e. Baptism
[10/09/20]
I suppose the first thing that must be established in regard to baptism is whether it is indeed an ordinance or merely a traditional practice. Let me recall to mind the three things that indicate an ordinance as being such: The clear command of God, a sensory element (sign), and application by grace as a seal of the gospel promise. With baptism, do we have the clear command of God? I suppose the obvious place to point for affirmation of this point would be the Great Commission: “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” (Mt 28:19-20a).
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that so much of this commission devolves not to gospel but to law? Teach them to obey My commandments. That’s law in practice, and suggests that discipleship is a matter of learning to obey said commandments. But of course, there’s more to it than that.
For my part, though, I want to take us back to the Old Testament, for that is the foundation upon which the New is established, every bit as much as the Apostolic teaching. Here we will not find reference to the term baptize, but there is plenty said of washing. Let’s turn specifically to the matter of God’s people being consecrated, set apart as holy unto their God. Here, I go back to that point in history when God first caused the Law to be written and made fully known to His people. “The LORD also said to Moses, ‘Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments; and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people’” (Ex 19:10-11).
Here, it is a washing of garments that is, I think, to be reflective of the work of consecration done in the preceding days. Consider that these were a people just recently taken out of brick-making slavery in Egypt, and now marched through sand and sea to arrive here at Mount Sinai. It is questionable whether they had a change of clothes, let alone anything resembling a bath or shower. This was not, one suspects, a pleasant-smelling camp. Before they could consider drawing near to God, they needed some cleaning.
This actually points us back even further, which will in turn point us forward. Look at Abraham’s early practice of hospitality and welcome. “Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring a piece of bread, that you may refresh yourselves; after that you may go on, since you have visited your servant” (Ge 18:4-5). This washing of the feet was, yes, an act of servitude, after a fashion, but of servitude to graciousness, rather than submission to a dominant factor. It was a kindness done to the traveler, for the traveler had, of necessity, dirtied his feet with the dust of travel. Who knows what all it had been necessary to step in as they made their way? We could go into the health aspects of such washing, and even the rather self-serving aspects of doing so, in order to avoid the unpleasant odors, but these are not the primary factors in view for Abraham. The primary factor is gracious hospitality, a kindness shown to those who have come by to visit.
As I say, this points us forward, and the clear reference there is to actually a couple of events in the ministry of Jesus. The obvious one is His taking upon Himself the role of the lowliest household slave in washing the feet of His disciples at the Last Supper (Jn 13:3-10). Peter, of course, was offended to see Jesus so demean Himself. It wasn’t right! But Jesus gently corrected Him, a bit more firmly when Peter at first refused to hear Him. “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” Oh! Well, then, wash away by all means! Wash everything. “Not necessary.” “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” This wasn’t about cleanliness, directly. He’s made that clear. You’re already clean. You’ve already been washed – washed by His word. But this is a matter of learning how to lead in His service. “For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you” (Jn 13:15). On the basis of this declaration, there are those who would suggest that this matter of foot washing is likewise an ordinance. But I observe Jesus did not say, “I gave you a commandment,” but, “I gave you an example.” It’s not the specific act that is being commanded here, but the principle. What is that example? He has served His disciples. He has not basked in their adoration, but taken upon Himself the lowliest of tasks to perform for their benefit. This goes back to the earlier debating amongst the apostles as to which had greater standing in this ministry. But the one who would lead, Jesus insisted, must be servant to all. And here was the example to seal the point. If we would find ordinance in this action, there it is: The ordinance of servant leadership. But I think that may lack some of the other aspects of ordinance.
