“Barabbas, Part 8:” by Romans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd4qtmDGIWQ
We are continuing in our Barabbas Series. Tonight is Part 8 of that Series. Last week we concluded our “we have” “rabbit trail.” Tonight, with your indulgence, I would like to explore yet another “rabbit trail” in our examination of this topic. This time the phrase is, “we are.” Barabbas was a valid symbol of us as being guilty and worthy of punishment for our misdeeds, but being chosen without merit, to be released without punishment.
When Barabbas left that Judgment Platform, all similarities ceased for us. Unlike Barabbas, for us – in the present tense – “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:15). We are, now... right now, by and through Christ, renewed and transformed in ways Barabbas never dreamed of.
First, let's review and examine Acts 17:28-29: In Athens, Paul had just encountered an idol on Mars Hill dedicated to “The Unknown God,” and he brilliantly seized the opportunity to tell those gathered there that he was presenting to them that very “Unknown God” Whom they had not known, and Whom they ignorantly worshipped.
He declares that God to be the Creator of all things, and adds: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.”
These are verses which we should not easily read over, much less dismiss: Do you realize what they are telling us? Think of it: that we are the offspring of God. The opening of the Gospel of John spoke of our right or power to become God's children by and through our belief in Jesus Christ. John wrote in John 1:12: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”
Of this verse, John Gill writes, “But as many as received him,.... This is explained, in the latter part of the text, by believing in his name; for faith is a receiving him as the word, and Son of God, as the Messiah, Saviour, and Redeemer; a receiving grace out of his fulness, and every blessing from him, as a justifying righteousness, pardon of sin, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified; for though they generality rejected him, there were some few that received him:
to them gave he power to become the sons of God; as such were very early called, in distinction from the children of men, or of the world. To be the sons of God is a very special favour, a great blessing, and high honour: saints indeed are not in so high a sense the sons of God as Christ is;
nor in so low a sense as angels and men in common are; nor in such sense as civil magistrates; nor merely by profession of religion; much less by natural descent; but by adopting grace: and in this, Christ, the word, has a concern, as all the three divine persons have.
The Father's… adoption of children, secures this blessing for them in the covenant of his grace, and puts them among the children, and assigns them a goodly heritage: the Spirit, and who is therefore called the spirit of adoption, discovers and applies this blessing to them, and witnesses to their spirits that they are the children of God:
and Christ, the word, or Son of God, not only espoused their persons, and in time assumed their nature, and by the redemption of them opened a way for their reception of the adoption of children; but actually bestows upon them the "power", as it is here called, of becoming the sons of God: by which is meant, not a power of free will to make themselves the sons of God, if they will make use of it; but it signifies the honour and dignity conferred on such persons:
It is more honourable than to be a son or daughter of the greatest potentate on earth: and it is expressive of its being a privilege; for so it is an undeserved and distinguishing one, and is attended with many other privileges; for such are of God's household and family, and are provided for by him; have liberty of access unto him; are Christ's free men, and are heirs to an incorruptible inheritance.
This is a privilege that excels all others, even justification and remission of sins; and is an everlasting one: and it also intends the open right which believers have unto this privilege, and their claim of it: hence it follows, even to them that believe in his name; that is, in himself, in Christ, the word: for though the elect of God, by virtue of electing grace, and the covenant of grace, are the children of God before faith;
and were so considered in the gift of them to Christ, and when he came into the world to gather them together, and save them; and so, antecedent to the Spirit of God, being sent down into their hearts, to make this known to them; yet no man can know his adoption, nor enjoy the comfort of it, or claim his interest in it, until he believes.”
Back to our opening verse in Acts 17, Paul is on Mars Hill. In his sermon 2,000 years ago, Paul is presenting to the Athenians the God they did not know, powerfully telling them then, and us, today, that “we are the offspring of God”! Matthew Henry comments on the verse as well as the context of the idol to the Unknown God:
“[Paul] aimed to bring them to the knowledge of the only living and true God, as the sole and proper object of their adoration. He is here obliged to lay the foundation, and to instruct them in the first principle of all religion, that there is a God, and that God is but one. When he preached against the gods they worshipped, he had no design to draw them to atheism, but to the service of the true Deity.
