will never be circumcised with the circumcision of Christ.

Christ ultimately cleanses us regardless of the means he imposes upon us for doing so—faith, repentance, confession, and baptism being the conditions. A man who has complied with those conditions out of faith in the word of God is a man who has experienced the circumcision of Christ. He is a man with a circumcised heart.

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

 

Spiritual Mirages

It is easy to be misled in life. Things appear to be a certain way, but the reality is they are not at all what they seem to be. They are a mirage. Ask any young man or woman or husband or wife who has been deeply in love and then found out to their utter dismay that the love they felt sure was mutual between them and their beloved was all just an illusion. The object of their affections was in reality ready to desert them. The first reaction is one of shock and disbelief. Only later are they able to look back and perhaps pick up on some signs that should have clued them in all along, signs which at the time were hidden from their eyes. Sadly, this sort of thing happens all the time and when one comes to the knowledge of the truth in such matters, it is always painful.

In the realm of religion, just as in the realm of personal relationships, there are mirages. People think they see things that are in reality only illusions. One such example is found in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, God’s prophet, had been prophesying for years to Judah to repent and amend their ways lest God send a foreign force to their country for their destruction and ruin. They never listened and so God did indeed send the Babylonians resulting in death for many and Babylonian captivity for those that were left alive. Only the very poorest of the land were left in Judah to till the land under the leadership of a man appointed by the king of Babylon, Gedaliah.

Due to some outside intrigue by the king of Ammon, men were sent to assassinate Gedaliah which mission they accomplished. This put great fear into the Jews left in the land fearing that the king of Babylon would return and punish them over the affair even though they were not involved in it. The desire was to flee to Egypt for safety. (Read the account in Jer. 40:13-41:18.) Before leaving for Egypt, however, they consulted with the prophet Jeremiah asking him, on their behalf, to seek God’s will in the matter. Having done so and received from God an answer, they were instructed and warned not to go to Egypt.

“Then hear now the word of the LORD, O remnant of Judah! Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘If you wholly set your faces to enter Egypt, and go to dwell there, then it shall be that the sword which you feared shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt; the famine of which you were afraid shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there you shall die. So shall it be with all the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to dwell there. They shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence. And none of them shall remain or escape from the disaster that I will bring upon them.’” (Jer. 42:15-17 NKJV)

The people did not believe Jeremiah, accused him of lying (Jer. 43:2), and left for Egypt dragging Jeremiah along with them. Once there, they continued their idol worship (Jer. 44:8) and continued ignoring Jeremiah’s prophetic warnings (Jer. 43:8-44:14). We now get to the lesson I want to emphasize for this article. The people respond to Jeremiah’s prophecy by saying:

“As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” (Jer. 44:16-18 NKJV)

Here is the spiritual mirage, the illusion, the incomprehension, the self-deception, and herein lies the lesson we all must learn and take to heart. There is a great tendency on man’s part to believe that if he is actively involved in spiritual affairs, sincere in his belief and practice, and if his life as it pertains to this world seems to be going well, that is an indication God is pleased with both him and his religion and that God is blessing him as a result of his spiritual life.

Just because things are going reasonably well for us in our lives does not mean things are well with us spiritually. Just because we have a spiritual life, one we are actively involved in, does not mean it is the right religion or pleasing to God. As far as I am able to tell from reading the New Testament the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were doing just fine as far as the blessings of this world were concerned but they were experiencing their own spiritual mirage as much as those Jews in Jeremiah’s day.

The Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing could not have been more wrong than they were with regard to their concept of cause and effect. While they may have “had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble” the cause was not that they were worshiping “the queen of heaven” to whom they attributed it. They were involved in a spiritual illusion, a spiritual mirage, and one which man is very easily led into even today. We easily deceive ourselves just as was the case in Jeremiah’s time.

The God of heaven is generally patient with man although no man should sin thinking God will give him time to repent. God is under no obligation to give man time to repent from sin. One can readily come up with many examples from the Bible where sinners were struck down immediately upon committing sin.

