BIBLICAL BAPTISM EXPLAINED
The Commonly Accepted Viewpoint
The standard approach of Protestant churches (including those who immerse adults) is that a person is saved at the point of faith (their definition of faith) and then baptized at some later point. Baptism is often described as “an outward sign of an inward grace” or as a “demonstration to others of what has already occurred between a person and God.” In other words, baptism is much like observing the Lord’s Supper ─ it is an act of one who is already a Christian.
This definition of faith is incomplete and therefore needs a closer examination biblically. The passages used to supposedly prove salvation by faith without baptism are the ones which mention only the words “faith” or “belief.” This approach necessitates the ignoring of other passages which do mention baptism. A common line of argument is that since many more passages mention faiththan mention baptism, faith must be the essential ingredient while baptism is important but not essential. The ultimate result of such reasoning is that baptism passages have to be explained away, and even faith passages have to be taken out of context.
Romans 10:9-10 is often quoted as proof that we are saved without baptism. However, these verses cannot be used to exclude baptism from the salvation process ─ for several reasons. One, chapter 10 follows chapter 6, and in verses 1-4 of that earlier chapter, baptism is clearly taught to be a part of dying to sin and being raised to begin a new life. Two, “trust” in verse 11 and “call on him” in verse 12 go farther than simply believing and confessing. The progression in verses 14-15 is preaching, hearing, believing, and calling. Calling on the name of the Lord includes baptism, as may be readily seen in Acts 2:21, 38, and also in Acts 22:16. In Acts 2:21, Peter quotes from Joel 2:32 which reads: “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Then, when the people ask, in essence, just how to do that, Peter tells them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). Acts 22:16 is even clearer, as Paul is told to “Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”
Three, an even more important aspect of Romans 10:9-10 is the focus of the context. Paul is talking about the Jews who had failed to accept Christ, and addressing the reasons for that rejection. He was making the point beginning in verse 5 that the righteousness which comes by faith is not a complex issue nor an unreachable goal. God has already done the difficult work by sending his Son to the cross. Now in response to what he has done, we just need to accept him as Lord and Messiah. That was the challenge to the Jew. Being baptized was not a hard concept for them. It had been a part of John’s ministry, and large numbers of Jews had accepted it at his hands. Matthew 3:5-6 says that “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.” Proselytes to Judaism were customarily baptized as an initiation rite into Judaism. Therefore, Paul had no reason to mention baptism again in this chapter. That was not their stumbling block.
The problem that the Jew did have was in accepting Jesus as the Messiah to which their Law had pointed, and to then make this crucified Jew from despised Nazareth their Lord and King. Now that was a challenge! This background focus explains why the passage was worded as it was. Similarly, the problem with Gentile acceptance of the gospel was repentance. Therefore, Luke focused on that need all through the Book of Luke. In fact, his account of the Great Commission only mentions repentance. “He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:46-47). The lack of Luke specifically naming faith in this account does not mean that he was excluding it from the conversion process. He was simply focusing on their principal challenge. Thus, Luke’s approach follows exactly the same principle used by Paul in Romans 10. Paul was addressing the main stumbling block for the Jews and Luke was addressing the main stumbling block for the Gentiles.
But what about those who do immerse adults as this “outward sign of an inward grace”? How should we view their baptisms? More importantly, how does God view them? The understanding and convictions with which we respond to God’s teaching on any subject either validate or invalidate the response. Christianity is a religion of motive and purpose. Outward acts, without the proper understanding in the heart of the person involved, have never been acceptable to God. Under the Mosaic Law, even the sacrifices were to be offered with a clear grasp of the purposes behind them. The statutes in the Pentateuch spell out these purposes in no uncertain terms. Likewise, the New Testament defines the purposes of baptismvery plainly. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), the point at which one is born again (John 3:3-5), the means of entering a relationship with Christ where salvation is (Galatians 3:27; 2 Timothy 2:10), and the act which places us into the one body which God promised to save (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4; 5:23).
A real question is this: “Can one be taught incorrectly and baptized correctly? Let’s use an interesting example to help us think through this question. Certainly a person could sing, pray, give, and partake of the Lord’s Supper in a wrong manner. This being true (and surely no one would disagree on these matters), one can also be baptized in a wrong manner, even if the person is sincere. For the sake of illustration, let us consider a hypothetical case involving the Lord’s Supper. Someone could be taught to partake every Sunday, but be taught wrongly concerning the purpose. He could be told that in partaking, he is to remember Christ as the agent in creation (and he was ─ John 1:1-3), rather than as our sacrifice. The person involved would be observing the Supper regularly for a sincere religious motive, but for the wrong purpose. Would God accept this worship? Would not the traditions of men make this worship vain (Matthew 15:9)?
Likewise, sincere and even “religious” purposes in the act of baptism can be unacceptable to God. The evangelical denominations who teach that baptism is “an outward sign of an inward grace” teach those being baptized that they are baptized after they are saved, and not in order to be saved. This is totally unscriptural. Consider Colossians 2:12: “Having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God…” We are raised to walk a new life (as Romans 6:4 also mentions) through our personal faith in the power of God in the act of baptism itself. How can our “faith in the power of God” be transferred to another act (belief alone), and another time (before baptism), and still be acceptable?
Some are opposed to “re-baptism” but Paul was not (Acts 19:1-5). These whom Paul baptized had previously been immersed according to John the Baptist’s teaching, but needed to be immersed according to Christ’s teaching of the Great Commission baptism. Bear in mind that Jesus Himself administered the baptism of John at one time (through his disciples ─ John 4:1-2). However, after the cross only one baptism was acceptable (Ephesians 4:5), and that was the baptism of the new covenant. Although other baptisms are mentioned in the NT, by the time Ephesians was written, only one remained as a necessary part of our response to God.
A few years later, Peter wrote that “this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also ─ not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Thus, this one baptism was water baptism, and it was connected to salvation. Any variation of this baptism was not acceptable to Paul, and it should not be to those of us today who are seriously trying to follow the Bible. No one can be taught incorrectly and then baptized correctly. The logical and biblical route to take should be obvious, and certainly God would not be displeased with any person who was doing all that he could to conform to accurate teaching. I have never found an honest and sincere person who was satisfied for long with a questionable baptism once taught accurately.
Bible Baptism: Inseparably Connected To Faith
Properly understood, baptism is a response of faith to the cross. Romans 6:3-4 says that “all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Far from being a “work”, as some claim we teach, baptism is a recognition that we are hopelessly lost in sin without the death of Jesus, and a commitment of our hearts to him and the cross. Biblically, baptism is inseparably connected to faith in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
As has already been explained, many are taught that a person is saved by faith only, without further acts of obedience. This view is held by a majority of people in the religious world, especially by those in evangelical churches. It is true that the Bible often just mentions faith in connection with salvation. The key issue is how the Bible actually defines this faith that saves us. Of course other passages command repentance, confession, and baptism, but these are in the minority. Since this is the case, people are prone to line up the majority passages against the minority passages, claiming that faith is essential while the commands in the other category are optional. This pits Scripture against itself and is therefore erroneous. Several approaches can be taken in answering this misconception of faith only.
