Today’s passage is one of the outstanding texts in Acts, recording the impassioned final words of Paul to the leaders of the Ephesian church. In this message Paul looked at his past and his future. He had spent a great deal of time with the Ephesians and he reminded them of his conduct and teaching and of the work of God in their midst. He also addressed his own fate and the dangers awaiting the Ephesian church and its leaders. In deep affection, speaking to those who care greatly for him, Paul felt comfortable in speaking intimately, frankly and out of love. Throughout the message, he buoyed the strength of his teaching with the affirmation of his conduct while he lived among them. In this, I think his ministry should be a pattern for all churches and Christians.

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:17-21

Paul began his message by reminding them of his practice during his three years in Ephesus. With intimacy and transparency over an extended period of time, they had seen his consistency in lifestyle. Without pretention and in complete humility, he had served Jesus among them with great love and concern (as evidenced by tears) against much opposition from the Jews. Paul evangelized, proclaiming the gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike, always calling men to repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus as their Savior. Additionally, he taught those who already believed, both in public and in private.  Paul did not avoid telling men what they needed to hear nor did he selectively proclaim what men wanted to hear. He sought all that was profitable to the saved and the unsaved and did not allow opposition to silence him or limit what he had to say.

“And now, behold, bound in spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me. But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.” Acts 20:22-27

Paul was pressing on toward Jerusalem, in a hurry to get there as soon as he could (Acts 19:21; 20:16), to face an unpleasant fate. He was “bound in spirit” (verse 22) and informed by the Holy Spirit (verse 23) concerning his future plans. The details were unimportant, but he was informed wherever he went that bonds and afflictions awaited him in Jerusalem. He did not desire to save his life, however, but meant to spend it in fulfilling his calling—the proclamation of the gospel. Warnings of his future imprisonment were merely clarification of what he had been informed at the time of his conversion (Acts 9:15-16).  Paul’s goal was to “finish his course,” to accomplish that which God had given him to do. Content that he had fulfilled his mission in Ephesus and Asia, Paul could leave, never to return again, if that were the Lord’s will. There was still work to be done elsewhere, and thus he must press on, even though suffering awaited him.

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” Acts 20:28-32

Paul warned that there were dangers ahead for the church at Ephesus and these elders. He encouraged them to remain on guard for the flock and themselves. Holy Spirit-appointed, these elders were shepherds of God’s flock, which was threatened by “wolves,” who sought to harm the church.

The “wolves” of whom Paul warned already hid among the elders. Self-seeking and self-serving, they prepared to prey upon the flock, bringing destruction as they savagely devoured the sheep. It is not shocking that false teachers would rise. History tells us that false teachers did and continue to rise. The shock comes with the recognition that the false teachers were already in the church. How could such a terrible thing happen? How could a true shepherd of the flock become a wolf? Both Old Testament and New provide us with some very direct evidence as to how things go wrong. Ezekiel 34 rebuked the “shepherds of Israel,” who had forsaken their task and calling as shepherds, and begun to feed themselves from the flock, rather than feeding the flock. In John chapter 10 Jesus spoke of Himself as the “Good Shepherd” and contrasted Himself with those who were thieves and robbers, and hirelings, who had no real love nor care for the sheep. All these look out for themselves first.

The shepherd ceases to think and act like a servant and begins to expect to be served. Yet a good shepherd is one who gives his life for the benefit of the sheep. The “wolf” comes willing to sacrifice the sheep so that he might benefit. He may first become a mere “hireling,” looking out for himself and not really caring for the sheep. When there is danger or demands, he is not present to care for the sheep. Eventually he becomes the wolf, who actually devours the sheep.

I would note that Paul knew that he would no longer be present with them, yet he did not despair, for he was not the foundation of the Ephesian church. They were dependent upon Jesus Christ. Paul could leave, commending this body of saints to the Lord and the “word of His grace. “ God, through His Word and the Holy Spirit, could build up men, keep them from falling, and bring them into the inheritance which He had promised. Throughout the New Testament, you find the apostles all focused their readers on the Word of God as they neared the end of their ministries (2 Peter 1; 2 Timothy 3 & 4; 1 John 2:18-29).

