Baptism in the New Testament

The word baptism is of Greek origin and is carried forward into the English language. It always applied to the religious life of Jews immediately prior to the Christian era or to those who embrace Christianity. The word means to dip or immerse although treatises have been laboriously compiled endeavouring to prove the word means 'sprinkle' rather than 'immerse'. The fact that John was baptizing near Salim, because there was much water there is sufficient proof of the word's meaning. But while it is from the Greek and is not to be found in the Old Testament it is usual for commentators to imply that baptism for the remission of sins is hinted at in the Mosaic washings. The connection is remote, for while water was used, immersion was not practised and the trespasser washed himself as part of the purification, whereas baptism is always performed by another. Further, there are other baptisms mentioned in Scripture that have no connection with water immersion. It is an essential part of the teaching of baptism that the candidate cannot immerse himself. Most Christians prefer to hold that baptism, whether of water or of the Holy Spirit, whether into the body of Christ or into death, is an act done for them. But though baptism is not found in the O.T., New Testament writers reason that two instances of baptism are portrayed there. One is where the family of Noah was saved through water (though water was the destroying agent in the Flood and they were saved through being in the Ark). The other is where Israel, walled round with water and roofed by cloud at the Red Sea, were immersed into Moses. (1 Pet.3.20-21; 1 Cor 10. 2).

It is probably advisable to approach this subject by copious reference to Scripture and to ignore the thoughts of commentators. To do this we need a concise statement of the initiation of baptism; and so to commence our travel through an interesting and edifying tenet of Scripture we select Mark 1.5 ". . . and were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins". Did the waters actually wash away their sins? Did their confession of sins secure them forgiveness? The only means whereby sin can be absolved and its penalty remitted is the atoning death of Jesus Christ. At the time of John's mission that had not been achieved, though it was near fulfilment and we may well believe that John's work was in anticipation of coming redemption. Mark 1.4 defines the true work of John and makes a link with the atonement by Christ — "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins". Thus his work was toward, or with a view to, the coming deliverance.

It was proper that those Israelites who regarded John as a prophet sent from God should acknowledge his office by answering his call. They would remember the remarkable circumstances; that he was born as a consequence of Divine intervention. They would have heard of the sign given to his priestly father of the surety of the fulfilment of the promise of a son; he became dumb until the child was born and named according to instructions. The miracles attending his birth were so well known that the people expected great things of him and said "What manner of child shall this be!"

Clearly he was marked as a man of God before his birth; and when thirty years later he began his short lived mission, the question of the priests and Levites "Who are you?" is not to ask his name but to find out his rank and authority. The cry of John in the wilderness calling to repentance and baptism caused the people to muse in their hearts, whether he was the Christ or not (Luke 3. 15). Upon his confession that he was not Christ, their thoughts turn to two other prophesied characters of the O.T.—Elias and "that prophet". But he affirms that he is neither of these. They knew of the promise of Messiah; they knew of the prophecy of the coming one like to Moses and they knew that Elias must first come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. If they could identify him they would satisfy themselves and those back in Jerusalem who had sent them to make enquiries. "Who are you?" they asked (John 1. 20-22). In answer, he tells them that he also is a character prophesied in the Old Testament, mentioned by the prophet Isaiah. Apparently they did not think of the prophecy of the voice in the wilderness, the forerunner of Messiah. Here was a sign of the times. All were in expectation, and by understanding his mission they would realise that Messiah was to come very, very soon. What an answer to those who had sent them! But the questioners wanted further information —"Why do you baptize then, if you are not Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet" (John 1.25). They assumed that only a prophet of very high rank would call Israel to baptism, thus instituting something new to the Mosaic practices in which they were trained. But John does not answer why. They were always more concerned with "Why do you teach?" rather than "What do you teach". It is clear from John's words that as the forerunner of Messiah, He had come to prepare a people for the Lord. Such a people, being baptised and acknowledging their sins (thus admitting they were not satisfied with the clearance from sins made under the ceremonial law) would be the very people fit to accept the coming Messiah. Such was one of the objects of his baptizing mission.

That is not the only reason why John proclaimed baptism. Among the many who came to be immersed was one whom John knew himself unfit to immerse. John knowing his baptism was for remission of sins was surprised that Jesus should ask to be immersed, and felt rather that he himself should be baptised by Jesus. However, he yields to our Lord's request. We might think that of all men He should not be immersed if baptism is for or unto remission of sins. We might think that if He were not immersed He would the more stand out as the sinless one and so be manifest to Israel. Be that as it may, John's instructions were that upon whom he should see the Spirit descending and remaining, He it was for whom he was seeking and thus He would be manifest to Israel. The descent of the Spirit and the voice from heaven saying "This is my beloved Son," sealed John's work. These revealed the Son of God and promptly next day he announced the Lamb of God, He who would give true remission to those who by water baptism had confessed their sins.

