The Grace of God in Baptism (Titus 3:4-7)

Most Americans of a Christian persuasion believe that baptism has little to nothing to do with the grace of God. One wonders have they never read Titus 3:4-7? The truth about God’s grace and its relationship with baptism is clearly set forth in Paul’s passage to Titus which reads as follows:

"But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 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, whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NKJV)

I encourage the reader to compare this passage, as rendered in the New King James Version just quoted, with its rendering in other reliable translations such as the English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version. It would also be good to read it from the New International Version. It is always good to read a passage from more than one translation to make sure you understand what is being said.

What does the passage teach? It teaches what it says. We are saved by God’s mercy, and we are justified by his grace. To be saved is to be justified. If you are not justified, you are not saved. But is that all the passage says and teaches? No!

It teaches when God saves us by his mercy or grace, whichever term you wish to use, he uses means to do so. What means? Well, what does the text say? It says, "Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." (NKJV) The washing of regeneration is baptism.

The word "regenerate" is defined, according to my little paperback Merriam Webster Dictionary, 1994, "1: formed or created again 2: spiritually reborn or converted." Since that is its meaning the New International Version phrases it, "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit."

One who knows the scriptures immediately calls to mind the words of Jesus in John 3. Jesus says, "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3 NKJV) He says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5 NKJV) What Paul taught in Titus 3:4-7 Jesus had already taught in John 3:3-5.

The word washed or washing is a reference to baptism. Paul says to the Corinthians, after listing a group of sins that people get caught up in, "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 God." (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) How were they justified? Read Titus 3:4-7 again and you will be told.

How did Jesus cleanse the church at Ephesus? "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV) The washing is done with water. It is baptism. Ananias told Saul, soon to be Paul, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16 NKJV) The washing was done in baptism.

The writer of the book of Hebrews encourages Christians in saying, "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) The washing is with water; the washing is baptism.

Now back to our original text in Titus-- Titus 3:4-7. Certainly, Paul teaches we are saved by God’s mercy, by his grace, for he very clearly states that, but if we will be honest, he just as clearly states that he saves by grace using means, and that means is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." The English Standard Version and the New American Standard Version both say, “by the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5 ESV) rather than “through” which the NKJV uses. It is all one and the same.

When does God’s grace save? How does it save? Paul tells us in Titus but people would rather rely on their traditional interpretations than on plain statements of scripture and as long as that is the case little can be done. Part of the problem is when people think of grace they too often have in their mind one thought only--that salvation is all God’s doing and absolutely none of our doing. It is basically unconditional on man’s part. My mind cannot read the Bible and conjure up any such line of reasoning. Noah is a case in point.

Noah found grace in God’s eyes (Gen. 6:8) and was saved from drowning in the flood, but Noah had something to do on his part to be saved. There was an ark to be built. Was Noah saved by works? Just because God gives man something to do in order to be saved does not mean the thing required of him is a work that merits or earns salvation.

Noah had to build an ark to be saved because God required it, but it was not wood and pitch in the form of a ship and hard work that saved him. Surely, we can see that. It was the grace of God that built the ark, then floated it, kept it from sinking, and then finally brought it safely to rest. It was God’s grace that told Noah beforehand what was coming, the flood, and how to save himself. God’s grace saved Noah, but not without effort on Noah’s part. That effort consisted of believing and obeying. It is the same for you and me today.

If you can ever find a passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, which teaches or shows that any man was ever saved or could be saved by works apart from God’s grace please forward the passage to me. The fact that God gives you something to do to be saved does not mean that by complying with that act you no longer need God for you have worked (earned) your way to heaven.

Paul says in Titus that we are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5 NKJV) and yet in the very same verse we read it is "by the washing of regeneration …" (Titus 3:5 ESV). Anyone who can add two plus two and come up with four can clearly see then that in God’s eyes baptism is not a work of righteousness which we have done that merits salvation by works, and yet that is one of the arguments men make time and time again against baptism. They say baptism is salvation by works and they thus contradict Paul in Titus.

Baptism is as much a part of God’s grace for us today as was Noah’s ark building. "By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." (Heb. 11:7 ESV) Noah had found grace in God’s eyes. (Gen. 6:8)

Now, let us say I want to become "an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith" just like Noah. Do you suppose there is anything for me to do? How about the washing of regeneration? Just as God’s grace led Noah to build an ark because of God’s word, God’s grace should lead us to be baptized because of God’s word. In fact, the word of God is referred to twice in the New Testament as "the word of his grace." (Acts 14:3 and Acts 20:32) There is a reason for calling his word that. Grace is found in God’s words of instruction for man. God was under no obligation to save Noah or to save you or me. He was under no obligation to tell Noah what he needed to do to be saved and he was under no obligation to you and me to tell us the way of salvation.

