What Is Baptism—Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion

It may be that no Bible subject has caused more confusion among people than the subject of baptism. What is baptism? What is its purpose? Who should be baptized? Why? I would like to look at all of these questions, but for the present, for the purpose of this article, I will confine myself to the question, what is baptism?

Most people assume that the words found in our New Testaments are English words translated from the original Greek. You may be surprised to learn that the word "baptize" and its derivatives are not English words at all, not at first. They are Greek words that were transliterated.

What does that mean?  Dictionary.com online defines transliterate as follows: “to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.” Thus, those men who translated our New Testaments from the Greek into English decided not to translate the Greek word "baptize" at all. They just made it a new English word. Forget translating it, forget translating the Greek word. To translate is to give the meaning of the Greek word in English. That they refused to do.

Why would they do that? That is a good question. It is a question with an easy answer. The Greek word means to immerse completely. My hardback copy of Vine's, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says of baptism, "consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence." If the reader will do a little of their own research they will quickly see that most all Greek scholars readily admit that in the first century the word was used of immersion only, that is what the Greek word meant to those people.

The Bible confirms this to be the case for Paul says, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) Baptism is a burial, a burial in water when used in a religious context. Paul says again in Col. 2:11-12 (NKJV), "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." One is not and cannot be buried by pouring or sprinkling.

The truth of the matter as to why the Greek work was transliterated and never translated is to be found in the fact that by the time the Bible came to be translated into English man had decided on his own initiative that sprinkling would do just as well as immersion. If you translate the Greek and are honest in your scholarship you will have to use the word immerse, or dip, or submerge. If you do that, what will that do to your doctrine of sprinkling? It will destroy it. That cannot be allowed to happen. What is the solution? Don't translate the Greek, transliterate it, producing a new English word that because it is new you can make it mean what you want it to mean.

The first time after the establishment of the church in Acts 2 that anyone was sprinkled or had water poured on them rather than be immersed was approximately 250 years later. In about 250 AD, a man named Novation became ill and fearing for his life wanted to be baptized. Too ill for immersion his friends poured water on him. By that point in time there was not an inspired man alive to cause problems over this substitution. Inspiration had ended. The apostles were dead.

One had to go outside the pages of the New Testament to get pouring (affusion) or sprinkling, showing little respect for what was written. What was written was not sufficient for a man (or his friends) who felt he was at the point of death, and knowing he had not been obedient to the command to be baptized (immersed), was desperate. What he needed was a change in the ordinance. He needed pouring as a substitution and if he or his friends had to add a new law or change an old one to get it in then so be it. Evidently, they had never read the passage, “There is one Lawgiver.” (James 4:12 NKJV) Either that or they were just going to ignore it.

Thus, we see the kind of attitude that brought sprinkling and pouring into what the world calls "Christianity." One ought to be able to see the evil of that kind of attitude toward God's word; if I can't find what I want in the word I will do whatever.

In 1311, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Revenna officially adopted pouring (affusion) and sprinkling (aspersion) of water as valid baptism. The Greek Catholic Church would not accept this but the Roman Catholic Church did and it exercised dominance in the West where the English-speaking people resided and where English Bibles were to be produced. This was more than 100 years before the printing press was invented making mass production of Bibles possible. Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 was one of the first to use the word baptism or baptize consistently in an English Bible.

The long and short of it was that the doctrine of sprinkling was, by subterfuge, brought into the Bible by a deliberate failure to translate a Greek word and giving the transliterated word any meaning you wanted since it was a new word to the English language. That is why if you look up the word "baptize" or "baptism" in a modern-day dictionary it will give you meanings related to the way the word is used today, thus giving you options--sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

Even so I was surprised to see that my Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition, the last copyright listed being 1988, while listing 3 common meanings of the word "baptize" as used today, gives before those listings the Greek meanings and I quote here from it--"to immerse," "to dip." Honesty in scholarship is a great thing.

