Covenant Confusion

Covenant confusion runs rampant in much of what is called Christendom today. All who claim to being Christians readily grant the Bible is to be our guide in living the Christian life, but what part of the Bible? Surely not the Bible in its entirety, for that would put us back to animal sacrifices, dietary laws, the keeping of festivals, etc. So, where do we draw the line? That is the subject of our study today.

There are many who justify their religious practices by making an appeal to what they find in the Old Testament, the law given by Moses. If such and such was done back then with God's approval, I know it would be acceptable today, is the thinking. There are problems with that.

(1) The Law of Moses was only given to the Jews, the children of Israel. It was given on Mt. Sinai to the Jewish people who came out of Egypt under Moses' leadership. In Deut. 5:2-3, Moses reviews what happened back then and says, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb … with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." Who was there that day? They were not Gentiles. Paul, in the book of Romans, is plain spoken in speaking of the Gentiles who he says "do not have the law." (Rom. 2:14 NKJV) He says the Gentiles were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." (Eph. 2:12 NKJV)

There was no Great Commission under the Law of Moses to attempt to go out into the world and convert the Gentiles to Judaism. When the children of Israel reached the Wilderness of Sinai, before the mountain there, the Lord called to Moses, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: … 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people, for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." (Exod. 19:3-6 NKJV) He was not speaking to Gentiles. "Whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law" (Rom. 3:19 NKJV), and that was not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were not to be a part of the holy nation, not yet, not under the Law of Moses.

Yes, I understand there were Gentile proselytes, but they came to that on their own. No one ever went out under the Law of Moses to attempt to convert the Gentiles to Judaism. That was not God's plan. He had a plan for the Gentiles, but it was under Christianity, not under the Law of Moses. Ruth and Rahab are well-known proselytes, and proselytes are mentioned in Acts 2:10. To become acquainted with Judaism in those times, you had to come into proximity to the Jews; they would not go out to seek you. Again, the Great Commission did not exist under the Law of Moses. There was no command to go out into the world and convert it to Judaism.

(2) The second problem with attempting justification for religious practices by an appeal to the first covenant, the one given under Moses, is that we are commanded today to hear Jesus, not Moses. Listen to Peter, "For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:22-23 NKJV) So, even the Jews, who were Peter's audience, were admonished and warned, it is no longer Moses who is to be heard. It is Christ, the prophet spoken of.

God has "in these last days spoken to us by His Son." (Heb. 1:2 NKJV) On the mount of transfiguration, when Jesus was transfigured with Peter, James, and John being present, God the Father spoke from heaven saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV) That message was recorded for us all, not meant just for the three apostles.

Jesus is our judge, not Moses. Jesus tells us his word will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). God is going to judge us "in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained," that man being Jesus (Acts 17:31 NKJV).

So Moses had his covenant, given to him by God, the Law of Moses as we call it, meant for a specific people for a set period of time. It was useful for the purpose for which it was designed. It served that purpose and has now passed into history. Jesus fulfilled the law and brought it to a close.

Paul elaborates on this subject in Gal. 3:24-26 when he says, "The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (NKJV) Note, no longer under the tutor that was "the law." Christ in fulfilling the law brought it to an end.

(3) A final problem with the Law of Moses was there was no salvation to be found in it, since it required perfection in keeping the law, a thing no one could do. Paul speaks of it as "the ministry of death." (2 Cor. 3:7 NKJV) Again, he says, "the ministry of condemnation." (2 Cor. 3:9 NKJV) More on that later.

But Jesus also has a covenant, a new one, the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). It is the commands and teaching of the New Testament. If he has no law, then it is impossible to sin, for "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4 NKJV), or, as the old KJV puts it, "sin is the transgression of the law." "Where there is no law there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) Paul spoke of "not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ." (1 Cor. 9:21 NKJV) See also Gal. 6:2, "so fulfill the law of Christ." (NKJV)

Also, it needs to be explained how Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" (Heb. 5:9 NKJV) if he has no law to obey. Jesus answered that question himself when he said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15 NKJV) What is a commandment if it is not a law? Is it merely a suggestion?

But, unlike the Law of Moses, the Law Jesus has given us, the new covenant, is not for one nation or race of people alone but for all humanity, Jews and all Gentiles alike. The command of the Great Commission is to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:15-16 NKJV) Peter, at the house of Cornelius, the first Gentile conversion we have a specific record of, put it this way: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV) It is a new covenant, one that contains law most assuredly, but also has grace, making forgiveness possible.