Nevertheless, it seems most are given time as God “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) One sees this not only in the book of Jeremiah where Jeremiah urged repentance and a turning back to God for years before tragedy finally struck but it is a common Old Testament theme as apostasy was common among God’s people throughout most of Old Testament history and the prophets were continually calling for repentance with God giving time and opportunity.

Romans two, verse four, helps us see God’s patience and longsuffering with sinful man. I quote it here from the New Living Translation. “Don’t you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can’t you see that His kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?” (Rom. 2:4 NLT) The NKJV reads, “Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (NKJV)

The Jews of Jeremiah’s day were attributing God’s goodness and longsuffering, meant for their repentance and salvation, to blessings from the idol they were worshiping—the queen of heaven. While we do not worship idols today, save for a few places in the world, aren’t we in danger of doing something very similar to what the Jews did with whom Jeremiah was dealing? Everything is going well; we see no need to repent thinking our life is pleasing to God and we are being blessed because of our godly life all the while knowing we cannot read specific Bible passages without them condemning us—our life, our faith, our conduct. We like the Jews of old will not listen to God’s specific word. We convince ourselves, in one way or another, that things have changed today and the passage or passages that prick us are no longer relevant to modern-day life and religion.

We feel Christianity has evolved and things that once were true are no longer true or binding on us. God has changed, seems to be the thinking, even though he has specifically said, “I change not.” (Mal. 3:6 KJV) We either do that or we twist passages to make them mean what we wish they said.

The church at Laodicea can serve as an example of how we can delude ourselves and see mirages. They were saying to themselves, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.” (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) However, what does Jesus say about them? He says they do not know that they “are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) His message to them ends up being “be zealous and repent.” (Rev. 3:19 NKJV) Yet, that was the very thing they saw no need of, for they were saying among themselves, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.” (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) They were pleased and satisfied and yet Jesus says their eyes needed to be anointed with eye salve so they could see (Rev. 3:18). They were seeing a mirage.

I am convinced people today are just as easily misled into erroneous thinking about their status with God as they were back in Bible times. A person can look at their life and see all kinds of blessings and think God is being so good to me and therefore he must be pleased with my religious life. That is not necessarily the case at all. One’s financial and social status, one’s blessings in this life, tell us nothing about how God sees us. The beggar in the account of the rich man and Lazarus had no money, no status or standing in this world of men, but went to paradise upon his death.

That kind of reasoning that correlates this world’s blessings with godly approval would lead to the conclusion that Paul was displeasing to God and living an ungodly life for he spoke about what he had experienced when he said, “From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness … .” (2 Cor. 11:24-27 NKJV)

Blessings from God do not necessarily equate with God being pleased with you and the way you are living your life. It is a spiritual mirage to think God is pleased with me because of all I have, all I have done, and accomplished. Jesus himself, while living on earth, had little to nothing of this world’s goods. He once said he had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20).

The same point that is being made about individuals can also be said of religious groups. Do not be misled by size and appearances. If one wants to please the masses, it can be done. There are ways to tear down the old building and build bigger and fill the parking lot up (how this is done is no secret) and then say God blessed you as a religious body. If you have been observant, you know how it is done as well as I do. The question that has to be answered, however, is what brought them in—God or the appeal to the fleshly man? Was it an appeal to faith and duty or an appeal to that which satisfies the natural man?

The conclusion of the matter is this—while all blessings come from God and we should be thankful for every one of them, we ought not to jump to conclusions about why we received them. Many a man blessed abundantly in this life will be found in hell in the next one for the goodness of God in his case did not lead him to repentance while the poor widow (Luke 21) having given up even her two mites along with the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16) will be there in heaven.

It continues to trouble me greatly how people just assume, make assumptions, all of the time in the realm of religion. All seems to be well with them and God, in their mind, just because they feel it is so. Their religion is based on emotion, on feeling, and is purely subjective. It is a matter of how I feel about it (just as in Jeremiah’s day) versus book, chapter, and verse from God’s word. When the choice is between the actual word of God as can be quoted versus their emotions, God’s word will take second place. That is living life based on a spiritual mirage, an illusion that will be shown up for what it is on the last day. Jeremiah spoke the word of God. The Jews should have heard it. They paid the penalty for doing it their way. We will pay the penalty for doing it our way unless our way has the word of God behind it.

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