I said, though, that there were a couple of events reflective of Abraham’s practice here. I think of Jesus’ dinner with Simon the Pharisee. A woman of ill repute entered in upon his dinner party, came to Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. Talk about demeaning! Now, I might think to ask how it is that she felt so free to just come wandering into the house of a Pharisee, but leave that aside. Simon, of course, was utterly put out by this act. How could this supposed prophet allow the likes of her to even come near him, let alone undertake such an activity, and that, in polite company! But Jesus took the opportunity for a lesson. “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little” (Jn 7:44-47). You see again the association of this washing of feet not so much with sanctification and baptism, but with simple hospitality. All the comparisons Jesus makes here point to standards of hospitality. How should you treat a guest? All of that, Simon had neglected in the case of Jesus. We do not know if he had likewise neglected the duties of hospitality toward his other guests, but one suspects not. Jesus was not so much guest in his house as entertainment, from his perspective. He was a curiosity to amuse the true guests.
Back, then, to this matter of washing. Establishing the priesthood, we see Moses instructed to bring Aaron and his sons to the tent of meeting, but before they serve, it is necessary to wash them with water, and this, before they are dressed in the clothing of their office as priests (Ex 29:4). There is a cleansing needed here. So, too, the sacrifice (Ex 29:17). It shall need washing before it is offered up. Then, on this basis, we see that a laver is set between the tent of meeting and the altar for washing (Ex 40:30-31), in which Moses and the priesthood washed their hands and feet before approaching the altar. This, we are told, was “just as the LORD had commanded Moses.” We have a commandment, and we have it echoed in the practice and the final commandment of Jesus.
Let me offer one last linkage before I move on. “Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Mt 3:1-2). Note the practice: He was baptizing, this one whom Jesus later declared the greatest of the prophets, whom we account the last of the Old Testament prophets, being as he is the forerunner to Christ. Note the message: “Repent!” Prepare yourself for the kingdom. You are nearing the tent of meeting, you kingdom of priests. Washing is not a matter of clean bodies and smelling better. It’s a matter of spiritual washing, stripping away the corruption of sin and coming clean before your Lord. Note also the response: “He saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism” (Mt 3:7a). They didn’t view this as some aberrant practice. They came to participate. Their motives may have been off, but they appear to have found nothing here that was not in continuity with Mosaic practices. But note also John’s response: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance” (Mt 3:7b-8).
Let us understand, then, that baptism is not the achievement of sanctification in any sense, but rather a symbolic action undertaken in keeping with those true fruits of repentance. This is not some consecrating action by which to ensure the future standing of an individual, but rather a recognition of the present standing. It begins, certainly in John’s practice, as a recognition of repentance.
I see, with this, that I am moving into the third qualification of ordinance. The second is sufficiently plain to see. There is a visceral, sensory element involved. Is there, in the symbolic act, that which seals after its fashion the gospel promise to the participant?
[10/10/20]
I think I might start this portion of the exploration of our topic with Paul’s retelling of the event of his own conversion. More specifically, I want to consider that part of the telling which concerns his encounter with Ananias of Damascus. “And a certain Ananias, a man who was devout by the standards of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing near said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very time I looked up at him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and hear. And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’” (Ac 22:12-16).
We could pursue any number of thoughts regarding that exchange, but I am trying to remain focused on matters of baptism. First, I note that as far as order goes, baptism appears to be coincident or prior to cleansing in this instance. I am going to stress appearances, though for one reason: We have this, “The God of our fathers has appointed you…”. The call has already gone forth, and God’s Word, having gone forth, does not return to Him void, without having accomplished all His good purpose (Isa 55:11). If God has appointed, I think it is sufficiently plain that the cleansing has to have transpired. I must grant that there have been those used of God throughout history who were not in fact His. As it happens to have come up in this morning’s readings, Cyrus comes to mind. Here was a man used of God, even prophesied of in accordance with God’s pronouncements. Yet, so far as we know, he was no godly man. We could review those various nations sent against Israel to drive her to repentance, yet those nations were not in pursuit of holiness, nor were they redeemed by being so used.
But here, the appointment is rather specific, isn’t it? Appointed to know the will of God, to see God. Okay, right there we have assurance of cleansing. For none can see God and live. That is established. So, too, is the reason that this is so. It is not simply that human frailty renders the shock too great to survive. After all, Adam and Eve saw God. And then, they saw Him no more, and what was the reason? The reason was the stain of sin upon them. It is not man that cannot survive contact with God, but sin. The problem for man in his present state is that sin is so all encompassing that its death must be his own. God’s holiness cannot come into contact with sinful man without there being judgment upon his sins, and apart from the redeeming sacrifice of Christ, that judgment must have its due in the death of the sinner. That gets far afield of the present topic, but not so far as to be disconnected from it.
