[HOME] [INDEX OF ARTICLES ] [ COPYRIGHT INFORMATION ] [ ABOUT US ] [CONTACT ]

By Blood And Water

The True Story and Meaning of Christian Baptism

[Part 1]   [Part 2]   [Part 3]   [Part 4]  [Part 5]  

[Part 6]  [Part 7]  [Part 8]  [Part 9]  [Part 10]

PART 7 - Apostles' Baptism: The Teaching




XXVIII. Peter's Teaching on Apostles Baptism

Amazingly, the apostles teach little about natural water baptism. There is only one verse in the New Testament that directly explains the effect of Apostles baptism, and even that verse does so only as an "aside" to another discussion. Moreover, that verse is so clouded in definition that hardly two English translations agree on its meaning! Here it is as found in the New American Standard Version:

²¹ 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. I Peter 3

This verse comes to us from Peter's first letter. Let's look at it in context using Young's Literal Translation:

^3:18 Because also Christ once for sin did suffer—righteous for unrighteous—that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit, ¹⁹ in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach, ²⁰ who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah—an ark being preparing—in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; ²¹ also to which an antitype doth now save us—baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ.

In this literal translation, Peter draws an analogy between water baptism and the "baptism" of the world under Noah's flood. The word antitype means a "representative likeness." Apostles Baptism is a representative likeness of the great flood. To understand what this means, we have to put it in context of Peter's complete writing, including his second letter.



- From Suffering to Baptism (—how did we get here?)

In his first letter, Peter's purpose is to teach new believers how to handle suffering from unbelievers—with special emphasis on preserving a good conscience amidst opposition. After touching on this in 1:6-7, he shifts in 2:19 to focus on this suffering right through the baptism analogy and beyond. Look at Peter's approach to the baptism illustration:

^3:14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness—do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, ¹⁵ but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts—¹⁶ and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. ¹⁷ For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.

This is the context for Peter's aside about the flood and baptism. From discussing persecution and keeping a good conscience in spite of it, he proceeds to compare our suffering to Christ's. Then, suddenly, on mentioning Christ's sufferings, he takes this strange turn to mention Christ's descent to the ungodly spirits of those killed in Noah's flood, how the flood "saved" Noah's family, and how baptism also "saves" us as a type of how the flood saved Noah.

Peter makes this odd transit from suffering to baptism so quickly and without elaboration that it leaves the mind spinning: "Wha-a-a? Huh? Dead spirits? The flood? Baptism? Saves? How? From what? What's this got to do with suffering??"



- The Flood: Salvation From the Ungodly

The key to understanding this aside is to directly relate the ungodly killed in the flood to the ungodly now causing suffering to Peter's readers. Peter's unspoken point about the ones who died is that they persecuted Noah just like those who now persecute Peter's readers.

Peter is trying to draw a comparison between how the flood saved Noah from the ungodly of his day, and how baptism now serves in type to somehow "save" Peter's readers from the same kind of people. The complete analogy looks something like this:

 

As the Flood saved		®		from the Ungodly of the past
So baptism saves		®		from the Ungodly of the present




Unfortunately, Peter didn't make his point very clearly. In this first letter, he left key parts of the full analogy unspoken. He left us only with:

 

As the Flood saved		(®		from the Ungodly of the past)
So baptism saves		(®		from the Ungodly of the present)




Almost as if to make up for this lack of clarity, Peter follows up in his second letter with a fuller restatement of his picture of the flood:

^2:4 For if God did not spare—⁵ —the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; ⁷ and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men ⁹ then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment.

Peter is telling us that God used the great flood to preserve (ie, save) Noah from the world of the ungodly. Notice! God did not save Noah "from the flood" (which is what we usually think.) He used the flood to save Noah from the godless world—its persecution and its wicked influence on him.

Peter confirms this by correlating it to us now. He says that just as ("if") God saved Noah via the flood, so also ("then") God knows how to save the righteous from temptation, ie, from the continual immoral attacks and influence of the ungodly.