Most all scholars will agree on the meaning of the original Greek word baptize, immerse or dip, but you will probably never see again a major translation that will translate the Greek word baptize that way. Why? With the vast multitude of people who have now come to wholeheartedly embrace sprinkling how many Bibles do you think they would sell? You can still learn the truth on this topic through your own study but you will get no help from most Bible translations. One exception is the Literal Standard Version translation but how many people do you know who have this translation? It is not a major one.

What is sad is that some will read what I have written here, they will then go and do their own research, find out that what I have said is the truth, and yet it will not make a bit of difference in their view of the subject if they have by tradition had pouring and sprinkling handed down to them in their particular faith.

Pouring and sprinkling for baptism came to us from man, not God. It has now become a tradition of men. Jesus once said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3 NKJV) God's commandment to us is to be immersed. Everyone agrees that was the original commandment and historically was done exclusively for a couple of hundred years after the church was established. When I substitute pouring or sprinkling for immersion how can I say anything other than I have done the very same thing these scribes and Pharisees did?

I have transgressed the commandment of God because of my tradition preferring to keep my tradition (pouring and/or sprinkling) over his word (immersion). I have made the commandment of God of no effect by my tradition handed down to me by those who came before which I have accepted wholeheartedly.

Then Jesus also does a comparison and contrast in talking to the scribes and Pharisees. He says God says (Matt. 15:4), then says "but you say." (Matt. 15:5). Again, it is hard to not see a parallel. I, God, have said immersion, but you say sprinkling.

Then we also have to ask, since pouring and sprinkling came from man being 200 to 1300 years after the writing of the New Testament, depending on whether you want to start your count with Novation or the Council of Ravenna, how it can be said that God had anything to do with bringing affusion or asperion into the faith? How can it be anything other than "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men"? (Matt. 15:9 NKJV)

The only way one can get around the difficulties associated with accepting pouring and sprinkling is to say the New Testament is insufficient as a guide for man today. It must be amended. This smacks of the utmost arrogance. It is to say God was not able, not capable, of producing a guide that could stand the test of time and stand on its own two legs. It is to say that we men of dust need to help God stay updated. It is to say we still have inspired men able to amend the teachings of the New Testament.

The Catholic Church accepts both—its inspiration through the Magisterium and the Pope and the need for God's word, the New Testament, to be amended and added to from time to time. If you believe that, then it is not hard to abandon the written word or replace it with your own, your teaching and tradition. Just combine it all and claim the totality to be “God’s word.”

But the truth is this is the approach the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians take whether they are Catholics or Protestants. They are putting their trust in men rather than in what is written. The idea seems to prevail that their tradition (or practice if you will) regarding baptism, whether begun in 250 AD or in the Middle Ages, or even more recently somehow trumps the New Testament and amends it. And, yet, they think it is of God.

I don't know whether you ever thought about it this way or not. What we are saying when we add to God's word is that it alone is insufficient to save men. We now need more. Yes, there was a time when immersion alone was sufficient but not so today. Men need options God did not give. It is too hard to have to do what he said way back then. Getting all wet is too big an inconvenience. What was once sufficient is no longer so. Who said so? We did. Who could fairly question us who have made ourselves the authority?

Hear the words of Jesus, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." John 12:48 (NKJV) The word of Jesus in the New Testament is be immersed.

Today we need to make a choice. Will we believe and practice those things that came into our midst religiously hundreds of years after the establishment of the church and which, as a result, came obviously from man, not God, or will we return to the New Testament as our sole guide in our faith and practice? We need to choose. We ought to say as for me and my house I will follow the words of the Lord as recorded in the New Testament and leave the ideas, opinions, and innovations of man to those for whom the New Testament is not good enough.

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

Spiritual Mirages

It is so easy to be misled in life. Things appear to be a certain way, but the reality is they are not at all what they seem to be. They are a mirage. Ask any young man or woman or husband or wife who has been deeply in love and then found out to their utter dismay that the love they felt sure was mutual between them and their beloved was all just an illusion and the object of their affections was in reality ready to desert them. The first reaction is one of shock and disbelief. Only later are they able to look back and perhaps pick up on some signs that should have clued them in all along, signs which at the time were hidden from their eyes. Sadly, this sort of thing happens all the time and when one comes to the knowledge of the truth in such matters it is never pleasant.