One such approach is to explain that faith mentioned alone is a common figure of speech where the part is used when the whole is intended (synecdoche). Usually faith is mentioned since it is the beginning point out of which all other conditions grow. Even though faith is the salvation term most often used in connection with this figure of speech, other salvation terms are also used in this way. The Great Commission of Luke (24:44-49) mentions that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached.” Since faith is not mentioned, it is obvious that repentance is mentioned as a part of the whole process of salvation which would certainly include faith. Obviously, when the term “faith” is used in this manner, it is meant to include all other aspects of the salvation process, including both repentance and baptism.
Another approach to clarifying the steps of salvation is to compare the passages containing these steps of obedience to a recipe. All items must be included which pertain to the end product. A cake recipe may place sugar and shortening on the top of the list, but these alone would not make a cake. The Bible recipe for salvation may place faith by itself in some passages, but the recipe is not complete without the rest of the list. In this manner, the Bible forms a pattern, and therefore all parts must be considered before the recipe is complete and salvation secured.
A third approach can be well demonstrated with examples of conversions in Acts. In three such cases, the teaching sounds like it differs, but it simply corresponded with the people’s present position. For example, a man traveling from Texas to New York may ask what the distance is while still in Texas. The answer he receives will be different from the answer to the same question asked when he is halfway to New York. In both cases, the answer is based on his present position. Similarly, the Philippian jailer was told to believe (Acts 16:31) because he was just beginning his trip to salvation. The audience on Pentecost had already believed, so they were told to “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Saul was already a repentant believer when he was told to “get up and be baptized” (Acts 22:16). In each case, the command was based on the present position of those being addressed.
The last approach that we will mention is more detailed, but possibly the most effective when trying to help a person who is really grounded in the faith only doctrine. In this approach, we show that the Bible uses the term “faith” in both a restricted sense and in a general comprehensive sense. Many passages use belief as a type of mental assent, which would be the narrow or restricted sense. For example, Acts 18:8 states that “many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.” Something besides faith is mentioned, so faith here is used in the narrow sense. Other similar passages are Acts 11:21; Mark 16:16; John 12:42; and James 2:19.
The general or comprehensive use of faith is seen in passages like John 3:16; John 20:30-31; Romans 1:16; and Acts 4:4. The familiar statement in John 3:16 that “whoever believes in him should not perish” actually includes baptism rather than excluding it. This point may be demonstrated by considering such passages as John 3:36, which states: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life…” The NASB provides a more literal translation as it contrasts faith and obedience in these words: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life…”
Notice that belief and obedience are used interchangeably in the two phrases. Here belief is used in the broader general sense and is synonymous with obedience. See Acts 14:1-2; 19:1-3; Acts 16:30-34; and, Hebrews 3:18-19 for further illustrations of the same principle. In both of the Acts accounts, it is obvious that the phrases “when you believed” and “he had come to believe” included the act of baptism. Understood correctly, these passages will show that faith is often used in a manner that includes all obedience, of which baptism is a part.
Several additional illustrations and analogies also should prove helpful in establishing the proper relationship of faith to baptism. The fall of Jericho illustration is one such approach. In Joshua 6:2, God said that he had given (past tense) the city into the hands of the Israelites. Surely no one can doubt that the promised victory was a gift from God and not earned by works! However, God then places specific conditions on the reception of the gift (such as walking around the city a number of times). But when the conditions were met, the promises were received, and they were received by faith. Hebrews 11:30 reads: “By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.” Bottom line, faith receives the promises of God, when the conditions (if any are specified) are met! Faith does save us, but when does it save? That is the issue. In the NT setting, our faith saves when we obey the conditions which God has given us.
Another illustration concerns a marriage analogy. In the OT, a beautiful lesson may be learned by showing that God married the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai, and through her, had a son named Jesus. Many Scriptures fit into this analogy. As with all marriages (except arranged ones!), the beginning point of the relationship is an attraction to one another. In the NT analogy, Jesus was attracted to us enough to leave heaven in order to win us over. When we became aware of his love, his miracles and his teaching, then the attraction became mutual! However, it must be kept in mind that a mutual attraction does not mean that we are married yet. For example, I was strongly attracted to my wife, Theresa, well over 50 years ago when we were both in high school. Amazingly, she was also strongly attracted to me! (There is a God!) But when we were merely high school sweethearts, no one would have called her Mrs. Ferguson. A few years later, they started doing that, but only after we were married.
But, back to the analogy of our relationship to Jesus. How does this attraction develop into a marriage relationship? Actually, much like it develops between a man and a woman! After the attraction stage, we then move to the going steady stage. Others are ruled out in favor of this special one. The Bible calls this stage repentance! Then this stage leads to an engagement ─ in biblical terms, we are now really counting the cost! Finally, we go through the legal procedures which are required in order to be officially married. In the spiritual realm, this ceremony (the entrance into the covenant) is described simply and beautifully with these words: “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27).” At this point, we are now married to the Lord according to the official requirement of God himself (the Bible)! See Ephesians 5:22-33 for this analogy, especially verse 32, and also 2 Corinthians 11:2.
Another explanation had to do with getting intoChrist. The blessings of being “in” Christ (in a relationship with him) are mentioned in such passages as 2 Timothy 2:10; Romans 8:1; and, Ephesians 1:3. Only three passages in the NT tell us specifically how to get “into” Christ: Romans 6:3; 1 Corinthians 12:13; and, Galatians 3:27. All are baptism passages. Thus, baptism is the culminating act of faith through which we enter that precious relationship with Jesus.
Further, note that in John 8:31-32, holding to the teachingindicates more than faith. Here the people were listening to Jesus and “even as he spoke, many put their faith in him” (verse 30). Yet, in verses 31-32, Jesus makes it clear that much more was demanded. Similarly, in John 12:42, many “believed in him” but would not confess it. Therefore, their faith was not biblical saving faith at all! (See Mark 8:38.)
Another issue often arises with those who are confused about the relationship of faith and baptism. That issue is usually raised with this question: “But what about the thief on the cross ─ he wasn’t baptized?” Whether or not he was baptized no one knows. Since huge numbers of people had been baptized by John (Matthew 3:5-6), he might well have been. However, this is not the main consideration. This issue is a covenant issue. Jesus himself lived and died under the Judaic covenant as described in the Old Testament. The Great Commission baptism was not required nor preached until the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2. No one could have experienced this baptism before then because it was a baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It was not possible before Jesus accomplished these things, nor could it have been required until the new covenant went into effect. Read Hebrews 9:15-17 with this principle in mind.
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.
Therefore, what the thief did or did not do has little to do with us. We live in the times of the new covenant and are thus under its requirements. And one of those requirements is the one baptism of the Great Commission.
One final approach may prove helpful in trying to move a resistant person who is blocked is his understanding of baptism by his denominational background. Take out a sheet of paper and write down these two opposite statements:
Baptism that now saves you also.
Baptism that now does not save you also.
Then hand them a pen and ask them to mark out the statement that is not true. If they mark out the first one, they mark out 1 Peter 3:21! If they mark out the second one, they admit that their doctrine is wrong. Forcing the issue in this way is not the place to start, but if nothing else works, it is worth a try. Everyone needs to see and accept what the Bible says about this important salvation issue.
