Baptized For The Dead

 In 1 Cor. 15:29 Paul says, “Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” (NKJV)  It is said by commentators that there is broad disagreement over the meaning of the phrase “baptized for the dead.”  No doubt this is true.  But the point to be made in this article is that we are always looking at this passage wondering who the dead were and what the meaning is but in doing so we overlook the obvious lesson.  

Taking the verse as a whole I have no doubt that baptism (or baptized) is a reference to water baptism for the remission of sins.  Why do I say that?  In the very first chapter of First Corinthians Paul begins a discussion of the divisions in the church at Corinth, a church he established.  To show the brethren the error they were following in dividing up into followers of men he says, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.” (1 Cor. 1:13-15 NKJV) 

This does not mean that only a few of those whom Paul converted in Corinth were baptized, not at all.  Paul established the church in Corinth in Acts 18 and it is said there that “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.” (Act 18:8 NKJV)  What were the Corinthians hearing? 

They were hearing the entire gospel message, “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Cor. 15:3-4 NKJV)  They were hearing what was demanded of them to do—believe the message preached, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. 

Paul established the church at Corinth.  He is the one doing the preaching.  He is the one Ananias spoke to in Acts 22:16 saying, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (NKJV)  Is Paul who had to be baptized to wash away his sins, according to Ananias’ command, going to then turn around and tell the Corinthians, "Yes, I had to be baptized to wash away my sins but you don’t?"  Why are many of the Corinthians being baptized under Paul’s preaching? (Acts 18:8)  To ask is to answer. 

But, there is even more.  In 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Paul gives a list of some sins and then says in the next verse, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV)  Does the word “washed” here remind you of the word “wash” as in “wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), the words of Ananias to Paul when he was yet known as Saul?  So the church at Corinth, meaning each Christian in it, had been washed of their sins the same way Paul himself had been in the waters of baptism (the place where the blood of Jesus is contacted spiritually). 

Every Christian in Corinth, as were all in the first century, was baptized into Christ.  “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV)  That being the case, the truth, it necessarily follows that “as many of you as were not baptized into Christ have not put on Christ.”  If one is true the other has to be as well. 

But, we do not have to reason our way into getting the Corinthians baptized.  Paul tells us specifically.  “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJV)  He is writing to the Corinthians.  He uses the word “all.”  This is not a passage about Holy Spirit baptism which only the apostles received as far as we are told.  It is the Spirit that taught the Corinthians the need to be baptized; it was the Holy Spirit, within the inspired apostle, teaching truth, which would lead men and women to desire to be baptized and to do it. 

What does all of this have to do with 1 Cor. 15:29 and the baptism for the dead?  A lot.  As Paul spoke to the Corinthians through his writing he was speaking to them of that which they knew--baptism for the remission of sins--and that which they had done. 

1 Cor. 15:29 shows beyond any doubt that the Corinthians had been taught and firmly believed that baptism was essential to salvation or else why be baptized for the dead?  If baptism is a meaningless thing, only a symbol or sign, then why be bothered with it at Corinth or anywhere else whether for the living or the dead?  

[If you wish to download this article to save it to your computer or to print it out click here.]

 

 

 

Receiving the Gospel--Acts 2:41

 "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41 NAS) 

In my younger days before computers I use to hear about preachers on TV or radio who would tell their listening audience that if they wanted to receive Jesus and salvation just lay their hands on top the device, say certain words in the form of a prayer, and as a result you would be saved provided of course that you were sincere.  For all I know they may still be telling them that as I do not watch TV evangelists.  It sounds good but was there ever any truth to it? 

In Acts 2 just about everyone admits that Peter preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached.  The text then says, "those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41 NAS)  What was his word they received?  Was it the gospel?  If it was not the gospel there was no power in it to save for Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes.” (Rom. 1:16 NKJV) 

Most denominational bodies run into serious trouble with this verse (Acts 2:41) for if Peter did indeed preach the gospel then to receive it means one is baptized.  It was only those who did not receive his words who were not baptized.  They cannot accept that nor are they willing to. 

The New Living Translation, a dynamic equivalence translation now more generally known as functional equivalence, puts it this way, "Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day …”.   The International Standard Version translates this way, "So those who welcomed his message were baptized …”.   The New King James Version says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized …".    

I guess one who does not believe that baptism is essential for remission of sins can choose his poison here.  What had Peter preached?  "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ...”. (Acts 2:38 NAS) 

Will one "believe" what Peter said as per the New Living Translation, or will he "welcome Peter's message" as per the International Standard Version, or will he "gladly receive" his message as per the New King James Version?  Most denominationalists will do none of the above.  Not only will they not receive Peter's words, words spoken by the Holy Spirit, but they are ashamed of them.  You could not pay them to preach the sermon Peter did with its closing of "repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins."  (Acts 2:38 KJV)  They do not believe what Peter spoke, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to be true.  They are not willing to receive his words. 