This correlation between the flood and salvation from temptation relates directly back to Peter ‘s first letter on godless opposition and his correlating of the flood to baptism. But here in the second go around, he omits baptism, referring instead to the Lord who saves us. His second letter analogy looks like this:

 

As the Flood saved		®		from the Ungodly of the past
So baptism the Lord saves		®		from the Ungodly of the present




Now! When we superimpose both of Peter's references to the flood over each other, we get the complete analogy with all the parts:

 

As the Flood saved		®		from the Ungodly of the past
So the Lord through baptism saves		®		from the Ungodly of the present




The II Pt. 2 correlation between the flood and our saving from temptation mirrors the I Pt. 3 analogy between the flood and the saving of baptism. The "saving" by baptism in I Pt. 3 is the salvation from temptation in II Pt. 2. All told, Peter is saying that, just as the flood literally saved Noah from the world of his day, so baptism plays a representative role in saving believers from the world's influence and the keeping of our conscience (I Pt. 3:16).

The mirror effect between these passages is really important because it defines the meaning of salvation. It shows us that in linking baptism with salvation, Peter is NOT talking about eternal salvation from hell or damnation. He's talking about a present salvation of believers past new birth.



• Present Tense Salvation

That Peter's talking about a salvation past new birth is further confirmed by the opening of his letter. At the outset, he refers to the new birth salvation of his readers in the past tense:

^1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who—caused us to be born again… ¹⁸ knowing that you were—redeemed—¹⁹—with precious blood—²³ for you have been born again…

But in referring to the salvation of baptism, he says baptism "doth now save us." He is speaking to his reborn believers in the present tense. This shows he's not referring to their new birth, but to something past it. Had Peter meant to apply baptism to new birth, he would have referred to it in the past tense in harmony with his other references. He would have said baptism "did save us."

It's clear then that in telling us baptism saves, Peter is talking to already saved-from-wrath believers about a further present saving from the effects of the ungodly. This is the only meaning that satisfies the context of his entire letter.

The next question then is, just what part does baptism actually play in this further saving from the world's oppressiveness?



- Salvation Through the "Question"

Peter tells us our saving by baptism is a representative likeness of how the flood saved Noah from the ungodly. This raises a question. What is the extent of this representation?

As a representation, does baptism contain within itself the actual force for saving us from godlessness as the flood did for saving Noah? Is it representative in the way a son is representative of a father, where both have life within themselves?

Or is baptism merely an illustration of the flood’s actual saving power? Is it representative in the way that a non-living photograph is representative of a living man? Is there something else connected with baptism which holds the actual present power for saving us from the ungodly?

Peter wastes no time in answering this question. Emphasizing the totality of baptism's figurative ability to save us, he quickly adds that he is not referring to baptism's literal washing of the body ("not a putting away of the filth of flesh"). Rather, he is referring to something associated with baptism, namely, "the question of a good conscience in regard to God." Peter is further honing his analogy between baptism and the flood:

 

As the Flood saved		®		from the Ungodly of the past
So the question of a good conscience saves		®		from the Ungodly of the present


So what does that mean?



- Baptismal Interrogation

First of all, it's important to see that this is about an already "good conscience." It is a conscience that, as Peter earlier comments, has already been sprinkled clean (1:2). It has already been saved. Baptism did not clean this conscience. Rather, baptism is applied in association with the "question" of this good conscience regarding God toward a further present saving. What is this "question?"

The word for "question" found here carries the meaning of "intensive judicial inquiry" such as in a courtroom hearing. In this case, the hearing is with respect to the clear conscience's new standing with the Lord. It is the mutual proving of the heart's commitment—by the convert toward the Lord, by the Lord toward the convert, and (by extension) by those toward the convert who are present at a convert's baptism. The question is,

"Am I [Are you] ready and willing to totally leave behind the past life of sin and commit to the lifelong race of discipleship? Yes, I am."

This is something we don't understand in our present culture of faith. Today, baptism is administered on a simple profession of faith in Christ. Any examination of heart goes no further than to ask if one "believes in Jesus." But in Peter's time, baptism was the induction point into a committed following of the Lord that included interrogation before witnesses for proving one's earnestness, one's sense of new identity in Christ, and one's awareness of the cost of cutting off old identity in the world.

The ancient proving of heart that accompanied baptism acted as a "heart seal" to further preserve—to keep or "save"—the conscience in its newfound cleanness in Christ. Baptismal interrogation is designed to help the conscience withstand later opposition from non-believers and to resist being pulled back into their lifestyle—much like the public pledges at a wedding are meant to keep the heart faithful to one's spouse for life. This is exactly how the "question saves" us.