In conclusion, faith is man’s response to God. Hebrews 11:6 provides us with a great definition of a saving faith. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” This passage identifies three aspects of such a faith: belief, trust, and obedience. The faithful person believes the facts in the Bible; he trusts thepromises in the Bible; and, he obeys the commands in the Bible. Therefore, faith which pleases God is the appropriate response to his Word. We cannot obey a fact, nor can we simply believe a command. We must match our response to the form of teaching found, thereby taking God at his Word. Since we are commanded to be baptized, our obedience to that command is not faith plus baptism. It is simply faith in the cross when being baptized into Jesus. (Please see the more complete article on this web site regarding the biblical definition of faith in its various uses entitled, “Are We Saved by Faith Alone?”)
At first glance, that is an unusual title, isn’t it? It could bring to mind someone who was pressed into leadership out of pure necessity, although leadership wasn’t his or her gift (Romans 12:8). Sometimes the need does in fact call for such a decision and those who serve in such situations are to be commended for their efforts. However, I am using the title in another way, a way that may seem unusual, but with closer examination I think you will agree that it is a perfectly normal and necessary part of true spiritual leadership.
Although I have authored one book on leadership (Dynamic Leadership) and co-authored another (Golden Rule Leadership), I am always trying to learn more about such a vital subject. I believe that we have wonderful disciples of Jesus in our churches who want to be their best for God, and who will do about as well as they are led to do. That realization makes me want to keep growing as a leader in order to better help them grow as Christians. Further, the more you learn about any subject, the more you become aware of how much more there is yet to learn. I certainly view my knowledge of spiritual leadership in exactly that way. I’ve much still to learn.
So, what do I mean by the term “unnatural leader?” Actually, several related things. In the Golden Rule Leadership book that Wyndham Shaw and I co-authored years ago, we made a point about the importance of leading in an age-appropriate way. The parent who tries to lead their fifteen year old child the same way that they led them when they were five is headed for conflict and likely rebellion. The ministry leader who tries to lead a 45 year old disciple in the same way they led that same person when they were a new campus convert 25 years previously is making a similar mistake. The older disciple may not openly rebel, but at the very least they will not respond by wholeheartedly following that leader.
This leads us to the observation that leaders must be flexible enough to adjust their leadership style to the needs of those whom they are leading. All true leaders have a style that is natural to them. I call it their default style – they just do what comes naturally to them. That is not good enough. One style doesn’t meet all of the needs of the different types of people being led. Thus, all leaders have to learn to expand their leadership approaches beyond their own comfort zones in ways that are unnatural. At first, doing this will feel unnatural to both the leader and those being led, but in time, it will actually become fairly natural.
Does this sound something like hypocrisy to you? After all, it puts the leader in a position to do something that seems awkward and unnatural, perhaps making them appear as someone they are not. I have watched many leaders, perhaps the majority, lead in only one primary way – the way that comes most naturally to them. If they have a leadership gift, then they may well be effective with the majority of those whom they lead. But what about the minority of their group who doesn’t respond well to their particular leadership style? Can we just say that they are poor followers and leave it at that? That’s exactly what many (most?) leaders do, by the way. As a leader, I’m not satisfied with that answer, although I’m tempted to be. What if I can expand my leadership style in ways that would actually be effective with some of those minority folks who are more difficult to lead? If I could do that, wouldn’t God expect me to do it?
If you are a parent and have a child with learning difficulties or other behavioral challenges outside the norm, you can answer that question for us rather quickly, can’t you? You want teachers who adapt to the needs of your child, not teachers who just dismiss those needs because it is too much trouble to deal with them. Do you really think God wants those who lead his kids to just dismiss the needs of those who are more difficult to work with?
What are the real biblical issues involved here? “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). Oh, you mean that this verse about self-denial and taking up daily crosses might just apply to me as a leader? “in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3-4). So now you are saying that these verses also apply to more than just ordinary Christian relationships − that they also apply to leader/follower relationships? Does not agape love demand that we do all that we can in any capacity to help every person as much as we can possibly help them, no matter the amount of sacrifice demanded on our parts?
Perhaps I’ve asked more questions than I’ve answered, but the answers are pretty obvious aren’t they? Being a leader is not about me; it’s about God first of all and then about his children. I don’t lead just because it’s my “thing.” I lead because God has given me a gift that carries a huge responsibility with it, the responsibility to help as many people as possible get right with God and then grow to be more and more like Christ. Every aspect of being a disciple is about the imitation of Christ in every area, especially in the area of leadership because of its increased influence on others.
Some leaders find it natural to be very challenging in their style and they love the passages that describe Jesus rebuking the Pharisees or turning over the tables of the money changers in the temple. Now that’s real leadership, right? That same Jesus had this said of him: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out…” (Matthew 12:20). That seems a bit different leadership style, used no doubt on those who were weak and damaged both emotionally and spiritually.
Other leaders find it natural to be gentle and encouraging. They love the Matthew 12 passage, but are uncomfortable with the Jesus who overturned those tables and rebuked the Pharisees. They pick and choose which parts of Paul’s well-rounded admonition in 2 Timothy 4:2 they want to follow: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” They are good with the encouraging, the patience and even the careful instruction, but they are not so good with the correcting and rebuking parts.
Leadership is about leading in the most effective way for the most people possible. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 demands that you adapt and expand your leadership style to meet those varied needs: “And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” (Note that Paul is addressing all disciples here, not just leaders.) Leaders are not called to lead within their natural personalities and comfort zones; they are called to lead like Jesus. They give encouragement when that is most needed by whomever they are leading; they give a timely rebuke when that is what is most needed. Neither discipleship nor leadership is about you doing what comes naturally. Following Jesus in any area and in any capacity means that we deny what comes naturally and do what is right before God, and through such heartfelt obedience, we will become like Jesus and what was once unnatural will become natural or at least much more natural. All leaders have to deal with their selfishness, and it comes in many forms. But if we take seriously the imitation of Christ as a lifelong process, the words of the old hymn will become an increasing reality in our lives: “Less of self, and more of Thee; none of self, and all of Thee.”
SECOND CHANCE GOSPEL – AFTER DEATH?
Will people get a second chance to be saved after they die? Certainly no one contemplates the idea of anyone being lost in eternity with anything but emotional pain. What could be worse than being separated from God and all that’s good for eternity? With these sobering thoughts in mind, it is a natural human tendency to want to have hope for those who die without accepting Christ. One way to try to conjure up such hope is to entertain the possibility that those who die without him will be given a second chance to accept him and be saved. In this article, we will examine the two main passages that have been used in an attempt to provide some biblical support for this comforting idea.
The two passages that are sometimes used in defense of the second chance gospel are at best complicated and debated. One of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation is that we must allow plain passages to shed light on difficult passages, thus directing our interpretations of them – and not vice-versa. A failure to follow this principle may allow alternate explanations for difficult Scriptures, but it will force explanations of plain Scriptures in directions that defy both common sense and context. The myriad interpretations of the Book of Revelation provide ample evidence of this interpretative fallacy.