“I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. In every thing I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And they began to weep aloud and embraced Paul, and repeatedly kissed him, grieving especially over the word which he had spoken, that they should see his face no more. And they were accompanying him to the ship.” Acts 20:33-35

Additional to the “word of God’s grace” and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the Ephesians also had Paul’s example as an illustration of the kind of motivation and lifestyle they should seek to follow.  Unlike the “wolves” who would always demand more of the flock, Paul’s ministry had been characterized by a servant’s spirit. He gained nothing monetarily from his ministry among them (though he could legitimately have asked for support-- 1 Corinthians chapter 9). Working with his own hands, supporting himself and those who traveled with him, his ministry came at great cost to himself, but not to the sheep. Free from lust for their money or possessions, Paul’s ministry did not require money from others, thus freeing him from the time-consuming process of raising funds and the temptation to misuse them to personally gain from his ministry. His ministry was characterized by giving, not by getting. His strength was not used to prey upon the weak, taking advantage of their weaknesses, but to support the weak. His life was lived on the principle taught by Jesus Himself: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (verse 35).

At the end of Paul’s exhortation, Paul knelt in prayer with these men. From the beginning of Acts to the present, there was nothing more important than “the ministry of the Word and prayer” (Acts 6:4). Paul had ministered the word to these men; now they prayed. Paul and the elders all placed their dependence upon God, calling on His grace.

They parted with many tears. Paul was leaving them, they suspected, for the last time. They were convinced they would never see this one who had played such a vital role in their salvation and spiritual growth, not knowing that Paul, through his writing and through those he sent their way, such as Timothy (1 Timothy 1:3), would continue his contact with them. God would minister to these saints by other means (Revelation Chapters 1 and 2). What we see here is Paul’s heart for the saints and their deep love and affection for him.

Some time later, after Paul’s arrest and during his imprisonment, Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians. In this epistle, he did not seek to address any specific problems in the church, but to declare the whole counsel of God and its practical implications in the lives of those who believe. In a word, this epistle surely is a “word of His grace.” As time went on, problems did arise in the Ephesian church, the very problems which Paul predicted in his farewell address. These problems were the reason why Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and why he wrote his first epistle to Timothy. Just as Paul warned that false teachers would arise, so Paul spoke of those “would-be teachers of the Law” who turned aside to fruitless, speculative discussions, spoken with great confidence, but having no profit so far as godly living are concerned (1 Timothy 1:3-11). In chapter 3, Paul laid down the qualifications for elders. The church at Ephesus already had elders, those who may have been appointed by Paul. Perhaps in light of the falling away of some, new elders appear to have been needed. Some of the existing elders, if they had wandered from the truth, may required reevaluation in terms of these qualifications. In chapter 4. Paul spoke against those who, out of a defiled conscience were forbidding those things which were God-given blessings, in the name of righteous living. Finally, in chapter 6 Paul spoke of those whose doctrine was speculative and corrupt, based upon the premise that godliness was a means of getting rich. Paul’s words of warning to the Ephesian elders had indeed come to pass.

Again, we see a strong undercurrent of God’s sovereignty working out His plans and purposes through men. Paul felt an urgency to return to Jerusalem to deliver the offerings from the Gentile churches. God was intent only on getting the man to Jerusalem for a very different reason. God had in mind that Jerusalem was Paul’s ticket to Rome. Paul knew God wanted him to go to Rome, but he never would have imagined how God would accomplish that. God’s ways are always higher than ours.

Note also that the primary power in Acts, particularly in Chapter 20, is the Word of God. Money and miracles play second fiddle. Paul preached in Troas and Miletus because preaching was his priority. In Troas, he was so consumed with the import of his message that he taught them all night and when his teaching was interrupted by the death of Eutychus, immediately after his miraculous raising, Paul went back to worship and teaching. Paul ministered to the Ephesian elders through the word and he commended them to God and to His word. Money and miracles played a role in the events of Chapter 20, but they were clearly secondary.

Why is it today that miracles and money seem to be primary, while the ministry of the Word is often secondary?

A couple of years ago I was in a meeting with a featured speaker. The first half of the meeting was taken up by our then-executive director, an erudite and extremely pompous lecturer who could sell tapes of his all-staff meeting presentations to insomniacs and made a cool million. The featured speaker, who had been on an airplane all the night before, dozed off, which quite a few of us noticed. Eventually, the ED droned to a halt and the speaker woke with a start. The look of terror in his eyes was quickly erased by our heart-felt giggles. He’s now a program director for the agency!

Sleeping in class or during sermons is a centuries-old problem. A young man named Eutychus experienced sleepiness while listening to Paul preach and it was the death of him. He fell three stories from a window. There’s no need to mourn, because Paul restored his life. While the former ED of the agency I work for had little excuse for droning on and on beyond liking the sound of his own voice, I believe Paul had much more urgent things to convey to the believers in Troas.