Be all of that as it may do not be misled.  God is able to say what he means to say.  He is able to communicate clearly.  If you gladly receive the word Peter preached (I ask again did he preach the gospel?) you will do what he by the Holy Spirit told you to do.  

Please note those who did not receive his word, the gospel, were those who did not repent and were not baptized and were not added to them (to the disciples) that day.  

I know religion is full of emotion and emotion often overpowers the ability to think and reason correctly.  We have so much invested in a false proposition we will not allow our minds to even think it could be otherwise or even consider such a thing.  However, the Christian religion is based on truth (not error), and the overcoming of self, and acceptance of God which means accepting what he says.  You can obey Jesus by obeying the words of Peter if you will.  Emotions can change over time.  Truth cannot. 

Denny Smith

Originally written April 2011

[If you wish to download this article to save it to your computer or to print it out click here.]

Everlasting Life--The Believer of John 3:16

Who has everlasting life?  Is it the man Jesus spoke of in John 3:16 when he said, "whoever believes in him (speaking of himself--DS) should not perish but have everlasting life" (NKJV) or is it the man he spoke of in John 5:24 when he said, "I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life" (NKJV)?  Jesus says in the former passage believe in him for everlasting life while later in the latter passage he says hear my words and believe in him who sent me (God the Father).

Many cling to John 3:16 with the idea being that all Jesus requires of man for salvation is a belief in Jesus without ever giving any real serious thought as to how Jesus would define a believer in himself, one whose faith is sufficient to save.  They merely assume they know so every man becomes a law unto himself, declares himself a believer, and is in his mind (and often in his family and friend's minds) saved without ever offering any real concern about God's commands or any serious obedience to them.  Many have made no real attempt in years to worship God or read his word let alone put him first in their life yet they are saved, they say, because they say they believe in Jesus.

Jesus never taught even once what such men have assumed.  John 5:24 offers a commentary on John 3:16, as do many other passages throughout the New Testament, concerning who the believer of John 3:16 is.  When Jesus says in John 5:24, "he who hears my word" (and, of course, believes in God the Father) will have everlasting life he is not adding to what is required of man for salvation for hearing the word of God has been required of man every since Adam and Eve.  But, who is the believer in Jesus who will be saved?  Who is that man?  It is the man who hears Jesus' word.  A man cannot hear Jesus' word, disregard it or consider it unimportant, even unnecessary, and at the same time in truthfulness say he believes in Jesus.

It goes without saying when Jesus spoke of hearing his word he was not speaking of hearing with the physical ear only but of heeding the words, of obeying those words.  The next verse, verse 25, makes this clear.  "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." (John 5:25 NKJV)  The dead spoken of here are not the physically dead but the spiritually dead and the meaning is not that just by hearing Jesus speak one would be saved but rather if you hear what he says and you believe it enough to act on it (obey it) you will live.  No man has truly heard Jesus who does not believe what he says enough to take him at his word and obey him.  Those who crucified Jesus heard him speak through the physical ear but never heard Jesus in the sense of which Jesus spoke of hearing for salvation.

Further proof is provided in John 5:38 (a verse in the same chapter) where Jesus speaking of himself tells those he was speaking to, "Him you do not believe."  (NKJV)  They heard him okay with the physical ear but they had not heard him in the sense Jesus spoke of in John 5:24.  They were not heeding the message he was delivering.

Jesus closes this conversation in verses 46 and 47 where he says, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me.  But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" (John 5:46-47 NKJV)  You see it is not enough to just believe in Jesus that he is the Son of God.  (See John 12:42-43 as an example of those who believed that but were nevertheless lost.)  You must, as Jesus put it, "believe my words" and that is where the rub comes in with so many people.  They are glad to believe in Jesus as being God's son, to believe in Jesus as being the Savior, but they are not glad to believe other words he spoke and indeed reject many of them.

Belief cannot be a smorgasbord of Jesus' sayings where we get to go down the line and say I will take this, and I will take that, but I will have none of that.  How can we do that sort of thing and say we believe in Jesus?  Do we really believe him if that is what we do?  If we don't "believe him" how can we say we "believe in him?"

