A Few Thoughts on Baptism
Table of Contents
Few Thoughts on Baptism: No. 1
(“R. Τ. K.," Hammersmith.) Your question as to " baptism bringing a person into the house or profession of Christianity," requires more than a page in " Correspondence.” What we understand by " the great house” of 2 Tim. 2:20, is baptized Christendom, in which are found vessels to honor, and some to dishonor. It will, no doubt, help us to trace the subject of baptism from the beginning.
Even the baptism of John should be examined, and it will be found helpful. i( He came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (See Luke 3:3; Matt, iii.) " Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan. And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Thus did God make straight the path, and prepare the way for the blessed Savior. The leaders of the people do not seem to have understood it. But it was really bringing the people to the very place where they entered the land fifteen hundred years before, and the most complete repentance and self-judgment that all was failure, confessing their sins and need of forgiveness. If Jordan was the figure of death in the days of Joshua, they had to be buried in death for the forgiveness of sins. All had to begin again, and somehow forgiveness had to be reached through death, of which the Jordan was the figure. John seems quite conscious that he cannot fully explain what he is doing (see his answer to the priests, John 1:19). He was not the promised Christ, he only prepared the way. All the baptized disciples of John were simply prepared for another. They had repented, confessing their sins, and were buried in the river of death. But how were those sins to be forgiven? That other One appeared, He came to this sin-confessed multitude, and, to meet their need, went Himself into this river of death, striking figure of the death of the cross. Now hear the words of John to this prepared multitude: “Behold the Lamb of God, which beareth away the sin of the world." Thus the baptism, even of John, should have brought them eventually to the Lamb of God.
Then John must decrease. His work was done. A baptism unto the Lamb of God for forgiveness of sins. We do not read their sins were forgiven by baptism. If that had been the case, there would have been no need for the Lamb of God. The work of John was to prepare the way, to prove man's need of Him. Thus John made disciples, and thus were disciples made unto Jesus as Messiah. (See John 4:1, 2.)
Discipleship was evidently outward profession, the vine on earth. We must not confound this with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, of the members of the body to the Head now on high. (1 Cor. 12:13.) As man, He was not then in heaven, but on earth, where many were made disciples by water baptism. (John 4:1.)
How far will all this help us as to Pentecost? What a change! We are now at Jerusalem, where fifty days before redemption had been accomplished. The Lamb of God had died, the propitiation for sin. God had raised Him from the dead. He had not only spoken perfect, everlasting peace to His disciples, but He had also commissioned them to begin at this very place, and announce repentance and remission of sins in His name, also among all nations. (See Luke 24:47.) Before doing this, however, they were to wait until they were endowed with power from on high. But now the promised Holy Ghost had descended from heaven. Every barrier being removed, now read the gospel announced by Peter. (Acts 2:22-47.)
The order is reversed now. John had first preached the baptism of repentance. This prepared the way to direct those who repented to the Lamb of God—most important in its place. In this way they were led to the Lamb as the One through whom alone sins can be forgiven. Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, preaches, first, "Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ." He begins where John ends-the purpose and counsel of God, fulfilled in the death and crucifixion of Jesus. They with wicked hands had put Him to death. God had raised Him up both Lord and Christ. This announcement, by the Holy Ghost working in the heart, produced that godly sorrow which leadeth to the needed repentance; and, believing the words they heard from Peter, they said, " What shall we do?" The answer now is in perfect harmony with what John had partially announced: " Then"—that is, after they had heard and believed the wonderful tidings of Jesus exalted on high—" then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” And mark, this declaration from God went far beyond merely themselves. “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call." Now did not that change of mind, produced by, or the result of, godly sorrow for what they had done as Jews, imply the full confession and judgment of themselves and their sins in what they had done? And, in like manner, though they might not as yet fully understand it, did not their baptism to the Lord Jesus imply the utter giving up of all on which they had formerly depended? They were thus, by repentance and baptism, directed to the name of Jesus Christ alone for the remission of sins.
We shall find, when we come to the explanation in the Epistles, it was separation, as by death, from all in which they had formerly stood. The effect of the exhortation which followed is summed up in these words, " Save yourselves from this untoward generation." By this act, then, as a figure, they were separated, and formed the first beginning of the community of believers. " They that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added about three thousand souls." Outward profession then, by baptism, and the true assembly of God were identical in that day, for " the Lord added daily such as should be saved." Baptism, then, was plainly the giving up of Judaism, and looking only to Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins; thus involving separation as by death.
