Paul, Baptism, And The Twelve At Ephesus

A few preliminary comments are in order before entering into the topic of our article.

Many people believe baptism is unrelated to salvation, that it is not necessary to become a Christian, and that one can be saved without it. Often Paul is cited from the passage in 1 Corinthians 1:14–17, where he says he is thankful he baptized none of the Corinthians except Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, and goes on to say, “Christ did not send me to baptize” (v. 17). Christ sent him “to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17, CSB). Many take this to mean Paul did not believe baptism was essential to salvation. We need to look a bit further.

Paul established the church in Corinth in Acts 18 by preaching the gospel there. He was there a year and a half (Acts 18:11). It seems many have overlooked what happened as a result of Paul's preaching in Corinth. The text says, “Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8, CSB). If Paul did not include baptism as a part of the gospel he preached, how did they come to know about it? Why were they baptized if it was not a part of the gospel?

Does it matter that Paul left the actual baptizing to his associates rather than personally doing it himself? Paul does not say, “I am glad none of you were baptized.” He only says his charge was to preach the gospel. His helpers could do the work of baptizing (Silas and Timothy were with Paul in Corinth; Acts 18:5). The validity of one's baptism is not dependent on who does the immersing.

If Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, and there is only one gospel, then Paul preached what Peter preached, and that included baptism. Remember Peter's words when he preached the first gospel sermon ever on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (CSB). If men could only be led to believe what Peter preached that day, what mankind calls Christendom would look vastly different than it does.

All the Corinthians who obeyed the gospel were baptized. In writing to them later, Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13, CSB). Note that he says “all.” The Holy Spirit, preaching through inspired men, Paul being one of them, taught baptism and led men to it. That baptism was into the body of Christ, into salvation, into His church. Paul tells us where baptism puts us: “For those of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ” (Gal. 3:27, CSB). Salvation is found in Christ, not outside Him. Baptism puts one into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27).

I have said these things by way of introduction to the topic of this article, the events surrounding the twelve disciples Paul found in Ephesus. These events transpired quite a while after Paul left Corinth, for Paul did some extensive traveling after Corinth (see Acts 18:18–23). On those travels, he did stop briefly in Ephesus after leaving Corinth (Acts 18:19–21), but was not there long before moving on. The events with the twelve at Ephesus happened at a later date, on a return to Ephesus, at which time he was there for three years (Acts 20:31).

Between Paul's first brief stop in Ephesus and his return, Apollos had been there and taught, knowing only John's baptism. The events surrounding the twelve Paul found there seem to have happened upon his arrival at the beginning of the three years he spent there.

The question that arises concerning these twelve men, whom the Bible calls “disciples,” is why they were baptized again—a second time. It might be well to discuss the meaning of the word disciple. Most of the time, when one reads the word disciple in the New Testament, it refers to one who is a Christian. Certainly, a Christian is a disciple, a disciple of Christ, but the words Christian and disciple are not synonyms. The word disciple means “a learner”; it is a person who follows the teaching of another, an adherent of another. One could be a disciple of the Pharisees, of John the Baptist, of Christ, etc.

When Paul arrived in Ephesus in Acts 19, the text says he found some disciples. It is implied, correctly and with little doubt, that they were disciples of Christ. However, one can only be a disciple as far as the knowledge of his subject will allow him to be. You can only follow, as a disciple, to the limits of your understanding. The twelve men at Ephesus, obviously, had heard enough about Christ to want to follow Him, but they had not yet heard of baptism into Christ (Matt. 28:19). They were followers of Christ as far as their knowledge would take them. That does not mean they were Christians—not yet. If they were already Christians, why was Paul bothering them?

The next thing that needs consideration is what Paul meant when he asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Paul clearly meant the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit that gifted the recipient with miraculous abilities. There is a listing of these abilities, or gifts, found in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11. We know he was asking about that measure of the Holy Spirit because there was no reason to ask a Christian, whom he assumed they were, if they had received the normal measure of the Holy Spirit, for that is granted to all Christians.

This promise to the Christian of the Holy Spirit is first made in Acts 2:38, but we read of it elsewhere as well: “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (CSB). “In Him you also—when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you also believed—were sealed in Him with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13, CSB). “Don't you yourselves know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God lives in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16, CSB). Other passages proving the point could be listed.

So we know that Paul wanted to know if these Christians, as he supposed they were, had received the miraculous gift of the Spirit. When they replied that they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, he knew something was seriously wrong. How can one be baptized into Christ, thus made a Christian, and not even hear of the Holy Spirit? The baptism Jesus proclaimed that puts one into the body of Christ (Gal. 3:27), the baptism of the Great Commission, is “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19, CSB). The word “in” in this passage should be “into”; see the side-margin note in the NAS 1963 Bible. The Greek word "eis" used here means into, signaling a change of relationship. If these men had been baptized correctly, they would certainly have heard of the Holy Spirit. In addition, they would have heard of the promised Holy Spirit given to all who are baptized into Christ.

This brings up a serious question: What must one know to be baptized correctly? That is an issue that has been debated through the years. Must one know it is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that it puts one into Christ's church (1 Cor. 12:13—the body being the church; Eph. 1:22–23), or is it sufficient to know only that God commands it and therefore it ought to be done, while being ignorant of its ramifications? One must know what he or she is doing when baptized to be baptized correctly, but to say how much one must know, I would not want to say. I have strong ideas about it, but I reserve them. I could be wrong in my thinking. However, I am informed enough from this account of the twelve in Acts 19 to know that correct understanding matters.

