Baptism Into Christ’s Death

The baptism of Israel as a nation into Moses must not be understood as identical with the baptism of an individual into Christ. To take such a position would commit one to the theory that every individual of the nation of Israel was in a salvable state as soon as he emerged from that baptism; and that would be salvation without faith; for very few of that great company were children of faith. The salvation of the nation of Israel was one thing and the salvation of individuals in Christ is another. The former was a national salvation from bondage to freedom. Israel was saved out of the hands of their enemy and given an inheritance and a kingdom that brought to them the blessings of that salvation. Above and beyond that, however, was the great salvation for such individuals out of the nation as embraced the one faith which centered in Christ Jesus, of whom Moses was a type. The baptism unto Moses was the means of the national salvation of Israel; and the baptism into Christ is the means of salvation for individuals. The former did not require individual faith; the latter does. It is therefore a mistake to say that for the "fathers to be baptized into Moses was for them to be baptized into Christ," implying that by that baptism they were freed from the law of sin and death—a thing Paul says the law of Moses could not do (Rom. 8:3).

Some say that there was no baptism into Christ's death before his death took place. Yet it is stated, and correctly, too, that Christ was prospectively baptized into that death which alone could bring salvation. Why could not others? It must be evident that outside the death of Christ there is no salvation for any in any age. Salvation was just as dependent upon the death of Christ in Abel's day as it was the day after Christ was raised from the dead. Therefore means had to be provided by which men could be inducted into the death of Christ prospectively. Otherwise there could have been no salvation until Christ's death became a fact.

The only difference between those before Christ's death and those after is that one was inducted into his death prospective and the other retrospectively. Under the law of Moses it was accomplished by embracing the one faith and obeying the law in the spirit thereof, which enabled the man of faith to reach down and take hold of Christ and receive the efficacy of his death in reconciliation to God. Under the ministry of John reconciliation was by believing in him whom John proclaimed and thereupon being baptized for the remission of sins. In our day we must believe on him who has come and thereupon be baptized for the remission of sins—Adamic and individual. The benefits they received actually were pardon, reconciliation and communion with God, benefits which they had lost through Adam. The benefit they are yet to receive is "redemption of the body" from the physical effects of Adam's sin.

The reason some who had been baptized with the baptism of John were commanded to be baptized again was not because of a defect in John's baptism, but because of a defective understanding upon the part of those concerned as will be seen by the text referred to (Acts 19:4). This case is exceptional. To a proper candidate John's baptism was for the remission of sins; and what more could be needed? This is what baptism is for now; and the fact that some have to be reimmersed is not because of any defect in the institution, but because of a failure to become a proper candidate. Was not Christ baptized with the baptism of John? Did he not thereby reach forward and receive in advance of the efficacy of his death? Clearly, he did. Now if he could do this by John's baptism why could not others? One answer given is that he knew of his death, but John's disciples did not. But John's disciples would surely be as far advanced in knowledge as those who lived in the beginning of the Mosaic times. Since there can be no remission of sins without induction into the death of Christ and since the fathers must therefore have been inducted into Christ's death, does it not follow that the remission of sins John's disciples received was by induction into the only death that could give remission? And what means had they of such induction except baptism?

Coming now to the question of how freedom is obtained from the law of sin and death, what is the process? It is the same as the process by which we, in Adam, came under that law. First, there was a mental operation in Adam's case. Second, there was a physical act to carry out the conclusion of the mental operation, and that act was disobedience. Third, there were the physical effects in sickness, sorrow, pain and death. Thus Adam the first was the way into the law of sin and death.

Now Christ was the way out; and the process was precisely the same in the reverse way; so with us, following our "forerunner." First, there is the mental operation in coming to a belief of the Truth. Second, the act of obedience. Third, the redemption from the physical effects—sickness, sorrow, pain and death.

Adam's sin placed all men in a state of alienation from God. At baptism we are restored to full favor with God, to a state of at-one-ment. Now was Christ an exception in this respect? Did he remain in a state of alienation from God till after he actually died? None of you, I believe, will say yes to this. Then if he did not, if he was in a state of at-one-ment with his Father before his death, as he said—"I and my Father are one"—if this was a true saying, I ask you, was not the condemnation, the alienation, the frowns of Yahweh upon the race by reason of Adam's sin, removed from Christ at that time? Not that he was yet free from the body of sin; for he still retained the physical effects of Adamic condemnation as seen in his life as a "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." You cannot help but see that when God proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased," the son of Adam and the Son of God had reached forward and partaken in advance of the efficacy of his death sufficiently to give him mental, moral—whatever term you wish to use—freedom from Adamic condemnation.

Thomas Williams

The Christadelphian Advocate. March 1893

Reprinted in The Sanctuary-Keeper. June 1988