Between Mount Sinai and the cross, salvation under the Law of Moses demanded, of those to whom it was given, perfect obedience. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.'" (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) Please note the words "all things." God meant what he said. "All" meant all. James also emphasized this point about the law when he said, "Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (James 2:10 NKJV)

That was the problem with the Law of Moses, "The law is not of faith, but 'The man who does them shall live by them.'" (Gal. 3:12 NKJV, see also Rom. 10:5) That is, does them all, every one of them, without fail. Paul further says, "If there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law." (Gal. 3:21 NKJV) That is the same as saying no such law was given. The conclusion, "By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Gal. 2:16 NKJV) Justification was impossible under it. "For the law made nothing perfect." (Heb. 7:19 NKJV) "The law … can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect … For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." (Heb. 10:1,4 NKJV)

Does this mean men like Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, Daniel, and countless others who lived and died under the Law of Moses were doomed? No, not at all. When Jesus died on the cross, his shed blood flowed backwards as well as forwards to cleanse from sin. "For this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9:15 NKJV) The first covenant is a reference to the Law of Moses.

They were granted grace through the blood of Jesus not because of any perfection in keeping the Law, but because they were of faith. As the Hebrew writer says, "Time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions … " (Heb. 11:32-33 NKJV) Their faith was in God, not in the Law in the sense of the Law being their Savior.

I am reminded of a statement I heard from a preacher years ago, one now gone, who made the comment that men have always been saved the same way, by faith and obedience. Many associate the idea of obedience with works and doubt the necessity of such, but all of the worthies of the Old Testament were obedient people. Can it be said a person is a man or woman of faith who is disobedient? Heb. 3:18-19 associates the subject of obedience with faith. "Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?" (Heb. 3:17-18 NKJV) They did not obey for they lacked faith. They go hand in hand.

By the time of Jesus, many of the Jews looked for their salvation by means of law, by means of law keeping, by means of their own efforts along that line. Think of the Pharisees. All they could see was the law, not the God behind the law. Their faith was in law keeping, not God per se. Their law keeping could force God's hand in their eyes. God would have to accept them.

That was the old covenant, the Law of Moses under which the Jewish nation lived for hundreds of years. Jesus came into the world, and with him a change in the covenants under which God's people are to live. We move from under the old covenant to the new, initiated at the cross of Christ. As we have already shown, it was a covenant under which all of mankind was to be brought, not for the Jews only. Disciples are to be made of all nations, not just of the Jews. (Matt. 28:19)

It is a covenant of grace. "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NKJV) Yes, as already shown, God still has law. There are still commands to be obeyed, but what is now required for salvation is quite different. Faith and faithfulness are what is now required of mankind, not perfection in law keeping (command keeping). We now have a Savior, the Lord Jesus, to whom we can look for forgiveness. It is a Savior who saves us, not a law. "We conclude that a man is justified by faith (faith in Jesus—DS) apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28 NKJV)

We are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth to be a propitiation by His blood, through faith." (Rom. 3:24-25 NKJV) The blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse man, any man, of sin, but the blood of Jesus can—if we believe. "We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand." (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV)

Does this mean it is no longer necessary to obey God's commands, no longer necessary to be obedient to God's laws? Paul addressed this question in Romans chapter 6. "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!" (Rom. 6:15 NKJV) "The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23 NKJV) "If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Rom. 8:13 NKJV) "To be carnally minded is death." (Rom. 8:6 NKJV) Or, as the New Living Translation puts this verse, "Letting your sinful nature control your mind leads to death."

One might be inclined to say that sounds like law keeping for salvation again, like under the Law of Moses. Not so. Why not? Because the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus does not demand perfection but only a walk in life according to the Spirit. That means I must be a spiritually minded individual who allows the teaching of the Spirit, as found in God's word, to direct my life. The new covenant is "not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) The Law of Moses "was weak through the flesh." (Rom. 8:3 NKJV) It was of the letter, obey perfectly without fail. Mankind is prone to sin, and that law had no remedy for it no matter how penitent one might be, that is, until the cross. The new covenant, which is of the Spirit, grants grace without the perfection of the letter.

David committed a number of sins, quite serious ones even by man's standards. Nevertheless, he was a deeply spiritually minded man. He lived under the Law of Moses and was a doomed man had Christ never come to earth and made his sacrifice. Yes, he was always penitent of his sins, but there was no satisfactory propitiation for them—not until Christ. Under the new covenant that Christ brought us, the penitent Christian who has an attitude toward God like David had, walking in the Spirit, not fleshly minded, has always forgiveness upon his repentance. He does not await some future event.