Socrates, who had exposed the pagan idolatry, was indicted in this very court, and condemned, not only because he did not esteem those to be gods whom the city esteemed to be so, but because he introduced new demons; and this was the charge against Paul. Now he tacitly owns the former part of the charge, but guards against the latter, by declaring that he does not introduce any new gods, but reduce them to the knowledge of one God, the Ancient of days.
Now, He shows them that they needed to be instructed herein; for they had lost the knowledge of the true God that made them... Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? He hath made them to dwell on all the face of the earth, which, as a bountiful benefactor, he has given, with all its fulness, to the children of men. He made them not to live in one place, but to be dispersed over all the earth;
one nation therefore ought not to look with contempt upon another, as the Greeks did upon all other nations; for those on all the face of the earth are of the same blood. The Athenians boasted that they sprung out of their own earth, were aborigines, and nothing akin by blood to any other nation, which proud conceit of themselves the apostle here takes down.
4. That he is the great benefactor of the whole creation: He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. He not only breathed into the first man the breath of life, but still breathes it into every man. He gave us these souls he formed the spirit of man within him. He not only gave us our life and breath, when he brought us into being, but he is continually giving them to us;
his providence is a continued creation; he holds our souls in life; every moment our breath goes forth, but he graciously gives it us again the next moment; it is not only his air that we breathe in, but it is in his hand that our breath is.
He gives to all the children of men their life and breath; for as the meanest of the children of men live upon him, and receive from him, so the greatest, the wisest philosophers and mightiest potentates, cannot live without him. He gives to all, not only to all the children of men, but to the inferior creatures, to all animals, every thing wherein is the breath of life;
they have their life and breath from him, and where he gives life and breath he gives all things, all other things needful for the support of life. The earth is full of his goodness. In him we live; that is, the continuance of our lives is owing to him and the constant influence of his providence; he is our life, and the length of our days.
It is not only owing to his patience and pity that our forfeited lives are not cut off, but it is owing to his power, and goodness, and fatherly care, that our frail lives are prolonged. There needs not a positive act of his wrath to destroy us; if he suspend the positive acts of his goodness, we die of ourselves.
In him we move; it is by the uninterrupted concourse of his providence that our souls move in their outgoings and operations, that our thoughts run to and fro about a thousand subjects, and our affections run out towards their proper objects. It is likewise by him that our souls move our bodies; we cannot stir a hand, or foot, or a tongue, but by him, who, as he is the first cause, so he is the first mover.
(3.) In him we have our being; not only from him we had it at first, but in him we have it still; to his continued care and goodness we owe it, not only that we have a being and are not sunk into nonentity, but that we have our being, have this being, were and still are of such a noble rank of beings, capable of knowing and enjoying God... That upon the whole matter we are God's offspring; he is our Father that begat us, and he hath nourished and brought us up as children.
The confession of an adversary in such a case is always looked upon to be of use as... an argument to the man, and therefore the apostle here quotes a saying of one of the Greek poets, Aratus, a native of Cilicia, Paul's countryman, who, in his Phenomena, in the beginning of his book, speaking of the heathen Jupiter, that is, in the poetical dialect, the supreme God, says this of him, for we are also his offspring. And he might have quoted other poets to the purpose of what he was speaking, that in God we live and move: -
By this it appears not only that Paul was himself a scholar, but that human learning is both ornamental and serviceable to a gospel minister, especially for the convincing of those that are without; for it enables him to beat them at their own weapons, and to cut off Goliath's head with his own sword.
How can the adversaries of truth be beaten out of their strong-holds by those that do not know them? It may likewise shame God's professing people, who forget their relation to God, and walk contrary to it, that a heathen poet could say of God, We are his offspring, formed by him, formed for him, more the care of his providence than ever any children were the care of their parents;
and therefore are obliged to obey his commands, and acquiesce in his disposals, and to be unto him for a name and a praise. Since in him and upon him we live, we ought to live to him; since in him we move, we ought to move towards him; and since in him we have our being, and from him we receive all the supports and comforts of our being, we ought to consecrate our being to him, and to apply to him for a new being, a better being, an eternal well-being.
