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 compared 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, as 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 in itself 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, 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 and 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, 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 to ever 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, 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, then no being freed from sin. This is in perfect accord with Acts 2:38 and the long list of other passages on baptism referenced in the very first paragraph of this article.

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 about 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 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 towards 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.  

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

Why Men Today Cannot Be Saved Like The Thief On The Cross

I once had an individual ask the question that if baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38, then why did Jesus not tell the rich young ruler who came to him inquiring, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18 NKJV) My inquirer asked the wrong question. Why? Because when Jesus was talking to the rich young ruler he was not talking to you and me. He was speaking directly to a specific individual at a specific time in history.

The only lessons in the account of the rich young ruler that could be made applicable to us today are (1) a man may be very religious but lost and (2) the danger of having a hidden idol in one's heart and putting that ahead of God.

Your salvation and mine do not depend on what Jesus did or did not tell a man living under the Law of Moses sometime before Jesus’ death on the cross. Our salvation depends on what Jesus says directly to you and me today under his law, the law of Christ, which began to be preached among men beginning on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We live under God’s new covenant, not his old.

Jesus, in speaking to his disciples after the resurrection, said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:46-49 ESV)

Luke tells us they were ordered to not depart from Jerusalem, "He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Act 1:4-5 ESV)

In Acts 2 we see the arrival of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) clothing the apostles with power from on high. Peter's sermon that day and in that chapter fulfilled Jesus' earlier proclamation found in Luke 24 "that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47 ESV)

This gives us a beginning point of both the time and place of the gospel message God has for us today. Those desiring to be saved the way the thief on the cross was saved (by faith without baptism) go back too far, past Jerusalem, past the beginning, back to the Law of Moses, and in doing so end up with another gospel if their goal is to be saved that way today. The only way to have the Jerusalem gospel is to preach what Peter did that day beginning in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. Since hardly anyone is willing to do that today their gospel is another gospel.

A person who seeks to be saved in a way some individual may have been saved while Christ lived and walked upon the earth is rejecting the Jerusalem gospel--"repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem." That individual's gospel does not originate in Jerusalem and is thus not the gospel of Christ.

A big part of the problem that causes people to misunderstand God's plan of salvation for man is a failure to discern what we call the dispensations. There are 3 as follows: (1) the Patriarchal, (2) the Mosaical, and (3) the Christian. I will deal with the last two as they are relevant to this discussion.

Jesus lived and died under the Mosaical law. Jesus was in the fullness of time "born of a woman, born under the Law." (Gal. 4:4 NAS) When we say Jesus lived a sinless life what law did he keep perfectly? The Law of Moses. In what was the second to last utterance Jesus made on the cross he said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NAS) What was finished? What was finished was the fulfillment of the law and the Prophets (which included, of course, his sacrifice on the cross as prophesied, his mission on earth to make himself a sacrifice for the sins of man).

Hear Jesus in Matt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (ESV) When Jesus drew his last breath on the cross the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled, either that or Jesus failed in his mission “to fulfill them.”

The law of Christ became binding on men as the old law was fulfilled and passed away. The old Law of Moses was nailed to the cross. (Col. 2:14) The Christian dispensation of time when men came to live under the law of Christ began when Jesus died. "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." (Heb 9:16-17 NKJV)

Jesus "has become a surety of a better covenant." (Heb. 7:22 NKJV) "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one (the Law of Moses--DS) obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 NKJV) "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb 7:12 NKJV)

Many take the thief on the cross as an example for all men regarding salvation (Luke 23:39-43) and say look at him. All he needed was faith. Was Jesus talking to you (or me) or was he talking to the thief on the cross beside him that day approximately 2,000 years ago? Did the thief live under the Christian dispensation or the Mosaical? Had the gospel that was to be preached beginning at Jerusalem yet been preached? Will you disregard the Jerusalem gospel? You will have to if you attempt to be saved as the thief on the cross was.

If Jesus forgave sins in the gospel accounts before his death in a way different from that which sins are forgiven today what has that to do with me? I live under the New Covenant.  So do you.

Speaking to the apostles Jesus said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26 NAS) Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit fail to do this with Peter on the day of Pentecost? If you ever wanted to know when Jesus taught baptism for the remission of sins then Acts 2:38 is one of your answers. Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit but the Spirit spoke the words of Jesus.

