Baptism
BAPTISM
The Pre-Christian History of Baptism
1. Physical bathing
2. Spiritual value attached through time
3. John the Baptist
We don't have much information in regards to the origin of baptism. It is certainly doubtful, though, that John's baptism came out of a vacuum. I suggest there was a natural evolution. Bathing in water is, of course, cross-cultural. Many of the ancients saw themselves as a body/soul unity and, so, naturally began to associate physical cleansing as having spiritual value as well. Judaism, by no means, monopolized this evolution, but we can see it, to some degree in the ceremonial washings present with Judaism as well as the healing of Naaman in 2nd Kings 5:10. By the days of John the Baptist there were, perhaps, a multitude of people 'baptizing' in one way or another. It seems to have devoloped into a right of passage into a new community. We know, from history, that not long after John & Jesus' ministry, the Jews began to baptize gentile converts (into Judaism). John's baptism had much the same meaning. Post-exilic Israel hadn't experience a 'true' return from exile. They were still subjected to Roman rule. The temple wasn't as beautiful as in the days of Solomon. A large scale national repentance hadn't taken place. The Messiah hadn't come. Etc. John's call to 'repent and be baptized' was not so much a call to individual repentance (though it was that too) as it was a call to be part of the 'true' Jewish community set to experience the true return from exile. John was preparing the way for the Messiah who would indeed begin a powerful kingdom and build a glorious temple. Those who wanted to be 'in' Israel had to be people of repentance. Baptism was the doorway.
Jesus & Baptism
1. He was baptized in water. Why?
--It was a sign that his ministry was beginning
--It was an endorsement of John’s ministry
--It was identification with humanity
--It was an example for us to follow
--It was a demonstration of God’s nature
2. He, personally, didn’t baptize people in water
3. He did, however, endorse water baptism
4. He baptized the church with the Holy Spirit
As John's ministry was flourishing, Jesus came onto the scene seeking baptism from John. There is some mystery in this. Why would Jesus need to be baptized? Baptism involved repentance and entry into a new family, but Jesus didn't need to repent and was the head of the new family. There are multiple reasons why God chose for Jesus to be baptized, beginning, of course, with the reason Jesus gave to John. He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. In being baptized Jesus did what every Jew at the time should have been doing. He set the example for all future followers. Beyond this, the baptism of Jesus was an endorsement of John's ministry, let alone an endorsement of Jesus Himself. Further, it was an opportunity to show God's triune nature (Father's voice, Spirit as a dove, Son being baptized).
Jesus, soon after being baptized, began His ministry. Interestingly enough, though, it doesn't seem that He personally, ever gave people a water baptism. John 3:22 indicates that He oversaw water baptisms, but John 4:1 indicates that He wasn't the one actually performing the act. I would speculate that Jesus didn't baptize for a number of reasons: First, if Jesus would have personally baptized, the recipients may have viewed themselves as 'higher' in rank than other disciples. Second, Jesus was to give a separate baptism, as predicted by John, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In that sense, Jesus did indeed baptize.
In New Covenant Scriptures, there are multiple types of baptism.
1. Baptism of water
2. Baptism of the Holy Spirit
3. Baptism of fire (debated below)
4. Baptism of suffering
What is Christian Water Baptism?
1. It is a symbol of one’s death to self (Romans 6:3-4)
2. It is a symbol of one’s life in Christ (Romans 6:5, Colossians 2:12)
3. It is a symbol of one’s entrance into the church (Ephesians 4:5)
4. It is a symbol of one’s spiritual cleansing (for the forgiveness of sins)
5. It is a symbol of one’s receiving of the Spirit (usually around same time)
Sometimes in Acts, a group had received water baptism, but had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16). Other times, however, a group had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but had not yet received water baptism (Acts 10:47). It seems, then, that the order is not always the same, but both baptisms are very important.
Other baptisms mentioned in Scripture are the baptism of suffering (Mark 10:38, Luke 12:50) and the baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11). The latter has been interpreted in various ways:
The baptism of fire is....
1. Another name for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (fulfilled w/tongues of fire)
2. Zeal (ie. that person is 'on fire' for God)
3. Persecution/Suffering (one going 'through a fire')
4. It is the other option besides being baptized with the Spirit
Either 1 or 4 seem like good interpretations to me. In favor of view #4, possibly, is the context (Matthew 3:10-12). Verse 10 describes 2 options (fruit bearing tree vs. dead tree destined for the fire). Verse 12 describes 2 options as well (wheat vs. chaff destined for the fire). If we read the middle verse (11) in the same way then we have 2 options there as well (baptism of the Spirit vs. baptism of fire). If this interpretation is correct, then Christians want nothing to do with the baptism of fire!