While the words would seem to connect the act of baptism with the effect of cleansing from sin, it would be quite incorrect to suppose that the act achieves the effect. Rather, it is a symbolic observance of a reality already obtained. “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized 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” (Ro 6:3-4). “He who has died is freed from sin” (Ro 6:7). This is observance of a past, accomplished event, not the achieving of that end itself.
Here, then, is another aspect of what transpires in baptism. I do think we see in that message from Romans the chief significance of the ordinance. It marks our association with both the death and the resurrection life of our Lord and Savior. It is a full and public identifying with Him, as well. But then there is also this: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1Co 12:13). Baptism, then, becomes something of a door unto belonging. “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:27-28). Now, obviously, those societal and physical distinctions in fact remain fully evident. That is not the point being made here. The point is that whatever those distinctions, the unifying reality of being one remain.
I could turn back to the image of marriage, and that one-flesh relationship which God forms in the union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. Trust me. Both remain distinct individuals, with their own individual ideas and pursuits. Both retain their physical differences, their intellectual differences, their emotional differences. Yet they are one. So, too, the Church, yet on a much larger scale. It is not that we suddenly march in lock-step, with but one thought in our communal heads. But we are one, belonging to one Christ, and in pursuit of that which will magnify the glory of His name. We have willingly, publicly, permanently identified ourselves with this, our Lord.
But it remains a marker of accomplished history for us. I have been called, and I have answered. I have become a disciple of this Jesus, and so proclaiming, I enter into baptism in His name. I fully identify with Him. I take upon myself the shame of His death, as He who died has accepted me. I take upon myself the glorious transformation of His resurrection, as He who rose has granted it to me. I declare my death to sin in His death. I declare my aliveness to righteousness in His life.
Yet, we all know, who have been baptized – and for that matter, they know who observe us – that what we have confessed in baptism has not transpired in full, as concerns our present existence. We are still prone to sin in this fallen world. We may even be prone to most grievous sin. Yet the power of God remains. The promise of salvation remains. The urge to repentance, and the pursuing of repentance in the strength God provides; these, too, remain. We may often find it needful to look back upon our baptism and recall to mind what all it signified. It is not that we made some solemn promise of obedience in that act, but rather that we recognized the magnificent promise made us by our Lord. It is not that we have suddenly gained the power to shun sin entirely, but rather that we have been granted reprieve from the curse of the Law in regard to sin. Our debt has been paid. The court has already been satisfied in regard to us. This is not leeway granted to go and sin with impunity, but rather the comfort of knowing that when we sin, hope has not been lost utterly. There is still a way back home.
There is one aspect of this matter of baptism which I think still needs exploring here just a bit. The topic of baptism is one I have explored in more detail, I think, elsewhere, and I don’t particularly wish to revisit that whole effort here. Suffice to say that when I became an elder in a distinctly Baptist congregation, albeit one whose official membership is in the Conservative Congregational denomination, I found it necessary to consider where I stood in regard to the debate between those who hold to believer’s baptism and those who see it as an equivalent to Old Testament circumcision. I have to say that at that juncture it was not a matter I had given any great amount of thought, and while I did in fact come down on the side of believer’s baptism, it is not without a certain sympathy for the covenantal view.
With that, I want to look at a couple of passages which, I think, form the backbone of that latter view. First, we can look at something Paul wrote to the Colossians, but in so doing, addresses to the Church at large. “For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col 2:9-12). There is, at the very least, a clear proximity of circumcision and baptism in this passage, and in Paul’s thinking, as it would appear.