III. From all these great truths concerning God, he infers the absurdity of their idolatry, as the prophets of old had done. If this be so, 1. Then God cannot be represented by an image. If we are the offspring of God, as we are spirits in flesh, then certainly he who is the Father of our spirits (and they are the principal part of us, and that part of us by which we are denominated God's offspring) is himself a Spirit, and we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
We wrong God, and put an affront upon him, if we think so. God honoured man in making his soul after his own likeness;
but man dishonours God if he makes him after the likeness of his body. The Godhead is spiritual, infinite, immaterial, incomprehensible, and therefore it is a very false and unjust conception which an image gives us of God, be the matter ever so rich, gold or silver; be the shape ever so curious, and be it ever so well graven by art or man's device, its countenance, posture, or dress, ever so significant, it is a teacher of lies.
2. Then he dwells not in temples made with hands. He is not invited to any temple men can build for him, nor confined to any. A temple brings him never the nearer to us, nor keeps him ever the longer among us. A temple is convenient for us to come together in to worship God;
but God needs not any place of rest or residence, nor the magnificence and splendour of any structure, to add to the glory of his appearance. A pious, upright heart, a temple not made with hands, but by the Spirit of God, is that which he dwells in, and delights to dwell in.
3. Then he is not worshipped, he is not served, or ministered unto, with men's hands, as though he needed any thing. He that made all, and maintains all, cannot be benefited by any of our services, nor needs them. If we receive and derive all from him, he is all-sufficient, and therefore cannot but be self-sufficient, and independent.
What need can God have of our services, or what benefit can he have by them, when he has all perfection in himself, and we have nothing that is good but what we have from him? The philosophers, indeed, were sensible of this truth, that God has no need of us or our services; but the vulgar heathen built temples and offered sacrifices to their gods, with an opinion that they needed houses and food.
4. Then it concerns us all to enquire after God: That they should seek the Lord, that is, fear and worship him in a right manner. Therefore God has kept the children of men in a constant dependence upon him for life and all the comforts of life, that he might keep them under constant obligations to him.
We have plain indications of God's presence among us, his presidency over us, the care of his providence concerning us, and his bounty to us, that we might be put upon enquiring, Where is God our Maker, who giveth songs in the night, who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?
Nothing, one would think, should be more powerful with us to convince us that there is a God, and to engage us to seek his honour and glory in our services, and to seek our happiness in his favour and love, than the consideration of our own nature, especially the noble powers and faculties of our own souls.
If we reflect upon these, and contemplate these, we may perceive both our relation and obligation to a God above us. Yet so dark is this discovery, in comparison with that by divine revelation, and so unapt are we to receive it, that those who have no other could but haply feel after God and find him.
(1.) It was very uncertain whether they could by this searching find out God; it is but a peradventure: if haply they might. (2.) If they did find out something of God, yet it was but some confused notions of him; they did but feel after him, as men in the dark, or blind men, who lay hold on a thing that comes in their way, but know not whether it be that which they are in quest of or no. It is a very confused notion which this poet of theirs has of the relation between God and man, and very general, that we are his offspring.”
Let's move on to our next “we are” occurrence. It is found in Romans 6:4: “ Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Of this, Albert Barnes writes, “Therefore we are buried ... - It is altogether probable that the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion. This cannot, indeed, be proved, so as to be liable to no objection; but I presume that this is the idea which would strike the great mass of unprejudiced readers. But while this is admitted, it is also certain that his main scope and intention was not to describe the mode of baptism; nor to affirm that that mode was to be universal.
The design was very different. It was to show that by the solemn profession made at our baptism, we had become dead to sin, as Christ was dead to the living world around him when he was buried; and that as he was raised up to life, so we should also rise to a new life. A similar expression occurs in Colossians 2:12, “Buried with him in baptism.”
Into death - εἰς eis. Unto death; that is, with a solemn purpose to be dead to sin and to the world. Grotius and Doddridge, however, understand this as referring to the death of Christ - in order to represent the death of Christ - or to bring us into a kind of fellowship with his death.
That like as - In a similar manner. Christ rose from death in the sepulchre; and so we are bound by our vows at baptism to rise to a holy life. By the glory of the Father - Perhaps this means, amidst the glory, the majesty and wonders evinced by the Father when he raised him up. Or possibly the word “glory” is used here to denote simply his power, as the resurrection was a signal and glorious display of his omnipotence.