In the realm of religion, just as in the realm of personal relationships, there are mirages. People think they see things that are in reality only illusions. One such example is found in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, God's prophet, had been prophesying for years to Judah to repent and amend their ways lest God send a foreign force to their country for their destruction and ruin. They never listened and so God did indeed send the Babylonians resulting in death for many and Babylonian captivity for those that were left alive. Only the very poorest of the land were left in Judah to till the land under the leadership of a man appointed by the king of Babylon, Gedaliah.

Due to some outside intrigue by the king of Ammon men were sent to assassinate Gedaliah which mission they accomplished.  This put great fear into the Jews left in the land fearing that the king of Babylon would return and punish them over the affair even though they were not involved in it. The desire was to flee to Egypt for safety. (Read the account in Jer. 40:13-41:18.) Before leaving for Egypt, however, they consulted with Jeremiah asking him, on their behalf, to seek God's will in the matter. Having done so and received from God an answer they were instructed and warned not to go to Egypt.

"Then hear now the word of the LORD, O remnant of Judah! Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: 'If you wholly set your faces to enter Egypt, and go to dwell there, then it shall be that the sword which you feared shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt; the famine of which you were afraid shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there you shall die. So shall it be with all the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to dwell there. They shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence. And none of them shall remain or escape from the disaster that I will bring upon them.'" (Jer. 42:15-17 NKJV)

The people did not believe Jeremiah, accused him of lying (Jer. 43:2), and left for Egypt dragging Jeremiah along with them. Once there, they continued their idol worship (Jer. 44:8) and continued ignoring Jeremiah's prophetic warnings (Jer. 43:8-Jer. 44:14). We now get to the lesson I want to emphasize for this article. The people respond to Jeremiah's prophecy by saying:

"As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." (Jer. 44:16-18 NKJV)

Here is the spiritual mirage, the illusion, the incomprehension, the self-deception, and herein lies the lesson we all must learn and take to heart. There is a great tendency on man's part to believe that if he is actively involved in spiritual affairs, sincere in its belief and practise, and if his life as it pertains to this world seems to be going relatively well that is an indication God is pleased with him and his religion and that God is with him blessing him as a result of his spiritual life.

Just because things are going reasonably well for us in our lives does not mean things are well with us spiritually. Just because we have a spiritual life, one we are actively involved in, does not mean it is the right religion or pleasing to God. As far as I am able to tell from reading the New Testament the Pharisees of Jesus' day were doing just fine as far as the blessings of this world were concerned but they were experiencing their own spiritual mirage as much as those Jews in Jeremiah’s day.

The Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing could not have been more wrong than they were with regard to their concept of cause and effect. While they may have "had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble" the cause was not because they were worshipping "the queen of heaven" to whom they attributed it. They were involved in a spiritual illusion, a spiritual mirage, and one which man is very easily led into even today. We easily deceive ourselves just as was the case in Jeremiah's time.

The God of heaven is generally patient with man although no man should sin thinking God will give him time to repent. God is under no obligation to give man time to repent from sin. One can readily come up with many examples from the Bible where sinners were struck down immediately upon committing sin.

Nevertheless, it seems most are given time as God "is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) One sees this not only in the book of Jeremiah where Jeremiah urged repentance and a turning back to God for years before tragedy finally struck but it is a common Old Testament theme as apostasy was common among God's people throughout most of Old Testament history and the prophets were continually calling for repentance with God giving time and opportunity.

Romans two, verse four, helps us see God's patience and longsuffering with sinful man. I quote it here from the New Living Translation. "Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that His kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?" (Rom. 2:4 NLT) The NKJV reads, "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (NKJV)

The Jews of Jeremiah's day were attributing God's goodness and longsuffering, meant for their repentance and salvation, to blessings from the idol they were worshipping--the queen of heaven. While we do not worship idols today, save for a few places in the world, aren't we in danger of doing something very similar to the Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing? Everything is going well; we see no need to repent thinking our life is pleasing to God and we are being blessed because of our godly life all the while knowing we cannot read specific Bible passages without them condemning us--our life, our faith, our conduct. We like the Jews of old will not listen to God's specific word. We convince ourselves, in one way or another, that things have changed today and the passage or passages that prick us are no longer relevant to modern-day life and religion.