It is remarkable that this is just how the Jew understands baptism to this day. The Jew may make a lip profession of Christianity, but can you trust him if he refuses to be baptized? Not the least. Let him be baptized; from that day he is a dead man to the Jews—yes, even to his father and mother. In a so-called christian country like England, we almost lose the original meaning of baptism.
Now, if we inquire further in the Acts, we shall not find the order of John introduced in one single instance. It is Jesus, or the words of this life, the apostles first preached everywhere. (Chap, v. 20-42.) We have to pass on from Pentecost to chapter viii. before we find much more as to baptism. Here, again, we find the " preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ;” and it was when they believed Philip that they were baptized, both men and women.
There is much for reflection in this chapter, and we desire to forget all theories in looking at it. It is evident there was no sacramental grace, or new birth, in it, for we find Simon, the sorcerer, was baptized, though still in the bond of iniquity. But the most striking thing is this—that baptism in water is totally distinct from the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Samaria had received the word of God, and that in the full separative profession of baptism. But it was not until after the apostles had sent Peter and John that they received the Holy Ghost. Thus, by baptism they had been brought into the house, or profession of Christianity, being baptized unto the name of Jesus Christ; some time before they were baptized by the Holy Ghost into the body of Christ. (See 1 Cor. 12:13.) No two things could therefore be more distinct.
In the case of Philip and the eunuch, the same order is observed. He does not preach baptism to the eunuch, but, " Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus," that is, the Savior, as the One who bare our sins, &c, as foretold in Isa. 53 Acts 8:37 is no doubt an interpolation, still, the truth is clear: he heard the word, believed, and then took his place as a professed Christian in baptism. " They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
(To be continued.)
Few Thoughts on Baptism: No. 2
The preaching of Peter at Caesarea to Cornelius and his company next comes before us. Again, it is not baptism, but " peace by Christ Jesus,' that is preached to them. Now, if baptism had been the channel, or medium, through or by which forgiveness of sins was obtained, or the medium by which the new birth was effected, then Peter must have at once preached it; or, if there was any sacramental grace connected with it, then also he could not possibly have omitted to preach it first of all. How differently from all this did he declare of Jesus: " To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Does not this explain what was meant at Pentecost, " in the name of Jesus for remission of sins?" It does not say; whosoever is baptized, but, " whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Baptism was the profession of faith in Him; but in this case, to show that remission of sins is through faith in Jesus, " whilst Peter spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." This was before they were baptized. It would therefore be a great mistake to connect forgiveness of sins with baptism, instead of the name of the Lord Jesus. The believing Jews were greatly astonished at this, and especially as this was on the Gentiles, and it demands our closest attention. There were a company of believers baptized by the Holy Ghost, and thus members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12), before they had been baptized with water. Does not this, then, show again the distinction between the outward profession and the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ?
Surely, however, the way was clear for the former by the latter. " Can any man forbid water, that these should be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." It follows, then, that it is a fatal mistake to attach forgiveness and sacramental efficacy to baptism, instead of faith in the Lord Jesus.
Repentance, no doubt, was wrought in the heart and conscience, but the expression of it in baptism did not take place in this case until they had received the Holy Ghost. The great point established is this: baptism cannot be the channel whereby we get forgiveness of sins, for they had this and the Holy Ghost, and yet were commanded to be baptized. They could not be baptized to obtain what they already had.
We will now look at that remarkable passage in the conversion of Saul. Convicted and repentant, through the revelation of the risen and glorified Jesus, whom he had seen, and whose words he had heard; three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. Ananias is sent to him as a chosen vessel of Christ. Let us hear his words: " putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9:17.) Mark, all this is before baptism is named. Then Ananias said, "And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Chap. 22:16.) This is sometimes read as if it said, or meant, " wash away thy sins by baptism." But does it say so? Head each clause. It is not, wash away thy sins, being baptized, but, wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. It does not say, wash away thy sins, and call on the name of the Lord. Is not wash away thy sins connected with calling on the name of the Lord? Let us inquire how Paul himself understood this.