Speaking to the apostles before his death Jesus said, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you." (John 16:12-14 NAS)

Today we have the completed revelation that Jesus has made to man. The law Jesus has for you and me has now been fully revealed to us. For us today to go back and say it was not always done this way is foolishness. What is that supposed to prove even if it is true which, by the way, I do not deny? What if the thief on the cross did not have to do what you or I do for salvation? What does that have to do with either you or me?

If we expect to be saved like the thief on the cross that is about the equivalent of giving Jesus a slap across the face. It is saying I don't care about your new covenant. You save me like you saved him. Instead of you obeying Jesus you would have him taking orders from you and obeying you. It does not work that way.

We are bound to live under and obey whatever law is in effect while we live, not when someone else lived. Our job is not to question God but to do as he has told us. No matter what someone else has done or not done in years gone by for salvation you have the gospel of Christ now, the new covenant, the law of Christ. You are bound to it, to believe and obey it, as am I.

I add a footnote here in closing for clarification. The thief on the cross was not saved because he lived under the Law of Moses or kept it in any fashion. He was saved because the Lord extended him grace. In our day the Lord’s grace is extended to us in the gospel. To reject the gospel is to reject God’s grace.  

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

 

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.]

 

    

Abuse Of The Old Testament

There are many things practiced in the name of Christianity today that have no scriptural basis in the law of Christ, in the new covenant.  The Old Testament, the old covenant, at times is appealed to as the source of authority.  Does the Old Testament have the same authority for Christians today as the New Testament?  How should Christians today relate to and handle the Old Testament scriptures?  These are questions we all ought to be interested in for we are saved by truth, not error. 

God has commanded us to rightly divide the truth (2 Tim. 2:15) and Peter says that the scriptures can be twisted to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16) thus we must be careful and not make assumptions or just give our opinion.  We can only rightly divide the word of truth by following what God has said about how to do that.  Only then are we on safe ground. 

That the Old Testament scriptures have value for us today there can be no doubt for Paul says, "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." (Rom.15:4 NAS)  We thus learn that we can receive instruction from the Old Testament scriptures and encouragement that combined with perseverance gives us hope. 

No better example can be given than what James said in illustrating this point.  He says, "Behold, we count those blessed who endured.  You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful." (James 5:11 NAS) 

Hebrews chapter 11 is another good illustration.  We are taught by the examples of Old Testament characters what faith is and what it means to have faith.  We are encouraged to persevere as we see what some of those men and women were willing to do and endure to be faithful to God.  We compare our trials with theirs and ours seem but little things and we are given the strength to go on and not give up.  The Bible speaks of these as being those "of whom the world was not worthy." (Heb. 11:38 NKJV) 

We are told to remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32), told in so many words that we ought to learn from the fact that "anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10:28 NKJV) and consider that in relation to our treatment of the Son of God (Heb. 10:29) where the punishment will be worse.  This list could be extended but the point has been adequately made that there is much to learn from the Old Testament as the New Testament reveals lesson after lesson we ought to learn from the more distant past. 

Furthermore, much of what we learn about God, who he is, his character, his attributes, his expectations for man, and his purposes are found in the Old Testament.  We find in the Old Testament the history of man.  We find the history of God's chosen people.  We see his eternal purpose set forth both in historical development and in prophecy. 

And then there is the book of Psalms.  Who is there among God's people who have not gone to the book of Psalms time and again to find comfort and hope, especially in times of sadness and sorrow? 

Want to learn how to pray?  Read David in the Psalms to see prayer from the heart.  Learn how to praise God in prayer and how to petition him for his blessings.  Learn how to thank God.  All of this can be learned by close attention in reading the Psalms. 

Need wisdom?  Go to the book of Proverbs.  Many, many New Testaments that one can buy also include as an addition the books of Psalms and Proverbs.  They are books that are often consulted by men today and rightly so. 

I have said many good and true things in praise of the Old Testament scriptures.  I believe everything I have said has been scriptural and so much so that I do not believe anyone who calls himself a Christian would disagree with me to this point. 