“And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. And there was a certain young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor, and was picked up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.” And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. And they took away the boy alive, and were greatly comforted.” Acts 20:7-12

What a strange feeling it must have been to see this city of Troas across the Aegean Sea, coming into view on the horizon. This was where Paul received the “Macedonia call” (16:9-10), after having been denied the opportunity to minister in Bithynia and Asia.  Now, on Paul’s return to this city, there was already an established church. We don’t know who started it or when. Somehow, this city was evangelized, but according to God’s timetable, not man’s. It was Paul’s desire to worship with the saints in Troas, teach them from the Scriptures and the revelation which God had given him; thus, he met with the church when it gathered on the “first day of the week” to “break bread”.

To get it out of the way, I’m going to first look at the miracle of the raising of Eutychus. I’m not going to call it a resurrection. Eutychus, like Lazarus, eventually died as do all living. This is not at all like the resurrection of Jesus and we should acknowledge that at the outset. Still, the unbelieving mind would like to deal with the raising of Eutychus from the dead in the same way they explain the resurrection of Jesus —by insisting that neither died, but that they only swooned, later on to revive. I can imagine some scene in a movie where they suppose Eutychus dead and drag him away, but he revives and is carried back alive, to which his mother cries “Praise God, a miracle!”

Okay, let’s get real! The kid fell three stories and a doctor, Luke, says he was dead. I’m going to guess that, with a physician present, Luke was invited to examine the body and see if there was anything he could do to revive the boy. A three-story fall being a three-story fall, there was nothing to heal. The boy was dead!

The reason why a non-believer would reject this raising from the dead is because they do not believe in miracles. On the other hand, a miracle-accepting Christian might wonder if it was indeed a miracle because so little is made of this event as a miracle. The raising of Eutychus is stated matter-of-factly, without hype or trumpets. We are not told, for example, that Paul prayed for Eutychus to be raised from the dead (as Peter did in Acts 9:36-42). Paul fell across the young man and announced that he was alive, but Luke left the details to our imaginations. After the event, there is no praise gathering for the miracle, even though all were greatly comforted by his raising (verse 12). Everybody returned to the teaching room.

Why is there so little emphasis on this miracle? I think it was because it was not Paul’s priority. Paul raised the boy back to life, but it was not his main interest. Paul was only there for the day. Intent upon teaching the Christians of Troas, Paul returned back upstairs to observe communion and teach more. It’s almost as though he raised the boy to avoid the inevitable delay of teaching that mourning might require.

Many think that Acts is a book of miracles; it is our basis for assuming that God can and will work miracles on a daily basis. Read the Book of Acts carefully, and you find that the book records fewer miracles than we might expect—fewer miracles than actually occurred. I think Luke and Paul were firmly convinced that miracles would come and go, but the Word of God would be eternal. Thus both Paul and Luke dealt briefly with the miracle and dealt emphatically with the teaching. Faith is not based upon what is seen (miracles), but on the Word of God (Hebrews 11). Thus miracles will not sustain our faith, but the Word of God will.

Why was Paul so strongly compelled to teach these saints? Somehow, he knew time was short and he would maybe never pass this way again. Note that Luke didn’t record what was taught. If it was so important, why did Luke neglect to record it?

Remember that Luke was demonstrating the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Things like the collection from the Gentile saints didn’t serve Luke’s overall purpose, so he didn’t record them. If Paul was intent on teaching the saints at Troas, Luke had no problem in passing by the content. By the time Luke wrote this section of Acts, Paul had written many epistles and Luke may not have felt he needed to repeat their content here. Luke could omit Paul’s teaching in Troas because it was already in print and available to his readers.

“But we, going ahead to the ship, set sail for Assos, intending from there to take Paul on board; for thus he had arranged it, intending himself to go by land. And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene. And sailing from there, we arrived the following day opposite Chios; and the next day we crossed over to Samos; and the day following we came to Miletus. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.” Acts 20:13-16

Paul left Troas, still intent on reaching Jerusalem before Pentecost. For some unstated reason, Paul went on by land, while the others stayed on board ship. The ship Paul sailed on put in at various ports along its ways to Caesarea and it passed by Ephesus. When it made port in Miletus (about 30 miles from Ephesus), it laid over for one week, so Paul arranged to meet with the Ephesian elders. It is clear that Paul sensed this would be his last meeting with the elders, so I will deal with that message in a separate lesson.