Various Questions Regarding Baptism
1. When should one be baptized?
The model in Scripture is baptism upon belief/repentance (usually immediately). Some make a case for 'infant baptism.' I've heard some decent arguments for this, but it still goes entirely against the grain of Scriptural example. Some point to the jailer's whole household being baptized in Acts 16:33, but the context also says the whole household believed. Some point to infant circumcision and baptism as the anti-type of that practice, but the anti-type of circumcision is circumcision of the heart, not baptism, in my opinion. All that being said, I leave room for infant baptism as an acceptable, though not recommended practice.
2. What is the proper method of baptism?
There are 3 common methods of baptism: Immersion, pouring & sprinkling. The word baptism, in the Greek, actually means immersion/dipping. Immersion is also the biblical model. If enough water is available, according to the Didache, immersion is the preferred method since it best displays the symbolism of baptism (death to self, raised in Christ). I speculate that other modes of baptism evolved out of special circumstances (not enough water available, infants being baptized, the sick or elderly being baptized, etc).
3. Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Some claim that baptism is mandatory for salvation. 3 verses are primarily used to show this: Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16 & 1 Peter 3:21.
I disagree with that interpretation of the Mark passage for 2 reasons. First, this is a disputable section of Mark. Second, if Jesus did say this He doesn't address believers who haven't been baptized. He mentions believer's who have been baptized. Then he mentions non-believers (perhaps purposefully leaving baptism out of the second half of the sentence). He simply doesn't address the issue of an unbaptized believer (probably b/c such a scenario was incredibly rare).
I disagree with that interpretation of Acts 22:16 because I associate the washing away of one's sins with 'calling on his name' not with 'be baptized.' We know, for sure, that Paul associated calling on the Lord's name for salvation (Romans 10:13). Our sins are washed, according to the whole of the New Testament, by the blood of Christ, not by the water of baptism.
I disagree with that interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 even though I admit it is the most difficult of the 3 passages to dismiss. 1 Peter 3, as a whole, is a difficult chapter to interpret. I believe the Apostles saw the concept of 'salvation' quite differently that we do today. It was a broader term for them, describing more than just the day one 'got saved.' Conversion & baptism were so closely linked chronologically (in most cases) that to speak of baptism saving a person is not out of line. Plus, Peter seems to go out of his way to state that it's not the water itself that saves us, but the relationship to God. We are saved by raising up with Christ to a newness of life. Baptism simply shows what has already occurred in one's life.
So, in my understanding of Scripture, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Sometimes it doesn't occur because of death (thief on the cross, death bed conversions) and sometimes it doesn't occur due to ignorance (Acts 19). But for those who are aware of the command to be baptized, it is a simple opportunity to show your level of obedience.
4. In whose name are we to be baptized?
Though Jesus clearly commanded the disciples in the Great Commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit, the disciples, in Acts, baptized in Jesus name only. Why? It seems to me that they interpreted baptizing in Jesus name TO BE baptizing in the name of all three. After all, in Christ all the fullness of deity dwelt (Colossians 2:9). Therefore, I am very open to baptizers following Jesus word for word or following the practice of the disciples.
5. Should people get re-baptized?
Many people were baptized as an infant and wonder if they should get re-baptized once they make a personal decision for Christ as a teen/adult. I recommend seeking the Lord on this issue as Scripture doesn't really address the matter. I, personally, decided to be re-baptized. I had been baptized in the United Methodist Church, but when I made a commitment to Christ I was attending a Wesleyan Church. I wanted to respond to what God had done in my life and felt led to be baptized. It is possible that there is a case of re-baptism in Acts 19:5, but the lack of examples is hardly surprising considering the fact that we have no record of infant baptism in Scripture. The issue simply didn't come up in the NT Time frame. Without disrespect for my 'infant baptism,' I would not consider my subsequent experience to be a RE-baptism. I would consider it my true baptism. I think of the first one more as a child dedication. This was the argument of the early anabaptists (they claimed not that they were getting re-baptized, but getting baptized for the first time since infant baptism didn't count).