The twelve were originally baptized to obey God, so they thought. That was certainly a good motive, yet it proved insufficient at that time. Many today, without doubt, are baptized for the wrong reasons, and thus we can reasonably be assured their baptisms are ineffective. If I am baptized solely to become a member of a denominational church—a church that did not even exist in New Testament times—that is not the baptism Jesus authorized.

If one says, “My denomination is the New Testament church one reads about in the Bible,” then the next question is, “Why is that church not named in the New Testament?” If your church is called the XYZ Church (denomination), I do not read about a church named XYZ Church in the Bible, so baptism into it is not the same as baptism into Christ's church. But I drift from the main subject of this article, back to it.

Why was the baptism of these men into John's baptism not acceptable? Chronology seems to be the answer. John's baptism was valid for a time, but that time was prior to Jesus' death on the cross. The cross made all the difference in the world—not just regarding baptism, but in everything. Everything changed at the cross. Jesus' shed blood changed the world mankind lives in.

These twelve men had been baptized with John's baptism after Jesus' death on the cross. When Jesus died on the cross, mankind passed into the Christian Age. John the Baptist lived, taught, and made disciples in the Mosaic Age. The baptism he performed was of and from God.

“(And when all the people, including the tax collectors, heard this, they acknowledged God's way of righteousness, because they had been baptized with John's baptism. But since the Pharisees and experts in the law had not been baptized by him, they rejected the plan of God for themselves.)” (Luke 7:29–30, CSB)

But it was God's eternal plan to move on into the age of Christ, the Christian Age.

The twelve at Ephesus were not baptized by John the Baptist. Had they been baptized by John, there would have been no need of another baptism. No one baptized with John's baptism before the cross ever needed to be baptized again, for John's baptism was of God and was for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4), and once one's sins are forgiven, they are forgiven.

But John died before Christ died on the cross. It was a relatively short period between John's death and Christ's death, but during that time people were still living under the Law of Moses, and John's baptism—the one he taught—was still being preached, taught, and practiced by his disciples and remained valid. It is most likely, although not certain, that the twelve had been baptized by Apollos, who was in Ephesus before Paul. It is said of Apollos that he was “an eloquent man who was competent in the use of the Scriptures … instructed in the way of the Lord … teaching accurately … although he knew only John's baptism” (Acts 18:24–25, CSB).

To summarize and clarify, John's baptism, the baptism he taught, was valid only up until the time Jesus died on the cross. Anyone baptized with John's baptism at a later date needed to be baptized into Christ.

We now arrive at the Twelve's rebaptism, if one wants to call it that. It is clear that Paul is not satisfied with their first baptism. What is often overlooked, however, is why Paul seems to be demanding that they be baptized anew. The denominational world is overflowing with people who believe and teach that salvation is unrelated to baptism, teaching salvation by faith alone, and saying baptism is not necessary. If it is not necessary, why is Paul bothering these twelve men with it?

A second point, often overlooked, is that Paul ties belief in Jesus to baptism.

“Paul said, ‘John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus.’ When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:4–5, CSB).

When one believes in Jesus, what follows? Baptism. When you come to believe in Jesus, what do you do? You are baptized. Why do you do it? Because the One you believe—Jesus—taught it (John 3:3–5; Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16). You cannot believe in Jesus and at the same time doubt what He taught.

A very similar thing is recorded earlier under Philip's preaching in Samaria in Acts 8. “Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them” (Acts 8:5, CSB). “When they believed Philip … both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12, CSB). That is what happens when the true gospel is preached.

When the twelve were baptized correctly under Paul's teaching, the Bible says Paul laid his hands on the men, and the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began to speak in tongues. This confirms what was said earlier: when Paul inquired of them about receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2), he was asking about the miraculous measure of it.

Do you believe in Jesus? If so, you know the next step. If these twelve men needed to be baptized, so does every disciple. That is the Great Commission: baptize the disciples (Matt. 28:19). God is no respecter of persons. Those who believe Jesus, believe what He said and taught, and are baptized. No exceptions.

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

Jewish and Catholic Tradition

What is the role of tradition in religion? Is it positive or negative? In Jesus’ day, I think we have to say it was negative. I remind the reader that while Jesus, a Jew, walked the earth, he was living under the Law of Moses. Christianity, the religion he brought to the world, only began after his resurrection. In fact, without the resurrection there could be no Christianity. “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile.” (1 Cor. 15:17 NKJV)

Jesus had to deal with tradition while living under the Law of Moses with the Jewish leaders of the land. He and his disciples were constantly harassed by those who felt he and his followers were breaking the law of God. Those accusations were based on what – scripture or tradition? Obviously, on Jewish tradition, but one has to remember the Jewish authorities believed their tradition had God as its source, just as do the Catholics of our day.

Let us hear Jesus on the topic: “Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'honor your father and your mother'; and, 'he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” (Mat 15:1-6 NKJV, see also Mark 7:1-13)

The Pharisees were always watching Jesus for any transgression of their traditions, traditions which to them were equivalent in authority to the writings of Moses and the prophets. There would be no healing on the Sabbath, no plucking of grain to satisfy hunger on the Sabbath. The law of man-made tradition was made in their eyes into the law of God, and they would hear of nothing else. Scripture alone was not enough. It had to be interpreted by those in positions of power within the religious community which resulted in additions, subtractions, and perversions. Do you see any parallels in this to Roman Catholicism? You should.

