Truth Magazine

By Paul K. Williams

In an article concerning “Quarreling Brethren” (GOT 12-4-97) brother Keith M. Greer describes the controversy concerning “the proper exegesis of Romans 14.” He says he has studied “both sides” of these issues (I have detected considerably more sides than that), and he is concerned by attitudes of distrust evidenced by men involved in the controversy. That concerns me, too.

However, I am greatly alarmed at the solution he pro- poses. I was hoping that since he had studied everything so carefully he would give us an exegesis of the passage. Instead he wrote: “What did the apostles, elders, and brethren do in Acts 15 when a difference arose in the early church? They met to discuss the matter. Why? For the sake of the church and the love they had for the souls of their brethren.”

It is good for brethren to meet together and study the Bible. But to use the meeting of Acts 15 as a model for settling doctrinal differences is very dangerous. The denominations use that meeting to justify their “Church Councils” where delegates meet together and settle what must be believed and practiced in their denominations. Brother Greer’s suggestion that leading brethren get together in a meeting to settle the question of the correct exegesis of Romans 14 sounds like a “Church Council” to me, and it is not what happened in Jerusalem.

False teachers came from Jerusalem to Antioch teaching that “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas opposed them strenuously. However, the church decided to send men to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

There were two things which had to be determined. (1) Were the teachers of circumcision sent out by the church in Jerusalem to teach these things? (2) What was the teaching of the apostles on the matter?

Since Paul was an apostle, the church at Antioch should have listened to him without question. But evidently the false teachers were so plausible in their claims that brethren were shaken. They wanted the matter determined in a definite way. This was pleasing to God for Paul wrote, “It was because of a revelation that I went up” (Gal. 2:2). God wanted this matter settled in the minds of the disciples.

When Paul and Barnabas got to Jerusalem, it immediately became evident that (1) the false teachers had not been sent out by the church in Jerusalem. They wrote concerning them — “to whom we gave no instruction” (Acts 15:24), and (2) the apostles all taught what Paul taught on the matter.

The final, general meeting of all the brethren was a time when Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James used approved example, necessary conclusion, and direct statement from Scripture to convince the multitude of the truth (Acts 15:6- 29). They then wrote a letter stating that the teachers went out without their authority and telling what God’s will is.

These men had the right to write such a letter because they were apostles. What they wrote had the force of Scripture. No meeting of uninspired men today can do what the apostles did in Acts 15!

What brother Greer has written sounds like if all the quarrelling brethren would get together and agree on a solution, the problem would be solved and we would all know what to believe! It reminds me of a telephone conversation my wife had with a sister back in 1957. After my wife patiently taught the sister that church-supported orphan homes are not authorized by the New Testament, the lady said, “But they haven’t decided that yet, have they?” I still wonder who “they” are! The apostles decided it a long time ago. We don’t have any deciding to do except to understand what they taught and to obey it.

This is done by individual study, not by a church conference. It is done by appealing to apostolic example, necessary conclusion, and direct statement from Scripture. It is done by testing our conclusions by study with others, by debate, by articles, and the reviews of those articles. And it is done individually. Collective decisions don’t count for a thing!

As for personal sins against one another, face-to-face meetings are what Matthew 18:15-17 tells us we should have. We should study the Bible with one another when there are differences of understanding. But church conferences in order to settle a doctrinal matter are fraught with danger and lead in the direction of denominationalism.

By Bobby Witherington

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you (Tit. 1:5).

Titus, the person to whom the epistle bearing his name was written, was in Crete (one of the largest islands in the Mediterranean Sea) at the time when the apostle Paul wrote this letter. We cannot know for certain the exact date when the gospel was first preached in Crete. There were some “Cretans” present in Jerusalem when the gospel was first proclaimed on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11), and it is possible that some of them were converted and later returned home and converted others who also resided on the island of Crete. Other than a brief stopover when Paul sailed as a prisoner from Caesarea to Rome (Acts 27:7-12), we have no record of Paul himself being at Crete prior to his first imprisonment in Rome. However, at some point in time Paul had been in Crete, for he “left” Titus “in Crete” (Tit. 1:5). In the judgment of this writer, it is very probable that Paul visited Crete after being released from prison in Rome, and that he then left Titus while he (Paul) traveled elsewhere in his efforts to further the cause of Christ.

In view of the close personal ties that existed between Paul and Titus (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6; 8:23), one might wonder why Paul would leave him behind when he (Paul) left Crete. However, from our text (Tit. 1:5) we learn why Titus was left in Crete — it being to “set in order the things” that were “lacking.” Apparently certain important items were not “in order.”