I hope you did take special note in your reading of the Titus 3:5 passage that Paul says "he saved us." When we submit to baptism it is not us saving ourselves by our own power or by our own works. Without God baptism means nothing. Noah built the ark, but he most certainly did not save himself apart from God. God could have sunk the ark at any point in time even after it floated. You and I are baptized, but that does not mean we saved ourselves. It would take a fool to believe that.

One of the things I do is a little substitute teaching in a high school of about 1100 students. Sometime back, I was subbing in a World History class and was thumbing through the textbook while the kids were otherwise occupied. I was a social studies major in college and enjoy history. Quite by chance, one of the pages that opened up had a few paragraphs dealing with Christianity. I was amazed to find the following statement that I am going to quote here: "Christians believed that through the rite of baptism their sins were forgiven by the grace of God." This had reference to the early years of Christianity.

The quote was taken from the textbook World History by Prentice Hall, written by Elisabeth Gaynor Ellis and Anthony Esler, page 170, for high school classes. The year the book was put out was 2010. The reference was to the time of the establishment of the church in the first century. That is all I have taught in this article and that is what Paul taught in Titus to all who will open their eyes just a little bit.

With that, I am going to bring this article to a close. I have taught the truth for I only told you what Paul said in Titus. He said it; I repeated it.

(If the reader should wonder why I did not discuss the latter half of the passage in Titus relating to the "renewing by the Holy Spirit" the answer is because men do not dispute that part of the passage. That is not where the battle rages. We all agree the renewing of the Holy Spirit is essential. I also add that this article was written originally years ago even though I am just now posting it. It was revised but very little.) 

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

Without Natural Affection and Covenantbreakers

Most of us prefer a version of the Bible today that is more modern in its language than the original American Standard Version of 1901 or the King James Version, thus making the Bible easier to read and understand. However, in a few passages scattered about the Bible, the new literal translations like the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV, all excellent translations taken as a whole, have, in my opinion, given us inferior translations in an attempt to make reading easier for us.

One such example is found in Rom. 1:31. In Romans 1, Paul, toward the middle of the chapter, begins to talk about the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (v. 18) and then in the last few verses lists a series of sins into which mankind had fallen. Verse 31 is a part of this listing and reads in its entirety as follows, “undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful.” (NKJV)

However, read this same verse from the King James Version and it reads as follows, “Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” The ASV of 1901 reads the same as the KJV except that it omits the word “implacable.”

Here is a case where both of these older translations are more accurate to my mind than any of the newer ones, more accurate in exactness of the meaning of the original Greek words behind the English words untrustworthy (NKJV) and unloving (NKJV). That is to say, covenantbreakers is a better translation than untrustworthy, and without natural affection is a better translation than unloving.

For covenantbreakers (it is one word in the KJV), the ESV and the NIV have "faithless," the NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have "untrustworthy." These words are close enough that you can see where modern-day translators were coming from, but they still stray in my mind from the exact intent of the original. The original is not referring to general untrustworthiness but specific untrustworthiness in breaking a covenant one has made with another. I may be wrong, as I am not a Greek scholar, and modern scholarship seems to say I am, but if you go back in time, translators thought covenantbreakers was the best translation. Let each do their own study.

Hear the words of Malachi 2:13-16, and for this I will use the NKJV because it reads easier and is still accurate. “And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and crying; so he does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did he not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. ‘For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.’”

When a man and woman marry, they make a solemn covenant between each other and God. To break that covenant would be exactly what the Greek word used in Rom. 1:31 is talking about. But there is more. How many times in reading the Old Testament do you run across the word covenant in connection with covenants God made with his people and them with him? How many times did his people break those covenants?

I did a quick e-sword search on the NKJV concordance for the word covenant in the New Testament, and the word popped up 31 times in 28 total verses. The New Testament is sometimes called the New Covenant (it is listed as that on the title page of the copy I have of the original American Standard Version of 1901).

