15. Baptism
(a three session lesson)
INTRO: The act of water baptism is very prominent in the New Testament. Surprisingly, it appears among the first pages of the NT without any clear explanation of its significance. It is as if the original readers were already expected to be familiar with water baptism as a religious act. Perhaps this is because NT baptism may be rooted in the ceremonial washings of the Old Testament. Also, baptism was practiced as a religious rite of conversion during the inter-testament period (the 400 years between the Old and New Testaments). Ultimately, its significance must be determined by inference from the way it is used in the NT.
FACT: The Greek word behind the verb "baptize" is baptizo (907). The Greek word behind the noun "baptism" is baptisma (908). Teacher’s note: do not attempt to define the Greek words at this point as it will only serve to alienate anyone who disagrees with your definition! Try to keep everyone open minded as they wade into this study.
OVERVIEW: In this study, we will examine 1.) the purpose of NT baptism, 2.) the mode of NT baptism, and 3.) the candidates for NT baptism.
I. The Purpose of NT Baptism
1. With what was being "baptized" (baptizo) in water associated in Mt 3:1-6? Water baptism by John was associated with:
1.) repentance
2.) the confession of sin.
2. What criticism did John have of the Pharisees in Mt 3:7-10? Cp. Lk 3:7-9 They seemed to be lacking the fruit of repentance. They talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk! They were, in fact, unrepentant and as such were not candidates for John’s baptism.
NOTE: The text does not specifically state that these Pharisees were there to be baptized by John. They could have been there merely to judge John’s message and activities.
According to John himself in Mt 3:11, why did he "baptize" (baptizo) people with water?
3. In Mt 3:11, did John baptize people so that they could repent or because they had already repented (i.e., was the baptism a means to repentance or the result of repentance)? How so? Not many would dispute that the sense of John’s statement is that John baptized people because they had already repented. His baptism was an outward symbol of their prior repentance. The key to understanding this lies in part with the word "for" (eis in Greek). In Greek, eis can be used with reference to either a future goal (I left "for" Chicago) or a past reason (I cried "for" joy). In Mt 3:11 it denotes a past reason (or a "because")—John baptized them because they had already repented.
4. How does Mt 3:7-10 help clarify whether John baptized because of a prior repentance or in order to effect repentance? John criticized the Pharisees because they had not yet repented. To baptize these unrepentant Pharisees would make a mockery of the act of baptism. Thus, John clearly was only baptizing people who had already repented. It was an outward sign of an inward act. Known hypocrites were thus excluded from participation.
What three types of baptism ("baptize," from baptizo) did John refer to in Mt 3:11? Whereas John’s baptism was with water; Jesus’ baptisms were with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Thus we see that there can be at least three types of baptism: water baptism, Spirit baptism, and fire baptism. Cp Jn 1:33
IMPORTANT OBSERVATION: The English word "baptize" is from the Greek word baptizo. As can be easily seen, it remains an untranslated word in our English Bibles. Rather than translating the word, it was transliterated (brought over letter for letter) from Greek into English. While "baptize" is exclusively a religious term for us in English, it was not so for the original Greek readers of the NT. To them, baptizo was an ordinary, commonly used secular word. The common lexical definition for baptizo is "to immerse." Substitute this English translation (‘immerse) for "baptize" anywhere it is found in the NT and better sense can often be made of the passage.
NOTES:
A.) Some may object to the translation of baptizo as "immerse." If so, do not argue the point here. Allow folks the freedom to disagree and use whatever word they feel will better translate baptizo. The exact meaning of the word will be studied later.
B.) Where as baptizo was an ordinary, household word, the noun baptisma was not so common. Baptisma does indeed seem to be a religious word and is not found outside of the NT.
Is being baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit (Mt 3:11) a good thing or a bad thing? Cp Ac 1:5 & 2:1-4.
Based on Mt 3:11-12, is baptism with fire a good thing or a bad thing? Cp. 3:10. In this context, it would seem to have the negative implications of judgment and hell. Perhaps the thought is that those who refused the saving baptism of the Holy Spirit would receive the destructive baptism of fiery judgment. However, in Ac 2:3 tongues of fire came to rest on the believers, and this seems to be good thing!
5. What does Mt 3:11-12 imply about something else that water baptism is associated with? Baptism into water is associated with:
3.) the baptism into the Holy Spirit (which evidently occurred at Pentecost, Ac 1:5 2:1-4). Thus, water baptism is associated with repentance, the confessions of sin, and baptism into the Holy Spirit.
To John’s astonishment, who insisted on being "baptized" (baptizo) in Mt 3:13-17?