John, the apostle, puts it this way, "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7-9 NKJV)

A few final thoughts before closing. Jesus is the author of the New Covenant, the New Testament, under which all people live today. We are to be ruled and judged by it. That does not mean we discount the abundance of the good things for our edification found in the Old Testament. There is a world of things to be learned from it. However, we cannot seek justification from it.

One might be inclined to think that we are only talking here about the issue of salvation. However, think about all the things that have been borrowed from Judaism, things like instrumental music, burning of incense, priestly robes, observing the Levitical feasts, keeping of the Sabbath, etc. They find their justification not from the teachings of the New Testament but from the practices found under the Law of Moses. God did not give things of that nature to us under the New Covenant. What he did say was, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9 NKJV)

We need to decide which covenant we will allow to direct our lives. Many, unwittingly, try to have a mixture, a some of this, some of that. We need to stick to the doctrine of Christ. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 12:24). "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." (Mark 14:24 NKJV) Let us abide in it.

(A large portion of each of the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews are devoted to the changing of the covenants, from Moses' to Christ's. I would encourage all to read those books that distinguish the covenants.)

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

 

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.]

Faith, Works, Baptism, and Obedience

Many believe that since the Bible teaches justification by faith (Rom. 5:1) and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), baptism is excluded as an act essential to salvation, despite many passages that teach just the opposite (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26; 1 Cor. 12:13 paired with Eph. 5:23 [baptized into one body, Christ the Savior of the body]; John 3:5; Gal. 3:26-27; etc.). It is the burden of this article to show the fallacy of this belief.

In the first place, the Bible teaches that baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done. Just the opposite is stated in Titus 3:5: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (NKJV). The washing of regeneration is a reference to baptism and is excluded by Paul as being a work of righteousness which we have done that saves us apart from God’s mercy. What is baptism, then? It is a part of God’s means of extending his mercy to mankind. Baptism is God showing us kindness. It is God, through grace, giving us a means to be saved by his mercy.

Water baptism amounts to nothing; it is worthless without God behind it in his compassion for us. When Naaman dipped seven times in the Jordan River for his cleansing from leprosy (2 Kings 5), it would not have made an ounce of difference without God being behind the command with the extension of his grace. The water did not cleanse Naaman; God did. But Naaman was not going to be cleansed without dipping in the Jordan those seven times, without obeying the command to do so. Why can’t we see the parallel with baptism in our day?

One acquainted with the New Testament cannot read Titus 3:5 without being reminded of John 3:5: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (NKJV). Paul, in Titus, is saying what Jesus said in John. To be saved in Titus is to enter the kingdom of God in John. To be saved is to be in the kingdom of God, where the saved are.

Indeed, Paul teaches justification by faith. “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17 NKJV). “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28 NKJV). “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1-2 NKJV).

One cannot enter the waters of baptism without faith in what God said about doing so and expect the cleansing of sin. If I do not believe what God said about it, I have not acted in faith and cannot be justified by faith.

In the book of Romans, from which I have just quoted, Paul is writing to a mixed audience of Jews and Greeks. The Jews came to Christianity out of the background of Judaism and the Law of Moses. Much of what Paul writes in Romans is directed to the Jews, whose inclination through much of the first century was to try to hang on to both the Law of Moses and to Christ at the same time. The Law of Moses was a law system, not a faith system. What was the problem with the Law of Moses, a works system of salvation?

Paul tells us, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them’” (Gal. 3:10 NKJV). James says, “Whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10 NKJV). This is the problem not just with the Law of Moses but with any and all law systems God might give man. As soon as a man violates one law, justice demands satisfaction—punishment—“the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15 NKJV). To violate a law of God, any law he gives, is unrighteousness; it is sin. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV).

Jesus was the only sinless man ever to live. Law condemns all of us, for we have all broken God’s law. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23 NKJV). Thus, “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16c NKJV). The word “the” in Gal. 2:16, just quoted, is not found in the original but was added by the translators in both instances. When translated without the additions, it reads as follows: “By works of law no flesh shall be justified.” If you check an interlinear, you will find this to be true. What is the point?

The point is that while it is true Paul had specific reference to the Law of Moses because that is the law his audience had in mind, he phrases his statement in such a way as to include all law. No one will ever get to heaven by perfect keeping of works of law. Paul says the same thing in Rom. 3:28, where again the word “the” has been added by translators and is not in the original. It thus should read as follows: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of (‘the’ omitted here is not in the original manuscripts—DS) law” (NKJV). Deeds are works.