Most people do not believe Jesus when he said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) but rather believe "He who believes and is baptized, or not (either way), will be saved" (Mark 16:16--man's version not God's).  In the Great Commission, as found in Matt. 28, Jesus commanded that disciples be baptized (Matt. 28:19) but man while he says he believes in Jesus says it does not matter whether a disciple is baptized on not.  He can be saved without it, says man.  Yet, this very man declares his faith in Christ, faith in the very being whose word he questions.  Believe in Jesus but just don't believe everything Jesus says seems to be the idea.  You will then be saved by faith in Jesus.  That is the claim even though none would dare put it so bluntly.

The world may believe this kind of perversion but I am not among their number.  It all comes down to the question of "what is belief in Jesus?"  Of what does that faith consist?  We are worlds apart on that.  To believe in Jesus is to believe what the Son of Man, the Son of God, said.  If you can't believe or won't believe what the Son of man--the Son of God--said you are not a believer in him.  If I can't believe a man's word out in the everyday world it is quite a stretch to say I believe in him.  It is no different in the Bible as one considers Jesus and his word.

When Jesus declares a man has everlasting life based on a certain condition then that condition becomes mandatory and is not a matter of personal preference as to whether it is required for salvation or not.  The same holds true if he phrases it some other way--for instance, uses the term "eternal life," or the phrase "is saved," or the words "will see the kingdom of heaven."  Whatever Jesus states as necessary to salvation under any and all such descriptive terms is required of man, man's thoughts to the contrary notwithstanding.  To fail to believe Jesus (fail to believe what he says) is to fail to believe in him.

A good example of what I am talking about is found in Matt. 7:21 where Jesus says, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father in heaven." (Matt. 7:21 NKJV)  If you really believe in Jesus you must believe what he said here and thus understand that salvation is dependent on keeping the commands of God.  You will either believe that or else you will not believe Jesus and thus do not believe in him in any sense of having a faith that will save you.

If you say doing the will of God, keeping his commands is salvation by works, not by grace, I say in response it is salvation by believing in Jesus, believing what he says.

We must always remember that while we are saved by faith it is only a certain type of faith, a faith that is inclusive of trust and obedience.  James makes light of a non-obedient faith, "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  Can faith save him?" (James 2:14 NKJV)  "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:26 NKJV)

In closing, I ask who is the believer of John 3:16 who has everlasting life?  I answer by saying he is not the man most of the world thinks he is.  He is a man who has the faith of Abraham of whom the Bible says, "By faith Abraham obeyed." (Heb. 11:8 NKJV)  To what extent did Abraham obey?  To the extent he was in the very act of offering Isaac as a burnt offering to God because God had commanded it before God stopped him.  This is the Abraham whom the Bible says is "the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also." (Rom. 4:11 NKJV)

The believer who is blessed by God, the believer in Jesus of John 3:16, is the believer who does not question Jesus or declare some of his commands as unnecessary but obeys them all to the best of his ability because in believing in Jesus it necessarily follows that he believes Jesus.  He is the true believer of whom it can be said he has everlasting life.

[If you wish to download this article to save it to your computer or to print it out click here].

 

Jesus and Tolerance--The Narrow Gate

Jesus’ teaching on the narrow gate is a part of the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matt. 7:13-14.  The question being raised here is whether or not Jesus was being narrow-minded as he spoke of only one gate, of only one way, that would lead to eternal life.  That is a pertinent question in the time in which we live, a time in which many are questioning Christianity making accusations that it is exclusive and intolerant.  Here is what Jesus said:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (NKJV) 

As human beings, we sometimes believe and act upon wrong premises that can do us much harm.  To use myself as an example I once believed and acted on the premise that if a person exercised faithfully and intensely he could eat anything he wanted and not have to worry about diabetes.  I found out differently when I developed insulin resistance but until the truth hit me squarely in the face that was what I believed and the way I lived my life. 

In America today we have begun to think that the ultimate good is tolerance and we are acting on that premise.  We are so convinced that this is the case that we are closing our minds to other possibilities much like I had closed my own mind to the possibility of a man like me getting diabetes.  Let me ask a question.  Is tolerance of greater value than truth?  Are we better off with a tolerant Jesus or a truthful Jesus?  If we could have only one or the other which would we be better off with? 

A wholly tolerant Jesus would mean the end of justice, of righteousness.  Would one want to live in a society that was totally devoid of justice, could one live peacefully in such a society?  How does one call heaven a place of joy if tolerance allows in the willfully lawless and rebellious, the evildoers and the vile, the unrepentant?  God is indeed longsuffering but he is not tolerant without end nor would justice allow it.   

If we believe Jesus was God’s son, spoke by inspiration, and never sinned then he spoke the truth about the gates between which men must choose.  There are only two and we all must choose one or the other and thus the corresponding path we will take to death’s door and eternity.  One must either accept what Jesus said as truth or else deem him a liar and no saint at all let alone God and Savior.  If Jesus is a liar then you can forget about heaven and eternal life.