So that is where we were with tradition in the days when Jesus walked the earth. Jewish tradition continued to evolve with time. Judaism today is a religion far distant from the Law of Moses.

The apostle Paul spoke of tradition in some of his writings. In Gal. 1:14, he talks of his time before his conversion to Christianity when he was “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” (NKJV) This would have been during the time when he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen to death, “And when the blood of your martyr

Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.” (Act 22:20 NKJV) This is where a blind zeal for religious tradition can lead a man.

Paul further says, “Many of the saints I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.” (Acts 26:10 NKJV) This, of course, was before his conversion to Christianity, but while he was enslaved to religious tradition.

After Paul’s conversion, in later life, he warned against tradition, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” (Col 2:8 ESV) So, we have been warned.  

But did not Paul speak positively about traditions? He did so in 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15, and 2 Thess. 3:6. To the Corinthians, he said he praised them that they kept “the traditions as I delivered them to you.” (NKJV) To the Thessalonians, he said, “Hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15 NKJV)

What are we to make of these statements? Just this, if Paul delivered the traditions to them, to the Corinthians, then that is what we would call teaching or doctrine as he spoke by the Holy Spirit being an inspired apostle. What else would you call it? A number of versions do not even use the word traditions here. The King James Version uses the word “ordinances,” the New Living Translation uses the word “teachings” as does the Good News Bible, while the LITV (the Literal Translation) uses the word “doctrines.” It was not tradition in the sense in which men use the word today, but rather Christian doctrine that Paul delivered to them.

The same thing can be said for the 2 Thess. 2:15 passage where the NIV uses the word “teachings,” the NLT “the teaching,” the Good News Bible “truths,” YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) “deliverances.” The same can be said regarding the 2 Thess. 3:6 passage in that the same Greek word is used in all three passages, the word for traditions being in Greek the word “paradosis.” So the point to be made is that what Paul was speaking of was not traditions in the sense in which we normally use that word, but was speaking of his own spirit-inspired teachings he had delivered to those to whom he spoke or was writing to.

The apostle Peter also spoke of tradition. He speaks of ‘aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers” (1 Peter 1:18 NKJV) as he spoke to the Jews of the

Dispersion. One can surely see Peter was not speaking positively of the tradition they had accepted.

One can ask the question, one ought to, why should we blindly accept religious tradition -- why? Is it because it cannot be wrong? Why can’t it be wrong? If it could be wrong in the first century it can also be wrong in the twenty-first century.

Catholic Tradition

We turn now to tradition in Roman Catholicism.  The reader likely already knows that with Catholics tradition is on par with scripture in terms of having authority over one’s spiritual life. Traditional Catholicism has rejected the Bible alone as being a sufficient guide to eternal life. Furthermore, they have historically rejected the idea that a person unaided by the church can understand the Bible on their own. The church will tell you what it means. You can have a Ph.D. in biblical languages, you can be brilliant intellectually, but unaided by the church, you are helpless in discerning the true meaning of scripture. If you want to know what scripture means, you must listen to the church. They will tell you.  What is a correct interpretation of a passage? Whatever the church tells you.

You cannot combat tradition in Catholicism. Why not? Because the church has declared itself infallible in its teachings and people blindly accept that. It is an easy way out of being personally responsible. The Catholic Church has made itself untouchable. You can no more combat it than you could Judaism in the first century. Masses of people died in Judaism despite Christianity, and masses will die in Catholicism despite Christianity.

Eve did not get a pass from God for being deceived, nor did the man of God, who, after prophesying against Jeroboam’s altar in 1 Kings 13, was then deceived by an old prophet and paid for it with his life. Should we hope for a pass if we allow ourselves to be deceived by man’s tradition, whether in Judaism or Catholicism?

There is an aspect of Catholic tradition that most people who are not Catholic are unaware of. In Catholicism, tradition does not mean what you naturally think it means.

With most of us, tradition refers to what has gone on in the past and then been handed down. We assume then that in religion it would be what has been handed down through the ages from the first century. That would not be necessarily so; it seems to depend.

Get on the internet and search for a timeline on Catholic dogmas. When you do so you will find lists giving the dates of when this and that dogma became official. There will be many of them crossing the span of the past two thousand years. If these various dogmas came from scripture or the first century, they would have been incorporated from the beginning of Christianity. They came from tradition, Catholic tradition. I bring this to your attention to make the point that Catholic tradition does not go back all the way to the beginning of Christianity. It jumps in wherever the powers that be want it.

Catholics disagree among themselves on the meaning of tradition. The traditional view separates tradition from scripture.  In Catholicism, only by combining the two can you have the sacred deposit of faith, as some call it, or put another way, “the word of God.” Scripture by itself is only partial, only part of the word of God. The word of God in Catholicism requires both scripture and tradition for completion.

A second school of thought in Catholicism sees tradition as being whatever the church says it is. I know, I know, no Catholic would agree with this statement, but hear me out. With this second school of thought in Catholicism, all of Catholic tradition is already found in written scripture, but the church has to bring it out (by its interpretation). Thus, they can find in scripture things the average reader cannot even imagine – transubstantiation, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, purgatory, etc., things you need the church to help you find. Some describe Catholic tradition as being “living.” I would certainly agree with that, living and growing, and that is just the problem with it. Any doctrine in Catholicism has to be either from scripture or tradition, so pick your doctrine and tell us where its origin was.