The events of chapter 20 cover an indefinite, but fairly extensive, period of time, and span a broad geographical area, from Ephesus in Asia, across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia, Achaia, Greece, then (back) to Macedonia, and (back) across the Aegean Sea to Asia. Many important events occur during the time period encompassed in this chapter; Luke (contrary to some modern historical writers) was very brief in his description. I’m sure there are folks who would like to know all the details, but Luke didn’t share them, though some are found in Paul’s letters. Thus, we know that Luke was deliberately selective in what he included in Chapter 20, emphasizing what pointed to his message and to the intended reader, Theophilus (let us remember that Acts may well have been a court-brief intended to sway Theophilus into helping Paul escape execution).

I am, however, going to focus on Paul’s roundabout journey to Jerusalem because I think there is an important lesson there. One does not usually travel from Ephesus to Jerusalem by way of Greece.

“And after the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for the disciples and when he had exhorted them and taken his leave of them, he departed to go to Macedonia. And when he had gone through those districts and had given them much exhortation, he came to Greece. And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he determined to return through Macedonia. And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus; and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. But these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. 6 And we sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and came to them at Troas within five days; and there we stayed seven days.” Acts 20:1-6

Paul had plans as to what he intended to do. We know from Acts 19:21-22 that Paul intended to visit Jerusalem, then Rome, and that Paul sent Timothy and Erastus on ahead into Macedonia. We also read of Paul’s plans as he outlined them in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1-9).

Writing from Ephesus to the Corinthians, Paul spoke of the great opportunities and opposition there. He intended to remain in Ephesus until after Pentecost, then to travel to Macedonia and on to Corinth, where he intended to winter. Paul’s schedule changed, however; the uprising at Ephesus forced him to move up his departure date.

Luke’s account of Paul’s ministry from the time he left Ephesus until he reached Troas is incredibly brief. His focus at this point was to bring Theophilus to the point of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem and he would not be distracted by the many interesting aspects of Paul’s journeys or ministry because they did not contribute to his argument.  Clearly, taking up the collection, which Paul had promised Peter and James he would do, was important to Paul. He traveled quite out of his way to do it.  Yet, we must note that Luke didn’t even mention the collection, though he names the men who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, who were representatives of the churches which had given money. Why was Luke silent on this?

Luke’s purpose in writing Acts was to record the advance of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. The offering which Paul took from the Gentile church did not play a major role in that advance. The money was not for “missions”, but for the poor. It was important to Paul, but not important to the advance of the gospel. Strange as it may seem to our modern ears, money was not essential to the gospel in the 1^st Century. The gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome, from an almost entirely Jewish church to a predominately Gentile one, on a shoe-string budget. Paul’s missionary journeys don’t seem to have cost Jerusalem a red cent. In fact, the Gentile churches sent them money.

In our modern day, we think money is essential to conduct ministry and that is often our primary excuse for not doing more missions – money is limited. Jesus asked His disciples to follow Him without asking for their money. He didn’t tell them to save up their money so they would have the means to minister in the future. Instead, He instructed them to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor – not to the television budget or the public relations fund. When the beggar asked Peter and John for coin, they didn’t write him a check. They said they didn’t have silver or gold, but what they had was immensely more valuable – healing and salvation.

Ministry can be achieved without money and what is achieved is not proportionate to the amount spent. No, all ministry cannot be done without money and I am not saying that all ministry should be carried on without money. I am only noting that much ministry can be done without much money. Asia Minor was reached with the gospel, in a period of three years, without radio, television, and print media. Spirit-filled Christians shared their faith and proclaimed the gospel in the power of God. Ministry is not proportionate with money; it is proportionate with the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit in and through men. That is the central message of Acts.

Of course ministry costs money. Jesus’ ministry cost money (Luke 8:1-3). Jesus taught that while money is merely temporal and passing, it can be used in such a way as to produce eternal results and eternal blessings (Luke 16:1-13). Jesus had a great deal to say about money, but He did not teach about money only to pass the plate at the conclusion of His message. Money can be used in such a way as to perform ministry in the lives of others, and to the glory of God, just as Paul taught (2 Corinthians 8:10-12).  The Bible consistently teaches us that if we have money, we should seek to use it in ministry to others, and if we do not have money, we should minister anyway, for God’s working is not dependent upon money.