Even so - As he rose to new life, so should we. As he rose from death, so we, being made dead to sin and the world by that religion whose profession is expressed by baptism, should rise to a new life, a life of holiness.
Should walk - Should live, or conduct. The word “walk” is often used to express the course of a man’s life, or the tenor of his conduct.
In newness of life - This is a Hebraism to denote new life. We should rise with Christ to a new life; and having been made dead to sin, as he was dead in the grave, so should we rise to a holy life, as he rose from the grave. The argument in this verse is, therefore, drawn from the nature of the Christian profession. By our very baptism, by our very profession, we have become dead to sin, as Christ became dead; and being devoted to him by that baptism, we are bound to rise, as he did, to a new life.”
I am going to interrupt Barnes' Commentary right here. Normally, I wholeheartedly agree with his wonderful insights, but I must take exception to his comments regarding the mode of baptism not necessarily being immersion. I will let him speak, and then I will comment, myself.
He continues, “While it is admitted that the allusion here was probably to the custom of immersion in baptism, yet the passage cannot be adduced as an argument that that is the only mode, or that it is binding on all Christians in all places and ages, for the following reasons:
(1) The scope or design of the apostle is not to discuss the mode of baptism, Or to state any doctrine on the subject. It is an incidental allusion in the course of an argument, without stating or implying that this was the universal mode even then, still less that it was the only possible mode. His main design was to state the obligation of Christians to be holy, from the nature of their profession at baptism - an obligation just as impressive, and as forcible, from the application of water in any other mode as by immersion.
It arises from the fact of baptism, not from the mode. It is just as true that they who are baptized by affusion, or by sprinkling, are baptised into his death; become professedly dead to sin and the world, and under obligations to live to God, as those who are immersed. It results from the nature of the ordinance, not from the mode.”
I agree that it is neither baptism, nor the mode that accomplishes our Salvation; it is our Faith in Christ's sacrifice that saves us. But... our English word Baptism, is based on the original Greek term “baptizo” which literally means “immersion.” Neither pouring nor sprinkling fulfills the actual definition of immersion. At the same time, neither pouring nor sprinkling accomplishes the symbolic picture of either being buried with Christ, or rising to a new life as a new creature.
Albert Barnes continued, “(2) If this was the mode commonly, it does not follow that it was the only mode, nor that it was to be universally observed; There is no command that this should be the only mode. And the simple fact that it was usually practiced in a warm climate, where ablutions were common, does not prove that it is to be observed amidst polar snows and ice, and in infancy, and age, and feebleness, and sickness.”
Let me just say, first, while he may be correct that there is no command saying that immersion must be the only mode, neither is there a.) use of any word but that which means “immersion,” nor any examples of anything but immersion in Scripture.
Second, he wonders how immersion can be applied to infants. After delivering his first sermon on Pentecost, the birthday of the Church, Peter was asked by those who heard him, “Men and brethren what shall we do?” Peter responded “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:37-38). Baptism is preceded by repentance. Can an infant repent? Of what would an infant repent if it could? Can... should an infant be baptized in English, “immersed,” put under water? Are there Scriptural examples of infants being baptized. The answer is no. There are none.
Let's review Matthew Henry's thoughts on all of this: “If this is to be pressed literally as a matter of obligation, why should not also the following expression, “If we have been planted together,” etc., be pressed literally, and it be demanded that Christians should somehow be “planted” as well as “buried?” Such an interpretation only shows the absurdity of insisting on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures in cases of simple allusion, or where the main scope is illustration by figurative language.”
Here we have a rare occasion where I have to, with great surprise and disappointment, disagree with Matthew Henry. He resists the idea that immersion was a literal matter of obligation in order for someone to baptized. As I said before, I see baptism by immersion to be the literal and only correct reading (not interpretation) of Scripture. I say that based both on the actual meaning of the Greek term, and the fact that being buried, or planted or raised is not and cannot be symbolized by pouring.
Being planted is purely a figurative expression, and was never intended to be acted out literally. When Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” in 1 Corinthians 3:6, unlike baptism (immersion), nothing and no one was literally partially buried in the ground, and then poured over with a waterpot in order for there to be growth.
