BAPTISM - I

Bob Bonner
July 6, 1996

At least once or twice a year I receive a phone call from a parent of a new born child asking if I would baptize their baby, at which point I usually ask the parent, "Why do you wish to have your baby baptized?" Quite often the answer is that the parent feels if the baby is not baptized, then the baby could be rejected by God, and thereby not be saved. Hence, they believe that infant baptism saves the baby. Is that true? Does infant baptism save or have any positive effect upon a child?

Several other times in the past twenty years I have come in contact with a person who, as an adult, has recently committed his/her life to Jesus Christ as his/her Savior and Lord. They are excited and thrilled with their new-found, intimate and personal relationship with Jesus. In some of these cases, these individuals have come from very religious backgrounds, but have wanted nothing to do with the religiosity of traditional religious rites or ceremonies because, in the past, those things drove them away from God, not to Him. Then one day, these excited new believers come in contact with other Christians who ask these new believers if they have been baptized. Upon answering "No", these new believers were told that if they died right then, they would not go to heaven because they weren't "fully" saved as they had not experienced water baptism. Is that true?

Another situation has arisen in the last 100+ years, due to some false teaching of cults, that raises the question of baptism of the dead. The idea is that if you have a relative who died without knowing Jesus Christ as one's Savior, or if they did but weren't baptized before they died, can one vicariously be baptized in the dead person's place and on their behalf, thus ensuring the deceased salvation?

One more question concerning baptism: Is it really necessary at all? Is it something we are commanded to do? There is a group of Christians who love the Lord every bit as much as I do, who believes that not only is baptism not necessary for salvation, but that it profits you nothing. Could they be right?

In this and next week's message, along with answering these questions, we want to understand what baptism is; why do people get baptized; is it absolutely necessary for Christians to be baptized; what are the conditions for baptism; should someone be baptized; and is there a proper mode for baptism?

The place to begin our study is with a definition of what baptism or the word "baptidzo" in the original language means. According to Greek scholars, the word "baptidzo" has a primary meaning and a couple of secondary meanings.

Its primary meaning-- in other words, the way the term was used in normal every day life-- is to dip, plunge or immerse something, like dipping or plunging or immersing your hand into a pool of water to check out if it's too cold for swimming.

But in the first century, there developed two secondary meanings. For instance, it was used to describe the process of dying a garment. If someone wanted to dip a white garment into a scarlet dye to change its color, he was said to have "baptized" the garment for the purpose of changing its color and thus, changing the garment's identity. It was from that meaning that historically all who baptized individuals, both the religious and non-religious organizations, meant baptism to symbolize that somehow the very essence of that person's identity had been changed. We will look more at this in a moment. But for now, one of its secondary meanings came to mean "to change identity."

A secondary meaning of the term also developed over the years. When a person would take a bath or wash clothes, since the person or the clothes were "baptized" or immersed in soap and water, and then came out clean, the term "baptidzo" came to mean "washing and cleansing". It was the idea that something had been changed, cleansed, washed away or removed. In the Christian sense, this is where we get the idea that baptism, not water baptism but spiritual baptism, washed away or removed the sin nature from the believer. Remember, when we say that one's sin nature was removed, we don't mean that a Christian can't sin, but that the old nature, which was enslaved to sin, was now gone and the new nature has the power to resist sin.

Historically, baptism was not something that was begun by the church or unique to the church or to religious organizations. It's my understanding that four hundred years prior to Jesus Christ, the Greeks baptized individuals through immersion for the purpose of identifying one with a political cause or a philosophy or with a significant leader. Obviously, this would mean that their baptisms were not always of a religious nature.

For instance, if you were a follower of a philosopher, like Socrates, and you wanted to be identified with Socrates or his school of thought, you were publicly baptized through immersion as a follower of Socrates. Through this means, you were identified as a disciple of Socrates.

Another example of baptism during this same period would be the baptism that followed a person joining a trade union. For instance, if you were going to be a declared coppersmith and were going to join a coppersmith union or gild or school, you were baptized, immersed in water during a public ceremony as an initiation rite. Obviously, in those days, people considered and chose their careers with a great deal of serious thought. One didn't just hop from one career to another. Baptism, in those cases, meant that they took their field of work seriously and they were committed to it. Furthermore, the mentor of the one being baptized wanted all others to recognize that this new apprentice was under his authority and no others were to try to take him away.