Note again that this all belongs to the realm of soul-salvation, not new birth. At the opening of his letter, Peter specifically states his intent to lead his born-again readers to the salvation of their souls (1:9). His focus on saving his readers from the power of temptation is part of this overall soul salvation. Baptismal interrogation acts as a foundation stone in the saving of the soul.



- Peter's Teaching Restated

What we finally learn from Peter's statement that “baptism saves” is: a) Peter is speaking specifically of preserving of the conscience, not new birth, and b) baptismal interrogation, not baptism itself, is the direct agent of conscience preservation.

Let's review then Peter's teaching on the effect of Apostle's baptism:

By association with conscience-preserving interrogation, baptism figuratively saves us from the powers of temptation and opposition following conversion—just as the great flood literally saved Noah from the godless world. Baptism stands as a representative likeness between the reality of Noah’s salvation from the world by the flood and our soul’s salvation from worldly pressure begun at the heart inquiry into our commitment to discipleship.

Capsulated:

Baptism, by association with the initial soul-saving sealing of the cleansed heart through interrogation, figuratively saves us from the effects of the world’s godlessness as the flood literally saved Noah from the world.

This is the complete meaning of Peter's teaching regarding apostles' baptism. It satisfies the entire context of his letter. And it satisfies the over-riding context we have already observed pertaining to the Lord's commission to make disciples as well as Luke's record concerning the apostles' baptizing.





XXIX. Delving into Peter's Mind Regarding Baptism, Forgiveness and Salvation

In the controversy over baptismal regeneration, Peter's Acts 2:38 declaration serves as the flagship verse for proving the doctrine that water baptism is mandatory to receive the forgiveness of sins and new birth into eternal life. This teaching makes its case by drawing a direct unmediated link between Peter's exhortation to be baptized and the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins:"



³⁸ Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The case is further bolstered by Peter's emotionally charged closing exhortation:

⁴⁰ And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" ⁴¹ So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Peter's combining of baptism, forgiveness and salvation into one package under great spiritual urgency, if taken entirely alone with no other context, does make an irresistible case for the necessity of baptism for receiving forgiveness and salvation. Because of this, and because Peter is the central figure in this teaching, we need to look at the immediate and long range context of his mind when he said this.



- What We Already Know

First, let's review Peter's larger mind. Peter's ministry at Pentecost came out of his original exposure to John followed by his ministerial experience under the Lord. From that total experience, we learned Peter could have only come to believe that baptism was not an actual agent of heart conversion. The only baptism he had ever received was John's baptism-which he knew could not forgive sins—and he had repeatedly watched the Lord forgive sins without regard to baptism.

We also saw that, when Peter's Pentecost sermon is viewed with all of his early sermons, it becomes clear his emphasis was not on connecting forgiveness or salvation to any power in baptism, but to the power of faith in the Lord's Name. (For a refresher on these points, please review Parts 4 and 6.)



- Comparison Between Peter's Sermon and Mark's Description of John's Baptism

But beyond what we already know, other evidence reveals Peter's mind on the relation between baptism and forgiveness. A vital link exists between Peter's words in Acts 2:38 and Luke and Mark's record of John's baptism. Compare carefully these statements:

[John came] preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ^{Lk 3:3 / Mk. 1:4}


Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins… ^{Ac. 2:38}

Note the nearly identical wording of these verses. Peter's Pentecost exhortation is identical to John's wilderness exhortation four years before. It appears Peter is still preaching John's "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Yet we have already established that John's baptizing could not actually forgive sins. So this must be true of Peter's baptism as well.

But how do we know the intent behind Peter's sermon and the record of John's baptism is identical? How do we know Peter doesn't mean to convey more about Apostle's baptism power to forgive than what Mark and Luke mean to convey about John's baptism?

The way we know the intents of these words are identical is because Peter was the actual source for Mark's gospel (who was in turn the source for Luke's gospel). The early church tells us that Mark was a scribe for Peter. In effect, Mark's gospel is the "Gospel according to Peter." Thus it is Peter himself who is using the same words to describe John's baptism and his own baptizing at Pentecost.

If it's true that what Mark and Luke said about John's "baptism for forgiveness" really came from Peter, and if it's also true that Luke accurately quoted Peter at Pentecost about "baptism for forgiveness," then it is equally true that Peter intended no difference in their effect.

Had Peter meant to convey any difference between baptism's power under John and under himself, he wouldn't have used the words he did at Pentecost, and then later have Mark use the exact same words about John's baptism, which—being the only baptism he himself had ever received—he knew did not work his own forgiveness of sins.