But what about the two passages used by some to support the idea of another chance at salvation after death. Which two are they and what is their proper explanation? The two are these:
1 Corinthians 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
The first of these is the proof-text used by the Mormon Church in their practice of what is called proxy baptism, the baptism of living persons on behalf of those who have died unsaved (in their opinion). Admittedly, this is an unusual passage and one that has prompted many different interpretations. It should be stated that most of these various explanations are aimed at rebutting Mormon teaching and practice. Further, most of these explanations have arisen because of a refusal on historical grounds to accept the verse at its simplest face value. The most natural way to explain the passage would be to say that someone in Paul’s day was doing about the same thing that Mormons do, namely practice proxy baptism. Many (most?) modern scholars reject this view because they have not found any historical evidence that the practice existed in the first century. But is that a valid reason for not adopting the most natural view of the passage? I think not.
I rather like this explanation given in the College Press Commentary:
Since Paul’s question is stated in the third person rather than the second person, there is no need to believe that he is referring to a practice that his readership is participating in. That is, he did not ask “why are you baptized?” but “why are people baptized?” In light of the fact that there are a higher than usual number of allusions to and quotations from patently pagan materials in this ad hominem section (15:29-34), there is no intrinsic reason to doubt that Paul could be referring to a pagan practice to support his argument. This reference to a pagan practice would also make sense since paganism is the matrix of this particular misunderstanding among some of the Corinthians… Even if this were a current practice among some of the Corinthian believers (since there are allusions already in 1 Corinthians to their profound misunderstandings about water baptism: 1:13-17; 10:1-5), Paul mentions this not to endorse it, but to use this practice as an ad hominem argument to highlight the inconsistency of their beliefs.
Having read at least a dozen suggested interpretations of the verse, this one seems the most natural and requires the least interpretative gymnastics with the actual wording of the text itself.
It should also be said that even if we are somewhat unsure of the precise interpretation, we can be quite sure of what it doesn’t mean. Sometimes if we cannot explain the meaning of a passage with absolute certainty, we feel hesitant to discount another interpretation. I am reminded of the old illustration of two men commenting about a certain woman approaching them. One man said to the other, “There comes your wife.” The second man said, “No, that is not my wife.” The first man raised the question, “Well, then who is she?” Second man, “I don’t know.” First man, “If you don’t know who she is, perhaps she is your wife after all.” Now of course that is perfect nonsense, but it does make a hermeneutical point. Obviously, we shouldn’t be reluctant to reject an interpretation that contradicts an abundance of clear biblical teaching to the contrary. Whatever 1 Corinthians 15:29 means, it cannot mean that a living person can be baptized for a dead person who died as an unbeliever. Jesus could hardly have made it any clearer than he did in passages like John 8:21: “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
Next, let’s examine the passage written by Peter. Two plausible explanations are most often put forth for this passage.
EXPLANATION ONE: Jesus was put to death in the body but then raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was through the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ, I Peter 1:11) that Jesus once preached (in the person of Noah) to the wicked people before the flood. At the present time, however, these same disobedient people are in prison (hades, the bad side of it – fuller explanation below).
EXPLANATION TWO: Jesus was put to death in the body but made alive in his spirit (or soul). At the point of death, his soul went to Hades (the unseen realm of the dead, composed of a good part, Paradise — Luke 23:43, and a bad part, torments — Luke 16:22-31. Acts 2:31, translated literally, says that he was not left in Hades). While Jesus was in the Hadean spirit world, he made a proclamation of victory to that generation from Noah’s day who had been so flagrantly disobedient. (The word preached in verse 19 is from the Greek kerusso, meaning to herald or proclaim, and not from euaggelizomai, meaning to preach the gospel.) The lesson in this case was to show that God will always have the last word over even the worst persecutors (persecution was the context of the passage)!
While the first explanation does no damage to any biblical truths, it does not seem to adequately deal with the wording of 1 Peter 3 in a straightforward manner. On the other hand, the second explanation does deal with the exact wording in a more satisfying way (at least in my opinion). As with all such difficult passages, an explanation must be sought which both treats the immediate context fairly, and at the same time, does not contradict clear passages on the same subject in other parts of the Bible. If the passage is designed to show that God always has the final say with even the vilest persecutors, the second explanation does seem much more likely.
It should be obvious that using either 1 Corinthians 15:29 or 1 Peter 3 to justify post-death salvation is to fight an uphill battle from both a logical standpoint and a biblical one. Regarding the logical standpoint, do you really suppose that any lost person undergoing the kind of suffering described biblically would not grasp at any straw offered to escape that punishment? Regarding the biblical standpoint, many passages are simply too plain to question. Consider the following: “…man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). This passage seems to indicate clearly that judgment comes immediately after death, at which time our eternal destination is set. Passages that depict the state of the dead would support that conclusion (see Luke 16:19-31). “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out–those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28-29). Sadly, the majority of the world is indeed on that broad road that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14), a fact that should motivate us to get and stay right with God and to help others do the same.
Through my many years of preaching, I have often asked and answered this question: “What is life really all about?” The answer, of course, is relationships – not surprisingly the very focus of the Bible. God’s Word makes this focus clear as relationships in four key areas are addressed over and over and over: relationship with God, with our physical family, with our spiritual family and with those who need to become a part of our spiritual family. Relationship building and protecting is the essence of Christianity.
If that is the most important thing in all of life, you know that Satan is going to work hard to destroy relationships. That, in fact, is his number one focus in trying to deceive us into destroying relationships in each of these four key areas. This article will hopefully help us to better understand just how Satan goes about his work in trying to destroy human relationships in our physical families and especially in our spiritual family.
To begin with, God’s desire for us to have relationships in his kingdom that are far different from those in the world is spoken about all through the Bible. One of the passages that says it most strikingly is in John 17:20-23:
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
If unity is what God loves, then that is what Satan hates and will do all that he can to work against. Further, since he is the Great Deceiver, he will try to do his work in ways that we don’t recognize, which is one reason why this article is simply entitled “Protecting Relationships.” Ephesians 4:22-32 is full of practical admonitions about our speech with each other, as God strives to protect us from Satan’s deception. Notice especially what Paul wrote in verses 29-30: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Thus, how we communicate to and about one another is the key to protecting relationships. If we could put these two verses into constant practice, life would be far richer and far less stressful (and far more righteous).
Humans Will Hurt One Another With Words
It is a sad but undeniable fact that we are going to hurt each other with our words, and it if often those we love most (or should love most!). Sometimes, we hurt one another in a completely unintentional way. No doubt that’s why James 3:2 says “If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man.” But sometimes what we say is intentional, and we know that we are talking in ways that we wouldn’t want made public. This type of speech is called gossip and slander in the Bible. Here are a few key verses about this type of sinful speech:
Proverbs 18:8: The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts.
Proverbs 12:18-19: Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment.
Proverbs 15:4: The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.
Proverbs 26:22-25: The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts. Like a coating of glaze over earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart. A malicious man disguises himself with his lips, but in his heart he harbors deceit. Though his speech is charming, do not believe him, for seven abominations fill his heart.
Proverbs 26:28: A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.
Psalm 55:21: “His speech is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords.”
1 Timothy 5:19: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”
We Usually Are Not Unaware of Our Own Gossip and Slander
Although we often attempt to disguise our sins through rationalization, our awareness is fairly obvious by how we introduce such speech. Let me give you some examples.
“You know, I just have some things on my heart that I need to share with someone, and you are one of my best friends…”
“I need a safe place and a safe person to share some things with that are really troubling me – can you be that safe person and keep what I tell you confidential?”
