Baptism in Context

Rev. Jim Jester

July 7, 2024

SCRIPTURE READING: Ezekiel 36:22-25

“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. 23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.”

INTRODUCTION

I have spoken on this topic about two years ago. But recently, someone asked me about Baptism, so this sermon is the result of that. Keep in mind that I am not trying to make enemies here, so I am not picking on my Baptist friends. I simply want to give the topic some balance, since in my lifetime I have seen lots of imbalance on the subject. And, I want you to see how different a subject can actually be when considered in the light of its full Scriptural context (not just part of the Word).

I was baptized as a teenager in the Indian River, Delaware, because our family went to a church that baptized. Later we moved to another county and since it was farther away we changed churches and went to the Nazarene church. Most of them baptized and one of their new churches being built even installed a Baptismal (I was one of the plumbers). I thought, “Why add so much more expense to the church building fund?” I felt like it was a waste for something that was not necessary to the worship of God — already, I was developing an attitude. I have never been a Baptist, but I listened to Baptists quite often on the radio. I never was fully convinced of their doctrines — but whatever — if they are of such an opinion, then so be it. I always felt like I wanted the reality of the Christ life rather than some sort of symbol representing it.

Anyway, when Baptists preached about Baptism they tended to condemn anyone who did not believe like them; as if to say (and sometimes did), “You’re on your way to Hell.” “Now wait a minute,” I would think, “Is that really true?” So during my career, working on the job, or not, I had theological discussions rolling around in my head in search of truth. No one has to believe the way I do; it is OK to disagree. You may never have heard that there is another side to the story on Baptism. And when I am done here, you may still disagree, and that’s OK because it is not a salvation issue; although there are some churches that believe it is.

In our opening Scripture we find a great lesson. God first separates Israel physically from the heathen by putting them in their own land, then He is to clean them up on the inside. This implies that if we are not separated physically from the wicked, then we cannot expect to be kept clean on the inside. I think all Christians realize that the purity of their heart, the internal motivation and intentions, are of prime importance. We expect this kind of reality above any symbolism related to the Christian experience. One of those symbols in the Christian church is the rite of Baptism.

BAPTISM AND BURIAL

It is normal that when we hear the word “baptism” the idea of water usually enters the mind. This make sense because truly there are times that the word does imply water. Since the word means “to wash” then it is evident that some water must be involved. And it is true that one of the meanings of the word is to “immerse” or “dip.” Thayer provides three definitions for baptizo (G907), one of which says, “to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one ’s self, bathe.”

But Baptists, and others, seem to be pre-occupied with water: Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to miss. This is unfortunate and almost borders on what I call “hydrolatry.” I use this term because some have overly stressed their opinion on the subject, without giving consideration for a reasonable argument against their view; thus implying that anyone in disagreement with them must be stupid. And truly, some immersionists do have some unfounded assumptions as a basis for their view. Evidently, their emphasis on immersion in their seminaries have caused many to overlook the context of Scripture.

I will start with one of the favorite verses that Baptists use to support their immersion theory, Acts 8:38-39,

“And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip…”

In this passage, all the immersionist sees are the phrases, “they went down both into the water” in verse 38, and, “when they were come up out of the water” in verse 39. So they say, “See, Philip baptized the eunuch by immersion!” But, if “they went down both” means immersion, then Philip and his friend were baptized together as they dipped themselves. However, what the Greek actually means in these two phrases is that they went to and from the water within the banks of the river. The word “into” (G1519 eis) can also be translated “to” or “towards” the water. Verse 38 plainly says that, “…He baptized him.” So, they did not immerse themselves simultaneously in water, rather, Philip used the water to sprinkle his friend. It was not a joint baptism that took place. The verses simply indicate that they went to and from the water, but there is no proof of immersion.

Immersionists tend to point to the meaning of the word “baptism” rather than how that word is used in Scripture. They will take the meaning of “immersion” rather than the meaning “to wash” and then apply it to their supposed proof texts, such as this one speaking about burial:

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)

At first glance of this verse a “burial in water” seems to be obvious here. And it appears that way because most people (especially Baptists) think of water when they hear the word “baptism.” But this is a mistake for two reasons: 1) There is no proof here of water being present, and 2) The context reveals “death” as the topic. The word “baptism” does not always imply water, but sometimes refers to other things (as we shall see). Take a look at this verse again. Do you see the words “baptism into death?” And note the previous verse that reinforces this: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3) Death is also mentioned in verse two. Thus, we have “death” mentioned three times in this paragraph, and it continues throughout the chapter. “Death” is the context, not water. Again, it is not so much of how a word is defined, but how that word is used in context.