The literal translation of those words of Ananias to Saul is given thus: " And now, why lingerest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and have thy sins washed away, calling on his name;" or, as in the common Greek text, " on the name of the Lord.” Are there not three thoughts: first, " Why lingerest thou?” second, " Arise, and be baptized;" third, " and have thy sins washed away, calling on his name." Now the question is this- Is the washing away of sins by baptism? It does not say so. Or, then, is it connected with calling on the name of the Lord? If we compare Acts 26, it is clear Saul had received his call and commission three days before his baptism: " To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which arc sanctified, by faith that is in me." Here forgiveness of sins, &c, is not by baptism, but by faith in Christ. It was through faith in Christ he preached repentance, and doubtless baptism resulted as the expression of both faith and repentance, as we shall soon see: " That they should repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance."
Saul was, doubtless, a forgiven man, and therefore, whilst it could not be said, Wash away thy sins by baptism, or, thus washing away thy sins, yet, as has been said, being baptized, and now calling on the name of the Lord whom he had persecuted, the assembly would now look upon him as a new and forgiven man: indeed, they could not have done so had he delayed or refused baptism. But this we must say boldly—never did Paul preach baptism as a means of obtaining forgiveness with God; but he did distinctly connect salvation with calling on the name of the Lord (Rom. 10:8-13), ending with these words: " For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.".... " For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” No doubt the Holy Ghost used the words of Ananias in bringing Saul into the full enjoyment of sins forgiven.
Now read through the Acts, and examine each instance of the preaching of Paul. Did he once preach baptism as a means either of the new birth, or a means by which sins are forgiven? Redemption being accomplished, he first invariably preached the cross, the death, and then the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and then, " Be it known, therefore.... that through this man (not through baptism) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all [that are baptized? No.] that believe are justified from all things." (Acts 13:39.) Also at Thessalonica, his manner of preaching was this: " Three sabbath-days [he] reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead: and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.’ He fully explains the gospel he preached, and that by which the Corinthians were saved, if saved at all, in 1 Cor. 15:1-17. But in that gospel it was, " Christ died for our sins, according to the scrip-tares; and that he was buried, and that he rose again " &c. He also declares. " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Cor. 1:17.) Now, if sins were washed away by baptism before God, or if the Spirit used baptism to effect the new birth, then baptism would be the very cream of the gospel, and Paul could not have written such a fact. He makes the gospel something absolutely distinct from baptism. Christ sent him not to baptize, as we have seen in the commission, but to preach the gospel.
Yet it is also clear that baptism was the result where Paul preached the word. Let us look at a few cases. We see Paul at Philippi. Lydia is listening to the word of life: " Whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things that wore spoken by Paul." And what was the result? "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." (Acts 16:14.) This believing woman—the first believer in Europe on record—took a most remarkable place of, shall we say, responsible authority? Her household eras baptized; yet she says, If ye have judged me: she does not say, If ye have judged my household faithful. This is worthy of reflection. She was a Jewess, or " proselyte."
The next is a poor heathen jailor. He says, u Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Did the apostle direct him to baptism as a means of grace or salvation? No: u Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Had he said, Be baptized, and thy house, and thou shalt be forgiven, or saved, it would have been another thing; but it was, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He believed; and the result was, a He took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” &c.
So, again, at Corinth (chap, 28), Paul first testifies that Jesus is the Christ: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."
Yes, in all these cases they heard, believed, and were baptized. All that heard, and believed, had eternal life, and were justified from all things before God. (John 5:24; Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 5:1, 2.) Baptism had nothing to do with imparting any of these. The above scriptures make that certain. Baptism marked their separation from Judaism, heathenism, and all with which they had been connected.
(To be continued.)
Few Thoughts on Baptism: No. 3
We now propose to examine its meaning as a figure, or type, of doctrine in the epistles.