We feel Christianity has evolved and things that once were are no longer true or binding on us. God has changed, seems to be the thinking, even though he has specifically said, “I change not.” (Mal. 3:6 KJV) We either do that or we twist passages to make them mean what we wish they said.

The church at Laodicea can serve as an example of how we can delude ourselves and see mirages. They were saying to themselves, "I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing." (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) However, what does Jesus say about them? He says they do not know that they “are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked." (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) His message to them ends up being "be zealous and repent." (Rev. 3:19 NKJV) Yet, that was the very thing they saw no need of, for they were saying among themselves, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.” (Rev/ 3:17 NKJV) They were pleased and satisfied and yet Jesus says their eyes needed to be anointed with eye salve so they could see (Rev. 3:18). They were seeing a mirage.

I am convinced people today are just as easily misled into erroneous thinking about their status with God as they were back in Bible times. A person can look at their life and see all kinds of blessings and think God is being so good to me and therefore he must be pleased with my religious life. That is not necessarily the case at all. One’s financial and social status, one’s blessings in this life, tell us nothing about how God sees us. The beggar in the account of the rich man and Lazarus had no money, no status or standing in this world of men, but went to paradise upon his death.

That kind of reasoning that correlates this world’s blessings with godly approval would lead to the conclusion that Paul was displeasing to God and living an ungodly life for he spoke about what he had experienced when he said, "From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness … ." (2 Cor. 11:24-27 NKJV)

Blessings from God do not necessarily equate with God being pleased with you and the way you are living your life. It is a spiritual mirage to think God is pleased with me because of all I have, all I have done, and accomplished. Jesus himself, while living on earth, had little to nothing of this world's goods. He once said he had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20).

The same point that is being made about individuals can also be said of religious groups. Do not be misled by size and appearances. If one wants to please the masses, it can be done. There are ways to tear down the old building and build bigger and fill the parking lot up (how this is done is no secret) and then say God blessed you as a religious body. If you have been observant, you know how it is done as well as I do. The question that has to be answered, however, is what brought them in—God or the appeal to the fleshly man? Was it an appeal to faith and duty or an appeal to that which satisfies the natural man?

The conclusion of the matter is this—while all blessings come from God and we should be thankful for every one of them, we ought not to jump to conclusions about why we received them. Many a man blessed abundantly in this life will be found in hell in the next one for the goodness of God in his case did not lead him to repentance while the poor widow (Luke 21) having given up even her two mites along with the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16) will be there in heaven. (One assumes the poor widow continued faithful until death.)

It continues to trouble me greatly how people just assume, make assumptions, all of the time in the realm of religion. All seems to be well with them and God, in their mind, just because they feel it is so. Their religion is based on emotion, on feeling, and is purely subjective. It is a matter of how I feel about it (just as in Jeremiah's day) versus book, chapter, and verse from God's word. When the choice is between the actual word of God as can be quoted versus their emotions, God's word will take second place. That is living life based on a spiritual mirage, an illusion that will be shown up for what it is on the last day. Jeremiah spoke the word of God. The Jews should have heard it. They paid the penalty for doing it their way. We will pay the penalty for doing it our way unless our way has the word of God behind it.

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

 

Was Cornelius Saved Before Baptism

I have written a series of articles on the subject of obeying the gospel in the first century based on the history given in the book of Acts. This is another dealing with the same subject. Why do so? Because there is absolutely no possibility that Holy Spirit inspired men, some apostles, could have gotten the gospel message wrong.

The case of Cornelius is somewhat unique in the respect that he appears to have been a very godly man even prior to his conversion. In Acts 10:2, the Bible says of him that he was "a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually." (NAS) Of course, there were others like him in that regard – Saul of Tarsus and the Ethiopian eunuch come to mind. A man may be devout and yet ill-informed, in religious error.