It is a secular, humanistic, mindset which equates ministry with money. This is the same humanistic mindset which equates effectiveness with status (position), influence, education, and intelligence. We often pursue and cater to the rich because we think that God’s work needs their money. Similarly we pursue and cater to the learned, educated, and “wise” because we think that the advancement of the gospel is directly proportionate to the wisdom and “clout” of the proclaimer. This is a denial of the Word of God, which teaches that God has chosen the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the wisdom and the strength of the wise (1 Corinthians 1-3). When God’s work is accomplished by what unbelievers consider effective means, men tend to take credit. When God’s work is done through weakness, it is God Who is given the glory (1 Corinthians 1:26-31; l 3:18-23).

I am not opposed to Christian churches having a lot of money, but far too often, the money churches receive is spent not on ministry, but on buildings (or worse, rent!), sound systems, bands, and promotional campaigns. Yes, that brings the interested in the door, but what about the people who cannot afford to eat, let alone the bus fare to travel across town to attend that beautiful Protestant cathedral? What about those who cannot afford the TV to view that well-designed commercial? When a church has money, I’d rather see it spent on feeding the poor, clothing the naked, finding housing for the homeless, providing support for pregnant teens, helping addicts get off their drugs of choice, providing a van to transport people to service, than on a kicking sound system and a media campaign. Will fewer well-dressed people with nice cars visit the church? Maybe, but I would submit that they can find their own way to church if they are desirous to come.

The Christian churches of the 21^st Century need to stop emulating the world and start taking a look at how the greatest growth period for the Christian church was conducted. Maybe then we’ll stop shifting membership from one Christian church to another and start once more reaching out to unbelievers and actually growing the universal church instead of our individual congregations to the detriment of other individual congregations. That is, after all, what we were commissioned to do by Jesus. Paul understood this.

Why don’t we?

Most of what I am writing here is from a sermon one of my pastor gave when a church member lost a child in the womb. Although the parents of “Marie” felt assured of the final destination of their baby’s spirit, they had some relatives who were not so comforted, so they asked PW to preach on the topic at the funeral.

Let’s be honest. Despite the mass media, there are still people who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ and so have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel in order to receive or reject it. Even in supposedly media-soaked culture (example, England) the gospel is not reaching much of the population anymore to the extent that people there have not heard enough about Jesus and the gospel in order to consider it one way or the other. Are those people condemned to hell for their ignorance?

From the first chapter of Romans we learn that everyone has seen a glimmer of God through His creation. By rejecting this revelation of God through nature (think idolatry) they are choosing divine condemnation. However, because they have not heard the gospel, their condemnation is not as great as those who have heard and rejected the truth of the gospel (Matthew 12:38-45; Luke 12:47-48).

There are, then, at least two categories of condemned people: (1) those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and refused it; and, (2) those that have not heard the gospel, but have received revelation about God from nature and rejected (or distorted) it. I would suggest there are also two categories of saved people. The first are those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and received Him as Savior. They believe they are sinners, condemned to eternal death, and have accepted the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as God’s only means of salvation. The second category is all those who have not yet reached the point of being able to grasp the gospel (some would call this the “age of accountability”), and thus to choose whether to receive or reject it. I believe such “little ones” to be recipients of the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically, I am referring to the unborn and to very young children.

The Book of Jonah shows that God distinguishes between those children who are not yet accountable for sin from those people who are accountable. Sent to the sinful city of Nineveh to proclaim that God’s judgment was soon to come upon this wicked city, Jonah very much wanted the Ninevites (the enemies of his people, the Israelites) to be destroyed. When the Ninevites heard the warning of God’s impending judgment they repented of their sin, and God withheld His judgment on this city for a time. Jonah was furious! He not only wanted the whole city to be destroyed, he wanted to watch it and all of its inhabitant burn! God rebuked Jonah for his hatred while Jonah was having a temper tantrum over a shade plant that died, leaving him in the hot sun.

Then the LORD said, "You had compassion on the plant for which you did not work and which you did not cause to grow, which came up overnight and perished overnight. Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?" (Jonah 4:9-11, emphasis mine).