Jesus and Christianity are being challenged in America today by postmodernism, secularism, relativism, multiculturalism, feminism, humanism, Darwinism, atheism, nihilism, hedonism, by just about every “ism” you can think of.  Our culture has changed so much in the last fifty years that today Jesus is no longer seen necessarily as good, as was the case in the days of my youth, but rather as one who is somewhat arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant.  How dare he give us only an either/or alternative—his way or the highway.

The very fact he has given us an alternative to the wide gate and broad way that leads to destruction is no longer seen as grace but rather as a threat of violence if we do not choose it.  Instead of being thankful that we have an option not just of escaping from destruction but of partaking in a glorious, joyful eternal life many of us end up murmuring and complaining.  

It reminds me of what Paul said when he wrote to the Galatians.  “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16 NKJV)  Has Jesus become our enemy because he told us the truth about the two gates?  A man tells us the truth and we resent it.  Many among us have decided to reject what Jesus has said as truth; we will deny it, refuse to accept it.  We reject the New Testament.

Our problem is we want a third gate, one that is not difficult to enter and upon entering is easy to travel and leads to eternal bliss.  Narrow gates, when posted on roads, lead to narrow roads which are anathema in a society that prides itself on tolerance of everything man’s imagination can devise.   

We want broadmindedness in religion and morality but if we had it would we not think it to be somewhat of an anomaly?  Broadmindedness does not work in math, chemistry, medicine, banking, or any other field of endeavor I can think of.  We all want exactness in those things and if we are to have orderly lives rather than chaos we must have it that way. 

Narrowness is not equivalent to persecution as so many think but is rather a prescription for success, success for the reason that truth itself is narrow.  Deviate from narrowness in obedience to traffic lights as you drive in the city and you endanger not only your own life but the lives of others as well and it will be just a matter of time until disaster strikes.  Tolerance says let a man do it.  Truth says your tolerance will get someone killed.

It has always amazed me that man tries to make himself out to be God and make the rules that govern life when he cannot make one hair white or black (Matt. 5:36) and is totally helpless when death’s door opens.  He thinks he can play God, make the rules, and knows better than what God has said, and then has the audacity to accuse God of arrogance.  Perhaps a mirror would be helpful.

I have often asked myself the question why men do not believe or make an effort to live faithful lives.  What is the answer?  Is it unbelief based on the intellect, on the study of the evidence about Christ where the New Testament is found to be wanting and based on myth, fairy tales, and fantasy?  Well, the apostles knew whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them after the resurrection and if he did not what was to be gained by becoming martyrs?  None of them became rich televangelists.  There was nothing to be gained if it was all a lie, based on falsehood.

People do not reject Christianity based on evidence.  It is rejected, and no attempt is made to live the life, because the human will finds the broadway more appealing.  The gate to that road is broad and easy to enter, the road is wide and easy to travel, everyone is accepted, there are no restrictions, no speed limits, no policing of it so that any lifestyle is accepted, sin does not exist on it for sin is not in the vocabulary of those who travel it, at least not in their own lives.  The Bible defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV), the law of God.  Take God out of the picture and there is no sin.  Men may come up with moral standards but if history teaches anything it is that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to man making moral law.

It is a world without God, without foundation, without any hope other than that God may accept you in the afterlife despite the fact you rejected him your entire earthly life and did so of your own free will.  He told us about this other gate and other way but we said we would have none of it and now at the end of the way we do not like where the road ends.  All roads do eventually end; the road reaches its destination.

“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and my people love to have it so, but what will you do in the end?” (Jer. 5:31 NKJV)

What happens, in the end, is easy enough to explain.  “God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” (Gal. 6:7-8 NKJV)

Two gates, two ways of life, two destinations, life’s choices.  Was Jesus being narrow?  Jesus was being truthful; Jesus was giving grace.  Jesus was as tolerant as truth would allow and showed truth to be the greater value.  Grace, which one could argue is a godly form of tolerance, was shown in giving us the knowledge of the facts and in providing the way of salvation.  All that remains is human choice, man’s free will to choose.  The human heart is revealed in the choice that is made.

One final word, there is no such thing as not choosing a gate.  An “I will decide later” approach is in reality a failure to choose the narrow gate and the difficult way that leads to life and thus puts you in the wide gate and broad way that the many are traveling.  It is not hard to enter a wide gate thus no real effort is required.  A narrow gate is another matter.  You only get in that gate if you want in and make an effort.  The choice is ours but Jesus has already told us which road the many will choose.  We can go with the crowd or take the road less traveled.

[This article can be downloaded to save on your computer or be printed out by clicking here.]