|
BAPTISM - II
Bob Bonner
May 23, 2010
This morning we come to our second in a series of messages on the subject of baptism. We come to this subject as a diversion from our study in Acts 2:37-41, because there we find mentioned for the first of several times in Acts the ordinance of baptism. Furthermore, because Act 2:38 is a scripture concerning baptism which has been misunderstood by many, we have taken this brief side road away from our study of Acts to address questions that this verse and other passages in the Bible raise concerning baptism.
Last week I laid out for you the approach we will follow in our study of this important subject. Since last week, I have decided that it would be better for logical reasons to change the order in which we answer some of our questions concerning baptism. Allow me to quickly review what we learned last week and then prepare you for where we are headed this morning. Last week we began with answering the questions:
I. What does the term “baptize” mean and how was it used?
II. What has been the historical purpose behind baptism?
In covering the historical purpose behind baptism, we learned that baptism originally was not a religious ordinance, but was practiced 400 years prior to Christ in the Grecian world. It later was adopted as a religious rite by the Jews and then by Christ. To help explain its purpose, we took some time to look closely at the meanings of the word “baptidzo” from which we get our English word, “baptize.”
A. Primary meaning = dip, plunge, immerse.
I told you last time that the Greek word for baptism had a primary, every day meaning and three secondary meanings reflecting the every day usages of this term. The primary meaning of this term is to dip, plunge, immerse. It covers everything from sticking the tip of your toe in the water to completely submerging yourself. Its everyday usage included such things as washing clothes, taking a bath, or dipping cloth into dye for the purpose of changing the color of the cloth.
Then we quickly moved to the secondary meanings that arose from the primary meaning of “baptidzo.” Each of these secondary meanings holds in common the concept of change. Something was changed by the act of “baptidzo.” The first of the three secondary meanings we looked at was changing something through washing, changing, or removing something. This morning in our study, you will see how important this secondary meaning is to our understanding of baptism.
Another secondary meaning of “baptidzo” is to change an object’s identity and/or value. The dying of a piece of cloth from white to royal purple changed the identity of that cloth as well as its value, due to the high cost of purple dye. Likewise Christian baptism pictures the change of a Christian’s identity as well as their value before God when they commit their lives to Christ.
The third secondary meaning of “baptidzo” is to change a person’s status and/or identity. In the secular world of the first century, when a 13-year-old boy decided on a career and chose a trade, such as carpentry, he willingly submitted himself to the tutelage of an experienced carpenter who would mentor him. In return, the boy could not go to work for someone else. He owed his loyalty to his mentor. Prior to his being baptized as a carpenter’s apprentice, the 13-year-old had no real status or practical worth to the community. But after being baptized as a carpenter’s apprentice, declaring his career direction, he now had both a new identity and status. He was becoming a worthy carpenter.
Likewise, when person gets baptized as a Christian, it becomes a public statement or declaration of the change of a person’s identity and status. He is publicly declaring that whereas he previously lived for himself, he has now become a slave to his new Master, Jesus Christ. Along with this declaration, he is recognizing that because of his commitment to Christ, he has become a child of God, beloved of the Lord.
Now, that’s a quick review of what we covered last time. This morning we want to answer two more questions.
III. What is the proper “mode” of baptism? Is there a mandatory manner in which one is to be baptized? Are sprinkling and pouring real forms of baptism?
Second, we want to answer the question:
IV. What are the steps that lead up to being baptized?
[Note: change in previous order of teaching.]
Next week, we will look at the following:
V. Is baptism important or necessary? If so, why?
VI. Important questions concerning baptism:
A. Does baptism lead to the forgiveness of sins?
B. Does baptism save you? Or, is baptism necessary for salvation?
C. Does baptism “wash away” sin?
D. Is there Biblical support for baptism of the dead?
III. What is the proper “mode” of baptism?
Probably one of the most disputable topics among Christians ever since the reformation has been the correct mode of baptism. Churches have split over this debate. In other words, does baptism only count if a person is immersed, or can one be sprinkled with water or have water poured over them? To answer that question, I’d like us to look at several biblical examples of baptism and then look at an early church “policy” manual from the first century, called “The Didache.”