“I don’t feel like I have anyone who really understands what I am feeling, and I’m so happy to have you as a confidential friend who can listen and keep a confidence.”
Hearing such introductions, we naturally feel concern and want to help, and we feel flattered that we are that chosen friend with whom another person can unburden their hearts. But the problem with what then takes place is that the talker is sinning and we as a listener are sinning! And we find ways to justify their sin and our own. “Well, he just got emotional and needed to work through it.” So, does being emotional make it not sinful?
Try this one on for size: “I just got emotional and shot that guy, but it was because I was emotional so it wasn’t wrong!” Another statement is actually fairly commonly heard: “I just said that terrible thing about him because I was angry!” Not so – you said that because it was in your heart, for in Luke 6:45, Jesus said, “Out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” We don’t say things just because we are emotional – we say them because they are in our hearts – and our emotions remove our inhibitions!
The most dangerous form of unhealthy talk of which I am aware is also understandably the most subtle – I call it objective negativity. I have a separate article under that title, and I strongly suggest that you read it after reading this one. It describes a form of communication that is not only highly subtle; it is also highly damaging and likely the most dangerous approach of all. Unfortunately, in my decades of working with churches and disciples, I have seen the damage done by it in an up-close and personal way far too often. Satan must be diabolically laughing when we fall prey to such sinful speech. I mentioned James 3:2 earlier, but look at it in its broader context:
James 3:2-10
We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. 3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
What Are God’s Solutions For the Sins of Unhealthy Talk?
First, avoid it yourself. Before sharing details about another person’s life in a potentially sensitive area without their knowledge, ask yourself the following questions:
- Why am I considering sharing these things?
- Will my sharing benefit the one I are sharing about?
- Will it benefit the one with whom you are sharing?
- Does the Golden Rule fit the situation?
Remember what Paul said in Ephesians 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Refuse to participate in the sinful speech of another, by being a willing listener. Here are some responses you can have that are righteous:
“Wait a minute – I am not comfortable with hearing negative talk about someone who is not here and able to give their side of the story.”
“You do remember what Proverbs 18:17says, right?” “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”
A good question to ask someone when they start down the path of talking negatively about another person is this one: “Have you shared this with the person themselves?” Using this line of inquiry, you have to be very thorough, for they may answer, “Yes I have told them this” when they really haven’t or perhaps that have hinted around at it but not really stated clearly the details that they are starting to tell you.
Then say, “Well, if you have told them this, I will want to talk with them about it later to make sure I hear their side of the story, based on Proverbs 18:17.” Truthfully, even if they have told the other person, why are they telling you? Saying, “Well, I’m not saying anything to you that I haven’t said to them” doesn’t make it right to repeat something negative to you. It is still a violation of the Golden Rule!
If they say, “No, I haven’t told them because they wouldn’t handle it well, so I need to share it with you as a confidential person to just unburden my heart,” then you have to intervene and stop the gossip. Say, “You do have to go and share this with the other person, based on the commands of Jesus. If you need me to go with you, I will go, but you have to do what Jesus says.” I then ask, “Will you go? Next, When will you go? And if they say they will go, I follow up with them later to make sure that they did.
If they say that they won’t go, I say, “If you haven’t obeyed Jesus and gone to them within a week, I am going to go and share with them what you have said, to make sure you two get together and work this out.” Now why would I do all that I just described? (Because that sounds drastic to some of you, and very different from the way you have often done it and seen it done – right?). Listen carefully to Jesus’ solution to all of our relationship problems:
Matthew 18:15-17: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Matthew 5:23-24: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
All of this may sound challenging to us, because we are by nature people pleasers and conflict avoiders, but it is the only option we have if we intend to be disciples of Jesus Christ. I have spent much time trying to help church leadership groups deal directly with “the elephant in the living room” (various sorts of relationship issues). I am intent on helping all disciples to do this with all of their brothers and sisters, whether in leadership roles or not, because we are the family of God. As God’s children, we have to strive for complete unity – a unity that can be destroyed by the wrong kind of speech, but built by the right kinds of speech and healed by the right kinds of resolution and reconciliation.
Therefore, watch both your speech and your listening, and don’t sin against others of God’s children. We must become good listeners and pick up on the speech of others when it begins to go in a sinful direction. Refuse to listen to it when it moves in that direction and love them enough to insist that they get resolved with those about whom they try to talk negatively. We have to protect our souls and the souls of others, and protecting relationships in the ways we have described is a major part of how we protect souls. Granted, it is not easy, but it is the way of God and we really have no options in the matter – we must obey him!
(The primary material in this article was taken from my book, Dynamic Leadership, Appendix 7, and later expanded.)
We Live in a Negative World!
The subject of negativity is a broad one, and although we are going to focus on a certain highly dangerous type of negativity, some general observations will prove helpful. In case you haven’t recognized it, we live in a negative world. Bad news sells and good news doesn’t. At least that seems to be the message of our modern media organizations. Further, many of us grew up in negative families. I know I did. My parents would not have been characterized as positive thinkers and talkers by any stretch of the imagination.
Then, besides the effects the environment has on our perspectives and subsequent conversation directions, we have our own inner struggles with which to deal. We all develop some forms of insecurities as we grow up, and a common way to compensate for our bruised egos and warped self-images is to tear others down in an attempt to feel less inadequate about ourselves. This brand of negative speaking about others is far more common than the so-called “common cold” (and it makes us a lot sicker!). Those who are consistently critical of others are first of all critical of themselves. They may act otherwise, but rest assured that it is only an “act.”
When I was in high school eons ago, we spoke of certain classmates having a “superiority complex.” There is no such thing. That prideful and smug presentation of oneself was a charade, a cloak used to cover what we called an “inferiority complex.” That last term is relatively accurate, although outmoded in this era. Now we just say that a person who feels badly about themselves is insecure or has a poor self-image. If we are familiar with Schema Therapy, we would perhaps say that they have a defective schema. In other words, they feel defective as persons.
Get Your “Buts” in the Right Place!
Anyone not really comfortable in their own skin has the problem thus described, and one dead giveaway is that they are defensive and handle almost any form of correction (however well-intentioned and well presented) poorly. They already feel badly about themselves, and don’t seem to realize that input from others can help them change – which would result in them feeling better about themselves. Another evidence of this malady is seen in how they view and talk about others. They do tear others down in order to feel better about themselves, but it never works. Sin cannot make you feel better inside your heart of hearts.
Those in the church who have not yet conquered this problem have certain patterns to their negative speech. One pattern is just to talk negatively about others behind their backs, thus committing what the Bible defines as gossip and slander. Another pattern is saying both good and bad things about others, but doing it in a certain order, thus creating a certain emphasis. Compare these two sentences in how they affect your feelings about someone we will call “Betty” for purposes of illustration:
“Betty is a great wife and mother, but she doesn’t seem to get very involved in serving others.”
“I don’t always know what Betty may be doing to serve people generally, but I do know that she is absolutely a great wife and mother.”
The point of the illustration is to show that whatever is said after the little conjunction “but” is what we go away with – it is what we tend to remember. In the first example, we are left with the thought that Betty doesn’t serve those who aren’t in her family very well and in the second example we are left with the warm feeling that this woman really loves her husband and children, and shows it by her actions. Note a couple of things in the first example. The speaker is making an assumption (shown by the word seems) and leaves us with what appears to be a conclusion. If you want to have troubled relationships on all levels, assume what you don’t really know to be factual and state it as a conclusion!