What did Jesus say to convince John to baptize him? Mt 3:15.
6. What do Jesus’ words in Mt 3:15 indicate about something else that is associated with water baptism? That it is associated with:
4.) righteousness (as would be any good work flowing out of a saved life, Ep 32:10).
What was God the Father’s reaction when Jesus was baptized? Mt 3:17 Cp 1Jn 5:6-8.
What does Jesus’ insistence on being baptized imply about the act of baptism? That it is, to say the least, very important and symbolically associated with righteousness. Thus, water baptism is an outward sign that a person is interested in being identified with righteousness rather than with sin.
7. What else is associated with "baptizing" (baptizo) in Mt 28:16-20? It is associated with:
5.) being a disciple
6.) observing all that Jesus commanded (including the command to be baptized).
Notice also the Trinitarian authority for the church to go out and water baptize converts. To do something "in the name of" someone else is to do it under their authority ("Stop in the name of the law").
Based on Mt 28:16-20, why is it important for believers to follow Jesus in baptism? Because it is a direct command from our Lord Jesus!
What, in Mk 16:16, has led some to conclude that being "baptized" (baptizo) is necessary for salvation?
Taken in isolation from the rest of the Bible, it is understandable that someone might misunderstand Mk 16:16 to refer to baptismal regeneration. However, when compared with the rest of Scripture, this misunderstanding evaporates.
What in Mk 16:16 indicates that Jesus was not teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation? Certainly, water baptism is an important act of obedience. Any one professing to believe in Jesus and yet refusing to be baptized is of questionable sincerity. Faith and the act of water baptism are closely linked in the NT. Indeed, it is unthinkable that anyone would believe in Jesus and refuse to be baptized. Like love and marriage and a horse and carriage, belief and baptism just go together! Notice, however, those who Jesus said would be condemned: "whoever does not believe." No mention was made of not being baptized. The emphasis is on unbelief, not baptism. Condemnation comes as a result of unbelief, not the lack of any ritual activity.
What Jesus said about faith and baptism is like a train conductor saying, "All who board the train and take their seats will go to Birmingham." It is just assumed that all boarding the train will take a seat. However, the train will take them to Birmingham regardless of whether they take a seat or not. The key factor is the boarding of the train.
EXAMPLE: In Ac 10:44-48 & 11:15-17, Cornelius and his household believed and then received the Holy Spirit. Only later were they water baptized. Obviously, water baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Note: Some early Greek MSS do not even contain Mk 16:9-20!
According to Lk 3:3, what type of baptism (baptisma) was John preaching? A "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"
In Lk 3:3, was John preaching that a person had to be baptized in order to have their sins forgiven? Explain. Cp. Mk 1:3. Although a thoughtless reading of the text might indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation, a closer look and a comparison with other Scriptures dispels this myth. As with the repentance of Mt 3:11, John’s baptism was symbolic of a person’s repentance in order to be forgiven.
The word "of" (a baptism "of" repentance) is not represented by an actual word in the Greek text. It is implied in the word repentance (metanoias), which is in either the genitive or ablative case. If ablative, it means that the baptism flows out of the repentance. If genitive, it means that the baptism belongs to or is associated with the repentance.
It was not a baptism in order to obtain forgiveness, but rather a baptism that expressed "repentance for forgiveness." Incidentally, in this case the "for" would seems to refer to a purpose or goal. The repentance is what effected the forgiveness; the repentance was unto forgiveness. The baptism merely symbolized that the repentance and forgiveness had already occurred.
What is "repentance" (Lk 3:3)? From metanoia, "a change of thinking." As such, it is a close parallel to faith; one never occurs without the other. Repentance and faith are opposite sides of the same coin. John preached that men should change their thinking about sin (Mt 3:6) and believe in the One coming after him—Jesus (Jn 1:6-9, Ac 19:4). Water baptism was an outward sign of the inward fact that they had indeed repented.
8. Lk 23:39-43 contains the account of a man who believed in Jesus, and yet died before he could be water baptized. What did Jesus say about whether the man was saved or not? 23:43.
9. The New Covenant began upon Jesus’ death (Heb 9:11-28). Believers who died prior to Jesus death are considered to be Old Testament saints (like John the Baptist). Believers who die after the death of Christ are New Testament (or New Covenant) saints. Did this thief on the cross die before or after Jesus did? See Jn 19:31-37. Dying after Jesus made this thief a New Covenant believer, one who went to be with Jesus after death and yet who was never baptized with water.
How might someone quote Jn 3:1-8 to justify having to be baptized in order to be saved? Because of Jesus’ reference to a birth by water, some use Jn 3:5 to justify baptismal regeneration. The problem with this view is that the word "baptism" is never even mentioned in this conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, not to mention the fact that it would contradict the rest of the Scriptures.