As Christians, we have entered into a covenant relationship with God. When Jesus died on the cross and we come to accept him as Lord, Savior, and King of our lives by gospel obedience, we have entered into a covenant relationship with him. Remember his words, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28 NKJV)

Paul spoke of himself and his cohorts as “ministers of the new covenant.” (1 Cor. 3:6 NKJV) “Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 722 NKJV) says the Hebrew writer. It is said to be a “better covenant” than that which was under the Law of Moses with better promises (Heb. 8:6). To be a covenantbreaker, whether between husband and wife or a Christian and his God, is a serious matter.

“Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing…,” says the Hebrew writer (Heb. 10:29 NKJV). We must be as good as our word, and if we are not, we need to repent and get to being that good. This easy covenant breaking we have today is not going to get it with God, whether the covenant we are breaking is with our wife or husband or with God.

Am I saying modern-day translations have it wrong? I am told by Claude, the A.I., that modern scholars think the original is broader than just the breaking of covenants. Here is a quote from it, “The shift from ‘covenantbreakers’ to ‘faithless’ in modern translations reflects a more contemporary understanding of the Greek term's broader meaning - it encompasses not just breaking formal covenants or treaties, but being generally untrustworthy, unreliable, or lacking in faithfulness to commitments and relationships.”

ChatGPT, the A.I., says, “the Greek ἀσύνθετος literally means ‘not keeping agreements’ but broadly conveys faithless/treacherous/untrustworthy, which explains why newer translations expand or modernize the wording.”

Certainly, a covenantbreaker would be faithless and untrustworthy so I can see that. However, here is a case for me where I find it hard to discern between translation and commentary, which is which.

The other phrase I want to talk about from Rom. 1:31 is the words, “without natural affection.” In the ESV and the NIV, the Greek is translated by one word, the word “heartless.” The NAS, the CSB, and the NKJV have “unloving.” I think you will find the old King James Version has it correct as to the exact meaning of the Greek. A person might be heartless and unloving in general and still not be “without natural affection.”

Vine’s, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, a standard work that Bible students consult regularly to see what the original Greek behind the English word means, says this, “signifies without natural affection…love of kindred, especially of parents for children and children for parents.” The Greek word is “astorgos.”

An example of natural affection is found in the story of the two women (harlots) who, while living together, gave birth to sons 3 days apart. The one woman lay on her son in the night, killing him by accident. She then claimed the other woman’s son as her own. The matter was taken before King Solomon, who heard both women claiming the boy as their own. In his wisdom, King Solomon proposed to have the son killed by the sword and both women given a half, knowing the real mother would be willing to give up the child to have his life spared. Natural affection led to this very result, with the real mother pleading for the life of the son, willing to give him up to the other woman to save his life. “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!” (1 Kings 3:26 NKJV)

What is natural affection if it is not God given, natural, by nature? It is hard for most of us to understand how this can be, that one would not have natural affection, and yet Paul says some have this sin in their life. In writing Romans 1, he includes it with a long list of many sins about which he says in closing, “that those who practice such things are worthy of death.” (Rom. 1:32 NKJV) We read in the Old Testament of some offering their babies up for burnt sacrifices. In 2 Kings 17, one reads of the sins that caused God to allow Israel to be carried away into captivity. One of these sins was that “they caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire.” (2 Kings 17:17 NKJV) This was a sin associated with the worship of idols.

Manasseh, the king of Judah, became guilty of the same thing: “he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.” (2 Chron. 33:6 NKJV) God, in the book of Jeremiah, said, “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my heart.” (Jer. 7:31 NKJV)

This shows the depth and degree to which men can sink when they get involved with false doctrine. Radical Islam comes to mind, where men can slit a man’s throat with a knife, the burning of Christians at the stake, etc.

However, it can work the other way as well, children against their parents. Almost every Bible reader is acquainted with the attempt by David’s son Absalom to overthrow him. One can read about Absalom’s revolt beginning in 2 Sam. 15, and every indication is that David felt Absalom would put him to death if he had the opportunity.

Many years later, Jesus spoke of a time when “brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.” (Mark 13:12 NKJV) From time to time, we read or hear in the news of children abusing their aged parents. In fact, Jesus talked about this very thing, although not speaking of physical abuse, in Matt. 15. He accused the scribes and Pharisees of not honoring their parents, not being willing to help them (Matt. 15:1-6).

Yes, these are all extreme cases, but if men can fall into the depths of sin to the degree they are willing to do these things, then certainly there is such a thing as a lack of natural affection, which none can deny. The lack of natural affection can manifest itself in many ways. But in whatever way it manifests itself, the sin of the heart remains the same. The sin of lacking natural affection is simply the sin of not loving. Perhaps this is the reason some of the modern translations use the word “unloving” in their translations.

