Truth Magazine

By Louis J. Sharp

This is a question that has been fraught with controversy over the years, even among members of the body of Christ. Is it because the Bible has nothing to say on the subject? To the contrary, the Bible has much to say in reference to the question. The careful Bible student is fully persuaded that there will be a bodily resurrection. Jesus said: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:44). The word, “resurrection,” signifies a “restoration to life.” The effects of death are reversed.

Man is a twofold being; body and spirit or soul. Our Lord warned: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). Paul informs “. . . but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16). What part of man is mortal? The answer is simple. It is the body that dies. James informs: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (Jas. 2:26). This is the Bible definition of death, i.e., the separation of body and spirit. Only that which has died is susceptible to the resurrection.

The mass resurrection narrated in Ezekiel 37:1-10 is a prophecy of the revival of the Jewish nation following their captivity in Babylon. Even so, the truth behind the prophecy is indisputable. The bones and sinews and flesh and spirits of those who once lived are returned to life. It is a lucid example of a bodily resurrection. Other Old Testament passages speak to the same thought. “Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the dept of the earth” (Psa. 71:20). “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead” (Isa. 26:19). We believe the testimony of the Scriptures.

Jesus Christ also acknowledges the same. In John 5:28-29, we read: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Either we believe him or reject him, which? John, the revelator, says: “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it” (Rev. 20:13). Now, whether this is symbolic or prophetic, the import is the same. The physical body of man, lost at sea and buried therein, will be resurrected.

What does Paul teach in 1 Corinthians 15? He asks two distinct questions: (1) How are the dead raised? (2) With what manner of body do they come? Paul answers both questions. The first question deals with whatever mystery there is connected with the resurrection. No doubt, you have wondered just how God is going to accomplish this! Much to our disappointment, Paul does not tell us how God proposes to raise the dead. He used the “seed” illustration, demonstrating the dead will live again, just as God causes life to spring from a seed. How does seed produce life? I know not except that it is God’s immutable law. We plant the seed, and properly nurtured, it will grow. God will see to that, whether we understand the process or not. And this is the point that Paul makes. “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body” (15:38).

Paul begins to answer the second question at verse 42. “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. “We submit that until and unless there be a physical resurrection, there can be no resurrection, for the definition of the word is to “cause to rise,” “to make to stand.”

Remember, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (15:26). “So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immorality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 0 death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:54-57). It is the physical body that is buried and is to be raised. In this way, death will be destroyed.

And we shall be fashioned anew. “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:20-21). Yes, our God is able! Our trust is in him!

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, p. 617
October 15, 1992

By Paul K. Williams

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14, NASB) In the margin of the NASB there is a note concerning the words “bound together” which states, “Lit., unequally yoked, ” and this is how the phrase is translated in the King James Version.

This verse does not mean that a person married to an unbeliever is sinning by being married to him. This is clear from what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:12-13: “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away.” Paul’s instructions to the one unequally yoked to an unbeliever are: “Therefore, ‘come out from their midst and be separate. “‘ However a believer yoked to an unbeliever in marriage is to remain in that marriage if the unbeliever is content to allow the marriage to continue. Therefore, being married to an unbeliever is not, in itself, the unequal yoke Paul writes about in 2 Corinthians 7:14.

However, marriage to an unbeliever can become an unequal yoke. This is what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 7:15: “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.” Under certain circumstances a Christian married to an unbeliever must choose not to continue in that marriage. This happens when the marriage is an unequal yoke.

I know a young woman who is planning to marry a man who opposes the church of the Lord and has told her that he will not allow her to go to church after they are married. If she marries him she will have entered into a yoke which will require her to do evil in order to stay married. If she marries the man under these circumstances she will be rebelling against God. If after she marries she repents of her sin, and the man will not change his opposition to the Lord, she will have to insist on going to church even if it means he leaves her. Following Christ is more important than keeping a marriage together!

In Columbus, Ohio I called on a member of the church who had not attended services in the years she had lived in that city. She explained that she was married to a Roman Catholic. He insisted that the children be reared as Catholics and did not want her to go to church. She explained to me that since it was important for her to obey her husband she was sending the children to a Catholic school and not going to church herself. That woman was doing evil in order to obey her husband even though the apostles said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). What she should have done was to choose to obey God. If her husband would not then allow her to live with him, she should have “let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15).

Therefore 2 Corinthians 6:14 applies to marriage just as it does to any other relationship. When a Christian is forced to do evil in order to keep any relationship from breaking up that Christian is unequally yoked, and if a Christian is unequally yoked he or she must come out of that relationship. If you have to lie in order to keep your job, you must refuse to lie and must let your boss fire you. If your parents command you to do wrong, you must refuse even if they disown you. If your husband demands that you not follow Christ, you must follow Christ even if he divorces you.