A. New Testament examples of baptism
To begin, we want to examine three New Testament examples of baptism in chronological order. The first example is that of John the Baptist. We noted earlier that John’s practice of baptism probably followed the practice of Jewish baptism that we know had been in practice since it began in Egypt about 130 years prior to John. The practice at the time, when possible, was immersion or totally dunking someone under water.
The example of the method of John’s baptism and the example of the mode of Christ’s own baptism are one and the same example. The event is recorded in all but the Apostle John’s gospel. Luke’s account is brief and sheds no light on the issue as to the mode of John’s baptism, so let’s limit our examination to Mark’s and Matthew’s account. Look with me first at Mark 1:9 and then Matthew 3:13-4:1. First, Mark 1:9, tells us:
“And it came about in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth in
Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately
coming up out of the water, he [Jesus or John?] saw the heavens opening,
and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out
of the heavens: “Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased.”
To be intellectually and grammatically honest, rather than simply wanting to assume what my heart wants this passage to say, which would be that Jesus had just been immersed in the Jordan River, I have to tell you that this passage gives us no conclusive answer to the question of the mode of baptism. Note the phrase, “coming up out of the water.” I would like to be able to tell you that it specifically means that Jesus was reappearing above the surface of the water after having been immersed. But I can’t tell you that. Why? Because those same exact words are used elsewhere in Acts 8 in reference to Philip’s baptizing of the Ethiopian eunuch. As you will see from that passage when we get there, those same words describe Philip and the eunuch not going under water together in baptism, but rather their entering and leaving the source of water together, as one might do having left the middle of the creek or stream and having walked up to the river’s edge to come up from the river to dry land.
In other words, it is possible that Mark’s description of Christ’s baptism is Jesus standing in the shallow waters of the Jordan and John took a pitcher and poured water over Jesus to baptize Him, and when finished, Jesus walked from the middle of the river, up to dry land, and when His feet touched the dry land, then immediately, the Spirit like a dove descended upon Him. It’s also possible that there may have been enough water to immerse Jesus. The grammatical and intellectual truth is that we have no proof from this passage either way.
So, let’s look at Matthew 3:13-4:1 to see if Matthew’s account will shed any new light on this subject. Matthew tells us:
“Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be
baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, ’I have need
to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?’ But Jesus said to him,
‘Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all
righteousness.’ Then he permitted Him. And after being baptized,
Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens
were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and
coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, ’This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’ Then Jesus was led by
the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.”
Unfortunately, this passage sheds no more light on the subject than Mark’s account. However the geographical sites mentioned in both of these passages do provide us with some very interesting clues. Because the Jordan River, especially the southern-most part of the river, that which is the closest to the Jordan’s entrance into the Dead Sea, is rather shallow, it makes immersion difficult if not impossible. In Ruth’s and Naomi’s day, during the period of the Judges, the river Jordan and the Dead Sea were so shallow that at certain points one could walk across the river and parts of the Dead Sea without getting their tunics wet! It is believed that most of John’s early baptisms took place in the southern-most part of the Jordan River, which would be the shallowest section. The reason for this is that John grew up and lived in that part of Israel. Furthermore, in Matthew 3:1 we are told that John’s preaching ministry was in the desert of Judea, which is in that area.
Yet, it is possible that John did baptize in the northern portion of the Jordan River, up near Galilee, because both Mark and Matthew’s account tell us that Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. Yet, we can’t even be sure that Jesus went to this northern part of the Jordan for two reasons. First, the northern part of the Jordan River and Nazareth were all a part of the district of Galilee. Therefore, why would Mark and Matthew say that Jesus left Galilee and went to the Jordan River, the deepest part of the river where one could be physically immersed in water, if the location was still in Galilee? Secondly, the text tells us that immediately after Jesus was baptized, he left the river and went into the desert to be tempted by the devil. That desert is in the southern part of Israel. If Jesus had been baptized in the northern part of the Jordan, he could have left straight away to go south to the desert, but He would have not arrived there immediately. That would have been a three to four day trek.
There are the two possible scenarios: Jesus could have gone from Galilee to the northern-most part of the Jordan to be baptized and then south to the desert of Judea to be tempted by Satan and then back up again to Galilee. If he did so, it is possible that John baptized Jesus by way of immersion in the northern part of the Jordan River which is deep enough to immerse someone.