Roman Catholicism is a religion separate unto itself. It is not Christianity. I have no problem saying it evolved out of Christianity, but it long ago ceased to be Christian. So, why are we surprised? Did not the same evolution from truth into error occur in Judaism? Even the New Testament teaches there will be and must be a falling away before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:3). The scripture teaches there will be a falling away, so let us not talk and act like it cannot happen.

Let me play the role of a Catholic for a moment. As a Catholic, I declare the Catholic Church to be the one and only church of the New Testament. I claim to believe scripture, so what do I do with 2 Thess. 2:3, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day (the last day – DS) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”? (NKJV) It says my church will fall away, for after all, my church is the only true church, according to Catholicism.

I cannot say this passage refers to the Reformation. Why not? There is no one in Protestantism sitting “as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” (2 Thess. 2:4). In fact, since Protestantism is so diverse and divided, it is hard to see how that could ever be. And, yet, believing what I do, remember I am putting myself in the shoes of a devout Catholic, how can there ever be a falling away in my church since the church is said to be infallible, full of the spirit of God? I cannot solve this dilemma for the Catholics. I am sure the Catholics will have an answer if pressed, and when they do, it will be said to be infallible, for you see that is the way it is in Catholicism.

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

Living With One's Conscience

A good conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Without it, there is no peace -- only anxiety, turmoil, and restlessness. Anyone who has ever violated their conscience knows the truthfulness of this statement.

A bad conscience pricks us continually without let-up. It is the perfect tormentor. Day and night, we suffer from its attacks. Wherever we go, it travels with us. We cannot lose it. It is determined to give us no rest or relief.

Rest can only be had at what is generally felt to be a hard price to pay. That price is the shame and humiliation of admitting (confessing) our sin and making whatever restitution, if any, that can be made for it. It is awfully hard to put oneself through that, but that is exactly the price the conscience requires of us before it will let us go free.

I know of a man who went before the church confessing his unfaithfulness. Afterwards, he spoke of what a burden was lifted from his shoulders. The conscience was now clear, and life could move forward with the inner turmoil now gone and peace restored. That is a common reaction from those who finally decide to quit fighting the conscience they have violated and pay the price conscience demands.

The apostle Paul said, "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day." (Acts 23:1 NAS) He made this statement the day after his arrest in Jerusalem. How many of us can say what Paul said? Can you? Can I? My guess is that very few can.

Peter, who denied Christ, could not say it. David, who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, could not say it. Aaron, in making the golden calf, could not say it.

Paul's statement that he had lived in all good conscience before God simply meant that he had never knowingly done anything that, at the time he was doing it, he knew to be in violation of God's law, knew it to be sin while he was doing it. To live then in good conscience before God is to live in such a way as not to knowingly do anything that is in violation of God's will.

There is certainly such a thing as sinning without violating one's conscience, a thing we have to be aware of. Paul is the perfect example. He said, in Acts 22:4, "I persecuted this Way to the death" (NAS), the way being Christianity. Then he says in Acts 26:10, "not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons, having received authority from the chief priests, but also when they were being put to death I cast my vote against them." (NAS) This was great sin, absolutely, but it was not a violation of his conscience, for at that time he believed with all his heart it was the right thing to do according to his religion, a Jew of the Pharisee sect. (Acts 26:5)

There is probably nothing in a person's life harder to change than their religion, a thing Paul ended up doing. There is so much emotion involved in it, often much family history, friendships, and so on, so that it is very hard to be fair, that is, objective, with the scriptures, so we end up reading them the way we desire them to read versus what they actually say. We need to study the scriptures objectively, but our human emotions will not allow it. Our faith is the correct one just because it has to be that way; there are no other possibilities, at least none we are willing to consider.

Another factor that makes it very difficult for a person to change their religion is that of human pride. How hard it is for any of us to be man enough, as they say, to say we are wrong? We will not even allow the thought. As soon as even a tiny doubt enters our mind, we cast it out as far from us as possible. The degree of humility that is required to admit one has been wrong is very great. It is too much for many to even entertain the thought. The stakes are too high, or so it seems.

But I am drifting away from the subject at hand, so back to it—the conscience. Paul was not the only man in the Bible whose good conscience did not keep him from serious sin. One of the most tragic cases in the Bible was that of the prophet described as "a man of God" (1 Kings 13:1) who was sent by God to Jeroboam to prophecy against the altar on which Jeroboam was planning to make sacrifices to the two golden calves he had made. On his return trip back home, the prophet was met by "an old prophet" whom the Bible says "lied to him" (I Kings 13:18), claiming an angel had spoken to him, countermanding God's original command.

That original command to the younger (we assume) prophet had been, "'You shall eat no bread, nor drink water there; do not return by going the way which you came.'" (1 Kings 13:17 NAS) When the younger prophet, again we assume he was younger, believed what the old prophet told him about an angel countermanding the original command, the assumption being that God himself had sent the angel, he went back with the old prophet and did the very things God had told him not to do. As a result, he was met by a lion on the way back home and lost his life. He disobeyed God's command in all good conscience, believing he was doing God's will.

There are a couple of lessons we ought to learn from this account. First, as it relates to the conscience, this younger (?) prophet sinned in all good conscience. The conscience cannot be our guide. We must strive to have a good conscience for "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23 NKJV), but a good conscience proves nothing about the righteousness of the beliefs one holds to. The Islamic terrorists of our own day have a good conscience. Having a good conscience is no guarantee that you are right in either your thinking or your actions.