I knew a woman in Columbus, Ohio who was fired when she refused to give to the Community Chest. I know a young man in South Africa who refused to lie for his boss over the telephone and was fired on the spot. I know a number of young people who have had to leave home because their parents will not let them stay at home unless they worship ancestors. A young girl had to leave her mother because her mother insisted that the girl commit fornication with a certain man. These Christians obeyed God rather than man and came out from unequal yokes. Working for a boss is not an unequal yoke unless it causes you to do wrong in order to keep the job. Having parents does not cause an unequal yoke unless the parents insist that the child does evil. Marriage is not an unequal yoke unless one partner insists that the other disobey God. But when any relationship becomes an unequal yoke, the believer must obey God rather than man even if obeying God destroys a precious relationship.

Paul wrote: “the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15). The woman who obeyed her Roman Catholic husband by sending her children to Catholic schools and staying home from church misunderstood the nature of her bondage to her husband. We are not under bondage to anyone that we should sin. We have never been under such bondage. Even in marriage we are not under bondage to keep the marriage together at the price of sinning against God.

But don’t read more into what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:15 than what he actually wrote. The verse does not say that the believer is free to remarry if the unbeliever departs. The only thing Paul says is that the believer must not feel guilty if, by following the Lord, he or she causes the unbeliever to leave. Paul already told the Corinthians what the divorced person must do. “But to the married I give instructions, yet 1, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away” (1 Cor. 7:10-11). The only time a divorced person has the right to remarry is when that person divorces his or her mate for the cause of fornication (Matt. 19:9). All other divorced persons do not have the right to remarry and must “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.”

How careful we should be, therefore, when we plan to get married. We must understand thoroughly that no matter what happens we must obey God. If this leads to trouble in the marriage, we have no choice. God must come first. Therefore we should be as careful as we can be to marry one who will assist us in obeying God, not hinder us. It is sinful foolishness to think that love will overcome all obstacles. If you marry an obstinate unbeliever, you are either going to disobey God or be left by the unbeliever. Be as sure as you can. Don’t enter into the yoke of marriage if there is the likelihood that it will become an unequal yoke.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 622, 630
October 15, 1992

By Paul K. Williams

Is there a set pattern to follow for those who desire to become a child of God? Did Jesus authorize a set plan to be saved or did he leave it up to each individual to come in whatsoever way he wanted to.

We know that Moses was given the pattern for building the tabernacle (Heb. 8:5). Moses did not have authority to change that pattern, providing he wanted to please God. We know that Noah was given the pattern for the building of the ark (Gen. 6). He was not allowed to alter the pattern in any way. In order to arrive at the over all pattern to become a child of God, all examples of New Testament conversion must be taken into consideration. No one example of conversion includes all that is required to be saved (I mean it is not so stated). We conclude that all commandments were required even though it is not so stated. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Does this preclude the necessity of repentance and confession? No! “The Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). Repentance and confession are not mentioned.

When we consider all the listed conversions in the New Testament, we arrive at this conclusion: (1) one must hear the gospel (word of God) – Acts 18:8, (2) one must become a believer in Christ – Acts 16:31, (3) one must repent of his sins – Acts 2:38, (4) one must confess Christ to be the Son of God – Acts 8:37, (5) one must be baptized – Acts 10:48. This appears to be the pattern which all sinners must comply with to receive the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Preachers and/or teachers have no authority to change what the apostles have bound (Matt. 18:18). Since this is true, then we today are restricted to this pattern, it alone, in telling sinners what to do to be saved. Question! Can these commands be arranged in different order than listed above, or does it makes any difference so long as all are obeyed? I have been hearing and reading that “confession of Jesus” is required before repentance and baptism. The order cited above is H-B-R-C-B, while it is being taught that hear, believe, confess, repent, baptize, is the order. If this is permissible, then why not put baptism before hearing and believing as some teach in denominationalism. Why not put baptism before repentance?

In the conversion of the eunuch, confession was required just before baptism (Acts 8:26-39). While Philip was preaching Jesus to the eunuch they came to a certain water and the eunuch requested baptism. Philip said: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God” (Acts 8:37). This should prove without question that the confession was required just prior to baptism. This being true in the only recorded account of confession in a conversion, then who has the right to teach that it comes before repentance and baptism. We must not, yea, we cannot alter God’s pattern.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, p. 627
October 15, 1992

By Bill Crews

In Ephesians 4:5 the New Testament teaches that there is “one baptism” (in the same context, vv. 4-6, we are also told that there is one God and Father, one Holy Spirit, one Lord, one faith (the gospel), one body (the church, the spiritual body of Christ) and one hope (the hope of eternal life). Each accountable person needs to be certain that he has received the one baptism of this passage. In Acts 19:3-5 we read of twelve men at Ephesus who were “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” by the apostle Paul. These men had already been baptized “into John’s baptism,” but John the Baptist (or baptizer) had been dead for more than thirty years, and his baptism was no longer to be practiced or received (see also Acts 18:24-26). There are many today who have been baptized, but who need to be baptized again.