What birth by water was Jesus referring to in Jn 3:1-8? The natural sense of the passage clearly parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (3:4) and with "flesh." Simply stated, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God, two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal "flesh" birth (accompanied by amniotic "water") and the second is a metaphysical "Spirit" birth into God’s family (cp Jn 1:12-13).
Based on Jn 3:16-18, to whom is eternal life offered?
Why is water baptism not mentioned as a requirement for eternal life in Jn 3:16-21? Because water baptism in not a requirement for eternal life!
10. Based on Ac 1:5, why is being baptized (baptizo) in water often understood to be associated with being baptized (baptizo) into the Spirit? Cp. Ac 2:1-21.
NOTE: Exactly what the baptism of the Holy Spirit actually is has not been dealt with in this study. Many take it to refer to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the church at Pentecost (Ac 2). As such it would have been a one time event for the church (Ep 4:4). Others take it to refer not only to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, but also to the indwelling of the Spirit in each individual believer upon salvation. Still others think it refers to a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit that can occur (they say) after one’s initial indwelling of the Spirit.
Why do people champion Ac 2:38 in favor of baptismal regeneration? On the surface of some English translations, Peter seems to be asking his hearers to both repent and be baptized in order to be forgiven.
NOTE: "baptized" (2:28) is from baptizo.
11. Examine Ac 2:38 closely. According to Peter, what role does water baptism play in the salvation process? In the Greek, the word "repent" and the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" are both in the second person plural (ye). The significance of this is that they go together grammatically. Peter was telling them to repent for the forgiveness of their sins. However, the phrase "be baptized, every one of you" is actually in the third person singular ("let each one be baptized"). The significance of this is that it stands alone grammatically. Thus, Peter literally told them, "Repent, all of you, for the forgiveness of yours sins; and let each one be baptized."
Thus, the forgiveness was achieved through repentance; the water baptism was to follow as a mere sign of the forgiveness that has already occurred. As always, water baptism is associated with repentance, but baptism itself is not necessary for forgiveness.
Notice also that water baptism is again associated with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Notice also that water baptism is again commanded. It is an act of disobedience to neglect water baptism.
12. Based on Ac 10:44-48 & 11:15-17, with what is being baptized (baptizo) in water associated? A reading of Peter’s remarks about the outpouring of the Spirit on these Gentiles suggests that their subsequent water baptism was symbolic of the Spirit’s coming upon these new believers.
NOTE: As regards the necessity of water baptism for salvation, notice that Cornelius and family received the Holy Spirit prior to being water baptized, indicating that water baptism is not required for salvation.
13. In Ac 16:29-34, what did the Philippian Jailer need to do in order to be saved? He needed only to "believe" (16:31). Baptism was not a part of the salvation message. Notice however that water baptism closely followed his salvation.
What does Ac 19:1-7 reveal about John’s "baptism" (baptisma)? Cp. Ac 18:24-26. That it was preparatory for the coming of the Messiah (Jesus) and as such was not a full Christian baptism. John’s ministry ended before Jesus died on the cross as a payment for sin, thus initiating the New Covenant. Thus, those in Ephesus who had received only John’s baptism were required to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus. Also, 19:4 is a good explanation of what John’s baptism was all about.
NOTE: As previously seen, NT water baptism is once again associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
In Ac 22:16, what is it that Ananias said would wash away Paul’s sins? Ro 10:13. In both English and Greek, one could understand the washing away of sins to be caused by either the baptism or the calling on Jesus’ name, or both. Taken in isolation, one might erroneously conclude that Ananias believed in salvation in faith plus water baptism! However, in harmony with the rest of the NT, there is a better way to understand his words. It is equally possible to translate the Greek thus: "be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on his name." The washing should fundamentally be associated with the calling, not with the baptism.
Also, notice that water baptism metaphorically is associated with:
7.) the washing away sins (which is actually accomplished by calling on Jesus’ name), cp. Ro 10:13.
REVIEW: Water baptism is an outward sign that a person has repented, believed in Jesus, been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and has had his sins washed away (or, in OT ceremonial terminology, purified).
What is the main point of Ro 4? That justification comes by faith, apart from works. Specifically, we must be persuaded that Jesus really did die as a payment for sin and that he was raised from the dead.
14. If water baptism is necessary for salvation, then why is it not mentioned in Ro 4? Because water baptism is, in fact, not necessary for salvation. As with circumcision (Ro 4:9-12), it is merely a sign of salvation (4:11).