The expression “set in order” is translated from the Greek epidiorthoo which, according to Robertson’s Word Pictures In The New Testament (4:598) was a compound word, meaning “to set straight (orthoo) thoroughly (dia) in addition (epi), a clean job of it.” Worded a bit differently, it meant to do a thorough and clean job of setting things straight. According to Weust (Word Studies In The Greek New Testament, Vol. 3), this expression was “used by medical writers of setting a broken limb or straightening crooked ones.” From each of these definitions it is apparent that the command to “set in order the things that are lack- ing” implies that some items were crooked, or in a state of disorder, and were in need of being straightened out. God obviously wants order in the church!

The opposite of “order” is disorder. The very charge to “set in order the things that are lacking” implies that a failure to so act will leave the church in a state of disorder. The implied “disorder” may (or may not) be evident to men, but rest assured it will be obvious to God! In the following paragraphs we suggest that in the eyes of God . . .

Disorder Prevails When

1. The local church is not properly organized. Contextually speaking, appointing “elders in every city” was one of the things involved in correcting that which was “lacking” with regards to the divine arrangement in Crete. Elsewhere (Acts 14:23) we learn that elders were “appointed . . . in every church,” and that elders’ oversight (as elders) begins and ends with the local church of which they are members (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). According to Philippians 1:1 the complete organization of a local church consists of “saints in Christ Jesus . . . , with the bishops (elders) and deacons.” Of course, the men serving as “bishops and dea- cons” (Phil. 1:1) must be scripturally qualified (Tit. 1:5-9; 1 Tim. 3:1-13), and functioning in their respective roles in keeping with the revealed will of God. Some churches exist for decades without ever appointing qualified men to serve as “bishops and deacons.” Other churches appoint men who are biblically unqualified. In many instances the bishops (or elders) of a local church neglect to honor their shepherding responsibilities to the local flock. And there are numerous examples of local church elders “assuming the oversight” of brotherhood, centralized works which involve the pooling of funds collected from hundreds of churches. In each of the aforementioned situations, before God, disorder prevails!

2. The worship is not “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). “In spirit” reflects the disposition, attitude, and thought processes of the worshipers. For example, if one eats the bread and drinks the fruit of the vine while physically par- taking of the Lord’s supper, but neglects at the same time to discern “the Lord’s body” or to reflect upon his “death” (1 Cor. 11:23-26), then he is not worshiping God “in spirit.” However, worshiping “in truth” is of equal importance, and God’s “word is truth” (John 17:17). Hence, if one, as an act of worship, introduces into the worship things which are foreign to the New Covenant (such as instrumental music, burning incense, holy water, the mass, etc.), then a state of disorder exists.

3. Carnality and division exists. When the apostle Paul wrote his first epistle to the church at Corinth he wrote to brethren who were “carnal” and characterized by “envy, strife, and division” (1 Cor. 3:3). Would any deny that a state of disorder prevailed at Corinth? And could any deny that disorder yet prevails in any local church which is currently plagued by such ungodly conditions?

4. The focus changes from “what pleases God” to “what pleases me.” God is the proper object of our worship (John 4:24). Whatever we do must be done with the intent of glorifying God (1 Cor. 10:31). However, in many places the simple, scriptural worship which God ordained is considered “too routine,” “too dull,” and “too boring.” So numerous changes are made — changes which ostensibly reflect a desire to “spice up” the worship, and make it more “meaningful” and “relevant” but which, in reality, reflect a determination to please self instead of God. Often the same desire to please self-results in intense pressure placed upon preachers to shorten their sermons, and then spice up what is left with jokes, relating personal experiences, and warm hearted pep talks designed more for the purpose of making people feel good about themselves than for convicting sinners with a realization of their own lostness before God. When this occurs, disorder prevails!

5. The social gospel replaces the saving gospel. The work of the church is three-fold: (1) Sounding out the word to lost souls (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:7, 8), (2) edifying the saints (Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 14:26), and (3) providing benevolence for indigent saints (Acts 6:1-6; 2 Cor. 8, 9; 1 Tim. 5:16). But many “churches of Christ” have assumed the role of a glorified Salvation Army. Others have gotten caught up in recreation, family life centers, secular education, and seminars on virtually every topic from how to grow healthy children to how to grow healthy vegetables. In such instances, before God, a state of disorder prevails.

6. Artificial lures are used to reach people. The gospel is the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). The word of God “is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). Sin- stained souls are “purified” when they obey “the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22). However, many have lost confidence in the “power” of the gospel, and now depend on the power of youth outings, retreats, camps, recreation in general, rap sessions, candle light services and hand-holding events in which people are able to “open up,” “interact,” and relate to each other’s — events which may tingle the spine, but do not save the soul! Another example of disorder!