The flood in the days of Noah is spoken of: 4t While the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is gone into heaven," &c. (1 Pet. 3:20, 21.) Now we must admit there is no thought of sacramental grace here, or any inward and spiritual grace, but it is a like figure to the flood. Eight persons passed figuratively through death unto a new existence. There was no sacramental grace in the waters of the flood, but death. It was death to everything behind. The answer of a good conscience is not by any sacramental washing, but by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism, then, is a figure of the believer's death with Him. The thing signified by this figure is stated elsewhere thus: " Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God." (2 Cor. 5:17.) And is not baptism a striking figure of this? We shall see this same figure wherever baptism is spoken of in the epistles. In Gal. 3:22-29, in order to prove that the Christian is no longer under law as a schoolmaster, the apostle says, " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek," &c.
A man that is dead ceases to be under the law, ceases to be Jew or Greek. Therefore baptism, being a figure of death with Christ, the believer could be no longer looked at as alive in the flesh, under law, or a Gentile under idolatry.
In Rom. 6 this truth is largely unfolded. The Holy Spirit’s object here is to show that the believer is not to sin, that grace may abound.
Now, bearing in mind that baptism is a figure, or type, of doctrine, nothing could be more expressive of death than burial in water. " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." Dead to sin, dead to law; old things reckoned passed away; all things new, and all of God. The Lord Jesus went through real death for us. Our bodies go through the figure of it in baptism. We are thus identified with Him in death; and if we have thus been planted in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection. If, however, we mistake the figure—that is, buried in water—for the reality, that is, association with Christ in death and resurrection by faith, through the operation of the Spirit of God, nothing could be more fatal. We are not born again, or made children of God by baptism. Nowhere do the scriptures thus speak. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." If we say baptism is a figure of that faith, or birth, there is no objection.
Again, we read, a Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (Col. 2:12.) The figure is here most striking. Thus baptism should utterly forbid all return to ritualism and ordinances by those who profess to be dead. Believing God, we are justified in His sight. (Rom. 4; 5) In baptism we obey a type of doctrine, which declares us disciples of the dead and risen Christ.
We have not said a word as to John 3, as it is evident the Lord did not refer to baptism, but to the new birth, as foretold in Eze. 36 As has often been said, Nicodemus could not have understood christian baptism. Baptism is used as a figure of death, but that it is not the new birth is most evident. The sure mark of the new birth is this—that he that is born of God cannot sin, or practice' sin. He has a nature which cannot sin. (1 John 3) He that is born of God has put off the old man, is renewed in spirit, and has put on the new man. If born of God, the new nature will, and must, be manifested. But in the great house of Christendom are there not vast numbers of the baptized who distinctly prove, by practicing sin, that they are not born of God? No one can deny it.
In the beginning the house, that is, profession and reality, were identical, but would not the certain men crept in unawares (Jude) all have been baptized? And also, would not those having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof (2 Timothy), and the vessels of dishonor in the great house, have all been baptized? No doubt the baptized are in the great house of profession; but let us beware of trusting in the figure, however instructive.
There is another scripture, often quoted as though it meant baptism in water: " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Titus 3:5.) Now, can this mean either salvation or washing by literal water? is it abundance of water that saves? Let it be observed, the word translated " regeneration" is not the same as the word used for " new birth." It is never so used—indeed it only occurs in one other instance, Matt. 19:28, and there it cannot mean the new birth. Just as Israel will then pass into that new order of millennial things, so now the believer has passed from the old to the new -all new, and all of God. But this is not by water but by the hearing of the word, and faith in God: who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. It is the application of the word by the Holy Ghost. No doubt the washing of water is a figure of this, and so used—" the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:26.) Is it not, then, a fatal error to put the type of baptism in the place of the great antitype—the death of Christ, by which the believer is-reconciled "in the body of his flesh, through death, to present you holy and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight." (Col. 1:22.)
What we find in scripture, then, is this—believers were separated from Judaism and heathenism unto Christ. Further, to believers it signified in figure death with Christ; dead to law, sin, the world, and the flesh; and if dead with Christ, risen with Him. Since then, it has been utterly perverted, and made to be the beginning of religious fleshly ritualism. In scripture it is the outward sign of death. As a figure it is most expressive. The Lord grant that we may realize more what it is to be dead with Christ, and alive in Him. Not merely once baptized, and then forgotten not there is one baptism; this is named amongst that which surely continues. (Eph. 4:4-6.) Thus baptism is the continuous figure of that which we reckon ourselves to be. (Rom. 6:3-11.) C.S.