TEACHING TOOL: Read Ro 4:9-12 aloud, substituting the word "baptized" for the word "circumcised."
15. Does Ro 6:1-14 refer to water baptism or Spirit baptism? How so? The word "water" no where appears in Ro 6. Notice that the baptism of Ro 6 is "into His death" (not "into water") and refers to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in salvation. To falsely read water baptism into Ro 6 is to promote an error known as baptismal regeneration (that is, that salvation occurs when one is baptized into water). This cannot be what Paul had in mind because it would directly contradict the whole of the NT, which declares salvation to be by faith alone (cp. Ro 4).
It should also be noted that water baptism as symbolic of a "liquid grave" is not really a good analogy. This is because in the middle east in NT times, people were buried above ground in tombs hewn out of rock and sealed with a stone door. Their burial places were thus more like mausoleums. The bodies were not covered over with dirt.
What synonym for "baptized" or "baptism" could be drawn from Ro 6:5? The concept of being "united" with Christ. To be spiritually baptized into Christ is to be united with Christ.
NOTE: "baptized" in Ro 6 is from baptizo and "baptism" is from baptisma.
16. What does 1Co 1:13-17 indicate about whether water baptism is necessary in order to be saved? The most prominent NT evangelist, the apostle Paul, was forgetful about who (beyond Stephanas) he had baptized, was "thankful" that he had not personally baptized most of the Corinthians, and specifically stated that Christ did not send him to baptize anyway! This would be a strange attitude for him to have if baptism is necessary for forgiveness. Presumably Paul the evangelist would have been more careful to see to the water baptism of his converts and more mindful of the whole matter. Further, notice the fact that, based on 1:17, baptism is not a part of the gospel message.
NOTE: "baptize" in 1Co 1 is from baptizo.
17. What is the "gospel" (1Co 1:17) message that Paul preached? Cp 1Co 15:1-8.
If water baptism were necessary for forgiveness, then the requirement for baptism would necessarily be a part of the gospel message (1Co 15:2).
Into what medium were the Israelis "baptized," according to 1Co 10:1-5? Into Moses.
18. What does the use of the word "baptized" (baptizo) in 1Co 10:2 reveal about what this word was used to indicate? It indicated association & identification. As such, NT water baptism could also serve as:
8.) an act of initiation into the covenant community; it is a way of publicly being identified with the church.
19. What type of baptism is referred to in 1Co 12:12-13 (water or Spirit)? How so? Here the baptizer is the Spirit and the element into which we are baptized is the "body" of Christ, not water. One should no more associate this baptism with literal water than one would associate the "drink" of 12:13 with literal water.
20. In Ga 1:6-9, what was Paul’s opinion of a "gospel" that was different from the true gospel he preached?
Based on Ga 3:1-14, what was the essence of the false "gospel" that Paul condemned? It was a gospel that offered salvation via a combination of faith plus the works of the law. Cp. Ga 2:21.
21. How might requiring water baptism as a condition for salvation be judged in light of Ga 3:1-14?
TRUTH: Any "gospel" that requires, in order to be saved, something in addition to the work that Christ did for us on the cross is a false gospel. Faith + anything else = a false gospel! This applies equally to water baptism. Faith + water baptism = a false gospel .
In Ga 3:26-27, into what medium have all sons of God been "baptized" (baptizo)? Into Christ (not water).
22. What line of thought in Ga 3:26 parallels being baptized into Christ in 3:27? That of having "faith in Christ Jesus." This is because the baptism in question is Spirit baptism, not water baptism, and our Spirit baptism into Christ occurs at the moment we first have faith in Christ Jesus.
23. How is baptism (baptisma) a contributing factor in the unity of the church, according to Ep 4:1-6?
To what type of "baptism" (water or spirit) did Paul refer in Ep 4:1-6? How so? Many take this to be a reference to the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, which occurred "one" time—at Pentecost.
What in Col 2:9-12 indicates that this "baptism" (baptisma) is Spirit baptism rather than water baptism? Since the circumcision mentioned is clearly spiritual, so also the baptism mentioned in parallel to it would seem to be spiritual.
24. What type of "washing" (3:5) is meant in Tit 3:3-8? Just as the "renewal" (3:5) occurred by the Holy Spirit’s work, so too the "washing" (loutron, 3067) occurred because of "rebirth." Rebirth has a spiritual washing effect in that it washes away our sins. Note that the word "water" does not appear anywhere in this entire chapter. To read water baptism into this passage is truly to force into it something that is not there. In fact, is not water baptism one of the "righteous things" (3:5) that a person might do?
