There is additional significance to the baptism Peter insisted on.
“Be baptized”
“Be baptized” is in the passive voice. We often miss the significance of this fact, but it’s very important.
It’s passive because, unlike a cleansing under the Law of Moses, this cleansing is administered by someone else. Someone wishing to be cleansed in a mikveh would enter and leave by himself, but baptism is administered by a Christian on behalf of God and the church. It’s never expressed in the active or middle voice. You don’t baptize yourself.
(Obviously, Peter wasn’t dealing with an “only person on a desert island” scenario. The symbolism is built on the 99.9999% case.)
It’s on behalf of God because it’s at water baptism that the Spirit is normally received from God. It’s God who forgives. But it’s on behalf of the church because the church must decide whether to accept the convert’s confession of faith and admit him into the community of faith.
This sounds very odd to Church of Christ ears, because we have roots deep in Frontier Revivalism and so extend the invitation routinely and immediately baptize nearly all who request it.
But we all know of cases where the preacher or other church leader asked a child or visitor to delay his decision until the church leaders could be sure the convert was truly ready to take such a big step. We don’t do catechism classes in the Churches of Christ, that is, classes for people not yet baptized. Rather, we have new member classes — which seems to me to fit well with the examples we have in Acts. But still someone must decide whether to accept someone’s confession.
I remember my own baptism well enough — although it was a very long time ago. As a young child, I approached the preacher asking to be baptized. He set up a time for me to meet with him in his office. My mother later drove me there. My feet didn’t even touch the floor sitting in his chair.
He asked me if I knew the “Plan of Salvation.” I dutifully recited the Five Steps correctly (I think I got bonus points for knowing the Sixth Step — “Be faithful unto death”) — on the second try. He explained to me when and how to go forward the following Sunday.
Why not take me straight to the baptistry? Why delay for a week and schedule an interview? Well, because I was only 8 or 9 and he wanted to know whether I had a clue. And I think that was the right think to do (although he really should have asked some deeper questions than the Five- (or Six-) Step Plan).
The requirement to ask a convert what he believes is implicit in the requirement to confess Jesus.
(Rom 10:9-10 ESV) 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Paul’s Plan of Salvation in Romans 10 includes Send (a missionary), Preach (the gospel of Jesus), Hear, Believe, Confess, Be Saved. He emphasizes confession here ahead of even baptism, and yet we sometimes treat confession as little more than a formality — focusing millions of words on what is and isn’t a good baptism and having very little to say on what is and isn’t a good confession.
But clearly the confession must be the right confession, or else we’d greatly err in baptizing someone who’d not declared his faith in Jesus. And here’s part of the problem: we often aren’t even sure what “faith in Jesus” means. We so focus on faith in the Plan that we fail to truly consider just what or who must be believed. You see, we have a Plan of Salvation that allows someone to “confess” Five Steps and say nothing about Jesus of Nazareth.
And as a result, we sometimes make no effort to determine if the convert even really knows who Jesus is or what it means to confess him as Lord or Christ or Savior. No, we’re much more concerned to get him into the sacramental waters, and to say the right words over him, rather than to ask whether, when it comes to Jesus, he even has a clue.
If we baptize the clueless, what happens when they later come to realize what Jesus is all about? Well, some ask for re-baptism. Some decide they aren’t really interested in Jesus after all.
We really have to get over our revivalism, our anxiety to produce baptism by any means necessary, and begin making disciples.
(Mat 28:19-20 ESV) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
After all, that’s the command. We’re to baptize disciples, not just anyone who’s scared of hell. And how can we know we’re baptizing a disciple if we only ask whether the convert is so scared of hell he’s willing to be baptized — or knows the Five Steps?
Thus, conversion and baptism should not be an entirely unilateral process. It’s not enough to get wet. The convert must confess his faith, that is, declare what he believes and approach the faith community to request admission.
And while we don’t vote on conversions in the Churches of Christ, neither should we accept everyone without question. We discern whether a child is old enough or whether he truly understands what he’s committing to. And this is good, right, and justifies the passive voice — that baptism is received, not done.