Concerning a burial, in our day we let a body down into the earth; but in the times of our Lord in Palestine, burials were not lowering a body into the earth, but the body was placed into a cave. So this symbol of “burying” in water is not quite the same. Still, Baptists will interpret burying as “hiding” (and I can agree), while at the same time assert that Baptism is a personal witness of their faith, which is nearly a contradiction of terms. Jesus said, “If I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (Jn. 12:32; speaking of His death) So, it is not about us, it’s about Him. It is not about the Christian lifted up out of the water, or raising to new life (although true) in a ritual; it is about what our Lord did for us on the cross.

In context then, there is no baptism or burial into water; there is only a “baptism” (or immersion) into death. That “death” is the end of your own selfish life, in favor of the Christ life! Another verse that mentions a baptism of death is found in Matthew:

“But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.” (Matt. 20:22)

Jesus was simply immersed in a personal tribulation over what He was about to face on the cross. And He challenged his disciples: “Are ye able said the Master, to be crucified with me? Yea, the sturdy dreamers answered, to the death we follow Thee!” (A hymn) Yes, we are immersed in the will and the way of our Lord.

JOHN’S BAPTISM

Another verse that immersionists use to prove their position is the “much water” verse found in John’s gospel:

“And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.” (Jn. 3:23)

“Much water” here simply means “plenty of water” or “many springs.” It is not proof of immersion. One commentator provides this information:

“John ’s preaching attracted great multitudes. It appears that they remained with him probably many days. In most parts of that country, particularly in the hilly region near where John preached, it was difficult to find water to accommodate the necessities of the people, and perhaps also, of the camels with which those from a distance would come. To meet their necessities, as well as for the purpose of baptizing, he selected a spot that was well watered with springs and rivulets. Whether the ordinance of baptism was performed by immersion or in any other mode, the selection of a place well watered was proper and necessary. The mention of the fact that there was much water there, and that John selected that as a convenient place to perform his office as a baptizer, proves nothing in regard to the mode in which the ordinance was administered, since he would naturally select such a place, whatever the mode.” (Barnes)

Immersionists always want to stress “burial” and “much water” but fail to mention the other meaning of the Greek word baptizo, “to wash.” The following verse reveals the context of washing with water, not necessarily “burying” in water.

“And when they come from the market, except they wash [baptizō] they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” (Mk. 7:4)

One cannot always prove a point in Scripture only by the meaning of the word used; rather, one must consider the context of how that word is used. So, the word “baptism” does not always prove immersion. Context often overrules the simple meaning of a single word, and indeed it should.

Palestine is a very arid area and water was scarce. With the crowds John had, how could he have taken time to go through a ceremony and personally dip each person three times in the deepest part of the river Jordan? And besides this, wouldn’t it be quite difficult for women to have a change of clothing after being immersed? This could turn out to be a scandalous ministry for an immersionist. Sometimes sensationalism can play a role in a Baptismal service.

What immersionists seem to forget, is that John’s baptism was still under the Old Testament system, which of course Jesus Christ had to fulfill as role of priest for His people. At this time, the law required this “washing” (baptism) of Jesus. Most Baptists will argue that they baptize because they are following the example of Jesus and John. But this misses the whole point of why Jesus came to make the sacrifice for us, because we could not make it for ourselves.

THE RITUAL DEFINED

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible defines Baptism:

“BAPTISM—This term, which designates a N.T.rite, is confined to the vocabulary of the N.T. It does not occur in the LXX, neither is the verb with which it is connected ever used of an initiatory ceremony. This verb is a derivative from one which means ‘to dip ’ (Jn. 13:26, Rev. 19:13), but itself has a wider meaning, = ‘to wash ’ whether the whole or part of the body, whether by immersion or by the pouring of water (Mk. 7:4, Lk. 11:38). The substantive is used (a) of Jewish ceremonial washings (Mk. 7:4, Heb. 9:10); (b) in a metaphorical sense (Mk. 10:38, Lk. 12:50; cf. ‘plunged in calamity’); and (c) most commonly in the technical sense of a religious ceremony of initiation.” [emphasis mine]

From this quote are a number of references. We have already seen Mark 7:4 (above);“…the washing [baptismos] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” Now, Hebrews 9:10; “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings [baptismos], and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”

My purpose in showing you the definition is to point out that the writers are describing Baptism (substantive) as a “rite” in both cases. A rite is a ritual or ceremony, and is usually considered an ordinance (a must) in most churches. Yet the Bible nowhere makes the word “baptism” a substantive.