Jonah was rebuked for wanting to see these ignorant people die painfully. Surely this number included children who are so young they do not yet have the capacity to understand the revelation of God in nature or in the gospel. Jonah wanted every Ninevite to die, regardless of age or accountability, but God does not condemn those who are innocent by virtue of ignorance. Jonah was wrong for failing to distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

In Romans, the apostle Paul sought to show that all men are sinners, rightly under divine condemnation and the sentence of death, and desperately in need of salvation. Still, whether the heathen in some dark land who has only the revelation of God in nature (Romans 1:18-32) or the Jews who know God’s law very well (Romans 2:1-29), men are condemned for rejecting the revelation about God which He has made known to them. What of the unborn and the very young, who have never heard or grasped God’s revelation, in Scripture or in nature? Do they know the difference between their right and left hands? (Jonah 4:11).

Are innocent children condemned to eternal hell only because they are ignorant of their sin and of God’s salvation in Christ? I think not. This is why David found comfort in the death of his first child by Bathsheba.

“But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead?" And they said, "He is dead." So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:19-23).

As a result of David’s sin with Bathsheba, the first child of their union became gravely ill. David petitioned God to spare the child, but when the child died, David was comforted. His servants were amazed, and asked him how this could be. David informed them that while the child could not return to him (by coming back to life), David would join the child (by spending eternity in heaven with him). David found comfort in his assurance that he would join the child in heaven.

How can anyone be saved without hearing the gospel and accepting it? The only way that this can be is if the blood of Jesus Christ reverses the curse Adam has brought upon his offspring, all mankind. Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is that which saves these little ones. Because they are too young to know about their sin and about God and His salvation, they are not held accountable for responding to the gospel. The saving work of Jesus Christ saves them, before they are even able to know it. Such children who die go to heaven. This is what comforted David.

The theological basis for David’s comfort and hope was described by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, Chapter 5: “How can men be saved by believing in one person, Jesus Christ?” Paul’s answer was that it was one man, Adam, who brought sin and condemnation upon the entire human race. It is therefore through one man, Jesus Christ (called the “last Adam” by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45), that God has made salvation possible for lost men. Paul’s entire argument was based upon the premise that Christ in His righteousness has outdone Adam in his sin. Whatever Adam had done to bring condemnation upon the human race, Jesus Christ had outdone, making salvation available to the human race. If God were to condemn an unborn child to suffer eternally in hell, it could not be for the willful sins that child has committed. The condemnation of such a child would have to be the penalty for Adam’s sin, not the child’s. But if Christ has outdone Adam, then the death and resurrection of Christ has rescued all mankind from the penalty for Adam’s sin. Any man who comes under divine condemnation is condemned for his own sins, not for Adam’s sin. Therefore, I believe that Paul taught that the unborn child and the infant are saved by the work of Christ. Just as the world involuntarily became participants in the sin of Adam, so the unborn and young child becomes the beneficiary of Christ’s saving work at Calvary.

Obviously, there comes a time when we are held accountable for our own sins. Paul talks about it in Romans, that as he learned the law, he became a slave to sin. Thus, theologians talk about an “age of accountability.” It’s not a term found explicitly in Scripture, but it is an implicit and abstract concept that is Biblical. Passages like Acts 17:31 and Romans 14:12 indicate we will be required to give an account for our sin. Yet study in the Bible suggests that young children are not held accountable for sin, yet. Like the doctrine of the triunity of God, the Bible doesn’t explicitly spell it out, but it does leave hints that lead us to arrive at the conclusion that there is some age of accountability, but it would seem to vary with the individual.

Some believe the age of accountability could have been around 20 years old because this was the age when young men in Israel became accountable to serve in the army of Israel. I think that’s a bit legalistic. Others believe the age of accountability is around 12 or 13 due to this being the age when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his parents and was found in the temple discussing the Law and asking questions. This was also the normal age for being received into Judaism as a “son of the law,” which would make him a full member of the religious community. Again, kind of legalistic for me.

All of this is conjecture since Scripture does not deal with the topic directly. In my inexpert opinion, a person becomes personally accountable when he or she reaches a point where they have the spiritual and mental facility to grasp the issues. This does not mean they are not sinful, but only that they have not reached a place where they can understand the consequence of and cure for their sin.

Of course all men are born spiritually dead (without the natural ability to respond) and under the condemnation of sin, but Christ seeks to draw all men to Himself through the ministry of the Spirit. He bore the condemnation for man by His death on the cross. The accountability issue then is turning from self-trust in good works or from apathy and a denial of accountability to God to trust in Christ (John 16:8). The Spirit’s ministry of convicting and giving demonstrable proof to men relates to their trust or rejection of Christ .