As a result, we can fairly refer to baptism as a “gift,” not a “work.” There’s more to the whole faith/works question, but this is the starting point. Yes, Peter’s “Repent and be baptized” is a command, but it’s a command to repent to receive a gift.
Baptism is a symbolic request to God to take away the old man and give a new birth, a new creation. It’s more than a symbol, of course, but it is indeed a symbol — a symbol that tells a powerful story.
Therefore, we baptize correctly when the baptism is administered like a burial, where the convert is lowered into the water by the baptizer, passively submitting and accepting the rite. Indeed, to be baptized is to trust your life to the baptizer. You place yourself in an utterly defenseless, helpless posture, falling backward, forced to hold your nose to keep from drowning . At the bottom of the immersion, you couldn’t get up without the help of the baptizer.
And the picture matters. You see, this is Christianity. We submit, even to the point of death. We are lifted up, not by our own strength, but the strength of God and the church that surrounds us. And so, when we are symbolically resurrected with Jesus, we are rescued by others. Baptism requires faith — not just faith in Jesus but faith in whoever is going to immerse us!
And so baptism pictures the new convert trusting his very life to his new congregation — a picture that is no accident and that we should take far more seriously.
The Essenes
The Essenes are the sect of the Jews who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. They don’t show up in the New Testament, but some think John the Baptist was an Essene. His ascetic ways and baptismal teachings sound like the Essenes.
Therefore, some scholars think Christian baptism evolved from the washing practices of the Essenes, who engaged in ceremonial washings for atonement of sins. You see, the Essenes had rejected the Temple and priests because they were not of the right lineage under the Torah. Therefore, the Essenes sought forgiveness by other means.
Evidently, they read the prophets just as I just did, finding in water symbolism of forgiveness and God’s Spirit. Therefore, they washed not just for ceremonial purity but in hopes of receiving forgiveness, as they had no confidence in animal sacrifices performed by the wrong priests.
But I don’t think Christian baptism comes from the Essenes. Rather, I think the Essenes and Christians happen to read the Prophets the same way, and both Christians and Essenes rejected the Temple sacrifices, but for very different reasons. Having rejected the sacrificial system, both looked to the Prophets for a deeper, better way to ask God for atonement.
“Everyone of you.”
Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you …” We never talk about “everyone of you.” After all, doesn’t everyone need to be saved? To have Jesus? Well, of course, but there’s more.
Peter’s point is not just, “All fall short of the glory of God,” but that every Jew there would not enter the Kingdom and enjoy God’s blessings unless he repented and accepted Jesus as Messiah. Both the Jews who shouted “Crucify him!” and the ones who just arrived from across the Mediterranean had to repent. And all had to be baptized. All were in Exile. All were in the wilderness. All needed to cross the Jordan and enter the Promised Land.
Thus, Jesus didn’t come merely to improve Judaism. The Jews there in Jerusalem weren’t automatically citizens of the Kingdom. No, they all had to make some hard decisions about whether to enter or not.
Questions:
- If the Jews weren’t saved because of their lineage, will our own children be saved just because their parents are?
- Do you agree that baptism involves the church? Or is the baptizer merely a mechanism for doing the ritual?
- What if the church accepts someone it shouldn’t? What if the church rejects someone it shouldn’t?
- We Westerners tend to individualize our salvation, that is, to see Jesus as “personal” Savior with little regard to entry into the Kingdom or church as being of critical importance. Does the fact that you can’t baptize yourself change your view of baptism? Of conversion? Of your relationship to the church?
- Why do you suppose entry into the church is so important to God’s plans? Why not allow us to baptize ourselves?
- Many Christians today are considering universalism, that is, that ultimately everyone will be saved. Do you find Peter’s preaching and the meaning of baptism to fit that story? Or does baptism tell a different story?
Jay wrote: “……Rather, we have new member classes”.
There were no new member classes in any of the seven CofC’s I was affiliated with (and a couple would be considered mega churches). Maybe that’s a deep south phenomenon.
p.s. I like having application questions at the end of the post.