Don’t Be Fooled by One of Satan’s Favorite Tools!
Both of these speech patterns described are negative and hurtful to relationships, but they are not nearly as dangerous as the one about which this article is mainly addressing—objective negativity. The most dangerous form I have ever found of unhealthy talk is also understandably the most subtle. This form is one of Satan’s favorite tools for destroying relationships on both an individual and group basis. I have seen several of his human agents use this tool in an almost unbelievably effective way (in being destructive). But rather than simply describing how they used it, we have the perfect biblical example in the child of a king (and a very good king at that). Turn to 2 Samuel 15:1-6 as we read about Absalom.
“In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. He would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate. Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him, ‘What town are you from?” He would answer, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.’ Then Absalom would say to him, ‘Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.’ And Absalom would add, ‘If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice.’
Also, whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand, take hold of him and kiss him. Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the men of Israel.”
Absalom’s work described here very nearly led to the killing of his father and to his usurping of David’s throne. He stole the hearts of the men of Israel, Scripture says. He didn’t merely win their hearts by serving them; he stole their hearts by tainting their thinking toward the king whom they had loved and followed for years. How sad! How powerful is Satan’s tool of objective negativity! Negativity we understand to some degree, but how does the term objective fit in to its use? Now that is a hugely important question, make no mistake about it.
We have all come away from certain conversations saying something to this effect: “Wow, that guy is really something; he’s about the most negative person I have ever heard in my life!” Someone skilled in the use of objective negativity never evokes that reaction, but what they do to a person’s heart is something akin to what a hidden cancer does to a person’s body. It is an undetected destroyer, doing its deadly work mostly in secret until drastic results emerge. The presentation of such soul-damaging information is cloaked by the sense of objectivity created, and the more spiritual it sounds, the better the cloak. With that in mind, we shouldn’t be surprised that those looked upon as spiritually mature, or better yet, as spiritual leaders, are the most effective in using this approach.
In actuality, those skilled in this deceptive work are basically “seed planters.” They plant tiny seeds that grow quietly inside hearts until a plant or a tree is produced. Isn’t that exactly what Absalom did? He kept planting seeds as he validated the concerns of people and showed them affection, and those seeds were aimed at undermining trust in his father and building trust in himself. He was one sharp dude, one smart cookie. He knew exactly what he was doing for the four years he did it. Gossips tend to be impatient and have to say it now; the Absaloms of the world are patient and content just to plant and water, waiting for the tree of doubt, discontent and rebellion to grow.
Absalom Types Are Usually Leaders (Often Former Leaders) Themselves
My intent is not to make anyone mistrust spiritually mature people or spiritual leaders—far from it. I think most would say that I would fall into both of those categories. But like Paul, I want to help you not fall prey to those whose skills are found in this form of negativity that we are discussing. In 2 Corinthians 2:11, Paul said that he didn’t want his readers to be unaware of Satan’s schemes. Thus, his teaching was aimed at exposing Satan’s schemes (and he has many). Paul could not have described a person skilled in the deadly scheme of objective negativity any better than in this passage from the same book. “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).”
The claim that most Absalom types are leaders is demonstrated in the earliest stages of the Old Testament. Numbers 16 contains one of the most chilling accounts in the history of Israel, an event that dates back near the origin of the Israelite nation. We are generally familiar with the names of Korah, Dathan and Abiram because God opened the earth to swallow them and their families for their rebellion against Moses and Aaron (verses 25-33). However, this chapter in Numbers opened with the account of these men inciting the rebellion of 250 other well-known leaders within Israel (verses 1-3). They were not content with being counted among the leaders; they wanted to be among the very top leaders, which led to instigating a rebellion against them. God dealt suddenly and decisively with them, just as he had with those who sowed the seeds of their rebellion. Verse 35 says that “Fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men.” Sadly, Absalomic undermining of top leaders by influential people trickles down to infiltrate the average person, sometimes almost imperceptivity. In this case, the whole Israelite community challenged the leadership of Moses and Aaron, resulting in a God-given plague that killed 14,700 of them (verses 41-49). What a sobering and terrifying account of what the work of a few leaders controlled by an Absalomic spirit can cause.
Perhaps you are thinking that all of these examples, including Absalom, come from the Old Testament period. What about the New Testament? Do we find the same phenomenon there? The logical answer is that wherever you find humans, you are going to find this insidious practice. However, as has been noted repeatedly, it is a subtle sin which is not noticed quickly or easily. Read on for the biblical answer to the question.
A Classic “Absalom” in the New Testament
What person in the NT do you think was the classic Absalom type? Pause a minute and think about who you believe it could be (waiting, waiting, waiting…). If you guessed Judas, you made the same choice I did. What do we know for sure about him? One, he was obviously a person of high talent or he wouldn’t have been chosen by Jesus to be an apostle. Two, he was an incredible expert at hiding his true nature from others, for even just prior to his betrayal of Jesus, the other apostles could not guess which of them was going to be the betrayer. Three, and this is the point that directly connects with the concept being developed in this article, he influenced the other apostles in negative directions.
This ability to subtlety lead others into bad paths is perhaps best shown in comparing three Gospel accounts of one event near the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It took place at a dinner being held at the home of a man named Simon. Notice the progression and what it reveals about this aspect of Judas’ nature. Let’s begin with the more general account in Mark 14:3-6 (NASB):
While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
From this account, you wouldn’t know who was objecting to the woman’s use of her costly perfume. You just know that a group was discussing it among themselves. Matthew’s account gives us more details about the identity of the group:
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? 9 “For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. (Matthew 26:6-10)
Now we know that it was the apostles discussing the issue, and it seems that they are becoming more outspoken as the discussion continued. John’s account in John 12:1-8 fills in some striking details:
Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. 3 Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, *said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. 7 Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. 8 “For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”
What are the additional details John provides us in his account? One, Simon must have had a reasonably close relationship with Lazarus, Mary and Martha, since they were present at the dinner and Martha doing her usual thing of serving. Two, the woman with the perfume was none other than Mary, one of the three siblings. Three, it was Judas who almost certainly initiated the complaint that then spread to the other apostles. That is the point most relevant to our discussion. Closely associated to it is the fact that Judas was a frequent thief and the other apostles never suspected anything. His true nature was not perceived by his closest associates. His complaints about the “waste” of expensive perfume sounded quite objective and reasonable to them – even spiritual (helping the poor).
Hence, they joined into the discussion, prodded into it by his initial comments – which most likely were shared rather privately with them in the earliest stages. Good-hearted people like Peter blurted out what they really thought, not fearing either the vulnerability or the correction that often followed their comments. Individuals like Judas were very careful about what they said and to whom they said it. Knowing human nature makes the assumption likely that this discussion began with Judas planting the negative seeds, which the others picked up on and expressed more openly. Like Absalom in the OT, Judas gives us a perfect example of someone skilled in the use of objective negativity.