“For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.” (1 John 3:11 NKJV) “He who does not love his brother abides in death.” (1 John 3:14 NKJV) One would do well to read the book of 1 John where the word love is used 36 times in the New King James Version.

If one lacks natural affection, it is not something we are incapable of doing anything about. All sin begins in the heart, unless one is talking about sins of ignorance. If the Bible teaches anything at all, it teaches that men and their hearts can be changed. Saul had a hand in seeing Christians put to death (Acts 26:10), but God and his word changed him into the apostle Paul. Paul said there was a reason for that--that he might be an example.

I use the New Living Translation here, not because I think it is the most accurate translation of the passage, but because I think, as a commentary, it has hit the nail on the head of what the verse teaches. I refer to 1 Tim. 1:16 where Paul says, “But God had mercy on me so that Christ Jesus could use me as a prime example of his great patience with even the worst sinners. Then others will realize that they, too, can believe in him and receive eternal life.” (NLT)

It is not a matter of saying I was born without natural affection; what can I do? We are the way we are because of the attitudes we have developed over time. Saul was not loving toward those families he tore apart, casting a mother, a dad, a son, or a daughter into prison and possibly seeing them put to death depending on the case. Even so, he became a changed man.

The apostle John reached a point where he no longer had any desire to have fire called down from heaven to consume those who rejected them (Luke 9:54), but given a lifetime came to be known to us today as the apostle of love.

Those 3,000 converted on the day of Pentecost who yelled for the Son of God to be put to death had their hearts changed from hatred and murder to love and compassion. Christ can change us. It all comes down to a matter of our wills. Do we want to be known as the man or woman who lacked natural affection or the man or woman who loved his or her family? It is a matter of personal choice just as much as salvation is. Natural affection goes with salvation as much as the lack of it goes with condemnation.

Love is a choice. That cannot be emphasized too much. Love is a choice, and remember, we are talking about natural affection. When you begin to love rather than hate, you will find life to be much happier. Where do you begin? You begin from within, within your heart. You begin with your will. God can change your heart, your life, but you have to want it first. When you want it, you will begin seeking it, and when you seek, you shall find (Matt. 7:8). 

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

The Cleansing of the Church at Ephesus

How was the church at Ephesus cleansed from sin? To be cleansed from sin is to be saved. I think most in Christendom are well aware of the famous Ephesian passage found in chapter two, verses eight and nine, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.” (NAS) Many, many passages of the New Testament teach that salvation is a matter of God’s grace (Acts 15:11, Rom. 3:24, Gal. 2:21, 5:4, Eph. 1:7, 2:5, 2 Thess. 2:16, 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7, 1 Peter 1:10, 1 Peter 1:13). I have listed most of them here so the reader will know I am well aware of them.

I am thankful it is that way. If salvation were by works, a person might well come up short; the Bible teaches he would (Rom. 3:23). That is exactly what happened to the Jewish people under the Law of Moses. None was able to keep it. “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) I think we are all glad salvation is a matter of God’s grace, versus works, for works demanded perfection.

God’s grace, which gives us salvation, is granted to us as a result of faith we possess. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand.” (Rom. 5:1-2 NAS) “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” (Eph. 2:8 NAS) There are many other passages teaching that we are saved by faith. Here are quite a number of them: John 3:14-16, John 8:24, John 11:25-26, John 20:31, Acts 16:31, Rom. 10:9, 1 Cor. 1:21, Gal. 3:22, 1 Tim. 1:16, Heb. 11:6, 1 John 5:13, Rom. 3:26, 28, 30, 5:1, 11:20, Gal. 2:16, 3:24, 26, Eph. 2:8, Philippians 3:9, 1 Peter 1:9. These were again listed that the reader might know I am fully aware of them.

The question that arises, however, is what is this faith that justifies, that gives us God’s grace? I am not asking what the object of the faith is, for we know that. I am asking what the nature of this faith is. Many, perhaps most, are persuaded today (and have been since the Reformation) that it is merely a state of the mind regarding a belief one has in Jesus, who he is, and what he has accomplished for us. It is mental assent to the teachings of the scriptures about him. This is the faith that it is said saves. I certainly agree with that as far as it goes, but it stops short, too short.

One must not only believe what the scriptures teach about Jesus--who he was, what he accomplished--but faith also commits us to believe the man himself, believe what he said, and act on it. If faith does not lead to action, it is dead faith (James 2:17). James says it is “useless.” (James 2:20 NAS) Even in this world, as regards worldly matters, how can we say we have faith in a man when we will not take the man at his word?

