Baptism

According to the information to be found in verses 1 and 2 of 1 Cor. 10, it appears that baptism was first instituted, on a collective basis, at least, when the Children of Israel passed through the Red Sea, "and were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea". In the New Testament it may be learned that John the Baptist was the first to introduce baptism on an individual basis. The apostles also baptised believers, both during the ministry of Christ and after his ascension to the right hand of the Father. There are some very interesting and striking examples of baptism which took place during the time of the first century Christians. The three thousand on the first Pentecost after Christ's ascension, the work of Philip in Samaria and with the Ethiopian eunuch, Peter in the house of Cornelius, and finally the baptism of the Apostle Paul, are all cases to the point.

Since the time of the early-day brethren of Christ, the practice of baptism has become quite widely used in most of the Western World. As might be expected, there have come to be many and diverse opinions concerning its meaning, method, and its result. It hardly seems necessary to investigate any of these opinions at this point, but rather let us seek the counsel of the Scriptures.

From some of the rather familiar passages, it may be learned that baptism is a symbol or figure of a number of things. First of all, the student of the Bible sees in it a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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" (Rom. 6: 3, 4). The act of going down into the water and coming out again to walk in newness of life can readily be seen as the symbol of Christ's burial and resurrection, but how does death feature in the case? Verse 2 of the same chapter gives us a clear and unmistakable answer. "How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

It is also observed that baptism is the symbol of a birth or the beginning of a new life. Christ referred to it in his conversation with Nicodemus as the birth of the water (John 3:3, 5). Peter referred to the newly baptized believer as a newborn babe, in the same connection (1 Pet. 2:2).

Next it may be learned that our subject is the figure of, what might be termed, a means of escape. "God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us" (1 Pet. 3:20, 21). What did the ark, and all that it involved, save Noah from? The act of obedience saved Noah from going down into destruction without any hope of salvation. His salvation was made possible, but not consummated, in that act. His life subsequently to the time he left the ark must also be taken into consideration. So it is with baptism. It makes salvation possible, but the way in which the believer spends the ensuing years of probation will determine whether or not the possibility becomes a reality.

Again let us consider the example of Israel. All of them were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, but all of them by no means entered the Promised Land. "But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted" (1 Cor. 10:5, 6).

Let us now consider the scriptural method of administering baptism. What are the qualifications of the one who is to assist a candidate in the act? We are not aware of any direct commandment in this connection, and in the absence of such a command, scriptural example is our only guide. In every example of baptism, the one officiating was a brother in good standing. The present-day believers would doubtless do well to follow that example.

Next in order, is the necessity of a candidate being a proper one. From Acts 2:41, we learn, "They that gladly received his word were baptized". Then there is the question of knowledge. Few, if any, professing Christians would claim that a confirmed atheist should be baptized. This fact in itself implies that some measure of knowledge is necessary. The real question then is not should knowledge be required, but how much knowledge?

A case which is often cited is that of the Ethiopian eunuch, in Acts 8th chapter. Here the only statement the eunuch made was, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (verse 37). This statement is often taken to be all that any candidate for baptism should be required to make or understand. Consider the facts for a moment. The eunuch was not a Jew, but an Ethiopian. Earlier in the chapter it is revealed that he was returning from Jerusalem where he had been to worship. These facts indicate that he was a Gentile who had become a proselyte to the Jewish faith. That being the case, there seems to be little doubt but that he knew something about the restoration of Israel, a subject closely related to the "things concerning the kingdom of God" (verse 12). Furthermore, it is revealed that he was reading from Isaiah chapter 53. Before the baptism took place, "Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus" (verse 35).

What exactly does one preach when he preaches Jesus, or Christ? In verse 5 it is recorded, "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them". What did the Samaritans believe? "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (verse 12). Here we are faced with a fact which cannot be denied. Christ is to be King of the Kingdom of God, and one cannot preach Christ in the full sense of the word without touching upon the things of the Kingdom. The case of Philip in Samaria illustrates the point.

Now, if Philip preached the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, when he preached Christ in Samaria, is it reasonable to believe he preached any less when he preached Jesus to the eunuch? We hardly think so. It appears that the evidence is sufficient to indicate that the eunuch understood something of the Kingdom, and that Philip taught him the relationship of Christ, the future King, to that Kingdom.

While pursuing our subject further, another fact becomes apparent. Going hand in hand with baptism in Bible times, was the use of water. Israel was under the cloud and all passed through the sea. "And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there" (John 3:23). It is also evident that those who baptized in the name of Christ used water. See Acts 8:36, 38, 39. This fact gives us a clue as to why the word baptize (baptize, Gr.) is used. The word means plunge or immerse, overwhelm. When the scriptural evidence is considered, it will be found how applicable these words are, for those who were baptized were literally plunged or immersed in the water.