Secondly, I believe the young (?) prophet wanted to do what was right and thought he was. His conscience was clean in returning with the old prophet. He wasn't expecting to be lied to by a man of God, by a genuine prophet. One's good conscience and doing what one believes to be right is no guarantee of God's approval. God is a God of truth. He is not a God of lies or of falsehood, no matter who the speaker is (not all who teach error are deliberate liars). This prophet, who sinned and met his death, believed a religious man's lie.

We now live in a time when we are not dependent on what religious men teach us for the simple reason that just about everyone, at least in America, has ready access to God's word, where God speaks directly to us on the printed page. There is no reason we should be led astray by "religious men."

It is obvious, to those who think about it, that few preachers teach the whole truth. Yes, they may teach some truth, most of them probably do, but also sadly, error as well. How many different denominations are there in the world today, all teaching (preaching) something different? I recently heard there are 45,000 denominations, but I have no way of confirming that number. The world is full of these "old prophets," so to speak, who lead people astray.

I do not say they are liars, like the old prophet, but a mistaken preacher can kill you just as quickly as an old prophet if you allow it. Would you not agree also that most teachers of error have a clear conscience, not realizing their error? I will grant them that much sincerity.

We ought to demand of preachers more and more book, chapter, and verse preaching. Just tell us, preferably, far preferably, even to the extent of quoting directly, what the Bible says. Many preachers seem to assume we want to hear what they have to say. Why would we? Why, when we go to services to worship and to hear what God has to say, would we want to hear a man just giving his ideas and opinions?

We must have a clear conscience toward God, but that conscience must be educated in truth, as we have already shown. John says, "Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God." (1 John 3:21 NAS) That then is our goal, a conscience properly trained, with accurate knowledge, clear of conscience wrongdoing. When we have that, we have inner peace.

However, as was first pointed out in this piece, most of us are not in Paul's camp. We cannot say we have never violated our conscience; quite the contrary. In fact, the very nature of temptation and sin leads men into the violation of their conscience and into sin. James says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." (James 1:14-15 NAS)

We generally know when we are sinning. We know when we have been tempted. We know when we are giving in to it. We know that while we are doing it, it is wrong. Can a conscience violated, which is another way of saying a heart that has become impure, be restored to cleanliness again? If not, why did Jesus die? Did he die just for those sinners who were like Paul, or did he die for sinners of every stripe?

When David had sinned with Bathsheba and had her husband killed, the prophet Nathan came to him and confronted him. David knew his sin (2 Sam. 12), so it took but little to convince him of his evil. Psalm 51 is a record of David's reaction when confronted by his sin. Could he ever be restored? Could his conscience ever be made clean again?

Let us listen to a little of what he had to say in prayer to God. "Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; According to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me." (Psalms 51:1-3 NAS) Then verse 7, "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (NAS) And, finally, verse 10, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." (Psalms 51:10 NAS)

Do you think God did that? Ask yourself why God wanted this passage recorded in holy writ? Why did he want it worded the way it was? For whose benefit was it written?

I think Paul answered that question in Rom. 15:4, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." (NAS) Do you not believe along with me that Psalms 51 and the things written therein were for you and me? Do the things written there not give us encouragement?

Can you be forgiven and once again live with a clear conscience? What do you believe the Bible teaches? What do you believe God did with David? Did he forgive him and restore within him a clean heart as David had asked? Do you think David will be in heaven?

What does God require of us when we have violated our conscience and sinned as did David? David says, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." (Psalms 51:17 NAS)

The teaching of the Bible is not that we can totally forget the past. Paul always remembered what he had done in persecuting the saints unto the death, but he also said unto us, "one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 3:13b-14 NAS)

Memory will not be erased, but we can put the past behind us and move ahead with confidence that God will forgive us. We can once again walk with a good conscience.

For one like Saul, who became Paul the apostle, one who was not a Christian, we can do as he did. He came to faith in Christ, repented of his sins, and was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38) His conscience was now trained correctly, and he could henceforth walk by faith rather than by the traditions of the Pharisees. Had he not obeyed the gospel, he would have violated his conscience, for he now knew the truth.

I am convinced thousands and thousands are walking around even today who know they ought to obey the gospel, for their conscience tells them so. Their conscience is not clear. They are paying a price even now for their disobedience, for the conscience will not be quiet. They are not like Paul, but they could be. It is only a matter of the will, so simple but so hard for so many.

But there are others, Christians already, who have violated their conscience. Like David, who was once a faithful child of God under the Law of Moses, they have violated their conscience by sin. God will have them back and restore to them a clean heart and a clear conscience as they walk on down the road of life, but first, they must make the same decision David made. David wanted to come back. He repented. He prayed to God. He ceased to sin and walked in righteousness. That is what it will take.

A good, clean, clear conscience is a wonderful thing to have. Inner peace is better than inner war. God has left us the choice as to which we have. We get to decide. We can have whichever we prefer. It is our choice.  

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

Religious Titles Forbidden 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 these titles. 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 this, 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 9 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 condemned 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 is 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, "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 all know 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 by trying to make his language out to be figurative. The context will not allow it.

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 have a Ph.D. I can preach perfectly well without being called Dr. Smith. I do not need the title, and if my pride demands it and I want the attention, then I have a problem, don't I? If I want to be called Pastor or Reverend, I have a problem, don't I? To ask is to answer.

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.]

Whatcha Gonna Do When They Come For You

The title here is taken from part of the lyrics of a popular song years ago. It was a catchy tune, but it raises a question we all have to deal with, like it or not, and most of us don't like it. The undertaker and his helpers are coming for us, no doubt about it, one of these days. What are we gonna do?