Many Baptists have tried to justify their position with a theory they call “Believer’s Baptism.” But are they to say then, that cups, pots, vessels and tables must “believe” before they can be washed? [Don’t think so] They also apply this logic to babies, thus, they refuse to baptize babies; in spite of the fact that the rite of Baptism replaced the rite of Circumcision for the male Israelite baby, of which, no “belief” was required or necessary. Whole households were baptized in the N.T.

And, what is meant by the “reformation” spoken of in Hebrews 9:10 (above)? It is obviously the time begun by Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood. “But when that which is perfect[complete]is come[the Christ], then that which is in part shall be done away.”(I Cor. 13:10) Thus, there is no need for a ritual of “cleansing,” or a ceremony of initiation into a church, because our Lord’s sacrifice has already cleansed us and admitted us into his kingdom.

THE GREAT COMMISSION

Many churches stress the rite of Baptism because they believe our Lord sanctioned such a ritual in the Great Commission;

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt. 28:19-20)

The main point here is, that there is no language used by Jesus that would indicate He meant to institute a permanent ritual of Baptism. In support:

1) The word “baptizing” is not a substantive (not capitalized).

2) The trinitarian formula (many Baptists dip a person 3 times) stands alone here in this verse; it is found nowhere else in the entire New Testament. The trinitarian formula is not found in Mark’s account.

3) Furthermore, this entire account in Mark 16:9-20 is not in the original text; it lacks in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

4) Mark’s account also sounds very universal in that it says, “…preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mk. 16:15) “Creature” refers to all creation. It has been reported that the Catholic Church was responsible for these alterations in Scripture.

5) The context reveals that the topic here is teaching(teach appears twice) not water baptism. I would render this passage; “Go and teach all nations, immersing them in the name[not water] of our God, teaching them to follow all I have commanded, and yes, I am with you always, even till the end of the age.”

So, I do not believe Jesus meant to institute a rite of Baptism for the church.

BAPTISM ABOLISHED

It is admitted by most theologians that Baptism replaced Circumcision and that the Eucharist replaced Passover. This assertion is seen in all the theological commentaries and treatises. Historically, this is true; but the fact remains, as Paul confirms, the Law was “abolished” as the means of justification. “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”(Eph. 2:15) Since Circumcision is gone as an ordinance, so likewise, Baptism is gone as an ordinance.

The action of a ritual does not administer grace upon us, only God does. Never is the grace of our Lord said to be dependent upon the believer partaking in a ritual. How could any priest or minister cleanse (baptize) with water that which God has already cleansed? Why would one seek cleansing with water, when we are told that cleansing is by the Word (Jn. 17:17; Eph. 5:26)? We conclude that the rituals of the Old Testament were inferior and failed to help Israel live for God:

For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope [Christ], through which we draw nigh unto God.”(Heb. 7:18-19, ASV)

Since there was a setting aside of the former command, why would a new substitute ritual be needed to replace the old ritual? It wouldn’t: For if Circumcision was done away, so likewise, Baptism was not needed! “…For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”(Gal. 2:16)

Ritual cleansing, of which the baptism of persons was a form (see it of the priests in Ex. 40:12-13& Lev. 8:6-12), like the other “works” (rituals) of the law, had its time and place. But Paul tells us time and again that the works of the law have been done away with.