7. Brethren withhold the truth from lost souls for fear of giving offense. No one should delight in making others angry. Tact and wisdom in our choice of words are both wise and scriptural (Col. 4:6). However, God’s word “is truth” (John 17:17), and only the truth can make one “free” (John 8:32). And sometimes people look upon us as their “enemy” because we tell them “the truth” (Gal. 4:16). Being mindful of this, many brethren who are more concerned about their own standing before their friends than their friends’ standing before God, either withhold from them the truth, or else soft pedal it to such a degree that the lost are not made to recognize the sad fact that they are lost. And keep in mind this fact; no one is really interested in learning what to do in order to be saved until he first learns that he is lost!

Conclusion

Yes, in many places much is “lacking” which should be “set in order.” However, as we conclude this article we urge each reader to make a personal application of the principles herein set forth. Dear reader, are there some things in your life which are “lacking” and which should be “set in order”? Perhaps the things “lacking” have to do with your attitude, your dress, your speech, your manner of life in general, your domestic situation, or your standing before God. Each one of us will give account of himself before God (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). That being the case, then whatever is amiss in our lives must be corrected. Life is too short to be little, and eternity is too long for us to live disordered lives while we abide in the realm of time. Consider ye well!

By Steve Wallace

By Tom Hamilton

The plain and direct statements of Scripture on the proper role and meaning of baptism are complemented by seven metaphors for baptism. These figures of speech emphasize various aspects of baptism’s significance and importance.

Washing

Perhaps the most well-known and obvious metaphor is the figure of washing. The significance of this figure goes back to the literal washings of purification required under the old covenant. These washings pointed toward the spiritual cleansing which would be available through Christ. Even in the Old Testament, we already see writers such as Ezekiel looking toward a figurative or spiritual washing (Ezek. 36:25). This is a passage the Hebrew writer alludes to in Hebrews 10:22-23 in referring to this spiritual cleansing which is now fulfilled in Christ — “having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Paul identifies Christ’s disciples as those who have been washed, justified, and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:11), regardless of what sins they had committed. In addition, Paul says that God “saved us, not on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). Paul identifies God’s people as the sanctified bride of Christ, “having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:26). One who fails to abound in godly character “has forgotten that he was purified from his former sins” (2 Pet. 1:9).

The force of the figure is unmistakable — the washing is the definitive action which separates the dirty from the clean, the filthy from the washed, the unholy from the sanctified. Prior to being washed, one is contaminated by the filth of sin; after being washed, he is cleansed and forgiven.

In addition, the Bible is clear that this washing is associated with baptism — not that baptism is merely a symbol of washing, but that it is the washing. The sins of the believing and penitent Saul were certainly not washed away until he was baptized, because Ananias asked Paul, “Now what are you waiting for? Arise! Be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16). However, Peter makes it clear that this washing is not ritualistic. It has no physical effect, as if the water itself were magical, but is effective through God’s grace. It is an appeal to God for a clear conscience by an obedient trusting heart — “In like manner, baptism also now saves us, not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21). We are not washed of our sins until we humble ourselves in obedient trust and do what God has commanded — arise, be baptized, and wash away our sins!

Circumcision

Circumcision is another metaphor for baptism which is taken from the Old Testament. The rite of circumcision was the sign of the covenant relationship between God and Abraham’s family, first instituted in Genesis 17. As such a symbol, it was a clear and definitive line dividing those in the covenant from those outside of the covenant, just as the act of washing separates the dirty from the clean.

The New Testament speaks of a figurative or spiritual circumcision in which sin is cut away from one’s heart and cast aside and in which one enters into a covenant relation- ship with God. “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart” (Rom. 2:28-29). Paul comments elsewhere, “. . . in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism” (Col. 2:11-12). Again, baptism is emphasized as the definitive action which divides those within the covenant of Christ from those outside of the covenant of Christ.

Exodus

Another metaphor for baptism drawn from the Old Testament is the exodus of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel is portrayed as redeemed and made to be God’s people upon the crossing of the Red Sea. For example, in Psalm 106:9-10 we read, “Thus He rebuked the Red Sea and it dried up, and He led them through the deeps, as through the wilderness. So he saved them from the hand of the one who hated them and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.”