In life, we confront things that are coming for us. We see them coming, and we do not like it, but being rational people, we do what we can to prepare for the arrival of that which we expect. It could be anything from a job loss we anticipate to a relationship going sour to a child heading for trouble, or whatever, but we see it coming. Whatcha gonna do? We are confronted with reality.

Often, we say why? Why me? Why this? Why now? And, often, there are no answers to be had. It is just that things come into our lives that we have to confront. Whatcha gonna do?

I am pretty certain of this: even though you may feel helpless, you will not just sit and mope; you will try to do something to alleviate the situation and make things more tolerable and less disastrous. You will give it your best shot, and that is what you ought to do.

For most people, the most fearful thing that is seen coming is death, and yet we often fail to make preparations to meet it. I overheard an older couple sometime back conversing with an older gentleman, and in mentioning the topic of death, first one then another said they just did not think about it. I doubt the total truthfulness of those statements for how does one just completely erase the thought from the mind? Nevertheless, trying to not think about it is a way many have of coping with that which is inevitable.

The Bible teaches clearly that one needs to make preparation for death. The Hebrew writer says, "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." (Heb. 9:27 NKJV) A few verses later in chapter 10, verses 30 and 31, we read, "And again, 'The LORD will judge His people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:30-31 NKJV)

Paul says it this way in 2 Cor. 5:10-11 (NKJV), "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." Death is coming, and we must either go prepared for it or unprepared. Put another way, we must prepare to meet God in judgment. Whatcha gonna do?

Daniel Webster, the great statesman, said, or so it has been attributed to him, "One may live as a conqueror, a king, or a magistrate; but he must die a man. The bed of death brings every human being to his pure individuality, to the intense contemplation of that deepest and most solemn of all relations - the relations between the creature and his Creator."

We came into this world alone, and we will go out of it alone. There were people there when we were born, and there may well be people there when we die, but we go alone, even if a thousand others were to die with us in our presence. I think this is one of the things that makes it frightening for us. There is no one to go with us, no one who can help us; we must do it alone. When the day comes, it will just be the individual and God. It will not be my family and me, but me alone with God. The same will be true with you.

If this is all very depressing with you, it is the same for all of us. No one likes to contemplate that which is inevitable for us all. Life, life, life, that is the thing we want and desire, that is the good thing, not death.

The burden of this article is to declare preparation for life eternal and not dwell on death; however, without facing up to facts, we will never prepare for that which we must prepare if we are to have it – a life in heaven. In the book of Matthew, chapter 25, verses one through thirteen, we have an account of ten virgins who went out to meet the bridegroom after the manner of the custom of those days when Jesus lived. None knew exactly when the bridegroom would arrive, but some made adequate preparation for a long wait, while the others did not.

When the time came at midnight, when the bridegroom arrived, the five foolish virgins found they were unprepared, and their lamps were going out, for they had not taken sufficient oil. The other five virgins who had prepared adequately for a long wait had sufficient oil but none to spare. The Bible says, "those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut." (Matt. 25:10 NKJV)

This parable is all about being prepared versus not being prepared. There are consequences to those who do not prepare. The Bible says, "the door was shut" with direct reference to those who had not prepared.

Why would we be surprised if we were to find, as we do, that we must prepare if we want to go to heaven? Do we not prepare for everything in this life if we want it? What is going to college all about? What is physical exercise all about? What is work all about? Each is preparation for that which we want or need, whether it be a good job, fitness and health, or money to live on. We prepare for nearly everything we do in life. If we don't prepare, we suffer the consequences.

But please note in the parable of the virgins that the Bible says, "those who were ready went in." If we are shut out of heaven, it will be our own fault. No, we cannot save ourselves by ourselves, but there are things we must do if we want to go to heaven. The idea that there is nothing we can do is not taught in the Bible.

I am reminded of the Philippian jailer who fell down trembling before Paul and Silas and asked them, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30 NKJV) In Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost when the first gospel sermon ever to be preached was preached by Peter many who heard were "cut to the heart" (convicted of the truth and of their sin) and the Bible says they said to Peter and the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV)

What shall we do about what? The answer is, obviously, what do we do about our sin, about forgiveness, about salvation. Peter did not tell them there is nothing you can do. He did not say there is no preparation a man can make to meet God in judgment. We know he did not tell them that; he gave them an answer. The sermon had already made believers out of them, so he says nothing about faith but says, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

In further proof of this point that man can do something for himself to be saved, can make preparation that makes a difference in his salvation, I quote here Acts 2:40, "And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, 'Save yourselves from this crooked generation.' " (ESV) Some versions say "be saved" rather than "save yourselves" but it is all one and the same.

There is something you can do is Peter's message. You can be saved, you can save yourselves. Well, how? By doing just what I (Peter) have told you--repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins.

So a man can prepare to meet God in death by hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel, which includes not only faith but also repentance, confession, and baptism for the remission of sins. Many have not done this and thus wait unprepared for the bridegroom.

In Matt. 24:35-44 Jesus is speaking to his disciples and says:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (NKJV)

The Bible says that when Noah and his family entered the ark, God shut him (them) in (Gen. 7:16 NKJV). Do you think there might have been any knocking on the door after it became obvious to all that they were in the midst of a disaster? Had those door knockers prepared? It was too late. There always comes a time when it is too late, when the door is shut for good.