On the other hand, and more likely according to the commentators I have read thus far, Jesus went south from Galilee to the desert of Judea to meet up with John the Baptist, where John’s ministry was centered. He then went immediately into the desert nearby for forty days to be tempted and then back up to Galilee. If this were the case, then it is quite probable that Jesus was not immersed, because there the Jordan River was so shallow you could literally walk across it into Perea. During those times, as in the secular practice of baptism, if water levels were low or water was scarce, water was then poured over the head of the candidate for baptism as he stood in the river or source of water, such as a cistern like the Essenes used.
Hence, the location had a lot to do with whether or not someone could physically be immersed in water as a mode of baptism. If Jesus baptism was in the north, He could have been immersed. If in the south, He probably was not baptized by immersion. Personally, I want to believe that it refers to immersion but I can’t honestly or intellectually prove it. In fact, the evidence appears to lead to a different conclusion.
So if we are going to be perfectly honest, although the facts would lead us to believe that John’s historical method of baptism was to immerse, our text does not clearly picture that John’s mode of baptism or Jesus’ personal baptism was by immersion under water.
Let’s look to the example of baptizing I just referenced, that being the mode of baptism practiced by the apostles. Probably the clearest example we have is found in Acts 8:36-39. This is the case of Philip’s sharing Christ with the Ethiopian eunuch. After the Ethiopian confessed Jesus Christ as his Lord, we read in verse 36:
“And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the
eunuch said, ’Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’
And Philip said, ’If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he
answered and said, ’I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ And
he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water,
Philip as well as the eunuch and he baptized him. And when they came
up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and
the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing.”
Once again, just like the previous passages concerning Jesus’ baptism by John, the text states that both Philip and the Eunuch went down into the river. These words describe them leaving the higher ground on which the Eunuch’s caravan had been traveling, and that both of them walked down to where the water was. Luke’s words, they both went down into the water do not describe them both being immersed, but that they both walked to where the water was.
We know the exact area in which the site of this baptism took place. It is in a desert area. There is no water typically flowing beside this well traveled highway. If there had been a recent heavy rain, there may have been some standing water in the wadi nearby. For certain, it was not a living or moving or flowing creek or river. Hence, this topographical information raises reasonable doubt that there was enough water to submerge somebody.
Also notice the rest of Luke’s description of what happened after they both entered the water: “And when they came up out of the water.” Because the text says that “they” both came up out of the water, it does not refer to them both having been immersed and resurfacing, but more likely that they left the water the same way they both got there--together. They both left the water and came up to the highway where the caravan was waiting. At that point, the Holy Spirit whisked Philip away and the eunuch went on his way rejoicing.
Again, there is no evidence of supporting any mode of baptism. It most likely was a pouring of limited water over the eunuch, but it is still possible that the eunuch was immersed. We really don’t know for sure.
In the end, what do the scriptures demonstrate for us concerning the mode of baptism? Honest answer: Nothing, for sure. All we know about baptism previous to the New Testament writings is that both modes were practiced by the Greeks, Romans, and Jews. But for the Jews, because of the spiritual connection to cleansing, immersion was preferred.
This document from AD 100 states that baptism should preferably be by immersion, but that is not mandatory. Hence, that which is most important about baptism is not the mode but the message of baptism.
So, where else can we turn to for some answers? The next best thing is to get as close as possible to the early church’s practice of baptism to see what they did. The earliest church writing we have thus far is an instructional manual for matters of the church. It is called the Didache. The Didache was written sometime just around the Apostle John’s death and widely circulated by AD 100. It’s even possible that the Apostle John was still alive when this document was first disseminated. The significance of the date of this document is that it demonstrates that the church’s practices were firmly established.
This instruction manual gave instructions for many concerns to the early church.
Although most of the New Testament writings were completed before AD 100, they were not compiled into one book for hundreds of years. Furthermore, because the printing press had yet to be invented, copies of the Apostles’ writings were rare. Hence at this time, the Didache provided a much-needed filling of the void for elders trying to lead the church. It functioned as a quick two or three page reference guide to the basics of the Christian life. It was not meant to be a systematic statement of theology or a full explanation as to how the church is to function. Rather, it was a quick pastoral reference guide to keep the newly-initiated churches headed in the right direction.