“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; (emphasis mine).  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 16:8-9

So when is the age of accountability? The primary issue seems to be response to the revelation God has given. Personal accountability would vary according to one’s ability to understand the most fundamental issues. That would happen for some when they are quite young, while others may be much older. My daughter was perhaps four years old (we realized in retrospect) while an FAS kid adopted by some friends of ours is just now becoming aware of sin at age 16. The issue boils down to that point in time when one has the intellectual capacity to understand and respond to the convicting work of the Spirit as described in John 16. Christ died for the world and paid the penalty for sin (1 John 2:2); the issue is one of response to the revelation of God in creation (God consciousness) and in Christ. Young children are not responsible for their sin because Christ loves them and protects them, but at some point, they will be responsible. This is why witnessing to our children is of great importance.

So why not baptize infants? If it is merely a symbol, what difference does it make if it is done before or after salvation? Well, first, I don’t think we’re at liberty to play fast and loose with God’ symbols. He’s given them to us for a reason. We should reverence them for no other reason than that He gave them to us. Second, while it doesn’t convey grace leading to salvation that is the impression that is given. I think that can set up a stumbling block for many because they think the outward symbol is what saves them when they have not yet experienced the inward change that is salvation. I have found in conversations with people who were baptized as infants and are now living lifestyles of sin that often they feel they have their “fire insurance” because they were baptized as infants. In college I had a Lutheran minister, head of the Lutheran Campus Ministry, tell me that a separate act of faith was not necessary because baptism indicated that faith had already taken place.  I remember standing in the Student Union and asking, loud enough for people to hear me, how he knew what was in the mind of an infant he had baptized. It’s telling that he flipped me off (oh, yes, and oh, my!) and walked away. I was a smart-aleck, but he couldn’t answer me from the Bible.

I think baptism regeneration is an example of presuppositions causing the cart to somehow come before the horse. The symbol of regeneration became, somehow, the means of regeneration in the minds of people who, unlike little Marie’s parents, were not so confident in where their children’s souls were going after death. They wanted assurances and baptism of infants gave them that. In employing that method, churchmen sent an unintended message that baptism is what saves you. If you think you’re already saved, why contemplate the consequences of sin and the need for repentance, those actions that are truly necessary for salvation? Moreover, it robbed people who did contemplate sin and repentance of a beautiful first step of obedience in their new life of faith. My church has baptized several adults from denominations that will not re-baptize adults who feel they have the need of this first step. They choose our church because we separate baptism from membership (we are mavericks in Baptist circles for this), thus allowing them to remain Lutheran or Catholic but take part in believer’s baptism as all Christians were meant to do.

And, therein is the primary issue! The Bible shows us examples of believer’s baptism and now overt examples of infant baptism. From the perspective of a Bible-believing Christian, where our doctrines are derived not from tradition but from what we find within the pages of God’s Word, baptism is always a believer’s activity. You can jump through all the mental and theological hoops you find necessary to arrive at some other conclusion, but the Bible always shows believer’s baptism of those old enough to be believers. And, that should be, and is, enough for me.

A Roman Catholic reader asked a couple of questions that require some response. As a Catholic, of course, he belongs to a church that practices infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. The second term refers to the belief that baptism is a part of salvation and that it confers grace on the baptized, sort of sealing them for later salvation. Part and parcel with this is the idea of original sin, the idea that we are all born under the penalty of Adam and Eve’s sin and that if we die before we are saved, we go to Hell, whether we are an 80-year-old reprobate or an 8-hour-old infant.

First, I want to look at baptism from a Biblical point of view. Baptism is probably the most controversial issue in the Christian church. Christians have killed and persecuted other Christians over the issue of baptism. Questions abound about it. What does baptism mean, how should it be performed, who should receive it?

Of course, the first place to look for Biblical doctrine is the Bible.  The word “baptism” occurs 116 times in the New Testament, often describing John the Baptist, so we won’t look at all of them. The definition of the Greek word baptizo (baptism is a transliteration because the KJV translators didn’t want to open this kettle of worms) is “to dip or to immerse or to destroy.” That third definition caused me some deep thought when I first encountered it in Strongs. I finally came to the conclusion that certain things, when put under water and left there, are destroyed. I don’t know if there is any thing more to say about that.

The word or the root of baptizo occurs 69 times in the Gospels, 27 times in the book of Acts; 16 in Paul’s writings, twice in the Book of Hebrews (both dealing with ritual washings as in ceremonial purification), once in 1 Peter, and one time in the book of Revelation.