Jay you wrote, “And as a result, we sometimes make no effort to determine if the convert even really knows who Jesus is or what it means to confess him as Lord or Christ or Savior. No, we’re much more concerned to get him into the sacramental waters, and to say the right words over him, rather than to ask whether, when it comes to Jesus, he even has a clue.”
While I dont know how many times people have been baptized without even having “a clue” as to who Jesus is, I am sure that our religious neighbors regularly “urge/prod” their prospects to “accept Jesus into their hearts” with no greater understanding of Jesus on average than “our” prospects have.
I have attended Calvery Chapel harvest crusades in CA where scores of souls were “talked into” saying the sinners prayer with a VERY shallow knowledge of Jesus and without any mention of repentance. So, I dont belive that “WE” are anyworse tha the orhers there.
Too, it seems that people who had never even heard of Jesus were baptized immediately after learning of him. Jimmy Allen’s book “Fire In My Bones” was interesting to me in terms of how he made people promise NOT to even say “in the name of the Father Son and HS” because it would take way to long and end up costing other souls from not getting immersed. He would baptize hundreds in a single meeting and was all about babptizing as many as he could as quick as he could.
I’m not sure how wrong he was back then? Of course, times are different and we unfortunately likely have such a dilemna anymore…
I am not sure if I agree with “But it’s on behalf of the church because the church must decide whether to accept the convert’s confession of faith and admit him into the community of faith.”
Elsewhere it says “The convert must confess his faith, that is, declare what he believes and approach the faith community to request admission.”
I always thought Acts 2:47 declared that it was Jesus who added to the church those that are being saved…where in the Scripture does it teach anything about a convert approaching the “faith community to request admission?”
Salvation is between the penitent believer and the one doing the saving…Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 2:19 says Jesus “knows those that are His.” Apparently it matters not whether the “faith community” approves or not…the act of becoming a disciple of Christ is determined by obeying the Lord’s gospel…not by meeting the approval of some group.
In fact, if we look at Luke’s account in Acts 8:10-23 we read of Simon the magician who also believed the gospel and was baptized, but from what it says it is obvious that his heart was far from being right with God. It would appear that, at least for some period of time, the “faith community” accepted Simon as a true believer, but it was through the Holy Spirit that Philip declared Simon was still in “bonds of iniquity” and the “gall of bitterness.”
What was wrong with Simon and his public baptism or confession of faith? It is the same as those who wandered for forty years in the wilderness with Moses, while having a direct presence of God in their lives they still did not enter into His rest. (Psalms 95:10-11) They had an outward relationship with God, but not inwardly…their heart was not correct with Him.
The “faith community” can be fooled by outward confessions, baptisms and the like, but nothing can be faked about the genuine conversion of a real disciple. God knows the difference, and where the Spirit truly resides in the heart of a believer there will be fruit that bears the presence of the living God.
I don’t mean to dismiss any one part of the Scripture, but sometimes I think we need to focus on Galatians 5:22-25 instead of always looking to Acts 2:38 as our spiritual compass.
Just saying…
Blessings to all in 2012!!
Don, excellent post.
I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The last part of the Matt 28:20 is something I think is not considered in the baptismal concept. The “you” here in this passage is “them”. This is the first thing to understand and the right hermeneutic to get to the meaning. The second part “to the of the age” again needs to be understood to mean in their “age.” Our application often is to make the “you” us in the future and the “end of the age” the end of the world. Of coarse this would make baptism follow us as a practice in the future.
However if this “age” means their life time or the destruction Jerusalem or what ever their ending generation was, it would mean the importance of baptism would diminished. In fact most all the church practices both in supernatural and natural practices would go away. And many of these doctrines have fallen on the way side.
Now I’m for tradition it is a good teacher. But I’m not for science of restoration-ism as a law unto itself. Comply or die. I like Richard Becks take on all of this in his blog at experimental theology. If a professor at ACU can speak of universalism as his belief system that is much more hopeful than worrying about do we baptize right.