In it are some reminders or summaries of key principles to Christian living such as obeying God’s great commandment to love the Lord your God and then your neighbor as yourself, to flee specific evils, to be quick to reconcile with a brother when sin is involved, to seek after and honor those who teach you the Word, including the followers’ responsibility to pay their preachers, and so on. In addition, there are instructions to church leaders on some of the practical matters of the church such as the proper appointing of leaders, how to take communion in a way that is sure to be honorable to the Lord, and how to properly baptize people. If you want to read it, just Google “Didache” on the internet, and you can download a copy.
Listen to what the Didache states concerning baptism:
Now concerning baptism, thus baptize: having first uttered all these things,
baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in
living water. [By “living,” it means moving water, like a river or stream.] But
if you have not running water, baptize in other water [a pool, pond, or a
cistern]; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. [If it is winter and the
ponds are frozen or too cold, heat up a tub and dunk ‘em in that.] But if you
have neither [meaning a situation where water is scarce], pour water upon the
head thrice, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.
So, basically, what can we learn from the Didache as to the practice of baptism? According to the early church, immersion was the preferred mode of baptism, but it wasn’t mandatory. You could pour or sprinkle as a mode of baptism and the same message of a change in a person’s commitment to Christ, a change in their identity, and a change in their value, would be understood.
There is another lesson we can take from these early writings of the church: the first century Christians believed that what was most important about baptism was not the mode, but the message of baptism.
Beside the historical evidence that the preferred mode of baptism was by immersion when possible, why do some hold so doggedly to immersion as the preferred mode of baptism? Why don’t we just save a lot of water and heating bills and use a mister to spray people with water? The answer is, we could do that, but we would also be missing an important element, a picture and message that go along with being physically immersed.
Although Romans 6:3-4 does not refer to water baptism, immersion does give us a picture of a spiritual truth as to what happens when a person is saved. When a person is put under the water, immersion pictures the old life being dead and buried. Then, the rising up from the water portrays the emergence of a new life and new identity for the believer. Listen to what Paul wrote. He said:
“Or do you not know that all of us [committed followers of Jesus, not all
people] who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized
[identified with or become one with Jesus] into His death? Therefore, we
have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as
Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too
might walk in newness of life.”
The pouring of water or the sprinkling of water on someone does not communicate this same biblical truth. Immersion alone pictures the spiritual reality that we are identified with Christ’s death and resurrection into a new life. We are new persons with a new manner of living because we have a new Master. We have a new nature. We are a new creation. We are born again. And one day, like Christ, we will have new resurrection bodies. Although the flesh and temptation still exist, we are new persons in Christ.
Sometimes it is hard to realize and remember who we are in Christ because of temptations and our struggles with the flesh. But when a person is baptized by immersion and understands what water baptism is a picture of, then the reality that took place when he trusted Christ is easier for him to remember--his old nature is dead, and he is a new person in Christ, regardless of failures.
There is another psychological picture illustrated when baptism is performed by immersion. Allowing someone to immerse you in water is also a picture of humbly submitting your life to the control of another. This is something none of us naturally likes to do. Each of us wants to be in charge of our own lives. We want to be the boss. But that doesn’t happen for that split second during a baptism by immersion, because for that moment when you are allowing someone else to place you under water, you are relinquishing control. This pictures not your relinquishing control to some other human being, but rather it pictures your humble submission to Jesus Christ.
Believe it or not, some people don’t like to swim. They have a serious fear of having their faces in the water, let alone being pushed under. This may not be too meaningful to you scuba divers or native southern Californians who love the water, but I assure you it is to those who can’t swim or have a great fear of the water. I know of no instances of anyone drowning during a baptism, yet some people struggle with a fear of water. When a person gives up the control of his body to be put under the water, it is a picture of giving up the rights to his life to the Lord, his new Master. When a person being baptized is brought up out of the water, it is a picture of the Lord’s power to protect, to lead, and to provide.