I believe the Bible teaches about two types of baptism.  There is a physical baptism in water and a spiritual baptism. In  Mark 10:37-38, James and John came to Jesus and asked a favor, but Jesus told He could not grant their request because they could not be baptized with the baptism He would experience. Yet, this was long after Jesus’ water baptism, so clearly was not referring to water baptism in Mark 10. We later come to understand that He meant His own destruction, His death. Clearly, He spoke of baptism in a non-physical sense. Similarly Luke 12:50 recorded Jesus saying He had a baptism to undergo and would be distressed until He had completed it. The context demands that Jesus was talking about His death hanging on the cross and receiving the sentence of the world’s sin. In Mark 1:8, John the Baptist said, “’I baptize you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’” John the Baptist’s ministry was baptizing with water, but Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit. A Spirit baptism is clearly set apart from a water baptism in this passage, a notion repeated in all of the synoptic Gospels as well as in Acts 1:5, right before the Spirit of God came on Pentecost and the community of believers was baptized by the Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit; He was poured out on them.

For any Bible-believing church 1 Corinthians 12 is central to the doctrine of Spirit baptism. Verse 13 says “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.” The Spirit has baptized all believers into one body, which is Spirit baptism. This is apart from water baptism.

My church, indeed all Baptist churches, believe in full-immersion water baptism. We look to Jesus’ baptism for this model. The mode of Jesus’ baptism was clearly water and clearly a lot of it, because John selected that particular place because water was plentiful there (John 3:23). Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:36 both depict baptisms involving the baptized going down into the water. Logically speaking, sprinkling or pouring would not require wading into the water, so why did they go down into the water and why would they need a lot of it? Immersion is the only thing that would require plentiful water and going down into it. There is also the symbolism of baptism which is supported by immersion. Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:12 all provide word pictures that suggest salvation is dying in Christ to be raised anew.  What better symbolism than immersion baptism for that?

Truthfully, the Bible is not clear on the mode of baptism. Water, absolutely. It appears as though the proper New Testament means of baptism involved immersion or dipping, not sprinkling or pouring. But we cannot be entirely dogmatic about that. It is never completely spelled out for us, so we encourage immersion baptism as a church, but we also understand that there are extenuating circumstances where a person might have to be baptized in a different way. I can imagine places where water is scarce and immersion baptism is not feasible. Alaskan Native villages usually have rivers so cold you can get hypothermia in them in July. Pouring or sprinkling as an alternative to immersion would, I think be acceptable in some extenuating circumstances. My church is firm on immersion baptism, but our constitution allows for an alternative means due to medical necessity. The earliest church teachings outside the New Testament were the Didache and Tertullian, both written less than a century after the close of the New Testament. Both talked about immersion. The Didache said it is also permissible to pour on the new believer. Both of them, incidentally, talk about immersing three times -- in the name of Father, the name of the Son, the name of the Holy Spirit.

I believe in believers’ baptism. My church does not practice paedobaptism, or infant baptism and we do not embrace baptismal regeneration. We do not believe that baptism is part of the gospel, or a means to salvation.

Again, we turn to the Bible for our doctrine. Were infants baptized in the New Testament? My husband was raised Catholic and was baptized as an 8-day-old infant. He was baptized again about 21 years later after trusting Christ as his Savior and Lord. I want to show you the passages that certain denominations use to support infant baptism. You can draw your own conclusions about the strength of their argument based on the evidence. Acts 16:14-15 records that a woman named Lydia heard the gospel, believed what Paul was preaching and she and her whole household were baptized. I did not see any infants in this passage. I saw “household.” “Household” could mean a lot of things. It could mean her and her husband and some servants, maybe some parents and siblings, potentially some cousins, grown children, teenagers, children or infants, but it does not necessarily mean infants. It is only possible that infants were involved in that baptism.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jail asked Paul and Silas what was required for him to be saved. Paul told him to believe in the Lord Jesus and he would be saved along with his household. In order to understand the passage though, you can’t stop reading there. They then spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house. First, Paul didn’t mention baptism at all here, which seems strange if it is required for salvation. Second, the gospel was preached to the entire household, which may or may not have included infants and, then, they were baptized.  You find that specific order throughout Acts – preaching, belief, then baptism.

Acts 18:8 records how Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.” This is talking about household salvation, not necessarily household baptism, but I have heard this passage used to support infant baptism. The Bible says he and his whole family believed, which tells me there were no infants there if they in fact believed, which is something infants cannot do.