But we will need to consider what he is driving at here. We know the Church, at least as concerned its Gentile population, was under pressure to undergo circumcision if they were to be truly accepted by God. We know, too, from this, the significance of that act of circumcision in the Old Covenant understanding. It was a symbolic cutting off of sin by cutting off a portion of the flesh. But then, it was also an act necessarily reserved to the male population, Muslim practice to the contrary notwithstanding. It was symbolic of a promise. Was circumcision a marker of covenant membership? Certainly, for the male population this was the case. But the women of Israel were no less partakers of the covenant, and could not bear the mark, having not the member.
It seems to me that far more significant to the Old Covenant community was this symbolic aspect of declaring a putting off of sin. Considering how much of pagan idolatry centered around matters of fertility and practices more in keeping with brothels than temples, this was a particularly apt mark to bear in remembrance of one’s distinction. One could not approach such an act without a visible and visceral reminder that you are not your own. I should think, upon seeing oneself in that position, opportunity arose to hear Job’s words again. “I have made covenant… how could I?”
Of course, for the majority of Jewish believers, and presumably all who were male descendants of Abraham in the flesh, this deed was accomplished well before there could be cognizant, volitional participation in the act. At eight days old, one is hardly in a position to have much of a say in the matter. But the reminder would be there nonetheless. The problem is, it’s a reminder of your parents’ determination, not your own. The symbolic mark of circumcision could by no means assure your compliance with the demands of the covenant, nor properly assure you of partaking of its benefits.
I suppose on that point, a similar statement applies in regard to baptism. The act itself does not assure anything. As something of a gate for membership in the covenant community of the Church, I suppose it still bears some resemblance to this older mark, but if we are going to accept that, then the most we can say for infant baptism is that which we say of infant circumcision: It expresses the desire of the parents, and may express to them a certain hope in God as concerns their child. But it does nothing to assure the future course of that child, and contains no final promise as to their inclusion in God’s family.
The child of Abraham who was circumcised would yet have to come to a mature decision as to his beliefs. He may be marked the equivalent of what we term a social Christian – goes through the motions but has no real devotions. But there is nothing there to assure true belonging. In Jewish practice, that leads to the rites of bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah, in which the child, having reached an age at which volition and thought can be said to have ripened sufficiently, makes personal commitment to God and God’s Law. In such denominations as practice infant baptism, I’m not clear that any parallel to this really pertains. I suppose Confirmation as practiced in Catholicism might correlate. But as seal of the covenant, it seems to me that both circumcision and baptism are somewhat lacking in their application to the infant.
The connection Paul is drawing is really one of contrast. Circumcision sought to symbolize a putting off of the body of fleshly sins, but did nothing to actually attain to that reality. Baptism, by contrast, celebrates an accomplished and full removal, achieved in the death and resurrection of Christ. “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions” (Col 2:13). That wasn’t something that happened at baptism. It had already happened. Baptism identifies with that reality, celebrates that reality, but it does not in any way impart that reality.
Peter makes an even stranger, to our thinking, connection with baptism, linking it to Noah’s actions in the days of the Flood. “God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you – not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1Pe 3:20-21). The association, I suppose, must be found in the connection to water and death. The Flood was death to sin in a most overwhelming fashion – albeit not an entire death to sin, for sin reasserted itself rather swiftly upon Noah’s landing. But baptism isn’t being equated to the Flood, which might seem the natural association, as we go under in symbolic enactment of our death to sin. Rather, it is equated to the ark, the preserving of life.
The most shocking part of that message from Peter is his suggestion that baptism saves. But observe carefully. It’s not the removal of dirt. It’s not that baptism has washed away sin. Rather, it’s an appeal to God for a good conscience. What should we make of that? I think we must make of it that baptism calls back to what is already accomplished through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a precursor to the believer’s sole defense before the court of God. “Jesus paid it all.” That is what baptism shouts out, both to the believer who undergoes the baptism, and to those witnesses called to observe the event. Here is one for whom Christ died. Here is one who has been called by Him, chosen out as one of the elect. And particularly for those of us who hold to a believer’s baptism, here is a clear act of obedience on the part of this believer.