But if someone has a legitimate fear of being under water, should we force them to be immersed? Is that the loving, compassionate thing to do? What would Jesus do? It’s my conviction that He would have chosen another mode of baptism, rather than force the issue.
A third reason why immersion is the preferred mode of baptism is that it more clearly pictures a spiritual reality mentioned in a secondary meaning of “baptidzo” that we looked at last time: to change through washing, cleansing, or removing something. The cleansing here refers to the forgiveness of all one’s sin, past, present, and future, yet-to-be-committed sins. In addition, it points to the removal of the old nature. It has been permanently taken away from the control center of our being, our spirits. Hence our spirits, the key to who we are, the source from which we receive our identity, have been changed.
It is for these reasons that in our church constitution we say that when we baptize, we do so by immersion. If someone else comes to this fellowship and wants to be considered for membership but has been baptized by another method of baptism as a believer, we will accept their baptism as legitimate. Having said that, I have re-baptized by immersion several people who were baptized by another mode as believers, because they wanted to have these pictures of the truth and reality of their new life in Christ more riveted in their minds.
Also, I have baptized new believers on their death beds and others who were physically handicapped and unable to be immersed in water by pouring water on their heads. Again, as the early believers clearly understood, it is all about the message of baptism and less about the mode.
IV. Steps to baptism Acts 8:34-38.
Now, let’s look at the steps required for the true believer’s baptism. The clearest example we have in the New Testament of how someone goes from being a non-Christian to becoming a Christian and being baptized is found in Acts 8:34, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. As we work through this passage, you will see a logical order of steps that every believer has followed and, logically, must follow in order to be baptized.
The first step is found in verses 34-35. Luke tells us, “And the eunuch answered Philip and said, ‘Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself, or of someone else?’ And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.” Obviously, in order for the Ethiopian to believe in Jesus, someone had to preach the word, or tell him about Jesus and why He came and what He accomplished. In short, it all begins with someone explaining the gospel to another, as Philip obviously did for this eunuch.
B. Someone heard, understood, and believed the Gospel.
The next three steps are found in verses 36-38. Luke writes:
“And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the
eunuch said, ’Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And
Philip said, ’If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he
answered and said, ’I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ And
he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water,
Philip as well as the eunuch and he baptized him.”
The next step, obviously, was that the eunuch had to hear, understand, and believe “the word” or the Gospel which Philip preached.
Thirdly, the Ethiopian was not dragged or forced to be baptized; rather he freely chose to be baptized.
D. Soon after hearing, understanding, believing, and choosing to be baptized, one is to be baptized.
The final observation concerning the eunuch’s being baptized is that his baptism took place as soon as was possible after hearing, understanding, believing, and choosing to be baptized. If he wanted to, this eunuch could have waited to have his family and friends around him, but he chose to get baptized right then and there. He didn’t wait fifteen years.
There is another very important principle that one can draw from this example: To be baptized, one must be old enough to understand and to make one’s own choice to submit their life to Christ as master and savior in order to be baptized. This alone eliminates infant baptism from being a biblical practice. A baby can’t know enough to chose, let alone be able to communicate belief or choice. Historically, I have found no record in secular or religious baptisms where infants were baptized. This is the reason why we don’t baptize babies here. Instead, this fellowship encourages parents to dedicate their babies to the Lord, and to commit as parents to raise and instruct them in such a way that they grow up to choose to trust Jesus to be their Lord and Savior.
Next time we will finish up our study on baptism. I hope that if you have not been baptized, what you have learned these past two weeks will stir up your thinking as to why not. Maybe some of you were baptized, but you did not fully understand what you were doing at the time. If this is true of you, then maybe you might consider being re-baptized so as to publicly declare what you now know to be true about your life in Christ. If you know Christ as your Master and Savior, then why will you not go public with it? If you should so choose to be baptized, you will have an opportunity to do so on June 6th. If you wish to do so, please call the office or seek out one of the elders so that we can speak with you about it.
If you have been baptized, tell about it. How old were you? What was the mode by which you were baptized? What was meaningful to you about your baptism?
For various reasons, some married couples choose to recite their marital vows years later a second time in a second marriage ceremony. If you have been baptized already, would you ever consider being baptized again? Why?
back to top
|