What about Judas’ motives? Did he always have evil intent of which he was quite aware? In this case, the answer would be yes, based on the wording of the text. In the case of his betrayal of Jesus, some believe that his intent was to force Jesus to become the kind of Messiah that most Jews were looking for by having to use his power to save his own life. If a true hypothesis, it could explain why he committed suicide rather quickly after that plan didn’t bring the desired result. If this were a reasonably accurate assumption, it would mean that Judas wasn’t always aware of his inmost motivations or of the true impact of what he was doing. It was to him second nature, having become so ingrained in his sinful nature through a long series of deceitful choices.
I am not sure if those most effective in the use of objective negativity are always aware of what they are doing. They certainly know how to cloak their true nature from others, and it may be that they are fooling themselves as well. In my own experience, those who resort to spreading negativity in this manner are perhaps self-deceived as they deceive others, because helping them see themselves and the effects they are having has usually been a fruitless endeavor. I’ve seen temporary change that appeared to reflect repentance, but the fact that it has nearly always been temporary perhaps indicates that they are self-deceived. As with all other sins, the long-range changes are the ones that indicate true repentance. I add this thought to help us not be naïve and overly optimistic when dealing with those who commit such damaging sins. I’m not suggesting that we be cynical or faithless, but I am strongly suggesting that this sin indicates some deeply imbedded heart issues that we must be very careful in dealing with. May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we are trying to protect the flock as a whole while also trying to help those individuals who may be hurting it, intentionally or unintentionally.
What is the Solution – the Antidote?
The solution begins with recognition of the types of speech patterns underlying the Absalomic approach. Well, what do such people sound like in everyday life? Here are some samples from a very long list of possibilities:
“I really love our elders, but some people have shared a few things with me that sometimes make me wonder…” But you do have to appreciate their sacrifice of time and energy.
“I think we have a great staff, but I did hear one or two things in confidence that have made me a little nervous. I guess we will just have to trust the Lord that he will work out whatever needs to be worked out.”
“I appreciate the fact that our leaders are following a carefully planned process of looking for additional staff members, but I really hope that they will keep ____________ in mind and not just make decisions out of personal preferences. I am glad, though, that they seem to be focused on finding someone soon.”
“I am certain that our small group leader has a real heart to serve, but I do wonder if he has the time to be serving in that role right now with all that he has on his plate. But don’t you just love their two little girls—they are the cutest things!”
“The couple we have leading our small group really loves people, and that is such a valuable and appreciated quality. I have heard some disciples question whether they had the gift set to be able to do it. But getting people to lead is no easy matter, so I suppose that we should just appreciate their willingness to serve in this way.”
“Betty is one of my best friends and I feel like I can tell her anything, but I am praying that she can keep a confidence. We all need a safe place to share our struggles.”
“I really love this church, and have a lot invested in it for these nine years that I have been a member. I hope our direction for the future is clearer to others than it is to me. I guess I just need to pray more.”
My examples of actual conversations mention leaders quite a bit, as I’m sure you would expect by the time you have read this far. Satan knows that he can destroy churches if he can erode trust in leaders. But let me make one thing perfectly clear: I’m not defending bad leaders in any way. Wyndham Shaw and I wrote a little book a decade ago entitled Golden Rule Leadership should demonstrate that point clearly. Although what we wrote is now “old hat” and generally accepted in our movement today, it was strongly resisted by a number of leaders in high places when it was first published. My most recent book on leadership, Dynamic Leadership, deals much more directly and strongly with ineffective, unbiblical and sinful leadership. Having said that, Satan has always, and will always, do his best to destroy trust in all leadership—not simply that which you and I might agree is poor leadership. Destroy the mom or dad in any family, and you’ll see the family severely damaged.
Maybe you are thinking that those who practice the fine art of objective negativity sound almost the same as those who have their “buts” in the wrong place. Well, they are similar in some ways, but different in key areas. Both use the word “but” as a key part of their processes. However, the Absalomic approach sounds much more spiritual. It not only begins with positive statements; it also ends with them. The effect is much more subtle. When you hear a person like this, especially if you trust them and or look up to them, you leave the conversation feeling mostly good. You can recount the positive, spiritually sounding things they said. On the other hand, the more spiritually in tune you are, the more you leave feeling unsettled, perhaps ever so slightly. Seeds have been carefully planted, and if you do not come to realize that something is amiss, those seeds may well grow. I have seen people thus influenced who eventually left the church that I never imagined would possibly leave.
The further solution to dealing with this malady is to pay attention to your own heart. If something seems slightly out of kilter after a conversation, tending to pull you in a negative direction, go back to the person with whom you talked and start asking questions.
“When you said that some have questioned the leadership gift of __________, who are those some?”
“You expressed some doubt about your good friend Betty being able to keep a confidence. Have you told her that?”
“That statement you made about the direction of the church—what exactly are you questioning here? I think you and I need to go talk to some of the leaders of the church together, because I want to make sure that your doubts are dealt with and not spread to others—including me.”
Bottom line, we need to be very careful about what we listen to that has a negative bent to it about anyone or any group that is not present for the discussion. The Lord knows that we must learn to talk to others about sensitive issues and concerns—but we need to do it with them, face-to-face and not behind their backs. People sometimes ask me if I am feeling something toward them that isn’t positive, and the answer is pretty simple. “If I am, you will be among the first to know it, because we will be talking in an up-close and personal way.” If someone seems to perhaps have funny feelings toward me, I ask them about it. If they do, I want them to encourage them to come to me, but I am quite willing to go to them as well. Matthew 5 and Matthew 18 say that we should meet each other going and coming if relationships are not in a good place.
Disciples are learners. That’s a basic meaning of the term itself. Let’s learn to recognize sinful speech, whether it is coming out of our own mouth or the mouth of another. And by all means, let’s learn to get beyond our conflict avoidance tendencies and resolve relationships that are strained or we think may be unsettled in some way. If we have good marriages, we have done it hundreds of times because we don’t want to be under the same roof with another person with whom we are not at peace. For the Lord’s sake, let’s refuse to live under his same big sky with our brothers and sisters without cultivating and maintaining that same peace. It is the will of our Father, who loves us all as his dear children. Amen and Amen!
Distinct from other groups in the Restoration Movement, mainline Churches of Christ have been known for years for their stand against the use of instruments in accompaniment to spiritual songs. Historically, this position has not been held as a matter of preference or judgment. It has been a stated doctrinal position, and most of the leaders for nearly a century who stated it made it a test of fellowship −a matter of heaven and hell! However, this century-old position is fading fast in this group of churches, but it is not yielding easily. There can be no question that the younger generations in the Mainline Church of Christ are rejecting the prohibitions of using instrumental music in worship. Many in the older generation claim that the younger ones are becoming liberal and are little concerned with the authority of Scripture. Although some among their younger generation likely are becoming less concerned with biblical authority, the reasons for change are not that simplistic.
For example, when I changed my position on this issue, I had not become less concerned with the place of biblical authority and I was definitely not a member of the younger generation. Yet, I became unconvinced by the doctrinal arguments made against the use of instrumental music in worship, although I had made them myself for many years when a part of that group. It is not a matter of indifference when declaring such issues to be matters of absolute faith rather than personal opinions and preferences. Understanding the religion of the Pharisees should help us grasp the sobering fact that binding what God did not bind is just a great a sin as loosing what God did not loose. Legalism and liberalism are both very dangerous ends of the spectrum of using the Bible in wrong ways. Christian freedom extends into many practical areas of the spiritual life, and music in worship is one such area in my studied opinion and subsequent conviction.