As for Cornelius, if there was ever a man so good as to be saved on his own merits we suppose Cornelius would have been that man. And yet God's angel instructs him to send for Peter. Why? Might it not be that even a good man like Cornelius needed the gospel? If a man can be saved without the gospel why bother to preach it to him, why did Jesus die on the cross, why the great commission? You can read 2 Thess. 1:8-9 to see what will happen to those who do not obey the gospel. It is a serious matter to not obey the gospel. Cornelius needed the gospel. He was a man in need of salvation from his sins for no man is so perfect as to have never sinned.

Peter, in reporting what had happened at Cornelius' house, once he arrives back in Jerusalem, throws more light on why Cornelius, by the angel's direction, had been instructed to send for him. The angel had told Cornelius that "he (a reference to Peter - DS) shall speak words to you by which you will be saved." (Acts 11:14 NAS) So, there were words Cornelius needed to hear to be saved? What were those words?  

Were they not the same words Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they not the same words spoken by Philip in Samaria and before the Ethiopian eunuch? Were they not the same words spoken to Saul by Ananias? Is there more than one gospel that will save? Is it this gospel in one place, another gospel in another location? The gospel is the gospel. It does not differ day by day, from city to city, or from person to person.

It has already been shown in previous articles, as taken in chronological order, that in every instance the preaching by the apostles and inspired men of the first century immediately led to baptism by those who accepted the preaching. Baptism was a part of the message. Is it any different this time with Cornelius? No!

Hear Peter, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized" (Acts 10:47 NAS) then "he ordered them to be baptized." (Acts 10:48 NAS) What is another word for "ordered?" If you check other translations you will see the word "commanded" rather than "ordered." But why command baptism?

The answer is because you cannot obey the gospel and thus cannot be saved, not in the first century and not now, without being baptized "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38 NAS) What Peter preached in one locality he preached everywhere. Was Peter an apostle? Did he know what he was talking about? How about Philip? How about Ananias? Remember that Cornelius was to be saved by the words Peter would speak to him (Acts 11:14) and that word ended with the command to be baptized.

Cornelius and his companions had the Holy Spirit descend upon them prior to their baptism leading many to think they were saved at that point. Not so. Why not? 

Because Cornelius was to be saved by the message he received from Peter (Acts 11:14) and not by a miraculous manifestation from heaven. Peter had not gotten a good start on delivering that message when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius for he says in Acts 11:15 "as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them." (NAS) It was necessary for Peter to complete that message which included baptism.

But let us look at it from another point of view. What if Cornelius had told Peter, "No thanks, I have been saved by faith and grace. I believe in Jesus. I think I will just pass on baptism." Would he have been saved? Many preach today that he would have been for the gospel they preach has no water in it unlike Peter's gospel. 

He would not have been saved by grace and faith for the simple reason that he would have lacked faith in the message Peter preached. He would not have believed the Holy Spirit by which Peter spoke for Peter by the Holy Spirit commanded baptism. It would have been as if he said, “I know you were to speak words by which I might be saved but I do not believe this word.”

I would also remind the reader of what he already knows if he will think about it. The fact the Holy Spirit is upon one does not mean he is God-approved as he is in his present state. If so Caiaphas, the high priest and one of the ringleaders in bringing about the crucifixion of Jesus, was a saved man. Read about his prophesying in John 11:49-51. Add to that the fact that even inspired men could and did sin, even Peter. (Gal. 2:11-12)  

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

 

Moses and the Waters of Marah--A Lesson For US

When the children of Israel left Egypt, led by Moses, the first major event one reads about in the book of Exodus after the Red Sea crossing is found in Exodus 15:22-26, the crisis at the waters of Marah. I say crisis for that was how the children of Israel perceived it. They had been traveling three days in the wilderness and had found no water to drink during that time.