As the real author of the gospel description of John's baptism some years after Pentecost, Peter himself conclusively proves to us he did not believe his own baptizing at Pentecost literally washed away sin.



- Salvation From "This Generation:" Rationale For Peter's Initial Intensity


⁴⁰ And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

Part of Peter's urgency at Pentecost involves the need for salvation. With no context, those who advocate baptismal regeneration understand Peter to be speaking of salvation from hell. But Peter specifically speaks of salvation "from this generation." The phrase "this generation" has a unique meaning that relates directly and only to the people of that immediate time who had witnessed the Lord's ministry and had rejected it.

Because of the special position of the generation that witnessed Messiah's ministry and rejected Him, the Lord pronounced a special set of judgments on that generation. The record of these pronouncements is extensive, consummating in the promise of the destruction of Jerusalem. Here is but a portion of what the Lord said:

²⁹ As the crowds were increasing, He began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah. ³⁰ "For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. ³¹ "The Queen of the South will rise up with the men of this generation at the judgment and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. ³² "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. ⁴⁹ "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, `I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, ⁵⁰ so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, ⁵¹ from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' Luke 11


^23:36 "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. ^24:1 …When His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. ² … He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down." ³⁴ "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Matthew

Peter's immediate audience comprises people who have just come off rejecting Messiah before Pilate and so are subject to the unique judgments prophesied by Christ before His death. They are the people of "this generation." This is why the Holy Spirit's burden through Peter is so piercingly intense at that hour.

For this generation of Jewish hearers, baptism plays an unusually critical role. Since they have rejected both John and the Living Messiah, baptism now becomes a mandatory act of faith by which individuals can separate themselves in identity from the remainder of their generation subject to these special judgments. (Among the many to whom this critical aspect applies is Paul, which explains the similar intensity surrounding his baptism by Ananias.)

Peter's challenge offers individual Jews of that day a third and final chance to identify with the new messianic movement if they had missed or rejected it earlier through John and then through Yeshua. As a means of escaping identification with the condemned generation and its judgments, this unique application of baptism does not carry beyond the time and place of these Jews.

This special meaning of salvation also applies to the meaning of the Lord's commission when He said: "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved." Depending on to whom this exhortation is applied, it carries different meaning.

Applied to "all nations" which the commission addresses, salvation refers to the end-salvation of soul resulting from discipleship first signified by baptism. But applied to any and all immediate Jews of the time, identification with Yeshua's name through baptism will save them from the prophesied judgments against their generation.

If the rite of baptism itself could at any time and place be said to carry any actual saving force and effect, it would only be here in the immediate environs of the Jewish generation that hosted Messiah's coming, and it would only be with respect to salvation from the judgments uniquely assigned to that generation as a whole culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. But even here, baptism does not save either the spirit or soul.



- The Permission to Receive Baptism

The final evidence regarding Peter's understanding of Apostles' Baptism comes to us through his comments at the house of Cornelius. As he preaches to Cornelius' household, the Holy Spirit suddenly baptizes the entire group of gentiles. Stunned and amazed, Peter offers this word:

⁴⁷ "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" ⁴⁸ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10


¹⁶ Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' ¹⁷ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" Acts 11

Peter was clearly outmaneuvered on this one! The Lord bypassed Peter's original pattern of "repent—be baptized—receive the Spirit," using the Spirit to demonstrate His direct forgiveness and acceptance of Cornelius' saving faith prior to baptism. As many have rightly shown, this passage alone evidences baptism can't possibly be mandatory to receiving forgiveness from God.

But something almost unnoticed here is the thrust of Peter's own response to what has happened. His response doesn't just indicate his ability to recognize God's sovereignty. It reveals in silhouette what he believes about baptism's role in salvation.

Note how that, in raising the issue of baptism after the fact, Peter frames his question in terms of permission, not requirement. He asks, "Well, I guess, who can refuse that these folks be baptized?" His very question acknowledges baptism to be a privilege of expression contingent on evidence of an inward conversion, not a requirement mandatory to producing it!

Had Peter believed that forgiveness and spiritual rebirth are contingent on the receiving of baptism, he could not have said, "Who can refuse baptism to these people?" He would have had to say, "Quickly then, seeing God wishes to save you, be baptized now so your salvation can be completed!”