In this connection we see a third reason why John came baptizing—that He upon whom the descending Spirit remained would baptize with the Holy Spirit. In verse 33 we have reference to baptism not connected with water, but still the word has the thought of immersion. In fact, the more one considers the allusions to baptism the less do they suggest sprinkling. Nothing more is then said by John about the Holy Spirit, and only by reference to other Scriptures and incidents in the early days of Christianity are we able to see its meaning. However, it will quickly be seen that water immersion is momentary and that the other baptisms are each full of meaning and relate to the whole life of Christians. In fact, water baptism would have seemed fit to have fallen into disuse like the old sacrifices of the law, were it not that our Lord was immersed at the commencement of His ministry. Had our Lord not been immersed Christians would have thought baptism to have been exclusively Jewish and that they were not called upon to observe it. Here we must consider further why Jesus was baptised in water. Later in His ministry (Luke 12. 50) He said He had a baptism to be baptised with and that He was straitened until it was accomplished. Shortly after He had asked the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10. 38) if they were willing to drink of His cup and be baptised with the baptism that He was being baptised with. By this He was plainly showing that baptism related to His immersion into the will of God, which for Him meant baptism into death. And in this view of baptism we may reason that water baptism was an outward sign of the commencement of His great mission, and that His death on Calvary was the outward sign of its fulfilment. The sons of Zebedee would not at that time comprehend the full import of His question to them (and maybe we do not today) but they said they were willing to be immersed with His baptism, and later they followed their Lord into death as faithful witnesses. The words of the apostle John in 1 John 5.6 fittingly corroborate the thought that baptism in its fuller meaning referred to His whole life and death "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth". John clearly has in mind the beginning and end of our Lord's mission, and to maintain the true meaning of our Lord's baptism repeats the words "not by water only, but by water and blood". And said He "It is the Spirit that bears witness". The descending Spirit bore witness at His immersion and again that His baptism unto death fulfilled His mission by descending upon the waiting brethren at Pentecost. John further adds "There are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one". They agree in one eternal testimony to Him whose life on earth was summed up in one word, "baptism". Thus we may see, that Jesus' baptism in water was not for the remission of sins like other Israelites, but was a beautiful portrayal of His immersion into the will of God. This being one of the meanings of baptism, no Christians who are willing to follow their Lord would object to water immersion for themselves, for the servant is not above his Lord. We may of course reason that water baptism as a means of cleansing from sin could be applicable to themselves but never applicable to their Lord, but we must remember that water immersion does not remove sin - in fact, it cannot. We know that forgiveness of sins ensues as a gracious gift of God upon their belief in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. We may refer to washing away of sins, as in Acts 22.16 but we know in ourselves that the calling on the name of the Lord is the effectual means of cleansing, not the water immersion. So then freeing our minds from all thoughts of remission of our sins by immersion, we can, as did our Lord, use water immersion as a symbol of our willingness to be immersed into the will of God. And what a fine portrayal there is, in the fact of total immersion! But having said that, we must remember that water immersion is only a symbol, and the real immersion into the will of God is far more important than the symbol. We say this because many Christians in time past faithfully did the will of God as they saw it, but had not been immersed in water, and we cannot think that their standing before God is jeopardized by their lack of knowledge or compliance. But for ourselves, if we see it as a symbol and remember that the Lord Himself was immersed, we also should comply.

We must return in our thoughts to the prophet John's words in John 1.33. "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit". We have seen that these prophetic words began to be fulfilled when the Spirit bore witness by coming upon the waiting disciples at Pentecost. To these words of John should be linked the words of our Lord in Acts 1. 5 "For John baptized with water; but before many days you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit". Upon the phenomenal descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, Peter rises to explain to his Jewish brethren that this is also in fulfilment of the prophet Joel's words. He concludes his remarks by urging them to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus whereupon they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This cannot be a repetition of John the Baptist's call, for John made no appeal in the name of the Lord Jesus. But now that Christ had been crucified and raised from the dead "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved", and it was manifest that any appeal to Jews to return to harmony with God should come through Him. In considering Acts 2. 38. it should not be assumed that water immersion is immediately followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. In fact there is no evidence as to when these 3000 souls received this gift. In Acts 8 we read of Samaritans being baptised (for the invitation was no longer exclusively Jewish) in the name the Lord Jesus and yet they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the arrival of the Apostles from Jerusalem, who prayed for them and laid hands on them. Can we suppose that the Holy Spirit would have been withheld from any true Samaritan convert to the faith, if the Apostles had not intervened? It is difficult to assess the true position of Samaritans at that time. It seems that, beholding miracles and hearing the words of Philip, they believed and were baptised with speed and readiness - perhaps too readily, for baptism should not be hastily entered upon, and it appears that one of their number was not right before God. We leave them, as did Philip, who was called away by the Spirit to assist the eunuch of Candace, who with his inquiring mind and love of the Scriptures rings true. From the narrative (Acts 8. 36) we observe that the first mention of baptism comes from the eunuch himself. Upon requesting immersion they both go down into the water, clearly for total immersion. And here it should be remembered that verse 37 is not to be found in the three most dependable manuscripts. This may not seem of great moment, for the question supposedly made to the eunuch seems appropriate. Yet it is far better to think that the eunuch (as should all other candidates) asked for immersion rather than Philip asked him and required him to make a declaration of faith before he would immerse him. The responsibility for immersion is the candidate's, and we should believe that any Christian asking for baptism has by that request declared his faith. (The responsibility in the companion ordinance, the Lord's supper, is the partaker's who should examine himself - 1 Cor. 11. 28).