A question thus arises: If I am not saved by works of law, why be concerned with obedience? Paul knew this was what some would conclude, and he begins to address that issue in Rom. 6:1, where he says, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (NKJV). Remember, it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 NKJV).

Paul never meant to imply that obedience was optional. Paul responds vigorously, saying, “God forbid” (ASV, KJV), “By no means!” (ESV), “May it never be” (NAS), “Certainly not!” (NKJV). He says, “How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Rom. 6:2 NKJV).

He then says, “Do you not know,” introducing the subject of baptism, “that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death” (Rom. 6:3-4 NKJV). Whose death? Into Christ’s death. But watch it closely, for up pops verse 8: “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him” (NKJV). So we are baptized into Christ’s death, but that is also the place where “we died with Christ.” When we arise from this death, we “should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV), for we have been granted a new spiritual life and we should “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead” (Rom. 6:13 NKJV). We have been “set free from sin” (Rom. 6:18 NKJV), but when? When we died to it, “For he who has died has been freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7 NKJV; see also Rom. 6:2). When did we die? In baptism (Rom. 6:4). Thus, no baptism, then no death; no death, then no being freed from sin.

Now who is Paul talking to? To Christians who have been justified by faith, not by works. Did Paul consider baptism to be a work of the kind of which he had been talking, by which a man could not be saved? Not at all! How, then, did he consider it? As a part of being justified by faith.

Paul begins the book of Romans with this statement in chapter 1, verse 5, saying he had been given grace and apostleship “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for his name’s sake” (NAS). The NKJV says, “among all nations for his name” instead of “all the Gentiles.” But what was the objective? Obedience of faith! Why? Because without obedience, faith is dead and cannot save anyone, and that is from the get-go, from the very beginning. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26 NKJV).

When Peter stands up on the Day of Pentecost and preaches the first gospel sermon ever, creates by his preaching faith in those who hear, and then tells them what to do in response to their question asking what they can do, he responds by saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). You cannot tell me they were justified by faith if their response was, “I don’t think so right now, maybe later.” Nor can you tell me they were justified by faith if they failed to believe the word of God that baptism was for the remission of sins, just as Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit, said, for that would not be belief but unbelief or disbelief. It would be the same as calling God a liar.

Paul closes the book of Romans the same way he opened it: “has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26 NAS). “Obedience of faith” is obedience led by faith, or obedience because of faith, or obedience out of faith. What does that mean, then? Faith must precede obedience. The justifying faith Paul was talking about in the book of Romans was a faith that led to obedience. Faith must precede obedience before you can have obedience out of faith.

There has never been a baptism acceptable to God but what it was first preceded by faith and submitted to by faith. This in itself invalidates infant baptism, as the infant is incapable of having faith. Faith saves because it believes God and does not doubt; therefore, it acts. Without obedience (acts, works, call it what you will), faith never really lives and is dead from the beginning and thus never saved the man at any point in time. If dead faith saved, the demons would be saved, for James says they believe (James 2:19). The same could be said of those rulers who believed in Jesus but did not confess him because they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

Baptism is the dividing line between living faith and dead faith. Why? Is it because I said so? No! It is because Paul said when we arise from baptism that we “should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4 NKJV). We are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27 NKJV). In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV). The old man died in baptism, and we arise a new creation. If we are saved before baptism (a baptism growing out of faith), the question ought to be asked, who is it that dies in baptism? Is it a saved man? Paul teaches that we die in baptism in the Romans 6:2-8 passage, but why would you want to put a saved man to death? Why kill a saved man? That is the position they put themselves in who believe we are saved by faith before baptism. This is a question that needs an answer.

I want to remind the reader once again of what Paul said of baptism in Titus 3:5: “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (NKJV). God gave us baptism (the washing of regeneration) as a part of his saving mercy toward us, not as a work of righteousness which we have done that works our way to heaven.

Baptism puts us into Christ, where salvation is. Paul says in this very book of Romans, where he promotes the doctrine of justification by faith, that there is “no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1 NKJV). In the same book he tells us how we got into Christ Jesus, where there is no condemnation. He says, “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus …” (Rom. 6:3 NKJV).