This understanding is further witnessed in Philip's encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch:

³⁶ As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" ³⁷ And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." Acts 8

Here again, the record shows us that the apostles and so their followers believed baptism was an evidencing mark of repentant faith to which one had the privilege to submit. Baptism did not complete anyone's forgiveness or conversion. Had it been so, Philip would not have answered, "You may be baptized." He would have said, "You must be baptized."

Philip worked with Peter in Samaria. They were of one mind and message. Philip's word to the eunuch is therefore an accurate reflection of what Peter was teaching the Lord's followers about the efficacy of baptism.





XXX. Paul's Mind on Apostle's Baptism

As the chief apostle opposite Peter, and as a Jew beginning new spiritual life during the first days of the church, Paul's attitude toward baptism is extremely important to us. Here is a man that—unlike any of us—was on the scene and fully informed of the gospel first preached in Jerusalem. His response to Peter's Pentecost message is a further key to understanding how all the apostles viewed baptism.

As noted before, Peter's first message of repentance and baptism is so intense and close together that they appear to be of one and the same effect. Paul was in Jerusalem at this time. Though a persecutor of the church then, he had to be familiar with what Peter and the church were teaching.

During this same intense period, Paul himself is converted and baptized according to Peter's message. As Ananias says to him, "Get up and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on His name." Surely, if anyone understands water baptism literally washes away sins, it is Paul at this pivotal moment of his life.

After he receives his own gospel revelation in the desert, Paul goes to officially meet Peter and "trade notes" with him on the gospel message—what it entails (Gal. 1:18). Here, he will gain first hand knowledge of Peter's understanding of baptism. Peter will rehearse how they started with John, how they came to be apostles and what the Lord meant when He commissioned them regarding baptism and salvation.

It's safe to say that, except for perhaps John and James, no one in those early days has a better understanding of baptism's role in salvation or Peter's mind on it than Paul. So, beginning with his own baptism to "wash away his sins," Paul should understand that the Lord and Peter teach that baptism works forgiveness and salvation. And so we are certain to find him fully declaring it in his preaching and his letters. Not so?

But what do we find?—just the opposite! There is not one mention of baptism in any of Paul's sermons to gentile peoples and their leaders. Moreover, as the gospel travels on his watch to the ends of the Roman empire, the emphasis on apostles' baptism diminishes, becoming more and more incidental to preaching of the word.

Paul's true attitude regarding apostles' baptism is revealed in a letter to the Gentile Corinthians some 25 years after the Lord's commission. In it, he reveals not only a non-urgency regarding baptism, but an alarm at its abuses—so much so that he declares it was not part of his commission:

¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. ¹⁶ Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel… I Corinthians 1

This apparent glaring heretical contradiction to Peter's original emphasis on baptism for forgiveness of sins leads to three very serious questions. We must ask ourselves,

a) Did Paul fall away from the original true message as proclaimed by Peter? Was he perhaps actually a false apostle preaching only a half message of salvation? Or,


b) Was the gospel for the gentiles different than the gospel for the Jews? Are they saved differently? Did Paul and Peter perhaps have a secret understanding on this that is not recorded? Or,


c) Did God change the overall plan of salvation between the Great Commission and Paul's letter to the Corinthians a quarter century later?

Hopefully, the answers are obvious. We know that the means of salvation did not change in 25 years from a plan that required baptism to a plan that did not. That's ludicrous. We also know the Lord did not have one plan of salvation for Jews (requiring water baptism) and another for Gentiles (free from water baptism.) Paul is adamant there is only one gospel. And we also know that Paul was not a false apostle who departed from the true conversion-by-baptism message of Peter.

The New Covenant means of salvation was the same for all people and was the same 25 years after the commission as it was the day the Lord commissioned it. If so, and if Paul—who was told at his own baptism "wash away your sins" and who knew Peter's mind first hand—specifically says he was not sent to baptize, then apostles' baptism was never part of the effective means of salvation, either of spirit or soul, in the first place!





XXXI. Apostles' Teaching on the New Birth

As far as the apostles are finally concerned, and as we saw in our study on Real Baptism, the new birth is ultimately connected to the water of the Word of God. It is not connected to the water of natural baptism.

Three apostles mention the new birth again after the Lord's encounter with Nicodemus recorded by John's gospel. Of these, only two, Peter and John, make any reference to what produces new birth or its evidences.