25. What is the main point of the paragraph in 1Pe 3:13-22? The main point seems to be that when persecution occurs despite the fact that we have done what is good, not to fear, because ultimate salvation is ours through Christ (who also suffered unjustly).
26. Were the people in Noah’s ark saved because of the water or in spite of the water (3:20)? The water is what God used to bring judgment on the wicked unbelievers. Those inside the ark were saved because of the ark, through (or despite) the waters of judgment around them.
WORD STUDY: "Through" (3:20) is from dia; in this context it most likely denotes "in the midst of" (a local sense, indicating place) rather than a means or agency ("by means of"). Noah was saved in the midst of the water, not because of the water.
How might someone read 1Pe 3:21 and conclude that water "baptism" (baptisma) is necessary for salvation?
27. Compare 1Pe 3:21 in several different translations (and to an interlinear if available). What main differences can be observed? Some versions indicate that the symbol refers to something back in 3:20 (like Noah’s rescue), while others indicate that the symbol refers to something in 3:21 (baptism).
TEACHER’S NOTE: The Greek behind this passage is exceedingly difficult. A comparison of the NIV with the more literal AV gives a sense of translational possibilities: "The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us." Given the "dynamic equivalent" nature of the NIV, it may be better to write the literal Greek of 3:21 on a board for teaching purposes (see below).
28. The literal Greek behind 3:21a is: "which also you antitype now is saving baptism." What does the word "which" (3:21, literal Greek) mean? It is a neuter pronoun (ho) and in Greek always refers back to something previously designated. But to what?
NOTE: "Which" is in both the nominative and the accusative case, meaning it can function as either the subject or the direct object of a sentence.
To what noun, exactly, does the pronoun "which" refer back?
1.) It might refer back to the "water" of 3:20*.
2.) it could refer back generally to all the circumstances surrounding Noah’s rescue.**
*So thought the translators of the NIV. However, the word "water" in 3:21 (NIV) is not in the underlying Greek. The NIV has taken an interpretive liberty in supplying the word "water" in the text. They did this because the pronoun "this" (3:21) grammatically can refer back to the immediately preceding noun, "water" (3:20, which was used in God’s judgment of Noah’s world). Both the pronoun ("this") and the immediately preceding noun in 3:20 ("water") are of neuter gender, signaling a connection (the word "ark" is feminine).
**It is also possible to use a neuter pronoun to refer back to everything in 3:20 (the circumstances of Noah’s rescue). That "which" refers back to everything in 3:20, rather than just the water, is also indicated because although "which" and "water" are both neuter, they have different case endings ("which" is nominative/accusative and "water" is genitive).
In 3:21 the words "also you" (literal Greek) are found; "also you" in addition to who? In addition to Noah (3:20), who was rescued from the flood.
NOTE: "You" is in the accusative case, meaning it is a direct object of the sentence. Since the only verb is "is saving," then the sense is "is saving also you."
29. What does "antitype" (3:21, literal Greek) mean? Do a word study (note: antitupos is translated as "symbolizes" in NIV , "like figure" in AV , "counterpart" in RBV, and "corresponding" in NASV). From antitupos, used outside the NT to refer to the exactness of correspondence between a stamp (antitupos) and a die (tupos). Used here as an adjective, it means "corresponding to" something that has gone before (that is, to a tupos). Thus, Peter wrote that something in 3:20 "corresponds to" something in 3:21. The question is, "What corresponds to what?"
30. What serves as the "antitype": the flood water, the circumstances of Noah’s rescue, or our salvation through baptism? Since the antitupos can correspond to a tupos that typically has gone before it, some understand the sense to be that Noah’s rescue from the flood is the tupos (foreshadowing) and that "baptism" corresponds to it as a antitupos. Under this view, "baptism" is the antitype (or fulfillment). Thus, "baptism, which is a fulfillment (of the type) now is saving you also" (BAGD, p. 76). Thus, it is baptism that "corresponds" to what happened with Noah. The Revised Berkeley Version renders 1Pe 3:21 with: "Its counterpart, baptism, saves you now" (1Pe 3:21). If the "its" (3:21, ho) refers to the circumstances surrounding Noah’s salvation (rather than just to the flood water), then baptism really is an understandable antitupos since it saves us from sin just as Noah was saved from the flood.