This idea of separating faith from baptism is all man’s doing. You’ll not find it in the Bible. Paul says in the Galatian letter, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27 NKJV). How do you get into Christ? Paul tells us a second time in this passage, that is, if we did not get it the first time in the Roman passage just quoted in the prior paragraph. But Paul tells us more. What?

He tells us you cannot separate faith from baptism unless you do it on your own initiative. The word “for,” beginning in verse 27 of Galatians 3, ties it to verse 26. You cannot separate the two sentences. There is more.

Can one put on Christ without baptism? Those who say you can ought to provide the passage that tells us that. According to this Galatian passage, it is done by baptism. I have never found another passage anywhere that has given an alternative.

Paul says those who are sons of God were baptized and thereby put on Christ. There is a law of exclusion in play here. If you were not baptized, you did not put on Christ in baptism and are therefore excluded from being a son of God.

To summarize, “the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38 NKJV), but it is such a faith that, when it hears, it believes and obeys and is not indifferent to obedience. It is thus a living faith. It does not fear that obedience is working your way to heaven. Neither Peter nor Paul nor any other New Testament writer ever feared that obedience would be looked upon by God as an attempt to work your way to heaven. Baptism is God’s extension of grace to us, his means of cleansing us, chosen by him, not us, and not a part of works of righteousness that we have done that merit salvation.

Sinning Without Law

That man has always been under some kind of law from God I think there is little doubt.  We know Adam and Eve were under law but what about those who came after them but before the Law of Moses?  The flood came upon mankind because of "wickedness" and "every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5 NKJV)  The earth was "corrupt before God" and "filled with violence." (Gen. 6:11 NKJV)  Peter spoke of the world before the flood as "the world of the ungodly." (2 Peter 2:5 NKJV)

Were these people innocent, not having a law of God before them for guidance and direction in life?  Did they not have a way of knowing right from wrong, good from evil?  There is no evidence we have of a written law but we do know Noah was "a preacher of righteousness." (2 Peter 2:5 NKJV)  How did Noah know what was righteous and what was not?  What is my point?  It is threefold:  (1) God had a law by which man was to live even if unwritten, (2) man had some means by which to know God's will and (3) man could sin "without law," that is, in this case, without written law.  God would and did hold man responsible for man's lawlessness by means of the flood.

Moving up to the account of the events surrounding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah the Bible says, "The men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD." (Gen. 13:13 NKJV)  Lamentations 4:6 speaks of “the sin of Sodom.” (NKJV, NAS)  But, there was no written law.  They sinned against God but they sinned without law but only in the sense of written law.  God had a standard, a law, against their conduct whether written or not. 

To elaborate Peter says, speaking of Lot and his time in Sodom, "That righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds." (2 Peter 2:8 NKJV)  Lot saw them; Peter called them "lawless deeds" so there was law there even without a formal code, as was later found in the law of Moses.

I have said all of this to lay some background material for Paul's discussion of the sins of the Gentiles in Romans 1.  (I remind the reader the Gentiles were never given the Law of Moses; it was given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai while the Gentiles remained without a formal law code or written law from God.)  I cannot quote it all here but the reader would be advised to stop and read Rom. 1:18-32 before proceeding.  Paul lists the sins of the Gentiles, especially in Rom. 1:29-32.  How did the Gentiles come to know these things were sins?  They had no written law and in that sense they were "without law," a phrase Paul uses later in Rom. 2:12.

I ask again, how did the Gentiles come to know these listed sins were sins when they were without law?  That they did know is evident for Paul says in Rom. 1:32, "Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." (NKJV)  They knew; Paul says so.

I do not propose in this piece to give you answers that would be mere speculation on my part as to how the Gentiles were to know sin from righteousness other than the fact that some things ought to be self-evident to all men.  The Gentiles went for thousands of years, up until Christ, without any kind of formal law from God but they "sinned without law." (Rom. 2:12 NKJV)  One might ask how can this be since "sin is the transgression of the law?" (1 John 3:4 KJV)  That is the question.

This is my opinion and mark it down as that, just opinion, which is that God has law (or put another way a set of standards for conduct) whether it is given to man or not and any violation of that law is sin.  For example, as far as we know God never told Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel not to murder or kill.  Does that mean Cain did not sin when he murdered his brother?  (Should one not know instinctively that this is sin?)

Sin is the transgression of God's law but one can sin without a formal law being in place.  How would one do that?  Well, one could not do it today since all men today are under the law of Christ but back in Old Testament times after Mt. Sinai and God's covenant that was made there with the Jews things were different.  The world was divided thereafter into two groups of humanity.  You were either a Jew or a Gentile (anyone not a Jew was a Gentile).  To the Jews, God gave a formal law—the Law of Moses.  The rest of humanity was without law, that is without a written formal code of law.