Peter called Noah a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5).  Based on Genesis 6:3, some think Noah preached to the people of his day for 120 years. It is certain Noah did preach, else Peter did not tell the truth. This preaching, if heeded, would have spared those who believed and obeyed it, but they faced the day of the flood unprepared for what they heard had no effect upon them. Man prepares to face God first by hearing his word but then by believing it and acting upon it, obeying it.

But Jesus says when he comes again, it will be the same as in the days of Noah (Matt. 24:37). That coming day will arrive suddenly and unexpectedly. When he tells us to watch for that day (Matt. 24:42), what does he mean? When he says if the master of the house had known what time the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into (Matt. 24:43), what is he telling us? Is he not saying prepare, be prepared? He most certainly is. "Therefore you also be ready," he says. (Matt. 24:44 NKJV)

That was the problem with five of the ten virgins when the bridegroom came, they were not prepared. But I want you to note one other thing here. In Matthew 24, who is Jesus addressing? It is his disciples. Being prepared to meet God is not just a matter of preparation on the part of those who have never obeyed the gospel, but also upon those who are already his disciples. It is not once saved always saved as some teach. One must live a faithful, obedient life if one is to be prepared to meet God.

Do not be deceived. Even if the Lord were not to return for another thousand years, you will meet him much sooner; you will not have to wait long. How can I say that? For all practical purposes, the day of death is the day you meet God. Even for the youngest among us, that is just a very few decades off at the most, and for the rest of us, it is a lot closer than that.

I know the young generally think they have a lot of years of life left. That is the way we think when we are young and healthy. How mistaken many of them I have known have been in that matter. I have been around the public schools for many years. How many students have there been over the years who, if they gave it any thought at all, thought they would easily far outlive me as I was the teacher and they were the students. Some have been dead for many years now already. Just about every year, there are two or three who generally very suddenly and without warning are gone, often the result of car accidents, but sometimes other things as well.

Jeremiah, in another context, writes, "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved!" (Jeremiah 8:20 NKJV) As I said, I am taking that verse out of context, but what a sad day if that was said of us on the day we depart this earth.

Perhaps as scary a passage as one can find in the Bible is 1 Thess. 1:7-10, "And to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be admired among all those who believe." (NKJV)

In conclusion, there is a great force coming our way which we cannot avoid--death and judgment. We cannot avoid it, but the Bible teaches we can prepare for it. It teaches that if we will, we can be saved and have life eternal in a place far better than this, where there will never again be death, sorrow, crying, or pain. What a wonderful place heaven must be with those things being true. Why not make preparation? The question for us all is "whatcha gonna do when death comes for you?" I hope you will be prepared. Will you hear and heed God's word?

"Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." (2 Cor. 6:2 NKJV)

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

Born Of Water And The Spirit -- The New Birth

Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (NASU) and then a couple of verses later clarifies his statement when he says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NASU)

This passage has troubled people over the years.  What does it mean to be born of water and the Spirit?  The real problem lies not in the difficulty of the passage but rather with theologians, scholars, commentators, and religious leaders (preachers included) who are unwilling to accept the obvious import of the passage.

People often fail to understand Bible passages not because of their difficulty but rather due to prejudice--closed minds. Why was Jesus never accepted by the majority of the Jewish leaders of his time? Why was Jesus crucified? Was it not prejudice; was it not for the mindset that said it is impossible to interpret the scriptures in a way that makes this man the Messiah?

While I want to discuss the entire phrase "born of water and the Spirit," I first want to give you an example of what I am talking about as it relates to the passage we will be discussing. One very well-known Bible scholar who is also an author, and one I might add who has profited me in some of the things he has written, said of this passage that water here could not mean water.

In his mind, this was such a settled fact that there was no reason to even think about giving a reason for making such a statement, and he did not give one. The idea that the scriptures supported Jesus as the Messiah likewise was not worthy of consideration by the Jewish leaders of his day. So it is with this well-known scholar on the subject of water in John 3:5. The mind is closed to the thought. It is not worthy of consideration, for it is simply not possible for water to mean water in this passage. It has to mean something else.

Let us now deal with the passage and make it as simple as it really is. I begin by saying that it is essential to come to a correct understanding, as our eternal lives depend on it. Jesus says if we are not "born of water and the Spirit," we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I need not tell you that salvation is in God's kingdom, not outside it. It is essential to get into the kingdom of God if we hope to be saved. We are either in the domain of darkness or in the kingdom of God. There is no middle ground; it is an either-or proposition; we are either in it or we are not.

Paul speaking to Christians says, "For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:13 NASU) Whether we are in the domain of darkness or in Christ's kingdom depends on whether or not we have met his qualifications for being in his kingdom.

I know this is hard for us to sometimes accept, for we know people we would consider good people who are not Christians. They are moral people; they are honest; they work hard; they treat us well, and it is hard to see how God could reject them. It is hard for us to accept that they are in the domain of darkness.

They are like Cornelius in Acts 10, a man of whom nothing but good was spoken of. The scriptures say of him that he was "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually." (Acts 10:2 NASU) But I remind the reader that Cornelius, to be saved, had to hear, believe, and obey the gospel for salvation.