TECHNICAL NOTE: Antitupos has the ending for both the nominative and accusative case (they are the same ending and only the context determines which is appropriate). The nominative case would mean that antitupos is the subject of the sentence (the noun that acts on the verb). The accusative case would mean that antitupos is a direct object. The only verb in the phrase is "(it) is saving." Since it would not make any sense to write that "an antitupos is saving," antitupos is mostly likely meant to be taken in the accusative case. Since "you" is also in the accusative case (meaning it is a direct object), it may be that Peter’s thought was: "which (as an) antitype now is saving also you . . ." On the other hand, it could be in the accusative case so as to match "which" (also accusative) and would mean that the anitupos lies back in 3:20 with the circumstances of Noah’s deliverance. That is, Noah’s rescue corresponds with our salvation through baptism. Either way, it makes little difference in meaning. The over-all point is that there is a "correspondence" between Noah’s salvation and our salvation.
One rather poor way to interpret this (see the NIV) is that the judgment water of Noah’s flood is the antitupos, somehow corresponding to the saving effect of water baptism. Exactly how it corresponds is unclear since the flood water was a form of judgment, whereas NT water baptism carries a saving imagery. Such an interpretation would also imply that water baptism actually does save, a theological impossibility.
With what is the word "now" contrasted? With the "then" of Noah’s situation. Noah was saved back then, and you are saved now.
What function in the sentence does the word "baptism" serve? Like antitupos, baptisma is in both the nominative and the accusative case, meaning it can be taken as either the subject of a sentence or as a direct object. Since it only makes sense to say that "baptism is saving you," it is to be taken in the nominative case (the subject of the sentence).
31. To what type of baptism did Peter refer: literal water or something metaphysical? How so? It seemingly refers to spirit baptism, not water baptism. This is evident in that
1.) the antitype (the corresponding) is between Noah’s salvation and our salvation. Some wrongly try to parallel the water of the flood with the water of baptism, but there is no exactness of correspondence here since the flood water was destructive and the water of baptism is supposedly saving. Thus, if either the type or the antitype refers to something other than water (because of the lack of a real correlation), then the parallel ceases to exist, as well as an further justification for either one as referring to water.
2.) Peter himself specifically states that water baptism is not what he had in mind when he wrote, "not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God." Peter thus clearly had in mind a metaphorical baptism of a good conscience.
32. After Peter wrote that it is "baptism that now saves you" (3:21), how did he immediately go on to clarify what he meant? That it is not water baptism that saves us ("the removal of dirt from the flesh"), but rather a spiritual baptism: "the pledge of a good conscience toward God".
To what does "it" refer in 3:22 ("It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ")? The "it" refers to the "appeal to God for a good conscience." Actually, the "it" (NIV) is not in the underlying Greek text. Instead, the Greek has dia ("through") in its place. Thus literally, "an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." See the NASV or other literal translation.
33. PART I SUMMARY: How would you summarize everything studied about the purpose of NT baptism?
1. There are several types of baptism: water, fire, spirit, and metaphorical.
2. Water baptism is associated with and seemingly symbolic of the confession of sin, repentance, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, righteousness, being a disciple of Jesus, obedience of Jesus’ commands, the washing away of sins.
3. Water baptism is clearly not a part to the gospel message, and is not necessary for salvation.
What Scriptures demand the conclusion that water baptism is not necessary for salvation? Jn 3:16, Ro 4, Ga 3, Ep 2:8-9, to list a few. Also considered was the thief on the cross and Cornelius’ reception of the Holy Spirit.
4. On the other hand, Spirit baptism is necessary for salvation and is clearly salvific. Spirit baptism places us into Christ.
II. The Mode of NT Baptism
34. How did Moses instruct the Israelis to purify things in Nu 19:11-13, 17-21?
"Sprinkled" is from the Hebrew nazah (5137a), which signifies a spattering or sprinkling of blood, oil, or water either with one’s finger (Le 4:6) or a "sprinkler" (Le 14:7). Rendered in the LXX with the Greek rantizo (Thayer, #4472). It is distinguished from the Hebrew zaraq, which is a heaver "sprinkling" executed with the whole hand (Ex 9:8, 29:20-21), TWOT #1335).
35. What method of purification was required in Nu 31:19, 24?
"Wash" (31:24) is from kabas (3526) and means "to launder." It is also used with reference to clothing and is never used to refer to "washing" the human body. See Ex 19:10, 14, Nu 8:7, 19:7, Le 16:26, 28. Specifically, it means "to make clean and soft by treading, kneading, and beating in cold water" (TWOT #946). It is rendered in the LXX with the Greek pluno (thayer, #4150).
What link might such OT texts as Nu 19:11-21 and 31:21-24 have with NT water baptism? Water was used in accordance with the OT Mosaic Law to ceremonially cleanse things. This washing symbolized purification. Also, from a purely natural perspective, water is nature’s detergent, a cleansing agent well suited to the symbolism of purification. A common use of water is to cleanse.