Jesus said to His apostles, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). Here is one who has been made a disciple, and who demonstrates his discipleship by obedience to the subsequent command of baptism. Like the eunuch who heard the gospel from Philip as he made his way, the young believer (young in that he has come to faith, not as to physical age, necessarily) responds, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Ac 8:36). It is, in fact, an eager pursuit of this mark of identification with and obedience to Christ.
It is on this basis, I think, that we find the Church, particularly in earlier times, but still current in Baptist circles, construing baptism as a necessary precursor to membership in the body of the Church. For the ancient Church, it was a marker of some degree of prior discipleship having transpired. There had been catechism, training in the fundamental tenets of the faith. There had been evidence sufficient to the elders of the church that this one was not merely spouting words but truly possesses faith in Christ, or perhaps we might better say, is truly possessed of faith by Christ. If we would seek a covenant mark, it seems to me we need to look elsewhere, and indeed, I think we have it plainly declared to us, although I will accept that room for debate remains.
[10/11/20]
If I might attempt something like a conclusion in regard to this section, I would say this. Baptism as assuredly an ordinance of the Church, by the example and the direct instruction of its Head, Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as it turns our thoughts back to the work of Christ in our redemption, by symbolically representing our sharing His death and His resurrection, it most certainly has the effect of sealing to us the gospel promise, not in that it confers the promise, but that it reassures us of the promise. The form taken by the act, which would appear to typically involve a full immersion under and subsequent arising out of the water may not itself be the inviolable rule, but certainly it is best suited to reflect the image it intends to invoke.
I do not have any particular issue with accepting it as a covenant sign, but I cannot see it as the covenant sign. I find it rather an act of signal obedience to the One whose Lordship is professed, and as such, a reasonable required proof of faith by which the elders of the church may discern fitness for membership, and on that basis, I think I could see clear to insisting that those who were perhaps baptized in infancy should once more be baptized in obedience to faith. I recognize that such an action would seem, to the one who sees baptism as equivalent to circumcision, like a denial of earlier covenant membership or somehow a violation of conviction and conscience, however I could also observe the frequent reassertions of covenant in the Old Testament record, and in Jewish practice, as noted earlier. Beyond that, however, I would certainly not insist on a rebaptism for other reasons, be it a period of rebellion or any other such thing. Neither, I think, would I advise or participate in such rebaptism, which as often as not appears to be done as a matter of emotional attachment to time and place, rather than obedience to God. I don’t know as there is any great spiritual harm in such repeating of the exercise, but I do think it diminishes the significance to pursue rebaptism say, because one happens to visit the Jordan.
This is, by design, a one-off ordinance. As we saw Jesus tell Peter earlier in regard to His act of foot washing, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean” (Jn 13:10). If you have already died, and are already possessed of that eternal life which is yours in Christ Jesus, what possible significance can it have to symbolically die again? “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him” (Heb 9:27-28). The first time says that with Christ I have died and I have risen to life eternal. What, then, can a second time say? I die repeatedly, but keep coming back, sinning, and dying again? I die occasionally, as the mood hits? I become sarcastic, but you take my point. It is appointed once. With the aforementioned exception for those baptized in infancy, I would suggest we leave it there.
As for that exception, I might, as a closing observation, note that Jesus, who obeyed the Law in every respect, was circumcised the eighth day, bearing upon His human flesh the mark of the covenant. Whether or not He participated in the tradition of bar mitzvah is a larger question, and not terribly germane. In fairness, I do not know if that practice was yet extent at the time of His incarnation, but perhaps so, and perhaps He did. What is certain is that as a full-grown adult, He underwent baptism in obedience to faith. Now, did He do so as entrance into the new covenant? No. I’m not sure how He could, for He effectively is the new covenant. But He did, by His own telling, do so to fulfill all obedience. This, it seems to me, parallels rather neatly the place of baptism in the life of the Church. It demarks a commitment in the believer to obey the one in Whom he has believed, and this, I see, quite aside from any early inclusion in the covenant community by inheritance, as it were.
And with that thought, I think I shall move to the next topic; that
of communion.