It has already been mentioned that Paul spoke of baptism as a burial. Concerning Christ's baptism it is recorded, "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matt. 3-16). Possibly the best example we have of the correct mode of baptism is the case of Philip and the eunuch. Consider the words carefully: "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized (or immersed) him. And when they were come up out of the water . . ." (Acts 8:38, 39).

Even though water was used in connection with immersion after the ministry of Christ, there is one portion of Scripture which might engage our attention for a moment. John the Baptist advised his followers on this wise, "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire" (Matt. 3:11). No one will question the fact that these words applied to Christ, who did bestow the Holy Spirit upon his disciples. The bestowal of the Spirit is scripturally considered a baptism (Acts 1:5), but is that the baptism which the eunuch received at the hands of Philip? No. Obviously that was a baptism of water. The giving of the Holy Spirit was never meant to replace baptism in water.

As a matter of fact, the Scripture furnishes ample evidence to prove one can have the Spirit and not be baptized in the strict sense of the word, or one may be baptized and not have the Spirit. We cite the following examples: While Peter was speaking to the household of Cornelius, "the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word" (Acts 10:44). Was that the baptism which was so necessary to bring one into the only saving name of Christ? Again the answer must be a positive No. Speaking of these same people, Peter asked: "Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he COMMANDED them to be baptized" (verses 47, 48). It is obvious that Peter well knew that the receiving of the Holy Spirit by the household of Cornelius was not the means whereby they were brought into the bonds of the everlasting covenant. He understood that baptism in water was the only means of gaining that objective.

Now in order to prove our second proposition, let us consider an example where people were first baptized, but did not receive the Holy Spirit until later. We refer to the case of Paul in Ephesus where he was conversing with certain disciples who had only received the baptism of John. Paul informed them that John baptized with the baptism of repentance, but that it was also necessary to believe on Christ Jesus. "When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). After baptism had been taken care of, then we learn that Paul laid his hands upon them, and the Holy Spirit came on them (verse 6).

From these two examples it becomes quite evident that the words of John the Baptist in Matt. 3:11 should never be construed to mean that the baptism of water was replaced with the baptism of the Spirit. Though the first century believers did receive the Spirit for a specific purpose, it was still necessary for them to undergo baptism or immersion in water.

Since the Bible emphasizes the necessity of baptism to such an extent, what exactly does it accomplish for people? It is our understanding that this accomplishment is two-fold. First of all, there are the personal acts of unrighteousness from which the prospective servant of God, Jew and Gentile alike, must be cleansed. Secondly, the natural state into which every individual is born does not in any way bring him within reach of those "great and precious promises". As a matter of fact it was that state or condition which originally necessitated the institution of a plan of salvation.

The former situation, which we shall term personal sins, is called to our attention in 1 Cor. 6:9-11. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you...”

Let us pause for a moment. Here the apostle has enumerated a number of very grievous sins. Yet he reminds the brethren at Corinth that some of them had previously been guilty of those very things.

Read further. A drastic change had taken place. "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." When did the washing, the sanctification, and the justification take place? At baptism of course. That is the only means whereby they could be cleansed from their sins that were passed, and enabled to start their probation as newborn babes.

The second condition, one which none of us are personally responsible for, but which we all nevertheless acquire at birth, is called to our attention in Eph. 2:12, 13. "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

Here the apostle has described a very serious condition; a condition which finds one without Christ; a condition which alienates one from the commonwealth of Israel. If we have even a rudimentary understanding of the Scriptures, we will readily agree with Paul that such a state would render one a stranger from the covenants of promise, thus leaving him no hope and without God in the world. But he hastens to add: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ". When did this change take place? Again the answer is, at baptism. That is the means whereby we put on the only saving Name of Christ, an act which brings us into the bonds of the everlasting covenant. So drastic is this change. Dr. Thomas has very fittingly likened it to the legal change that takes place when one gives up his citizenship in one nation and becomes a citizen of another nation. (See Elpis Israel pages 131-137, Twelfth Edition.)

In closing, let us say that there are many facets of the truth bound up in the subject of baptism. We have only scratched the surface in this brief discussion. However, if it in anyway assists any in looking at the subject more objectively, it will have accomplished the purpose for which it was intended.

L. E. Parker

The Christadelphian Advocate, January 1955, pgs 1-4