The Pre-Christian History of Baptism
1. Physical bathing
2. Spiritual value attached through time
3. John the Baptist
We don't have much information in regards to the origin of baptism. It is certainly doubtful, though, that John's baptism came out of a vacuum. I suggest there was a natural evolution. Bathing in water is, of course, cross-cultural. Many of the ancients saw themselves as a body/soul unity and, so, naturally began to associate physical cleansing as having spiritual value as well. Judaism, by no means, monopolized this evolution, but we can see it, to some degree in the ceremonial washings present with Judaism as well as the healing of Naaman in 2nd Kings 5:10. By the days of John the Baptist there were, perhaps, a multitude of people 'baptizing' in one way or another. It seems to have devoloped into a right of passage into a new community. We know, from history, that not long after John & Jesus' ministry, the Jews began to baptize gentile converts (into Judaism). John's baptism had much the same meaning. Post-exilic Israel hadn't experience a 'true' return from exile. They were still subjected to Roman rule. The temple wasn't as beautiful as in the days of Solomon. A large scale national repentance hadn't taken place. The Messiah hadn't come. Etc. John's call to 'repent and be baptized' was not so much a call to individual repentance (though it was that too) as it was a call to be part of the 'true' Jewish community set to experience the true return from exile. John was preparing the way for the Messiah who would indeed begin a powerful kingdom and build a glorious temple. Those who wanted to be 'in' Israel had to be people of repentance. Baptism was the doorway.
Jesus & Baptism
1. He was baptized in water. Why?
--It was a sign that his ministry was beginning
--It was an endorsement of John’s ministry
--It was identification with humanity
--It was an example for us to follow
--It was a demonstration of God’s nature
2. He, personally, didn’t baptize people in water
3. He did, however, endorse water baptism
4. He baptized the church with the Holy Spirit
As John's ministry was flourishing, Jesus came onto the scene seeking baptism from John. There is some mystery in this. Why would Jesus need to be baptized? Baptism involved repentance and entry into a new family, but Jesus didn't need to repent and was the head of the new family. There are multiple reasons why God chose for Jesus to be baptized, beginning, of course, with the reason Jesus gave to John. He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. In being baptized Jesus did what every Jew at the time should have been doing. He set the example for all future followers. Beyond this, the baptism of Jesus was an endorsement of John's ministry, let alone an endorsement of Jesus Himself. Further, it was an opportunity to show God's triune nature (Father's voice, Spirit as a dove, Son being baptized).
Jesus, soon after being baptized, began His ministry. Interestingly enough, though, it doesn't seem that He personally, ever gave people a water baptism. John 3:22 indicates that He oversaw water baptisms, but John 4:1 indicates that He wasn't the one actually performing the act. I would speculate that Jesus didn't baptize for a number of reasons: First, if Jesus would have personally baptized, the recipients may have viewed themselves as 'higher' in rank than other disciples. Second, Jesus was to give a separate baptism, as predicted by John, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In that sense, Jesus did indeed baptize.
In New Covenant Scriptures, there are multiple types of baptism.
1. Baptism of water
2. Baptism of the Holy Spirit
3. Baptism of fire (debated below)
4. Baptism of suffering
What is Christian Water Baptism?
1. It is a symbol of one’s death to self (Romans 6:3-4)
2. It is a symbol of one’s life in Christ (Romans 6:5, Colossians 2:12)
3. It is a symbol of one’s entrance into the church (Ephesians 4:5)
4. It is a symbol of one’s spiritual cleansing (for the forgiveness of sins)
5. It is a symbol of one’s receiving of the Spirit (usually around same time)
Sometimes in Acts, a group had received water baptism, but had not yet received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16). Other times, however, a group had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but had not yet received water baptism (Acts 10:47). It seems, then, that the order is not always the same, but both baptisms are very important.
Other baptisms mentioned in Scripture are the baptism of suffering (Mark 10:38, Luke 12:50) and the baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11). The latter has been interpreted in various ways:
The baptism of fire is....
1. Another name for the baptism of the Holy Spirit (fulfilled w/tongues of fire)
2. Zeal (ie. that person is 'on fire' for God)
3. Persecution/Suffering (one going 'through a fire')
4. It is the other option besides being baptized with the Spirit
Either 1 or 4 seem like good interpretations to me. In favor of view #4, possibly, is the context (Matthew 3:10-12). Verse 10 describes 2 options (fruit bearing tree vs. dead tree destined for the fire). Verse 12 describes 2 options as well (wheat vs. chaff destined for the fire). If we read the middle verse (11) in the same way then we have 2 options there as well (baptism of the Spirit vs. baptism of fire). If this interpretation is correct, then Christians want nothing to do with the baptism of fire!