If I honestly believed that Baptist baptism as identical to New Testament baptism, I would certainly say so and be willing to accept it. But I know for a surety that it is not. By New Testament baptism I mean the baptism commanded by Christ is his new covenant. I have a book of Baptist Confessions of Faith written by Baptist preachers, church history books by Baptist preachers, and tracts and articles, and a Baptist encyclopedia. I know what Baptist churches teach, and I would not knowingly misrepresent them. Baptist churches reject infant baptism because they believe that baptism is for believers and that infants are incapable of being believers. In this they are right. In the first place the New Testament neither states nor necessarily implies that any infants were ever baptized. In the second place it clearly teaches that those who are baptized must be taught and must believe that teaching. Please read Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:12,35-38; 18:8, which all show that teaching and faith precede New Testament baptism.

Baptist churches reject the practice of sprinkling or pouring water upon a person for baptism and insist that baptism is the immersion of a person in water. In this they are right. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, and all Koine Greek lexicons define the word for “baptism” (actually a transliteration of the word) as “immersion, submersion, dipping, plunging, washing, overwhelming, etc.” and never as “sprinkling” or “pouring” (other Greek verbs had those meanings). Furthermore references to baptism and actual descriptions of baptizings clearly show that New Testament baptism is immersion in water. When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized, he and Philip came unto a certain water, he and Philip both went down into the water, he was baptized by Philip, and he and Philip both came up out of the water (by faith) buried with Christ and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12). Baptism involves a burial of a person in water and a resurrection of a person from water; it is to bring to mind the burial and resurrection of our Lord. Sprinkling or pouring of water upon a person is not New Testament baptism.

So far I have agreed with the teaching and practice of Baptist churches on baptism. Wherein do I disagree? In these five points:

1. Even though Baptist churches rightly teach that prospects for baptism must be capable of hearing and understanding the gospel and must be believers, in practice they baptize very young children who cannot comply with these conditions. The New Testament also shows that baptism is for people who are lost due to their own sins against God and that they must be convicted of their sins (Rom. 6:16-18,14). Baptist churches, though they will not baptize infants, teach that everyone is born lost because they come into this world with the guilt of Adam’s sin upon them. This the Bible does not teach (Ezek. 18:20; Eccl. 7:29; Lk. 18:15-17).

2. Baptist churches not only teach that one must be a believer before he can be baptized. They teach that one must believe that he is already saved before he can be baptized; they put salvation at the point of faith; they teach salvation by faith alone. They put salvation from sin before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Mk. 16:15-16; 1 Pet. 3:21). They put remission of sins before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Acts 2:38). They put discipleship before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). They put the washing away of sins before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Acts 22:16). They put being in Christ before baptism; the New Testament puts it after baptism (Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:3-4).

3. Baptist churches teach that one must be accepted by the members of a congregation before he can be baptized; in times past they actually had the matter put to a vote. In the New Testament no one was ever brought before a congregation for approval before he could be baptized; in the New Testament churches did not vote upon receiving anyone for baptism (please read the example in Acts 8:26-39; the Lord adds one to the church, Acts 2:47; God sets the members in the spiritual body which is the church, 1 Cor. 12:18).

4. Baptist churches teach that one can only be baptized by one who is authorized to do so, usually a “licensed” and “ordained” “minister,” who is a Baptist. Some teach that that authorization must go back in an unbroken chain all the way to Christ and his apostles before the baptism can be valid. The New Testament places no significance upon the identity of the one who does the baptizing. The important thing is whether or not the individual who is baptized has been taught and convicted and is from the heart obeying the truth (Rom. 6:17-18). When anyone at Corinth began to place significance upon who baptized him, Paul wrote that he thanked God that he did not baptize that person (1 Cor. 1:10-17).

5. Baptist churches teach that baptism puts one into a local congregation and makes him a member of that local body. In the New Testament we do not read anywhere that baptism put anyone into a local church or congregation. We rather read that baptism puts one into Christ and into the spiritual body of Christ, the church (“the church” in that sense is all the saved and not some local congregation as in Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:10,21; 5:23; now please read 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:26-27 and Rom. 6:3-4, which show that we are baptized into Christ and into the spiritual body of Christ, the church).

This is why I know that anyone who has received Baptist baptism has not received New Testament baptism. Please be honest; it is not all “just a matter of interpretation.” It is rather a matter of Bible teaching and the salvation of precious souls.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 20, pp. 618-619
October 15, 1992