Was that a crisis? It was when you consider how much water was required for this exodus. In Ex. 12:37-38 we get some idea of the numbers. It reads as follows: "And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. A mixed multitude also went up with them, and very much livestock, both flocks and herds." (ESV) There may have been over 2 million men, women, and children needing water, as well as all the flocks and herds of livestock. You do not carry that kind of water in canteens.

After this three-day journey without finding water, they come to Marah, a place that has water, but water so bitter it cannot be used for drinking. In fact, according to the notes in the NET Bible, the Hebrew word "Marah" means bitter. The Bible says, "The people complained against Moses, saying, 'What shall we drink?'" (Ex. 15:24 NKJV) One has to understand Moses was only God's representative; thus, to complain against Moses was to complain against God (see Ex. 16:8). Moses individually had no power to provide them with water; they knew that, so the complaint was against God.

This manifested a lack of faith in God. How? Back in Ex. 3:16-17 before the plagues, before Moses ever entered Egypt after his personal exile, God told Moses at the burning bush incident to, "Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, 'The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, 'I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt; and I have said I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey.' ' " (NKJV)

After entering Egypt, Moses did this according to Ex. 4:29-30 with Aaron being his spokesman. He was also directed to perform miracles before the elders as you read about in Ex. 4:1-9, and according to Ex. 4:30 he did so, as signs of confirmation that it was God who was behind this affair. Afterwards, we know of the plagues that hit Egypt which were further confirmation that God was intent on bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt into "a land flowing with milk and honey." Add to these miracles the Red Sea encounter where the waters were parted for the children of Israel but collapsed on the Egyptians and the children of Israel should have seen God's determination to hold fast to his promise to them.

Why then would the children of Israel believe that God would allow them to perish for want of water at Marah after seeing all he had already done on their behalf? Did they not believe God? Did they not trust him after all they had both heard and seen? According to the footnotes in the NET Bible the Hebrew word translated "complained" or "murmured" or "grumbled," depending on your translation, "is a much stronger word than 'to grumble' or 'to complain.' It is used almost exclusively in the wilderness wandering stories, to describe the rebellion of the Israelites against God … They were not merely complaining--they were questioning God's abilities and motives. The action is something like a parliamentary vote of no confidence."

That they needed water there was no doubt. That they were in want there is no doubt. What should they have done rather than rebel? Well, I can think of several things--trust in God for deliverance, pray to him, ask Moses not in a complaining or murmuring way but in a supplicating way to intervene with God on their behalf. God had told them he would bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey. If they believed in the goodness of God, that he would not lie to them, then surely they should have seen he was not about to let them die of thirst. But, the Psalmist had this to say about them, "They did not believe in God, and did not trust in his salvation." (Psalms 78:22 NKJV) That was said of them at a later date in their history but was true of them basically from the beginning as their first rebellion, based on a lack of faith, was at the Red Sea (Psalms 106:7).

A lesson for all Christians in this is the need to trust in God in our own personal crises. If we are faithful God is on our side and if we will trust and obey and be patient he will work things out for us. This does not mean he will allow us to live eternally upon the earth. It is appointed for man once to die (Heb. 9:27 NKJV). Nor does it mean we will be blessed in the ways we might like--say fame, fortune, and prestige--but it does mean he will see us through our life’s struggles and help us through the valley of the shadow of death (Psa. 23:4).

However, that is not the main lesson I want to get from this Old Testament story. God did come to the rescue of the children of Israel and provide water, but how did he do it? The Bible says he told Moses to cast a tree he showed him into the bitter waters at Marah which having done so the waters were made fit to drink (Ex. 15:25 NKJV). However, it is my understanding that the Hebrew word denotes "wood" and not necessarily a tree, although either is possible; thus, the English Standard Version translates the word as a "log" rather than a tree while other translations say "a piece of wood." (CEV, GNB, NLT)

I want to ask the reader some questions to get to the main point of this article. What power was there in that tree or piece of wood to transform a body of water from bitter to pure sufficient to quench the thirst of perhaps as many as 2 million people with all their livestock? Not one bit of power--none at all. However, what would have happened had Moses not thrown the tree or wood into the water? Would the water have become drinkable had he not?