WATER BAPTISM FADES OUT

When we examine the book of Acts, we find a few examples of the continuing use of Baptism (Acts chapters 8 & 10). As Peter was speaking to the other apostles in Jerusalem, he related what had happened at Caesarea (in Acts 10) and said:

“And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 11:15-16)

So John the Baptist, while baptizing, prophesied of a better baptism; that of the Holy Ghost. Then, Acts 18:25 speaks of Apollos:

“This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. 26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” (Acts 18:25-26)

So Aquila and Priscilla did not use water baptism on this man, but instead explained to him the way of God more accurately. These two examples reveal that baptism was fading out of use. A third example is in chapter 19, which also stresses the baptism of the Holy Ghost as did Acts 11:16 above. After this event there is little comment about anyone being baptized by water in the remainder of the book of Acts. While the baptism of John had its purpose, time and place with the advent of our Lord, it is far exceeded by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as John himself had predicted.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, immersionists take one meaning of a word (baptizo) and then run with it as the only meaning in order to support their view. They tend to overlook other meanings, while ignoring the context of how that particular word is used.

The ritual of Baptism does not affect our redemption. Denominational churches have kept this custom alive as an ordinance. I don’t believe it wrong for a church to use this custom for membership or for Christening and naming babies. Furthermore, they can use any method they like: immersion, sprinkling, or whatever. But in my view, if Baptism is even used at all, the preferred biblical method would be either sprinkling or pouring; as proven by the types and figures seen in the Old Testament. The word “sprinkle” is used 31 times and “pour” is used 59 times in the O.T. In addition to our opening Scripture reading, note these verses:

“6 And Moses brought nigh Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water… 10 And Moses took of the anointing oil, 11 and sprinkled of it seven times on the altar; and anointed the altar, and hallowed it, and all things on it, and the laver, and its foot, and sanctified them; and anointed the tabernacle and all its furniture, and hallowed it. 12 And Moses poured of the anointing oil on the head of Aaron; and he anointed him and sanctified him.” (Lev. 8:6, 10-12, Brenton LXX)

“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.” (Ez. 36:25)

In the New Testament:

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”(Heb. 10:22)

The context of this verse is obviously of a spiritual nature, pointing to both inward and outward sin. It is not depicting a literal Baptism, nor water.

“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea…”(I Cor. 10:1-2)

I ask: Who was baptized unto (or in relation to) Moses? Who were under the cloud and passed through the sea? It says here that they were “baptized.” Were the children of Israel immersed in this baptism? No; although they were immersed in the Law by way of Moses. But Israel very well may have been sprinkled by the cloud. They might have caught some spray coming from the sea that stood on both sides of their caravan. It says they were baptized “in the cloud and in the sea.” Did they get wet? No! Israel was not immersed by the water, but they passed through on dry ground. So, who was immersed with water? The Egyptians, who were chasing them — they were baptized by immersion! Were they Christians?

The Apostle Paul asserted many times that the Old Covenant was gone, including the ordinance of Circumcision. Christian Baptism took the place of the former ordinance without any Scriptural authority. Paul admitted that he baptized his first convert, Stephanas, and his household. But then he seems to have forgotten others, as if to imply some indifference, and that none of this mattered any longer; although not disparaging Baptism. “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”(I Cor. 1:16) Truly a fascinating statement by Paul that should settle the concept of “baptismal regeneration” that some churches hold. Then Paul confirms his stand in the very next verse:

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”(I Cor. 1:17)

Paul must have been too busy to baptize the many converts, or others may have done this for him. And Paul was quite diplomatic, being careful not to cause any division within the churches. He implies he was done with Baptisms, and states in Ephesians 4:5, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” If there is only “one baptism,” then which one is it? Is it the one with water that has been done away with according to Paul? Could it be the same one that John the Baptist spoke of concerning our Lord? “…He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” (Matt. 3:11)? Surely, it must be! Having the substance of salvation is more important than having the symbol.

One should remember that Baptism was not exclusive to Christians. The rite of Baptism by immersion has been the custom of all pagan religions, including Judaism, for thousands of years. I don’t believe Jesus and his disciples used immersion; but rather, sprinkled water on their converts as they stood ankle deep in whatever water was available.

Let the immersionists have all the water they want. I prefer the Holy Ghost, whom John the baptizer said our Lord would provide as the Comforter. Immersionists want a whole lot of water. But why not a whole lot of the Holy Spirit? I feel like Paul, who said, “Christ sent me not to baptize…” (I Cor. 1:17a) Is it Jesus + Baptism; or is it Jesus + nothing?

Recommended follow up reading:  John the Baptizer