Peter, in his first letter, tells us specifically what produces the new birth:

^1:23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

John, in agreement with Peter, describes in his gospel the action by which new birth takes place:

^1:1 In the beginning was the Word— ⁴ In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. ⁶ —John [the Baptist]— ⁷ came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. ¹² —As many as received Him [the Word], to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, ¹³ who were born—of God.

See how John says new birth by the Word occurs through the heart actions of "believing" and "receiving." Notice again emphasis on "the name." Note also his summary of John the Baptist's message, having been one of his original followers.

In these few verses, John capsulates the doctrine of new birth as believed by John, Peter, John the Baptist and Jesus. Written late in John's life, it not only gives the founding meaning for the story of Nicodemus, but shows what he and Peter—as co-elders in Jerusalem—believed about the new birth before, during and long after Pentecost.

In his first letter, also written long after Pentecost, John further associates the following concepts as evidences of the new birth:

- those who practice righteousness ^{2:29 (also 3:9; 5:18)}
- those who love the brothers ^4:7
- those who believe that Jesus is the Christ ^5:1
- those who overcome the world ^5:4

What does all this reveal?

These apostles—Peter and John—having been Jesus' earliest disciples, having preached the message of new birth with Jesus from the time of John, having been with Jesus at the time of the Nicodemus encounter—are our only authorities on the new birth. Surely, if their mission is to lead men to new birth, and the Spirit's mind is to lead later generations to it through their writings, and if water baptism is essential to new birth, here is their golden opportunity to make it plain. This is where it should appear.

But instead we find nothing about baptism. What? Were Peter and John derelict to leave out such a critical element as baptism in explaining to us the new birth?? Again, this can only tell us that these earliest preachers of the new birth in conjunction with John's baptism never conceived that baptism itself was actually intrinsic to obtaining new birth.





XXXII. A Spiritually Informed Reason for Apostles Baptism

Using the backdrop of the entire record before us, let's offer a spiritually enlightened reason for the continuing reflection of water baptism under the New Covenant, even though the Lord and the apostles don't directly give us one. It has nothing to do with the spiritual efficacy of water. It has everything to do with our remaining fleshly weakness under the new priesthood.

Though the Lord changed the priesthood by His own blood and water, we His followers have remained subject to physical death just like the Old Covenant priests. This is the one reality the New Covenant did not immediately change. New spiritual life and identity came to our hearts, but has not appeared in our bodies. We serve an eternal priesthood in the spirit, yet continue to physically die (ie, "sleep").

Since the Lord’s sacrifice didn’t immediately abolish physical death, it makes sense that neither would it immediately abolish all physical ordinance. Under our remaining veil of death, the Lord left us two physical ordinances—one aligned to His blood, the other to His water, for the sake of our own fleshly weakness of faith. By these ordinances, our faltering mortality is disciplined by bearing a fleshly stamp of the unseen eternal covenant written in our hearts through faith in His actual blood and water sacrifice.



- Baptism, Mortality and the End of the Age

The Lord pointedly said that Apostle's Baptism is to be carried out "even to the end of the [mortal] age" (Mt. 28:20 in context). There is a suggestion by this that baptism together with the great commission it accompanies is defined by and limited to the present age of death.

The role of baptism as a kingdom stamp on dying bodies is also hinted by type in a connection Paul makes concerning the resurrection:

²⁹ Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead [ie, possibly on account of the martyrs]? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? ³⁰ Why are we also in danger every hour? ³¹ I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily— ⁴⁹ Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. I Corinthians 15

Here, Paul makes an odd association of baptism with the physically dead. Other than knowing from his other writings that Paul didn’t believe any rite could save anyone (much less anyone already departed), it’s unclear what he meant by “baptized for the dead.” All we want to note is a broad contextual association between baptism and dying bodies—bodies bearing only an image of Reality to come.

Using this association as a type, we can identify water baptism with the “earthy image” we now bear of the Lord until the end of this age when we will bear a heavenly image—one associated with heavenly water. Like so much else, baptism, commissioned as it was for this age, will then pass away. Because it will pass away, it cannot produce eternal life. Only what is eternal can birth that which is eternal. But as an aid to our present weakness in the flesh, physical baptism was given us for this era.





[In Part 8: Baptism With the Holy Spirit]





Chris Anderson
New Meadow Neck, Rhode Island

First Love Ministry
- a ministry of Anglemar Fellowship
http://www.firstloveministry.org

4/04


BACK TO TOP

---

Webmaster littleflock@netzero.net
Page updated September 6, 2005

Background courtesy of