The faith the Ephesians had that resulted in their cleansing from sin was the faith they had in what Jesus taught them through his inspired representatives. Paul was an inspired man, but the Holy Spirit, whether speaking through Paul or through any other apostle or first-century prophet, did not speak on his own initiative. “He will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak…he shall take of mine, and shall disclose it to you.” (John 16:13-14 NAS--the words of Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit) Thus, the Holy Spirit spoke the words of Jesus, and Jesus was thus their teacher.

Paul said later in the book of Ephesians that Jesus cleansed the church, “by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:26 NAS) “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.” (Eph. 5:25-26 NAS)

Who was cleansed that way? Those Paul said earlier that had been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). The washing of water with the word is clearly a reference to baptism. What did Jesus teach about baptism? “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NAS) “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5 NAS)

John 3:5 and Eph. 5:26 teach the same thing. The Spirit gave the word. The Spirit working through the word works on our spirit, if we will allow it to do so, changing our thinking, our attitudes, our desires, and our will, bringing us to the point where we are ready to put the old man to death and be baptized to arise in “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4 NAS) To be cleansed by the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26) is the same as to be born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

Furthermore, in scripture, the church (Eph. 5:25-26) and the kingdom (John 3:5), generally, not always but generally, are interchangeable terms. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom. When he used those keys, by preaching the gospel on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and people believed and obeyed, they were added to the church, one and the same as the kingdom that Peter was opening with his keys.

Were the Ephesians saved by grace through faith “before” they were cleansed? What was the church, the church being the members, cleansed of, if not sin? Can you be saved without first being cleansed of sin? They were saved by grace through faith when cleansed of sin by the washing of water with the word. That washing was done by “the obedience of faith.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS) Paul said he had received grace and apostleship, “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles.” (Rom. 1:5 NAS)

Paul himself, obviously a church member, was told at his own conversion, “Why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16 NAS) Paul had experienced the same washing and for the same reason the church had at Ephesus. No, water itself cannot wash away sins, but it can if God has made the decision that that is the time and place where he will act in response to a person’s faith. Some have said baptism is a test of faith, and I do not argue with them.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, “became furious” (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) when told he needed to go wash in the Jordan seven times to be healed of his leprosy. He did not want to do it that way. His faith had brought him thus far to Elisha, and he felt that should be good enough. Elisha should just come out and “stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) Obedience of faith had no place in his thinking. One is reminded of today.

No, the water of the Jordan had no magical power to heal Naaman, but faith in what God told Naaman to do, a faith strong enough to get him to act simply because God said to do it, was the faith that made the difference. Naaman is an excellent example of a man who experienced two types of faith. The first failed him in obtaining his objective. Why? Because it was based on his preconceived ideas of how God should do things.

When told to go wash in the Jordan seven times, "Naaman became furious, and went away and said, 'Indeed, I said to myself, 'He (reference to Elisha, God's prophet—DS) will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the leprosy.''" (2 Kings 5:11 NKJV) Naaman's faith that failed was faith in his own idea of how God should act. Naaman admits as much when he says, "I said to myself."

His later faith that brought Naaman healing was based not on Naaman's personal thinking but on what God said—"Go and wash in the Jordan seven times." (2 Kings 5:10 NKJV) This was the faith that brought healing when his faith became strong enough to become obedient to God's word.

This illustrates man's faith today in the spiritual realm with regard to baptism. There are two types of faith in what is commonly referred to as Christendom, as it relates to our salvation. The one says we will stop here (at the point of faith--mental assent) and do it this way. We have gone far enough; let God do the rest. The other faith says God said to do it (be baptized) for this reason (the remission of sins--Acts 2:38), I believe him, and I will do what he says because I believe. Both have what men generally call faith, but clearly, the faith is not the same.

There is also a question that needs to be asked. If Paul did not consider baptism to be salvation by works, why should we consider it to be salvation by works today? I have never heard a direct answer to that question. Paul tells the Ephesians they have been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) and then tells them at the same time they have been cleansed by the washing of water through the word (Eph. 5:26). He doesn’t miss a beat, doesn’t seem in the least to feel he has contradicted himself, so why should we feel that the two passages are contradictory? Why do we feel we have to try and devise a way to explain away the obvious meaning of the phrase "the washing of water?"