Here again, the metaphor focuses on a definitive act which separates two distinct peoples, the unredeemed and the redeemed. Just as the Israelites had been in the literal bondage of slavery, mankind is in the bondage of sin. Just as the passage through the Red Sea freed and redeemed them, our baptism into Christ marks the point of our redemption from sin. Paul uses this analogy to compare the new covenant with the old — “. . . our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1-2). So also Christ Jesus “gave himself for us that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself a people for his own possession” (Tit. 2:14).

Clothing

Galatians 3:27-28 reads, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ . . . for you are all one in Christ.” Here baptism is compared to putting on clothes, the clothing of the character of Christ. In Ephesians 4:22-24, these new clothes of the new man in Christ are contrasted with the old self of sin which we take off — “lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and clothe yourselves with the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (cf., Col. 3:9-10). Of course, this act of clothing oneself with Christ is not a once-for-all action, but a lifelong process (Rom. 13:14), as seen in the fact that all of these passages were written to Christians. However, the figure demonstrates that there is a definitive point at which one goes from not being clothed to being clothed with Christ, and the Bible affirms that this point is baptism into Christ.

Birth

The Bible frequently uses the figure of new birth, renewal, or regeneration to describe coming into a covenant relationship with God. Our lives are to be so dramatically different than they were before that the Scriptures describe it as a rebirth, starting all over again completely new (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:1-10; 4:23-24; Col. 3:9-10; 1 Pet.1:3, 23; 1 John 3:9; 4:7). In fact, this new life living in us is to be Christ (Gal. 2:20).

It is not surprising that this figure of new birth is associated with baptism as the definitive turning point at which the new birth takes place. In Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, he paralleled being “born again” (3:3) with being “born of water and Spirit” (3:5). Jesus does not refer here to two different births, but a singular one which involves both water and Spirit. Without this new birth of water and Spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Likewise, Paul refers to our salvation through the “washing of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5). It was this new birth which Peter urged upon his listeners in Acts 2:38 — to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

We are able to know for certain that Jesus’ “water” and Paul’s “washing” are indeed references to baptism, because this same figure of new birth is also used as part of the figure of our spiritual resurrection, in which baptism also stands as a figure of burial (Col. 2:12-13). As we consider this next related figure, we will come to see baptism as the crucial turning point which may be described both as a burial in terms of signaling the end of the old life and as a new birth in terms of signaling the beginning of the new life.

Burial

Paul uses the metaphor of burial as a description of baptism in Romans 6:3-6: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death? Therefore, we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin.” Paul also used this figure in Colossians 2:11-

14, along with the metaphor of circumcision: “. . . having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions” (2:12-13).

In both cases, the meaning of the metaphor is clear. Just as a person must first die, then be buried, and then be resurrected, the proper order of our spiritual insurrection is first death (by repentance), then burial (by baptism), and then our spiritual resurrection or “newness of life.” Those who teach that one is first saved (i.e., made alive spiritually) and then baptized afterwards makes as much sense as burying a living person, because that is what they are claiming to do. You must decide whether it is the scriptural order that makes sense, or those who want to rearrange the biblical order to suit their peculiar theological views. Not only that, but Paul is rather explicit that baptism is the point at which we are spiritually made alive or resurrected. It is once again that definitive turning point which separates God’s people from those who are spiritually dead. In Colossians 2:12, Paul says baptism is that “in which you were also raised up with him.”Are we raised up with Christ in baptism or not? Likewise, in Romans 6:3-5, Paul stated that the reason we were “baptized into Christ” or were “buried with him through baptism” was “in order that . . . we too might walk in newness of life.” Is this the reason we were baptized or not?

Complete Union

Finally, we may consider how the literal action of baptism — that is, immersion —comes to represent the completeness of the spiritual union which we have with Christ. We are said to be immersed or “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6 3; Gal. 3:27), and Paul explicitly connects this with our being united with Christ (Rom. 6:5). Clearly, this is the point at which we enter into Christ and are united to him. In a similar way, we are said to be immersed into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). Clearly, this is the point at which we enter into the body of Christ, his church. It is at the point of baptism that we bury the crucified old man of sin to the point that we are able to say that “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20).

Conclusion

Whatever the metaphor or figure of speech, in every case the Bible makes clear that baptism is the definitive turning point which separates the forgiven from the unforgiven: the clean from the unclean, the circumcised from the uncircumcised, the one in covenant relationship with God from the one who is not, the clothed from the naked, the new from the old, the dead from the living, the one in Christ from the one outside of Christ.

These metaphors are simple, understandable illustrations which complement the plain teaching of Scripture elsewhere — that baptism makes disciples (Matt. 28:19), brings forgiveness (Acts 2:38), and saves (1 Pet. 3:21).