However, we have now come to the time where we need to divide the word—the old from the new--and make a distinction.  The Bible is very clear that the Old Testament is not meant for us today as law.  We readily see this when it comes to animal sacrifices but we too often want to bring in from the Old Testament other things that should have been left there as well. 

The Hebrew writer says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb. 7:12 NKJV)  Read in context the argument has been that Jesus is now our high priest and he is not of the tribe of Levi as were all the priests under the old Law of Moses.  Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. 

But our point is that the inspired writer tells us as clearly as words can make it that the law has changed.  There is now a new law.  The Law of Moses is gone, fulfilled, completed, and is now history.  There is now a new law, the law of Christ.  In Gal. 6:2 Paul says, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (NKJV) 

Everyone readily admits that Jesus gave man commandments to obey.  A commandment is nothing other than a law to be obeyed.  Disobey a law of God and you sin.  As the old King James translation puts it in 1 John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:  for sin is the transgression of the law."  In our day the law that is transgressed bringing sin is the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses. 

Hear God the Father speak from heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration when Peter wanted to make 3 tabernacles, one each for Moses, Elijah, and Christ.  "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV)  Christ was not to be put on an equal plain with Moses and/or Elijah.  Neither was to be heard any longer as present-day authorities.  Henceforth Christ was the one to be heard and followed. 

In Hebrews 3 the Hebrew writer has been talking about Moses and Christ and how Christ is superior to Moses and then in verses 7 and 8 says, "Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:  'Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts." (NKJV)  The day of hearing Moses is over as regards law to be followed.  Hear the voice of Christ which is the voice of God.  Hear it today.  Jesus says, "the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:24 NKJV) 

Paul says of himself in Gal. 2:19, "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God." (NKJV)  He goes on to say "if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21 NKJV)  And in Rom. 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead." (NKJV)  The law referred to in these passages is the Law of Moses. 

And, then, in Gal. 3:24-25 he makes it clear enough that an older elementary school student ought to be able to easily understand it.  He says, "Therefore 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." (NKJV)  The law (the Law of Moses) was our tutor; we are no longer under a tutor, thus no longer under the law.  (For that matter the Gentiles were never given the law anyway nor were they under it.  The law was for God's chosen people, the Jewish nation.) 

Part of the problem the Galatians were having was that they wanted at the very least an admixture of the old Law of Moses with Christ.  Paul called it a perversion of the gospel of Christ in chapter 1 verse 7.  Some were going so far as to want to go back to the Law of Moses for Paul says, "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law." (Gal. 4:21 NKJV)  The desire was wrong.  Remember, God said this is my beloved son, hear him, him not Moses (the Law of Moses). 

Paul goes so far as to say that being under the works of the law (reference to the Law of Moses) is a curse.  "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)  He says, "Do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (Gal. 5:1 NKJV) 

I could go on and on with proof texts for the book of Galatians and the book of Hebrews both deal extensively about the change of the law telling us clearly that we are not under the Law of Moses today.  The book of Romans also gives us much the same.  But, my main interest is making an application as to how all of this affects us today as Christians and believers. 

The idea seems to be prevalent today that the Old Testament gives us authority to worship in ways we please if we can find an example for our practice in the Old Testament.  But, does it? 

Paul says of certain Galatians, Gal. 5:4 (NKJV), "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."  They wanted to bring over into Christianity circumcision, a requirement under the old covenant.  "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.  And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." (Gal. 5:2-3 NKJV) 

The only way these people could justify themselves, even in their own eyes, was by an appeal to the Old Testament scriptures, justification by Old Testament law.  It won't work.  Why not?  Because it is not a part of the law of Christ, not a part of the new covenant.  We do not have a problem with the issue of circumcision today but we often seek to do what that group did, the group who wanted it.  We attempt to justify our practice that cannot be found in the law of Christ, the New Testament, by an appeal to the Old Testament. 

We are given a choice of whose law and authority we will live by.  Will it be Moses' law or Christ's law?  We cannot mix them.  What Christ wanted from the old law to be observed today he brought with him and had it recorded in the pages of the New Testament.  We can go back to Moses or we can move forward to Christ.  That is our choice. 