But there is much more in proof of the point I am making. In Eph. 1:7, Paul says, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.” (NAS) In him is a reference, obviously, to Jesus who shed his blood for us. How does one get into him, into Jesus Christ? Gal. 3:27 says we were “baptized into Christ” (NAS) and so does Rom. 6:3, “do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus.” (NAS) I know of no passage in the New Testament anywhere that tells one how to get into Christ other than through baptism.

If you were to start through the book of Ephesians and start marking every passage you come to that talks about different things that are found “in him,” “in Christ,” “in the Beloved,” here is some of what you would come up with: (1) every spiritual blessing--Eph. 1:3, (2) grace--Eph. 1:6, (3) redemption--Eph. 1:7, (4) an inheritance--Eph. 1:10-11, (5) sealed with the Holy Spirit--Eph. 1:13, (6) seated us in heavenly places--Eph. 2:6, (7) kindness toward us--Eph. 2:7, (8) his workmanship--Eph. 2:10, (9) brought near by the blood of Christ--Eph. 2:13, (10) partakers of the promise--Eph. 3:6. But one must note that all of these blessings are in, not outside of, but in Christ. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NAS) How does one enter Christ? By baptism. If one is clothed with Christ, he is in Christ.

Paul says elsewhere in the book of Ephesians, “we are members of his body.” (Eph. 5:30 NAS) But, then Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 12:13 how we get into that body, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NAS) What is Christ the Savior of according to Paul in Ephesians? “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, he himself being the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5: 23 NAS) This is the same body we are baptized into, that is, if we are in it, for that is the only way the scriptures give of entering into it--not by baptism alone but by the obedience of faith that results in baptism. The body of Christ, being the church (Eph. 1:22-23), is that which was cleansed "with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26 NKJV)

Where is grace found? The Bible tells us, “Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim. 2:1 NAS) Paul tells the Ephesians that this grace is “bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:6 NAS) Again, how does one get into Christ, the Beloved, according to the scriptures? We have already answered that. When one is led by faith to believe Jesus and obey him in baptism for the remission of sins, he enters into Christ, into the realm of grace by which he is saved.

In the book of Acts, chapter 19, Paul comes to Ephesus and finds 12 men there who are disciples. He asks them this question: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (Acts 19:2 NAS) They respond no, they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul then says, “Into what then were you baptized?” (Acts 19:3 NAS) Please note this one thing--Paul takes it for granted that if they were Christians, they had been baptized. He doesn’t ask them if they had been baptized. Why not? Paul doesn’t ask them because he knows what it takes to become a Christian and be saved. “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” (Acts 22:16 KJV, Ananias speaking to Saul, a believer, before Saul’s baptism)

One also ought to note the first thing Paul did with these 12 men, after learning their situation, was to have them “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5 NAS) Yes, Paul taught baptism at Ephesus. Paul stayed in Ephesus at least two years (see Acts 19:10) after this event, so when Paul said later in Ephesians that the church was cleansed by the washing of water with the word, there is no doubt he knew from personal experience all about baptism at Ephesus. There is no such thing as an unbaptized Christian, for Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) that all disciples be baptized. Paul either baptized them personally or saw to it that they were baptized by one or more of those who helped with the work. Either that or he disobeyed Christ, for which disciple was it that Christ said need not be baptized?

Faith is not just something to be believed but also obeyed. One must obey the gospel to be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-8). In a sense, the gospel is the faith (Jude 3); it is that body of doctrine that is to be believed, but within that body of doctrine that constitutes the faith, there are things that must be obeyed as well as believed. In addition to mental assent to the truth about Jesus as revealed in the scripture one must repent of sins (Acts 17:30), one must confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus (Rom. 10:9-10), and one must be baptized into Christ, baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:27). Faith, the faith that saves, is not a dead faith but an active one. It is by faith that a man does these things, by faith because he heard the words of God and believed them enough to take them to heart and obey them.

Do not allow yourself to be misled. A person does not believe Jesus who believes the doctrine that says, “he who has believed and has not been baptized shall be saved,” for that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said just the opposite.

I have asked this question before, but have never gotten an answer. If Jesus wanted man to know that baptism was essential to the remission of sins, the cleansing from sin, how would he say it in a way to get man to understand it? He could not say “repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38 KJV) for he already said that via the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter, and men will not accept it.

How would he say it to make it plain and simple enough so all could understand it? No one has yet answered that question. The truth is, Jesus has stated it as clearly as it can be stated by mere words alone. Men will either accept it or reject it and thereby be judged.