The Jews obviously sinned anytime they broke the Law of Moses.  The Gentiles sinned without law, without a formal law code such as the Law of Moses.  However, that does not mean they did not break God's law for God has a standard of right and wrong whether it has been delivered to man formally or not.

Sin is a transgression of God's law period.  Romans 1:18-32 is the Holy Spirit's listing of and condemnation of the sins of the Gentiles.  Paul says, "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Rom. 4:15 NKJV) thus the Gentiles were under condemnation for the very reason that they had transgressed God's law.  "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23 NKJV), Paul said in Rom. 3:23, but that would not be true of the Gentiles in the period under discussion if they had no law of God to transgress.

Where did this law that was never formally given to the Gentiles, that the Gentiles lived under and a law they could and did violate, come from since it was not formally given?  Some of it came, evidently, naturally or instinctively as Rom. 2:14 says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the Law, these not having the Law, are a law to themselves." (NAS)   

The law the Gentiles lived under was not as strict as that the Jews lived under.  Of that, there can be little to no doubt.  When the scriptures talk about doing instinctively the things of the Law they are surely not speaking of offerings, sacrifices, clean and unclean foods, etc., the kinds of things that were regulated in detail and could only be known by a direct revelation from God (the very thing the Gentiles did not have).  The scriptures thus had to be speaking of things that relate to man's relationship with his fellowman and of his reverence toward God.  Paul summed up the fulfillment of the law when he said, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Gal. 5:14 NKJV)  A Gentile was capable of doing that without a formal written code.

Did anyone, Jew or Gentile, ever live perfectly without sinning against the law under which he lived?  Of course not!  That is the point Paul is driving home in Romans chapters 1 and 2.  He says, "We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one.'" (Rom. 3:9-10 NAS)

Paul says, "Through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Rom. 3:20 NAS)  Does this mean that since the Gentiles did not have a formal written code or even an oral code from God they had no knowledge of sin?  No!  Why not?  Paul speaks of "the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves." (Rom. 2:15 NAS)  Is there a man, living or dead, Jesus being the exception, who ever lived to manhood who could honestly say he never violated his own code of conduct, his sense of right versus wrong, never ever violated his own conscience?  Our own heart has condemned us all at one point in time or another.

Law has condemned all men, even those the Bible refers to as being "without law" for that phrase means only without a legal code of the likes of the Law of Moses. 

There is a passage in Rom. 5 that raises questions that ought to be dealt with.  It reads as follows:  "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13 NKJV)

If a person were to read this for the first time ever and have no knowledge of the Bible he would think that God did not punish sin or hold man accountable for sin before the Law of Moses but we have already discussed the account of the flood and why it came and talked about Sodom and Gomorrah and we have even discussed how God held the Gentiles to account for their sins as recorded in chapter one of this very same book—the book of Romans.  We have also discussed how men had law but just not a law of a formal code given by direct revelation and we have shown how the Gentiles violated the law or light they did have.

My take on this verse (Rom. 5:13) then is this—we take it at face value.  What do I mean?  It is a simple declaration, "sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13 NKJV)  Thus, if sin exists at any place, anywhere, or anytime among anyone then there was a law that was violated even though that law may not have been in the form of a written or oral code and may not have been in the form of a specific commandment such as Adam was given.  Put another way one could say it is impossible to sin against a law that does not exist thus if there is sin there is law.

If Gentiles who lived in the period between Adam and Moses were eternally lost because of sin how could it be said that sin is not imputed when there is no law (they had no law given by revelation as did the Jews)?  We have already shown the wickedness of many in that time.  The answer is there was law, just not a written code of the nature of the Law of Moses.  I add in closing I do not presume to become the judge of the Gentiles before the Christian dispensation.  That is God's realm, not mine.  I am only saying God was not unjust in those he condemned because they were "without law." 

What God will do with the Gentiles of those ages past who lived without a written code is a question only he has the answer to.  I do know each of us will stand before the Lord on the Day of Judgment individually, not as a group, to answer for our own deeds.   Luke 12:47-48 seems to teach we will be judged to an extent on our ability to know and do.  My purpose in writing this article was certainly not to make myself a judge of the Gentiles or to answer questions men have been contemplating for centuries but I do have an answer.  "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25 NKJV)   

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