What power was there in the rod Moses had in his hand to part the Red Sea? God told him, "Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it." (Ex. 14:16 NKJV) None! But what if he had not done it?

What power was there in the rod Moses used to strike the rock, in a later incident where water was needed, to bring forth water out of the rock to provide for the people's thirst? (see Ex. 17:5-6) None! But what if he had not done it?

What power was there in the fiery serpent that God told Moses to make and put on a pole (he made it out of bronze) to heal those who had been bitten by poisonous serpents to save them from death if they would look at it? (see Numbers 21:8-9) None! You surely do not believe your doctor would treat you that way if bitten by a poison scorpion or rattlesnake do you? But, what about those who did not look at Moses' bronze serpent?

What power was there inherent in marching around the walls of Jericho, blowing trumpets, blowing a ram's horn, and shouting to get the walls of the city to fall down? (Joshua 6:2-5) None! But, what if they had not done it?

What power was there in the water of the Jordan River to cleanse Naaman of his leprosy? (2 Kings 5) None! Could all lepers have been cleansed of leprosy by doing what Naaman did? Was the power in the water? What if Naaman had not gone and washed 7 times as directed? (We know, don't we, for until he did so, having refused for a time, he remained leprous and was not cleansed.)

In John 9, Jesus meets a man blind from birth. The Bible says, "He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. And he said to him, 'Go, wash in the pool of Siloam' (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing." (John 9:6-7 NKJV) What power was there in the water of the pool of Siloam to cure blindness? None at all! But what if he had not gone to the pool of Siloam?

Are you seeing a pattern? The God that spoke the universe into existence and who needs but speak and it is done does not need rods, or bronze serpents, special water treatments, or marching, or horn blowing, or anything else to achieve the end he desires. All he needs to do is speak and it is done but sometimes he chooses to work by means of agency. When he chooses to do so it becomes a matter of faith on our part--faith to believe and do or faithlessness to disbelieve and not do.

Naaman was a person who had a hard time believing and doing. He just could not see the sense in it or the reason for it. Be that as it may, he was not healed until he believed enough to obey.

Let me drive the point home. It does not matter in the least whether you or I see a reason in a command God gives. Sometimes he gives commands just to test our obedience (Abraham being a case in point with the sacrifice of his son Isaac). Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, said to the Corinthians, "For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things." (2 Cor. 2:9 NKJV)

Many, many people who consider themselves to be Christians (the reality is they are not) cannot bring themselves to be baptized. Is it a command of God? They know it is (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21, Rom. 6:3-4, etc.) but they cannot believe it is necessary for they cannot see any reason behind it. How often has one heard the phrase that "the water does not have anything to do with salvation?" It does if God says to be baptized. It fits into the same category of things we have discussed here.

I have asked the question before and never received an answer but I will ask it again. If Jesus (God) wanted you to know baptism was for the remission of your sins how would he have had to phrase it to get the message across to you, if you do not believe that to be the case? He actually said that exact thing, speaking through Peter via the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (NKJV) Then, in Acts 22:16, the Holy Spirit spoke of being baptized to wash away sins. Peter states it again as if we could not understand him in Acts 2:38 when he says, "there is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV) Jesus himself said, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:5 NKJV) and he said the man that would be saved would be the man that "believes and is baptized." (Mark 16:16)

People all over the world are convinced Jesus was in error when he said "he who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16 NKJV) believing the truth to be "he who believes and is baptized or not baptized, either way, will be saved." That is adding to the word of God and is just as dangerous as if a man were to say, "he who believes and is not baptized will be saved." Add to God's word or contradict it, either one, and face God in the judgment.

The lesson we need to learn from the event at the waters of Marah is that if God decides to use agency or means to save us, then so be it. We must either conform and throw that log or tree into the water, or forget about receiving the blessing. We either believe and obey, or disbelieve and do not obey and forfeit the blessing. The spiritual application is valid until the earth no longer exists. One must respect whatever agency or means God so desires to use to bring blessings and salvation to man. To fail to respect that is to show a lack of faith in God despite all protests to the contrary.

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