Jesus, however, was literally immersed as were millions of believers after Him. We read, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water...” (Matthew 3:16). When Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, we read, “And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:39).
With all due respect to Matthew Henry, and very likely because the prevailing and accepted mode of “baptism” when he wrote his commentary was sprinkling and pouring, he was unduly influenced by a popular tradition that was not founded on the Word of God. Having been affected by that tradition, he missed the boat completely in his comments here regarding baptism. I do not and will not judge him for this; I can tell you, with great assurance, I, too, am in need of much correction.
Our last “we are” statement of the night is found in Romans 8:24: “For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?”
Next, without hesitation, I will enthusiastically offer Matthew Henry's comments of this verse: “In the saints, who are new creatures, (Romans 8:23-25). Observe, (1.) The grounds of this expectation in the saints. It is our having received the first-fruits of the Spirit, which both quickens our desires and encourages our hopes, and both ways raises our expectations... In having the first-fruits of the Spirit we have that which is very precious, but we have not all we would have.
(2.) The object of this expectation. What is it we are thus desiring and waiting for? What would we have? The adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. Though the soul be the principal part of the man, yet the Lord has declared himself for the body also, and has provided a great deal of honour and happiness for the body...
Our happiness is not in present possession: We are saved by hope. In this, as in other things, God hath made our present state a state of trial and probation - that our reward is out of sight. Those that will deal with God must deal upon trust. It is acknowledged that one of the principal graces of a Christian is hope (see 1 Corinthians 13:13), which necessarily implies a good thing to come, which is the object of that hope.
Faith respects the promise, hope the thing promised. Faith is the evidence, hope the expectation, of things not seen. Faith is the mother of hope. We do with patience wait. In hoping for this glory we have need of patience, to bear the sufferings we meet with in the way to it and the delays of it. Our way is rough and long; but he that shall come will come, and will not tarry; and therefore, though he seem to tarry, it becomes us to wait for him.”
The Sermon Bible adds to this: “I. "We are saved by hope," says St. Paul: "but hope that is seen is not hope." This is the great contrast which runs through the New Testament. Indeed, scientific proof is just what, in the very nature of the case, religion does not admit of. What we mean by scientific proof is the verification, by event or experiment, of some calculation or reasoning or interpretation of facts, which has pointed to some particular conclusion, but not as yet actually reached it.
But the great prophecy of reason has not yet received its verification. A future life is not proved by experiment. Generation after generation have gone to their graves, looking for the morning of the resurrection; the travellers have all gone with their faces set eastward, and their eyes turned to that eternal shore upon which the voyage of life will land them.
But from that shore there is no return; none come back to tell us the result of the journey; there is no report, no communication made from the world they have arrived at. No voice reaches us from all the myriads of the dead to announce that the expectation is fulfilled, and that experiment has ratified the argument for immortality.
Besides, the desire for immortality is not a lonely one; no human being ever desired a future life for himself alone; he wants it for all for whom he entertains an affection here; all the good whom he has known, or whom he has only heard of. Christianity knows nothing of a hope of immortality for the individual alone, but only of a glorious hope for the individual in the Body in the eternal society of the Church triumphant.” J. B. Mozley, University Sermons, p. 46. References: Rom_8:24.—H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 115; Ibid., vol. iv., p. 121; Ibid., vol. xi., p. 193; Ibid., vol. xii., p. 301; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 93; A. Murray, The Fruits of the Spirit, p. 323; G. Litting, Thirty Children’s Sermons, p. 213; E. Bickersteth, Church Sermons, vol. ii., p. 129; M. Rainsford, No Condemnation, p. 135.”
This concludes this evening's Discussion, “Barabbas, Part 8.”
This Discussion was originally presented “live” on June 1st, 2022.
I have designed a website to serve as an Online Book Store for the things I have written and published on Amazon. These are in the form of both Kindle eBooks, and paperback books. Some of you may recall a Series I presented on "The Lord's Prayer" several years ago. My original notes for this and other Bible Studies have been greatly revised and expanded for these publications. For further details on the books that are available, and for ordering information, click the following:
https://arvkbook.wixsite.com/romansbooks
If you purchase and read any of my books, Thank you! I would also greatly appreciate a review on Amazon!