Having said that, it is only right to share why my past views of the subject changed. Providing some background of the interpretive viewpoints of the non-instrumental folks is the logical starting place. The key argument against the use of instruments has been the argument on the basis of “silence” in the NT. Only the word “sing” is found there, and no reference is made to “playing.” Therefore, say those using this interpretation, instrumental music is strictly forbidden, and to use it is to go beyond the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Another way to describe the reasoning behind forbidding instrumental music involves the alleged principle that a general command or example allows the choice of any specific, while a specific command or example rules out other specifics. One of the oldest and most simple illustrations is one drawn from God’s command to Noah about building the ark prior to the great flood. According to Genesis 6:14, God commanded that the ark be built from gopher wood (cypress in the NIV). Thus, to use any other type of wood in the construction instead of, or in addition to, this type would be going beyond what God said and thus would constitute disobedience. Had he said simply to build the ark from wood, any type or types of wood could have been chosen by Noah, but once a specific was given, that ruled out anything but the type specified.
So goes the argument regarding music in worship. Had God simply said to “make music,” any type of music could be chosen, but since God specified singing (vocal music), this rules out other types of music instead of, or along with, vocal music. If the argument is valid, the use of instrumental music is divinely forbidden. But is this simplistic argument the end of the matter? Does the Bible shed more light on the subject, light that would allow more latitude in the worship of God? Important questions, those.
Although we are not under the Mosaic covenant, the OT setting can teach us some valuable lessons. Read the following passages to get a feel for the approved use of the instruments in that period of time:
David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals (1 Chronicles 15:16).
When David was old and full of years, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. He also gathered together all the leaders of Israel, as well as the priests and Levites. The Levites thirty years old or more were counted, and the total number of men was thirty-eight thousand. David said, ‘Of these, twenty-four thousand are to supervise the work of the temple of the LORD and six thousand are to be officials and judges. Four thousand are to be gatekeepers and four thousand are to praise the LORD with the musical instruments I have provided for that purpose’” (1 Chronicles 23:1-5).
At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the Levites were sought out from where they lived and were brought to Jerusalem to celebrate joyfully the dedication with songs of thanksgiving and with the music of cymbals, harps and lyres (Nehemiah 12:27).
The most notable thing to realize from these settings is that the use of instruments was not a part of the Law of Moses (the original Law given at Mount Sinai). They were actually introduced by David, as the non-instrumentalists correctly affirm. Yet, 2 Chronicles 29:25 states that God commanded their use! “He stationed the Levites in the temple of the LORD with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the LORD through his prophets.” To say the least, God allowed the OT people a fair amount of latitude in deciding how to worship (even under a system which tended much more in the direction of a legal exactness).
As previously stated, the traditional Church of Christ interpretation asserts that the mention of “sing” rules out “play.” But in the OT setting, this distinction is not proved but rather contradicted. The use of the word “sing” did not preclude the use of instruments. 1 Samuel 21:11 says, “But the servants of Achish said to him, ‘Isn’t this David, the king of the land? Isn’t he the one they sing about in their dances: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’?” Note that only “sing” is mentioned in this context. However, in 1 Samuel 18:6-7, a parallel passage, we read: “When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. As they danced, they sang: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’.”
Another very important consideration concerns the original church described in Acts, which was totally Jewish for a number of years. From the establishment of the church in Acts 2 until Ephesians 5:19 (with its specific command to “sing”), over 20 years had passed. How did those Jews, who were quite accustomed to worshipping with an instrument, know that “sing” ruled out the use of instruments? Other Jewish practices continued for quite some time, with at least God’s tacit approval. For example, Paul took a vow and shaved his head as a part of that vow (Acts 18:18). At James’s insistence, Paul entered the temple with four brothers who had taken vows and were observing the rites of purification (Acts 21:20-24). For a fairly lengthy period (at least up to AD 70 at the destruction of the temple), Jewish Christians practiced many aspects of Judaism as a matter of custom. Are we to conclude that these early disciples with Jewish backgrounds could, for at least this period of time, observe these Jewish ordinances as a matter of custom, and yet be guilty of sin if they continued to use instrumental music in worship? To me, that seems like a huge hermeneutical leap.
What are the key principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) which can help to determine the truth on this subject? Although the OT was much more a code of specific commands than is the NT, even then men added some far reaching practices which were never disapproved of by God. The entire synagogue system was introduced by men during the captivity period. Yet, Jesus went into the synagogue every Sabbath as was his custom (Luke 4:16). The Feast of Purim was added during the time of Esther, and became a regular feast of the Jews. Yet, neither of these practices was mentioned in the Law itself.
In most discussions of the subject of instrumental music, pro or con, much is made of the exact words in the NT words for singing. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the focal point of such discussions. They read as follows: “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16).
The Greek word for sing, “Psalmos” (from “Psallo”), is the word which is often discussed most in this connection. The evolution of the meaning of this word is a matter on importance. In ancient Greek, the word meant “to pluck” or something similar. It did not originally imply plucking a stringed instrument, but with the passage of time and the development of the Greek language, it did come to imply the use of a musical instrument. As the language further evolved, the idea of plucking an instrument was no longer inherent in the word itself. In modern Greek, “psallo” means “to sing” and carries no idea of playing an instrument.
The question at hand is just where this evolution of the term was at the time when the NT was written (during the Koine Greek period). Actually, different writers come out on both sides of the coin in their study of authorities on this matter. In reading the writings of these men, and the sources which they quote as their authorities, I am not convinced either way. I do not believe that the Greek either demands an instrument or excludes it. The focus in the NT passages is that we are to sing thankfully and sincerely from the heart. Whether we do this type of singing with instrumental accompaniment or without it seems not to be the focus of God. If he intended to make the use of instrumental music an incidental issue, as I think he did, how could he have done it any better than the way he had the NT actually worded?
The whole issue likely is a very simple one. Singing is the vital aspect of worship that God wanted us to employ and enjoy, but instrumental music is a matter of expediency — it is a choice. If God had commanded the use of instrumental music, worship would have been much less flexible as far as the physical setting was concerned. Jesus said that the place of worship was to be unimportant in the church (John 4:21-24). In other words, worshipping in the outdoors or in a cave during a time of persecution would be a simple, convenient matter. If instrumental music had been bound, then the place of assembling would have been more important and more difficult to arrange.
God evidently did not have the NT writers mention the use of instruments in worship in order to make sure that we did not bind their use. To say that the lack of mention forbids their use is another thing entirely. It would seem that the use of instruments is simply a matter of expediency or choice. God is far more concerned about our hearts in worship than about the physical trappings one way or another. As one who worshipped without the use of instruments for the first 45 years of his life, and who has worshipped with the use of instruments since that time, I can say without hesitation that my heart has been affected spiritually in a positive way more with than without instrumental music. My personal experience cannot be used to displace the authority of Scripture, to be sure, but the truth of God tends to become rather self-evident with the passage of time. Biblically and practically, I would put instrumental music in worship in the realm of Christian freedom and preferences. In time, it will be left there by virtually everyone in the mainstream membership of restoration churches, just as many other similar issues of opinion have been.