36. The Hebrew behind bapto in the LXX is tabal (2881). What meaning does tabal (bapto) seem to carry in Ge 37:31, Le 4:6, 17, 9:9, Josh 3:15, and Ru 2:14? The Hebrew word tabal means "to dip, plunge" and is so used in the cited passages (TWOT #2881).
37. INTERESTING FACT: The verb baptizo occurs only four times in the LXX (Le 6:28, Jdg 12:7, 2Ki 5:14, and Isa 21:4 [other than NIV), and is another translation of the Hebrew tabal (2881). How is tabal translated into English in each of these four references? "Overwhelms" (NASV, Isa 21:4), "dipped" (2Ki 5:14), "buried" (Jude 12:7), "rinsed" (Le 6:28). Only once is baptizo used with reference to OT ceremonial cleansing.
38. What in Mk 1:9-10 implies that John’s mode of baptism was something more than merely sprinkling people with water? John and Jesus were not just "by" the Jordan river, but were down "in" (eis) it. Then, after being baptized by John, Jesus came up "out of" (ek) the water. All this "in" and "out of" the water would have been unnecessary if John had merely sprinkled Jesus.
39. What does "baptism" (baptisma) evidently mean as used in Mk 10:35-40 (Cp Mt 20:20-23)? See Mk 10:32-32. It carries the idea of being overwhelmed with calamity. Also, since baptizo was also a form of execution (by drowning), it could be that Jesus used it here as a reference to martyrdom. Either way, its use here suggests intensive imagery.
40. According to Jn 3:22-23, why was John baptizing at Aenon near Salim? Not because it was such a lovely place, nor because it was close to the synagogue, but rather because there was "plenty of water" there. It does not take much water to sprinkle. The entire city of a large city could be sprinkled with a washtub full of water. John would have only need "plenty" of water if he used a method of baptism that required a lot of water!
41. What in Ac 2:17, 33 has led some to conclude that pouring is the correct form of baptism? Cp Ac 10:44-48. Because of the reference to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Ac 2:33 ("poured" is from ekcheo (1632a), "pour out"). The LXX uses ekcheo to translated the Hebrew word sapak ("to pour") in Ge 9:6, 37:22, Ex 30:18, Nu 19:17, Jdg 6:20, and of course Joe 2:28-29 (Brown, NIDNTT, II, p. 855).
42. Where did Philip take the Eunuch to be baptized in Ac 8:36-39? Notice that they "went down" (katebesan) "into" (eis) the water and then "came up" (anebesan) "out of" (ek) the water. Though in the desert, Philip and the Eunuch both undoubtedly carried enough water to satisfy their thirst. A sufficient quantity of water might easily have been poured to wet the hand of the one doing the baptizing if the sprinkling method were used—there was certainly no need for both of them to go into the water. It appears that Philip’s method of baptism required more water than was readily available from a canteen!
How did the author of Hebrews describe the study of baptisms in Heb 6:1-3? As an "elementary" teaching that constitutes "foundation" material. The doctrine of NT baptism is not that hard to understand; the problem arises when men distort the simple truth and then must be refuted! However, it is possible that the author of Hebrews did not even have NT baptism in mind when he penned this (see the next question).
43. How is the Greek word for "baptisms" in Heb 6:1-3 different from the Greek word normally used for baptism (baptisma) in the NT? Cp. Mk 7:4 and Heb 9:10. The word "baptisms" (6:2) is from baptismos (909), rather than from the more common baptisma, and usually refers to the OT ritual washings instead of NT baptism. For instance, baptismos is also used in Mk 7:4 and Heb 9:10. This is why some translations render it "washings" here in Heb 6:1-3 rather than as "baptisms" (NIV). On the other hand, all the other things mentioned in Heb 6:1-3 seem to have NT associations, so maybe this is an odd way of referring to NT baptism.
44. What did the Greek verb baptizo ("baptize") originally mean? Do a word study. The word "baptize" in our English Bibles is from the Greek root baptizo. As can be seen, it remains an untranslated word in our Bibles! Our English word "baptize" is merely a letter for letter transliteration of the original Greek. Outside the Bible, baptizo was used in reference to sunken ships (Thayer) or with reference to men who perished by drowning (Brown, NIDNTT, I, p. 144). BAGD thus defines it as meaning to "dip, immerse, plunge, sink, drench, over-whelm."
"Despite assertions to the contrary, its seems that baptizo, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normally meant ‘immerse,’ and that even when it became a technical term for baptism, the thought of immersion remains. The use of term for cleansing vessels (as in Le 6:28) does not prove the contrary, since vessels were normally cleansed by immersing them in water" (Brown, NIDNTT, I, p. 144).
THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORY: "The Greek language continued to be spoken for many years after the times of the apostles. During all this period they, to whom the word baptizo was vernacular, understood it to signify immerse; and immersion has always been the practice of the Greek church to the present day. The Greeks must have understood the meaning of their own word. The Latin fathers also understood the word in the same way; and immersion prevailed in the western as well as in the eastern churches, until near the time of the reformation. Effusion was allowed instead of immersion, in case of sickness; but it was accounted an imperfect baptism" (J.L. Dagg, Manual of Church Order, p 36).
SUMMARY: What is the fundamental, true and proper, primary meaning of baptizo? "To dip, immerse." What might be a secondary (more incidental) meaning of baptizo? "To wash," but washing was merely the purpose for which the immersion was performed. It is used thus in Mk 7:4 and Lk 11:38.
45. What is the difference between bapto (911) and baptizo (907)? Both mean "to dip," but baptizo is an intensive form of bapto. For instance, baptizo was used to mean "to cause to perish" (as by drowning a man or sinking a ship). (NIDNTT, I, p; 144).
IN OTHER WORDS: The fundamental meaning of baptizo is to immerse, and that is evidently the primary mode of baptism in the NT. The Greek word used to refer to washing one’s whole body is louo (Jn 13:10, Ac 9:37, 16:33, Heb 10:22-23, 2Pe 2:22). The word use to refer to washing only a part of one’s body (such as the hands) is nipto (Mt 6:17, Jn 13:8). If one was washing one’s clothes, then pluno (4150) was used (Re 7:14). There are specific Greek words for "sprinkle" (rantizo, 4472) and also for "pour" (ekecho), but significantly those were not the words used in the NT with reference to baptism. The question is: If Jesus designed to command pouring or sprinkling, why did he not use the proper word for denoting it?
III. The Candidates for NT Baptism
46. What can generally be concluded about all the people we have thus far studied whose baptisms are recorded in the NT? They seem to all have been professing believers. Most illuminating is a tract someone once produced on what the Bible says about infant baptism: its interior is blank!
47. How does Ac 2:38-39 serve as a basis for infant baptism in some people’ minds? The reference to the promise being for "your children" is a supposed basis for infant baptism. However, Peter went on to limit it to those "whom the Lord our God will call." Also, 2:41 states that only those who "accepted his message" were baptized. How could infants have accepted Peter’s message?
48. What can be learned about the jailer’s family from Ac 16:34? That however old the children were, they were at least old enough to believe.
49. How might some squeeze infant baptism out of Ac 16:13-15, 18:7-8 and 1Co 1:16 (but cp. 1Co 16:15)?
50. What evidence is there in the NT as to whether infant baptism was practiced in the early church, based on Mk 10:13-16 and 1Co 7:14? Cp. also 1Co 7:16-16.
51. What reasoning from Col 2:9-12 could be used to justify infant baptism? The reasoning is that since circumcision and baptism are paralleled here, and that since the Jews circumcised infant boys, then it must be appropriate for Christians to baptize their infants.
52. What damping effect might Ga 3:6-9 and Php 3:2-3 have on the practice of infant baptism? Cp. also Heb 8:7-13 and Mt 3:8-9.
53. Who did Jesus instruct the apostles to baptize in Mt 28:19?
What odd, unexplained practice is revealed in 1Co 15:29? Evidently the vicarious baptism for someone already dead (with no indication from Paul whether he approves or not). This is the only reference in Scripture to this practice, and it is not even clear here exactly what it was that was being done. It may have been a practice of the pagan unbelievers in Corinth. It may have been some sort of "washing" by non-Christian Jews to prepare their dead for a resurrection. It may have been done by the Christians on behalf of those martyred before they could be baptized. Not surprisingly, the Mormons have made a major doctrine out of this one obscure reference, building on it a whole theology of baptism of the dead! Note: "baptized" in 15:29 is from baptizo.
THE ANABAPTST PERSPECTIVE: In the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, the Anabaptists declared that Baptism is not for infants, but for those who have already consciously decided to be Christians. Article 1 reads: "Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with him in death, so that they may be resurrected with him, and to all those who with this significance request it of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism, the highest and chief abomination of the pope. In this you have the foundation and the testimony of the apostles (Mt 28, Ac 2, 8, 16, 19)" (The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought, p. 139).
OPTIONAL FURTHER READING: Manual of Church Order, J.L. Dagg (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990) & NTRF’s web page articles on baptism at www.ntrf.org.
Revised 04/03.
NT Restoration Foundation 2752
Evans Dale Circle Atlanta GA 30340 U.S.A.