If he was already saved, in the state he was in, why bother Peter? Why does Peter need to travel to Caesarea, in view of the fact that it is a waste of his time to preach to Cornelius if Cornelius, a good man, is already saved? He was not saved. Peter later reported to the brethren back in Jerusalem about this matter saying, "He (Cornelius—DS) reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; and he will speak words (the gospel--DS) to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' " (Acts 11:13-14 NASU)

When a man obeys the gospel, it is an act of submission to God's will. We will either submit to his will or our own. When we refuse to submit to his will, no matter how good in other areas of life we are, how can it be truly said that we are godly? By our refusal to obey the gospel, we are saying we do not need God, Jesus did not need to die for me (his death was a waste, I did not need it), and I am not a sinner. The very fact that we refuse to obey the gospel, a command of God, proves in itself that we are in rebellion, in sin.

This being the case, how is one born of water and the Spirit, which is the equivalent of hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel? I say first of all that this is a single birth rather than two separate ones. How do I know? Because Jesus tells us so, just two verses before this verse, for he says in John 3:3, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (NASU) How many times does Jesus say a man is born again? Once! If we make these two births, one of water and the other of the Spirit, then we have one more birth than Jesus requires. One is born again, not twice, but once.

What is the role of the Spirit? Jesus says in John 6:44-45, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." (NASU)

How is one taught of God? The answer is through the teachings of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, found in our day in the pages of the New Testament. Hear Jesus, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63 NASU) So it is clearly seen that words do make a difference in bringing about spiritual life; the words of the Spirit bring life.

Peter says we have "been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." (1 Peter 1:23 NASU) God's word is living. James says, "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth." (James 1:18 NASU) God's word produces life in those who believe and accept it. James, "brought us forth" in this passage, is a reference to how the process of being born again comes about, by the "word of truth."

The spirit works in bringing about the new birth in a man or woman by means of the word of God in the pages of the New Testament. In the parable of the sower (or soils if you prefer), as found in Luke 8, Jesus said "the seed is the word of God." (Luke 8:11) As it is sown in the hearts of people, it bears fruit, not in all but in those willing to hear and accept it. Four types of soil are mentioned in the parable, but only one type brought forth fruit. Jesus, in speaking of that soil, says "the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:15 NASU)

When one accepts the word of God and allows it to work in his life, having an honest and good heart, faith develops and leads the man to repentance, changing him within in his inner being, his spirit. He now believes differently, has different goals and aspirations, and wants to live a different life. When this occurs, the first prerequisite for the new birth has been met. However, Jesus also says in John 3:5 that one must be born not only of the Spirit but also of water if he is to enter into the kingdom of God.

Here is where multitudes have come up short. They fail to accept baptism. Needless to say, water is a reference to baptism. However, lest I be like the man who says water is not water but offers no proof, I need to prove my statement.

First of all, Jesus taught that baptism was essential when he gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). He says, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved …" (Mark 16:16 NASU).  He does not say "he who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved," even though many want to read it that way. The baptism of the Great Commission was in water and thus was essential for salvation.

But let us look at some other passages that, relating to the new birth, are even clearer. "Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Rom 6:4 NASU) When do we walk in newness of life (born again, the new birth)? When we have been baptized.

Take a look at 2 Cor. 5:17, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (NASU) A new creature equals a new birth. The Bible tells us how to enter Christ. "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal. 3:27 NASU) Now, what does it take to get into Christ--baptism. Paul says we are "baptized into Christ." Then we are the new creature.

Where is salvation? Peter says, "there is salvation in no one else" (Acts 4:12 NASU), speaking of Jesus. Paul says, "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory." (2 Tim. 2:10 NASU) Getting into Christ Jesus is thus essential.

One is a new creature upon entering into Christ (born again). One enters Christ by the act of baptism, having been baptized as a result of the consequences of the Spirit working in his life. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. 12:13 NASU) That body into which we are baptized is the body of Christ, the body where one finds salvation, "He Himself being the Savior of the body." (Eph. 5:23 NASU)

Let us take a look at a couple of passages that teach just what Jesus taught about the new birth in John 3, but which are often overlooked. Paul says in Titus 3:5 (NASU), "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."

God's mercy, his grace, saves us, but how? By the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. This is just another way of saying exactly what Jesus said in John 3:5 regarding being born of water and the Spirit. The washing of regeneration is baptism.

In another parallel passage Paul says in Eph. 5:25-26 regarding Jesus and the church (the church being his spiritual body, the body he saves, Eph. 1:22-23), "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word." (NASU) Yes, water is water in John 3:5 and not something else.

If this passage does not clarify what it means to be born of water and the Spirit, I am not sure I know what it would take. How are we cleansed; how are we born again; how are we saved? By the washing of water (baptism--DS) with the word (the Spirit using the word as his tool to change us in our spirit).

Thus, the new birth, what it means to be born again, to be born of water and the Spirit, is not that difficult a subject and could be easily understood if we had or have open minds.

However, like the Jews of old, we often have too much at stake to allow us to see the truth. We have family that has passed on, and we cannot allow water to mean baptism, for we think that would condemn them. We cannot allow water to mean water, for if we were to accept that, it would make demands on us to comply, which might alienate friends and family who do not believe baptism is essential. The sacrifice is too great; we will not allow it. We will not allow water to be baptism. It has to mean something else.

Will not God condemn us for our hardness of heart when he has made a thing as clear as this, yet we refuse to accept it? When we prefer spiritual blindness rather than light, what do we think he will say to us in the Day of Judgment?

But now to make the application personal, the question for us all is what will we do in the face of the truth? Do we accept it or deny it? Do we act on it, or do we remain passive and do nothing? What will you say to Jesus on the last day?

"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word." (Jesus--John 14:23 NASU)

Note: Underlining in verses quoted was by me to emphasize certain statements and was not in the original quoted texts.

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