But baptism was not limited to the Greeks. Baptism later found its way into Egypt at least as early as the first century B. C. According to an article in Biblical Archaeological Review, by William Sanford, LaSor, professor emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary, archaeologists have dug up baptismal baths in Egypt. These baths, or miniature swimming pools had previously been used for baptism by immersion by Jews living in Egypt, at least 100 years before Christ. It is believed that this Jewish ritual of baptism by immersion during these years was the basis for John the Baptist's practice later in the Jordan River. (BAR, p. 2, Jan/Feb, 1987) In a day when Jews were being influenced by the Egyptian culture around them, the purpose of this baptism was for a Jew to identify himself or herself with orthodox Jewry.

When John the Baptist baptized people, they were being baptized as people who were followers who agreed with John's message of repentance of sins. In addition, they were identified as John's disciples. But John was not too comfortable with that, because he tried to point people to Someone who was to come after him, One whose baptism would be of greater importance than John's baptism. Obviously, that was the baptism that identified people with Jesus Christ.

As we will see, baptism for Christians became a public declaration that an individual had committed his or her life to Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior. Furthermore, it was a statement that they realized that they had been given a new identity. Once they were saved, in a very real sense, they were new persons, or new creations with old things passed away. The chart below contrasts some of the differences between our previous state, before knowing Jesus Christ as one's Savior and Lord, and our new identity that became a reality the moment we trusted Christ. Whether we realized these truths the moment we were saved matters not as to the truth that they applied to our lives.

Hence, baptism wasn't just some simple statement or public declaration that says, "I want to follow Jesus," but rather, it was a public declaration by the individual that they had been born again, given a new identity and purpose for living. They are now children of God, called to serve Him, temporarily in this world, and then one day to live forever with Him in heaven.

Probably one of the most disputable topics among Christians concerning baptism is the mode of baptism. 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 a commentary from the first century, called "The Didache", which was an early church instructional manual, written sometime between 100 and 160 A.D..

As we look at these three examples of baptism, we are going to look at them in chronological order. The first example is that of John the Baptist and how he baptized. We noted earlier that John's practice of baptism probably followed the practice of Jewish baptism in Egypt which was immersion or totally dunking someone under water.

So, look with me first at Mark 1:9, "And it came about in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan." As to how this baptism actually took place, it is possible that Jesus was standing in the water and John took a pitcher and poured water over Jesus or sprinkled Him with water, but I doubt it. That would seem to go against the custom of the day. But, none-the-less, it could have happened that way. This passage gives us no hint as to how the baptism was performed. Hence, we can't rule out that John didn't pour water or sprinkle someone with water. It just seems unlikely that he would.

Now let's look at Matt. 3:13-17. Here, 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.'"

The statement that Jesus "went up from the water" could mean that after he was dunked in the water, he came up out of the water, with water dripping off his hair and looked up to heaven. But it could also mean that he "went up from the water" meaning that Jesus walked up from the water's edge of the shore to the land and still never having been dunked, but only having water poured over Him, and then looking into heaven.

I personally believe that it refers to immersion, because the term "baptidzo" means to dip or immerse and because the custom of that time was immersion. But, I can't prove that conclusively.

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, and the term itself means "immerse," our text does not clearly picture that John's mode or Jesus' personal baptism was immersion under water.

Let's look to one other example of baptizing which was the mode of baptism used by the apostles. Probably the clearest example we have is found in Acts 8:36. This is the case of Philip 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 two previous passages, we can assume that they both went down into the river and that the eunuch underwent the typical mode of baptism of the day, being totally immersed, but we cannot prove it. "Why?" you say? Because the text says that "they" both came up out of the water. Does that mean they both were immersed or does it mean that they both left the water and came up to the shore? We can't say for sure. But again, there is no evidence of sprinkling or mention of a pitcher for pouring water. So, we can only assume that it is "immersion", but we cannot prove it.

Where else can we turn then for some answers? The next best thing is to get as close as we can to the early church's practice of baptism and see what they did. The Didache, as I mentioned earlier, was an early church manual giving instructions for many concerns to the early church. It was written sometime between 100-160 A.D., which was the first generation of believers following the apostles. So this instruction manual was written about as closely to the birth of the church as possible. Listen to what those who followed the apostle's generation wrote about 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; [meaning like a pool, pond, etc.] and if you cannot in cold, then in warm; [Hence, 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 if you are in a situation where water is scarce] pour water upon the head thrice, into the name of the Father, and Son and Holy Spirit."

Hence, 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 identity would be understood.

But why was immersion so important? Why don't we, today, save a lot of water and heating bills and use a mister and spray people? The answer is, we could do that, but we would also be missing an important element, a picture and message that goes along with being physically immersed.

For instance: Although Romans 6:3-4 does not refer to water baptism, it does give us a picture of what is going on spiritually when someone is immersed in the waters of baptism. It is a picture of the old life being dead and buried and the raising up of a new life and new identity for the believer. Listen to what Paul wrote, "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."