Various Questions Regarding Baptism
1. When should one be baptized?
The model in Scripture is baptism upon belief/repentance (usually immediately). Some make a case for 'infant baptism.' I've heard some decent arguments for this, but it still goes entirely against the grain of Scriptural example. Some point to the jailer's whole household being baptized in Acts 16:33, but the context also says the whole household believed. Some point to infant circumcision and baptism as the anti-type of that practice, but the anti-type of circumcision is circumcision of the heart, not baptism, in my opinion. All that being said, I leave room for infant baptism as an acceptable, though not recommended practice.
2. What is the proper method of baptism?
There are 3 common methods of baptism: Immersion, pouring & sprinkling. The word baptism, in the Greek, actually means immersion/dipping. Immersion is also the biblical model. If enough water is available, according to the Didache, immersion is the preferred method since it best displays the symbolism of baptism (death to self, raised in Christ). I speculate that other modes of baptism evolved out of special circumstances (not enough water available, infants being baptized, the sick or elderly being baptized, etc).
3. Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Some claim that baptism is mandatory for salvation. 3 verses are primarily used to show this: Mark 16:16, Acts 22:16 & 1 Peter 3:21.
I disagree with that interpretation of the Mark passage for 2 reasons. First, this is a disputable section of Mark. Second, if Jesus did say this He doesn't address believers who haven't been baptized. He mentions believer's who have been baptized. Then he mentions non-believers (perhaps purposefully leaving baptism out of the second half of the sentence). He simply doesn't address the issue of an unbaptized believer (probably b/c such a scenario was incredibly rare).
I disagree with that interpretation of Acts 22:16 because I associate the washing away of one's sins with 'calling on his name' not with 'be baptized.' We know, for sure, that Paul associated calling on the Lord's name for salvation (Romans 10:13). Our sins are washed, according to the whole of the New Testament, by the blood of Christ, not by the water of baptism.
I disagree with that interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 even though I admit it is the most difficult of the 3 passages to dismiss. 1 Peter 3, as a whole, is a difficult chapter to interpret. I believe the Apostles saw the concept of 'salvation' quite differently that we do today. It was a broader term for them, describing more than just the day one 'got saved.' Conversion & baptism were so closely linked chronologically (in most cases) that to speak of baptism saving a person is not out of line. Plus, Peter seems to go out of his way to state that it's not the water itself that saves us, but the relationship to God. We are saved by raising up with Christ to a newness of life. Baptism simply shows what has already occurred in one's life.
So, in my understanding of Scripture, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Sometimes it doesn't occur because of death (thief on the cross, death bed conversions) and sometimes it doesn't occur due to ignorance (Acts 19). But for those who are aware of the command to be baptized, it is a simple opportunity to show your level of obedience.
4. In whose name are we to be baptized?
Though Jesus clearly commanded the disciples in the Great Commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son & Spirit, the disciples, in Acts, baptized in Jesus name only. Why? It seems to me that they interpreted baptizing in Jesus name TO BE baptizing in the name of all three. After all, in Christ all the fullness of deity dwelt (Colossians 2:9). Therefore, I am very open to baptizers following Jesus word for word or following the practice of the disciples.
5. Should people get re-baptized?
Many people were baptized as an infant and wonder if they should get re-baptized once they make a personal decision for Christ as a teen/adult. I recommend seeking the Lord on this issue as Scripture doesn't really address the matter. I, personally, decided to be re-baptized. I had been baptized in the United Methodist Church, but when I made a commitment to Christ I was attending a Wesleyan Church. I wanted to respond to what God had done in my life and felt led to be baptized. It is possible that there is a case of re-baptism in Acts 19:5, but the lack of examples is hardly surprising considering the fact that we have no record of infant baptism in Scripture. The issue simply didn't come up in the NT Time frame. Without disrespect for my 'infant baptism,' I would not consider my subsequent experience to be a RE-baptism. I would consider it my true baptism. I think of the first one more as a child dedication. This was the argument of the early anabaptists (they claimed not that they were getting re-baptized, but getting baptized for the first time since infant baptism didn't count).
posted by matthew at 11:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home