Have you been cleansed with the washing of water by the word? Will you be one with those saints in Ephesus Paul wrote to, or are you going to be another kind of Christian unknown to the church at Ephesus?

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

 

The Kingdom of God and the New Birth

Why write an article on the topic of the kingdom of God and the new birth? Because Jesus tied them together in talking to Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NKJV) Unfortunately, many misunderstand the kingdom of God spoken of in the passage and, as a result, come to erroneous suppositions, suppositions that lead astray. Perhaps the prominent of these is the idea that one can be saved like the thief on the cross. This is a topic that needs to be discussed.

Chronology is essential to a proper understanding of what Jesus is teaching. Jesus is king over his kingdom, but when did Jesus become a king with a kingdom over which to rule? When Jesus was talking to Nicodemus in John 3, was he speaking of what already existed, speaking in the present tense, or was he speaking prophetically?

He was speaking prophetically. Much of the teaching Jesus did while on earth related to the coming kingdom over which he would be king. It was yet in the future, but it had been prophesied from days of old. Daniel spoke of it when he said, in interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream, "the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed … and it shall stand forever." (Dan 2:44)

Israel and Judah of the Old Testament were ruled by kings, but both nations ended up in captivity, and the kingdoms were destroyed. The Jewish nation into which Jesus was born, into which he came, had no king. They were ruled by the Romans.

We need to trace the history of the kingdom that was established by Jesus. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to announce the events about to overtake her here is what he said, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:31-33 NKJV)

When John the Baptist comes on the scene and begins his ministry, his message is that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2 NKJV) It was at hand, meaning not here yet but getting close. This was the kingdom of God that both Daniel and the angel Gabriel said was to stand forever.

One chapter later, we see Jesus preaching the exact same message, "From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matt. 4:17 NKJV)

How close was that kingdom? Jesus said in his preaching to an audience in Mark 9:1, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." (NAS)

Two points need to be emphasized here regarding this passage. (1) The kingdom still had not yet arrived, but it would be doing so within the lifetime of some of those standing there. (2) When it came, it would arrive "with power." Put another way, you would know it when it happened for there would be power with its coming.

When Jesus spoke those words recorded in Mark 9:1 the kingdom did not yet exist, and if Jesus is to be the king of it, he does not yet have a kingdom. But, one might object, the New Testament speaks of Jesus as being a king before this kingdom of which you speak has arrived. True. But can a person be a king before he sits on the throne and begins to rule? We would, I think, all agree that he could. If it is certain he is to be king, we can call him king, but we do that in anticipation of what we know is coming.

What do we know up to this point in time that can help us determine when the kingdom is to arrive? We know it is a matter of just a very few years and we know that when it comes there is power that will come with it, making it recognizable as having arrived.

The New Testament gives us all the information we need to determine the exact day the kingdom of God became a reality among men. Since it came with power, if we know when the power came, we know when the kingdom arrived. Can we know? Yes.

In Luke 24:49, Jesus told the apostles, "Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high." (NKJV) This was just before his ascension back to heaven.

Luke explains this a little more when he says, "He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:4-5 NKJV)

Now look the two passages over carefully and compare them. The promise of the Father was the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5), but Luke (Luke 24:49) says the promise is with power. The power comes with the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Remember what Jesus said in Mark 9:1? The kingdom of God was to come with power. When the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of God arrived with power.

Let us take a look at what happened at that time. "When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4 NKJV)

Note the reaction of the crowd that had gathered. "Then they were all amazed and marveled." (Acts 2:7 NKJV) Now let us go back to Luke's quotation of Jesus in Acts 1:8. Speaking to the apostles, Jesus had said, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you." (NKJV) The kingdom had arrived with power. All recognized power had come down from heaven, from God himself.

What had they seen and heard that day? They had heard the sound that came from heaven "as of a rushing mighty wind" (Acts 2:2 NKJV), which is why they had come to gather together. Whether they had seen the "tongues, as of fire" (Acts 2:3 NKJV) that sat upon the apostles, one cannot say with certainty, but they most assuredly had heard the sound and then witnessed and heard the apostles speaking in tongues that they (the apostles) had never learned. There was little doubt in their mind that a higher power than that which was merely human had arrived.