So water baptism pictures the spiritual reality that we are identified with Christ's death and resurrection into a new life. When a person goes under the water in baptism by immersion, it is a picture of our old life, our old man being spiritually buried, which is what happened when we got saved. Like Christ's dead body was placed into the tomb, so our old man, our old nature, died and was buried with Him, when we are buried or immersed in water. Equally true is the significance of coming up out of the water. It pictures our new life, like Christ's resurrection life, has begun. We have a new nature. We are a new creation. And one day, like Christ, we will have new resurrection bodies. Although the flesh and temptations still exist, we are new persons in Christ. We have been given a new identity. We have gone from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light.

Sometimes it is hard to realize and remember who we are in Christ. But when a person is baptized and understands that water baptism is a picture of the reality that took place when he trusted Christ, it is easier for him to remember that his old nature is dead.

It was only after I was baptized that I finally understood what baptism was all about. When I did, it meant so much more to me that I wanted to get baptized again, just so that I could have a time and place to attach this truth in my own memory. I am a new creation in Christ and being publicly baptized declares to the world that I know it and it is true.

There is another psychological picture going on with baptism by immersion. Allowing someone to immerse you in water is also a picture of submitting your life to the control of another--something none of us naturally likes to do. Each of us tends to want to be in charge of our own lives. We want to be the boss. But that doesn't happen for the moment 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 may not be too meaningful to you who love the water, but I assure you it is meaningful to those who can't swim or have a great fear of the 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.

A third reason why immersion is the preferred mode of baptism, is that it more clearly pictures the washing away, the cleansing or the taking away and leaving behind the old sin nature. It has been permanently taken away from the control center of our being. Hence, our spirits, the key to who we are, the source from which we receive our identity has been changed.

But let us understand something about immersion and the picture it raises. Baptism by immersion is only the preferred manner of baptism. It is preferred, because it teaches us more through the pictures it delivers. However, it cannot be proven to be the only manner of baptism or the mandatory way to be baptized as many have claimed.

Hence, we can learn an important lesson from the early church fathers concerning baptism. They understood something that many today have lost sight of, and that is that the message of baptism is always more important than the mode of baptism.

Although they preferred immersion for obvious reasons, it was not the only acceptable manner in which a person could be baptized. That is why in our church constitution, we say that when we baptize here, we baptize by immersion. But if someone else comes to this fellowship and wants to be considered for membership, but has been baptized by another method , such as sprinkling, we accept that method, if they were truly believers at the moment of their baptism.

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. And that is what Philip did.

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" which Philip preached.

Thirdly, the Ethiopian was not dragged or forced to be baptized; rather he freely chose to be baptized.

The final step that completed this baptism was that as soon as was possible, the candidate was immediately baptized. If he wanted to, he 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 conclusion that one can draw from this example, which will answer a question I raised in the very beginning. One must be a believer, and must make a free choice to be baptized. This alone eliminates infant baptism from being a biblical practice. A baby can't know enough to choose, let alone is an infant able to communicate belief or choice. This is the reason why we don't baptize babies here. Instead, as parents and as a fellowship, we encourage parents to dedicate individual babies to the Lord, and commit ourselves as parents and adults to raise our children and instruct them in such a way that should these children choose to, as they grow up--which we all hope they do-- they will trust Jesus to be their Lord and Savior.

So far, we have learned what baptism means, what modes are allowed and preferred, and the steps necessary to be baptized. But we haven't answered the question of "Why?" Why should a person get baptized? Is it really important? In a nut shell, the answer is yes! It is important for several reasons, but we are only going to look at one right now.

First and foremost, the reason a believer should be baptized, is that Jesus commands it. Look with me at Matthew 28:19-20. There are Christians who do not believe that the command for baptism in this passage applies to believers today. The basis for their belief is that they understand what Jesus has to say in these two verses as only applying to the apostles and those living in their generation. That understanding is historically a rather new conclusion drawn from these verses. From my point of view, it is grammatically and logically an errant conclusion.

Historically, for almost 2,000 years, Christians have declared their commitment to Christ by submitting themselves to water baptism as a public act of deep significance based on this passage and others. Although one does not have to be baptized to be saved, just like one doesn't have to take communion to be saved, both the taking of communion on a regular basis and baptism are commanded in the Scriptures. As we read through these verses, I will show you why baptism is commanded and defend the fact that it was not mandatory only for that period of time in which the apostles lived, but it is mandatory for every believer today.