There are things that seem so right to a man, how can they be wrong?  The writer of Proverbs says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Prov. 16:25 NKJV)  God speaking in Isaiah 55:8-9 (NKJV) says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord.  'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.'"  We greatly error when we think that because a thing pleases us it is automatically going to please God. 

We also ought to learn from this that we ought not to just accept without question the things that have been handed down to us from men who lived in the past but whose teachings have come to be accepted as a sort of a standard--it doesn't matter whether the man was Calvin, Luther, or the Pope, or whomever it might be.  Isaiah said in Isa. 2:22 (ESV), "Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?"  Good question.  I think Isaiah answered his own question, did he not? 

Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 "offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them" (verse 1) and the Bible says "so fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." (Lev. 10:2 NKJV)  They had no authority from God to use profane fire or as some versions put it "strange fire." (NAS)  

What is the application?  To Nadab and Abihu worship was worship as long as it was directed to God and meant for his praise.  It seemed right to them.  Who could object to worshipping God?  Well, we found out.  God does not think as man thinks.  

What Nadab and Abihu did was no different than what we do today when we add to the worship things we cannot find in the law of Christ, the new covenant, the New Testament.  Col. 3:17 reads as follows, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (NKJV)  How does one do a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus spoke nothing? 

A careful reading of 1 Chron. 21:18-19 will show you that the phrase "in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority.  The angel of the Lord had commanded Gad to go speak to David about building an altar and verse 19 says, "So David went up at the word of Gad, which he had spoken in the name of the Lord."  This clearly shows that "in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority and that authority is expressed in his word, not outside it.  We are to do what we do "in the name of the Lord Jesus," by his authority found in his word.  Now reread Col. 3:17 and you will see this involves everything we do in religion and most assuredly in our worship.   

Nadab and Abihu were doing a thing in the name of God which God had spoken nothing about.  Nadab and Abihu were not condemned for doing a thing that was written or given but for what was not written or not given and doing it anyway because it pleased them.  Do you think for a single moment that Nadab and Abihu thought it would matter?  You know they didn't. 

Peter says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God."  You will need an oracle of God to do that.  When you have to go outside the word of God for your practice it is because there is no oracle.  

The New Testament tells us exactly how far we are allowed to go.  We can go that far and no farther.  How far?  In 1 Cor. 4:6 Paul says, "not to exceed what is written" (NAS)--"not to go beyond what is written" (ESV).  John says, (2 John 1:9 NKJV), "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God."  When we step outside what Christ has said, his written word, we step outside his doctrine and adopt the doctrine of man.  On the Day of Judgment you do not want to find yourself trying to explain to God why you did that. 

Today all kinds of things have been brought into the typical worship of churches for which man cannot find a New Testament book, chapter, and verse for and we all know that.  I am not telling anyone anything they do not know.  Most will readily admit it.  They say God will not care.  It makes no difference.  It is still worship to God they say.  It pleases him.  But what do you do with John 4:24 that says, in part, that worship must be in truth and then John 17:17 which says God's word is truth?  You then search the New Testament and cannot find a word about your practice, what then? 

Sometimes they say they did it in the Old Testament; Moses did it or David did it so it has to be okay. Instrumental music in worship is an example.  Which law did Moses and David live under?  Instrumental music was a command of worship under the Law of Moses (see 2 Chron. 29:25), that is to say during that era or under that dispensation of time.  Does one seek justification by an appeal to the Law of Moses?  God said to those with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, "This is My Beloved Son. … Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV)  

(You are aware that the church we find in the New Testament existed for hundreds of years before man brought the instrument into worship.  This in itself tells you where it came from, God or man.) 

But, the things brought from the Old Testament over to us today go far beyond just instrumental music.  Things like the special robes and/or priestly attire worn by those who are considered to be somewhat in the church, the idea that there are two classes of brethren--one priests and then the rest of us, the ritualism we find often in the churches, and so on all from the days of the Law of Moses and none of which can be justified without an appeal to it.  Will we hear Moses or Christ? 

The title of this article was abusing the Old Testament.  How is that done?  I think we see now it is by seeking justification from it, especially in the realm of public worship.  That is not where you will find justification, not today. 

I close with the words of God the Father on the Mount of Transfiguration.  "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5)

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