Was Jesus now on his throne? Did he now have a kingdom over which to rule? He did if the kingdom had arrived with power, which it had. Hear Peter in his sermon that day. He says David knew that God "would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts 2:30 NKJV) Remember also the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary when he said of Jesus, "The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David." (Luke 1:32 NKJV)

Peter then says Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33 NKJV) The reader is reminded of passages just studied here. The kingdom would come with power (Mark 9:1), the promise was of power from on high (Luke 24:49), but that power promised was the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). The kingdom came with the baptism of the apostles with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

But let us look closer at Peter's statement about Jesus sitting on David's throne. Acts 2:29-31 (read paying special attention), "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption." (Act 2:29-31 NKJV) The point one needs to get out of this is that for Christ to sit on the throne and thus be king over this kingdom, he first had to be resurrected.

The kingdom over which Jesus now reigns and rules did not exist while Jesus lived on earth. Daniel had a vision of Jesus being crowned as a sitting, ruling king. "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14 NKJV) Jesus received the kingdom upon his arrival in heaven for that is what the text says--"then to Him was given … a kingdom."

The kingdom over which he now rules is "not of this world" (John 18:36 NKJV) but rather a spiritual kingdom which will never be destroyed. Yes, Jesus is now king in his kingdom. Every Christian is a subject of the king of kings--Jesus, the Lord and Savior.

Why has all of this been important beyond just being a history lesson? Why bother writing this? What does this business about the kingdom have to do with salvation and the new birth?

Here is the application. When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus in John 3:3-5, he spoke of a kingdom that was yet to come. Hear the things he said in that passage. "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.' Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.'" (NKJV) Could Nicodemus become a citizen that day (actually that night) of a kingdom that did not yet exist? Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of that which was yet to come.

What does it mean then to be born of water and the Spirit, which Jesus says is essential to entering the kingdom of God (meaning you cannot be saved without it)? There is no problem in coming to an accurate understanding. Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:19 NKJV)

The kingdom began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 with Peter preaching. Did he use the keys of the kingdom that day to open the door to the kingdom of God to mankind? Did anyone that day learn how to enter the kingdom? Was anyone that day born of water and the Spirit? Were any saved that day?

What did men do that day when they became convinced Peter had preached the truth (thus faith was developed within them)? What did he, the man with the keys, tell them to do? Did he not say to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" (Acts 2:38 NKJV) The Bible says, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them." (Acts 2:41 NKJV) They were thus born of water and the Spirit of John 3:5.

It is thus not too hard to learn what a man must do to be born again--listen to the man with the keys—listen to Peter. One is born of the Spirit when the Spirit working through the tool he uses (the word of God--"the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" Eph. 6:17 - NKJV) leads a man to faith and repentance, and then born of water when he is baptized for the remission of sins. It is but one birth, but has two aspects to it; either part without the other results in an aborted birth.

The man with the keys of the kingdom is belittled by most who call themselves Christians. Ask most denominational preachers to get into the pulpit this coming Sunday and preach just what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost with no additions and no subtractions and you could not get them to do it. They do not preach it because they do not believe there is a single ounce of water in a man's salvation, despite John 3:5, the very words of Jesus. This means they cannot preach what Peter did or what Jesus taught Nicodemus.

We ought to go with the man with the keys rather than with those who wish they had the keys. Yes, Jesus could have saved us without any water in the means to do so, but he chose not to. Have you ever thought that baptism might well be a test of your faith? What are you going to do if you are going to be saved by faith but fail the test, fail to believe?

Water does not save a man, but obeying Jesus does. Naaman, the leper (2 Kings 5), was not cleansed by the water of the Jordan River from his leprosy, but until he had faith enough to go do as he was directed and dip seven times he was not cleansed and never would have been. Could God have cleansed him from the leprosy some other way? Sure, had he chosen to do so. The power was not inherent in the water but in believing God enough to do what God said to do. And just so it is with baptism today. When God said to do it, that leaves one who wants to be saved without a choice.

Certainly, there were people saved who had their sins remitted, without baptism, while Jesus personally walked the earth, but that was also before the kingdom of God was established. Remember mentioning the importance of chronology? And, yes, God can save a person anyway he desires—he is God. However, he has told us in John 3 how we are saved in the age in which we live. Do we believe him? Are we going to teach others living today that water doesn’t matter despite what Jesus taught us in John 3:3-5? Not me. Faith means believing what Jesus taught.

One final comment. Jesus was really the one who did the preaching on the day of Pentecost. Hear Jesus speaking in John 16:13-14, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-14 NKJV) The Spirit did not speak on his own authority on the Day of Pentecost, speaking through Peter, but took what was Jesus' and declared it to them. One cannot reject Peter's sermon that day without rejecting Jesus. 

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