In this section of Scripture, Jesus is speaking for the last time to His disciples. His words are very important. He states simply and clearly what their objective is as His disciples and what the life objective is for all future disciples of Jesus Christ. Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

You may want to make a note of this in your Bible, but I want to show you literally how this verse was written. The translators have done a good job at trying to translate this verse so that it would be smooth and completely accurate at the same time.

In the English, it appears that there are several commands in this verse. But really, there is only one command in the original. And that command is to "make disciples" of Jesus Christ. But how that command is to be carried out is very specifically detailed by three participles. In other words, Jesus says, that we are to make disciples of Him by doing three things: first, "by going". Or more literally, "while you are going about your daily business" be focused on making disciples for Jesus Christ. In other words, this is not something that you do once a week or during an evangelism campaign, but it is something that is to be a part of the Christian's every day life.

Secondly, we don't just talk about Jesus, but we talk about Jesus with the view to challenging people to trust Him as their Lord and Savior, to be identified with Him through baptism. In other words, to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, we are commanded to be baptized.

Thirdly, if we are going to make disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to teach these believers. Notice, this teaching has a purpose. It is not just teaching so as to fill up a person's mind with theological information. It is to teach them to observe or obey all that our new Master, Jesus, says we are to obey.

So the command is simple to understand: make disciples, which includes baptizing believers. If you attempt to make disciples by going and teaching, but leave out baptizing, you are disobeying Christ's command.

But how do we know that this command wasn't just directed to the apostles? How do we know that this command includes us today? The major reason has to do with the understanding of what is at the basis of God giving the disciples or any of us a command. God never gives us an assignment that He knows is impossible for us to fulfill, or that will never be able to be fulfilled. He would never give the apostles a command to do something if it couldn't be done. To believe that these verses only apply to the apostles, would mean just that...that God asked them to do something He knew would never happen.

Why do I say that? The reason has to do with Jesus' words in v.19, to "make disciples of all nations." Some would have you believe that the term "nations" merely refers to those who are non-Jews, or Gentiles. Therefore, they would say that the apostles fulfilled this command, because they lead Gentiles to Christ, baptized them and taught them.

But if this meaning of "nations" meant only "Gentiles" or "non-Jews" then the disciples did not fulfill this command, because the text clearly states that they are to make disciples of "all" Gentiles. Did they do that? When they died, were there any non-Jews who didn't believe in Jesus? Obviously, there were millions of non-Jews who had never even heard about Jesus. The apostles obviously did not convert all of the Gentiles.

Furthermore, Jesus told us in Matthew 7 that not everybody on this earth, not all of the Jews or all of the Gentiles would be saved. So, why would He command His apostles to make disciples of "all Gentiles" when Jesus knew that would never happen? The answer is that Jesus wouldn't have commanded His apostles to do the impossible.

So, logically, there must be another understanding to this command. Could it be that this term "nations" which in the original language is the word "ethnos" could mean something more than just "Gentiles"? Obviously, the answer is "yes."

Bauer Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon is the "bible" to Greek scholars as to the meaning of Greek words. According to them, this term "ethnos" means not only Gentiles, heathens or pagans, but it also refers to races, nations and people groups. Furthermore, in other Greek literature of this same period, this expression, "of all nations" meant not just Gentiles, it meant all nations. So, to limit its meaning to only refer to Gentiles is not correct. The meaning must be expanded to refer to "all people" groups. Furthermore, a parallel verse, Acts 1:8, supports that it is our mission in life, as all believers, to get the gospel out to the "utter most part of the earth." In other words, to all nations.

But that still doesn't solve the problem of the apostles not being able to make disciples from every people group, does it? No one generation could reach all the people groups in their generation. It would take years, in fact, thousands of years to reach all the people groups. In addition, Jesus knew that, and did not want the apostles or us to become weary or discouraged with how long or how grandiose His assignment to us was. That's why he concluded this command to the apostles and to us with the promise, "Lo, I will be with you always, even unto the end of the age". And the term "age" there couldn't refer to the age of the apostles, because this task still isn't finished today and the apostles are long dead and gone. The only other meaning for "age" could be that time when Jesus comes to take the church off this earth, that event known to some as the Rapture.

Today, with modern technology, radio and ease of travel, we are very close to having communicated the gospel or making disciples for Christ of every people group on this planet. When that task is finished, we will know for sure that we will be on the brink, if not in, that future period of which is prophesied and called the "Great Tribulation".

Bottom line, what does all this mean to us today and to the issue of baptism? It means that all Christians are still commanded to go through the waters of believer's baptism.

Next week, we will look at several controversial questions and passages of Scripture that deal with this subject of baptism.

back to top