Another enlightening event in the practice of baptism among Christians is revealed in Acts 10 and 11. The story is vividly detailed by the writer and readers may well think it to be a turning-point in God's dealings with those outside the Jewish nation. We should read the narrative carefully for some are anxious to read into the story that Cornelius was, if not a proselyte of the temple, at least a proselyte of the gate. It is therefore assumed that the entry of Gentiles into equal standing with Jews commenced under the apostleship of Paul rather than of Peter. The thrice repeated vision to Peter and his plain words on the subject leave no doubt in unbiased minds that God was from then on dealing with Gentiles as never before. Particular notice must be taken of some incidents in the story of Cornelius. First, that both Peter and he had visions. but whereas Cornelius complied with the angel's instructions immediately, Peter did not move in the matter until the vision had three times been given him. And we note that the devout Gentile is quick to respond to the heavenly call, but that the servant of God is slower to act, so ingrained in his Jewish mind are the traditions of Israel. But he acts at the request of the three men whom Cornelius sent, and still with the vision in his mind, goes back with his men to Caesarea. Cornelius is clearly expecting them, and on Peter's arrival falls down to worship him. It is to Peter's credit that he will not permit anyone to worship him because he is a servant of God. Peter hears the story of Cornelius' vision and could not withstand the clear leading of heaven, and so he preaches Christ to the assembled enquirers. While he speaks, the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles, thus indicating God's blessing and acceptance of their devotion and belief. Here we should note that the Holy Spirit was given to these Gentiles before they were baptised in water. This undoubtedly proves that baptism of the Holy Spirit is not dependent upon water baptism; and that water baptism is a symbol. Gentile immersion was not in response to John's call to baptism for the remission of sins. On Peter's return to Jerusalem, the story had preceded him. Some still had Jewish bias and contended with him, but when Peter rehearsed the matter they held their peace, realizing that by the gift of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles, God had shown that they also were now acceptable to him. Peter saw, in all this, further fulfilment of our Lord's words (Acts 1. 5; 11. 16; Matt. 3. 11).

We cannot leave the Acts of the Apostles without another reference to those early days. We read in Acts 18. 24-26 of a Jew mighty in the Scriptures, yet knowing only the baptism of John; and because the purpose of God had progressed beyond his knowledge, two faithful brethren expounded to him the way of the Lord more perfectly. They showed to him that the way of approach to God had changed through the coming, death and resurrection of Christ. The very next verses in ch.19 show the lack of knowledge among some disciples at Ephesus. Although it was perhaps seventeen years after Pentecost, they had not heard of the Holy Spirit and had been baptised with John's baptism. Briefly, the teaching of Paul's reply (v. 4) is that John's baptism is outdated by the coming of Christ. These Ephesians were then baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus and received the Holy Spirit.

These striking references in the Acts show the change in baptism since John's days. The practice of water baptism does not cease, but its meaning alters and there is the newer baptism of the Holy Spirit fulfilling our Lord's promises. Later, when Paul wrote to the brethren at Ephesus, he would think of these twelve brethren when he said (Eph.4.5) that there was one baptism. What baptism does Paul mean? It is unlikely that he means water immersion for of that subject he says very little. Surely he means that as concerns the Church there is but one Baptism, even as there is one Body and one Spirit. By holding to these we shall keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In an earlier letter he explains the relationship of the one baptism to the one Body - that the one Spirit has baptized us, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, into the one Body of Christ. Thus we see in 1Cor.12.13 and other words by Paul, such as Gal.3.27, Col.2.12 and Rom.6.3, the full development of the Bible teaching on baptism. The story begins with the immersing of Jews, who, confessing their sins, were preparing themselves for the first coming of Messiah, and it is retained in the Christian Church as a symbol of their willingness to be immersed into the will of God. Those who accept this willingness of heart to do His will He baptizes with the Holy Spirit. This shedding forth of the Holy Spirit is the means whereby He sets the members in the body, or in other words, baptizes them into the body of Christ. He, noting those willing to be baptized with Christ's baptism, promises that if they are planted or immersed into His death they shall be in the likeness of His resurrection. These two are inseparable—he who is baptised into the body of Christ will also be baptised into His death. And in all these considerations we come to the full Bible meaning of the word baptism, immersion in whatever province it is used by the inspired writers.

BJD