Hank,
The Baptists have done studies to determine how effective conversions from “bow your head and pray to Jesus” campaigns are. Only a very few converts who prayed Jesus into their hearts at a Billy Graham campaign or church revival remain active in church a year later. Many Baptists are re-thinking their strategies.
Scot McKnight in the King Jesus Gospel also criticizes such spur of the moment “conversions” for failing to make disciples.
I suspect the same is true of some our of own old camp meetings.
On the other hand, I’m sure there are many who were converted at such events and who became spiritual giants. But the over-arching results of such conversions are thoroughly depressing. If the “convert” is converted to fear of hell and hope in baptism (or a prayer), he’s not necessarily in love with Jesus.
He may become a regular attender, but our churches are filled with attenders who aren’t disciples.
Jay, interesting fact.. the crime rate in Australia went down the year after the first Billy Graham tour (1958 I think it was!)
1959.. http://au.christiantoday.com/article/the-effect-of-billy-graham-crusades-in-1959-still-being-felt-today/2838.htm
God has no Grandchildren. Zwingli tried to justify infant baptizm by connecting it with OT circumcision. In fact even around 250 AD there were ome who already tried to do the same. While Tertullian said infant baptism makes no sense because childrean are still innocent, Cyprian (in response to the circumciasion-idea) wrote that baptism washes away Adam’s sin in us (a new concept!) and therefore children should be baptized even immediately after their birth, so grace would not delay …
Infant baptism, in connection with state churches, transformed a church of believers to a people of nominal Christians that functioned like Israel of old. Therefore even Calvin tried to model Geneva after the OT law, including cruel death penalties for dissenters. The other reformers were not much better BTW, except the Anabaptists (not those from Munster) who by understanding baptism came to undertand church again.
We are baptized into one body, and the whole church is called to welcome the new “body part”. But he baptizer is working on behalf of Christ. So when Philipp baptized the Eunoch, it was disconnected from the visible church, but the Eunoch – I am confident – was led to a church sooner or later by the Spirit.
Both happens frequently: We can answer this from experience. Those who don’t belong will sooner or later either fall away, come to faith or cause trouble. Those who are rejected by our church may find a home elswewhere or will grow bitter against the faith/church.
Since we cannot judge the hearts, we won’t always avoid such mistakes. We can learn from them, try to make it better, to become more open and more cautious at the fitting occasions.
I thik needing a baptizer is a help to overcome individualism, but there is more to the story: The Gospel must be preached as a Gospel of the Kingdom. As long as we overemphasize the individual aspect opf salvation in the mesage and 8as happens) leave out completekly the Kingdom, the baptizer won’t make the big difference.
Love needs loves ones, and love is the true sign of Christ’s disciples. Therefore a fellowship is needed. Also – as Israel of old – this fellowship should be an example of a Godly society that people shall see and thus become anxious to become part of the Kingdom. We don’t baptize ourselves, because we also don’t save ourselves.
No, it does not. Because the message is presented in a way a person can receive it or reject it. Allowing yourself to be baptized makes this a matter of personal decision. The promise is tied to receiving the message.
Alexander
Early Restoratists baptized “on a simply confession of faith” as opposed to the Calvinists demanding that a pentitent relate an “experience” before he was admitted into the church. It had to do with differing doctrines about salvation, but the Calvinists were also concerned that the “simple confession of faith” practice would fill the church with unregenerates. There probably is a middle ground we could take on the matter.
It is interesting to see John’s response in Luke 3 to those coming to be baptized. He put great emphasis on repentance with a lifestyle to match. He even taught specific actions that these converts were to do in their life. I certainly get the impression that John was not going to baptize anyone who was not willing to live a different lifestyle. Thought of this when reading your comments on baptizing disciples.
Reading the accounts of conversion in Acts should help us see that the converts were NOT to a congregation or a group of congregations, but were to the risen Jesus who is now Lord of all. It should be so today as well. Of course the Christians who know of a new Christian should do all in their power to welcome and encourage and teach the convert. But there’s no excuse for asking lots of questions of one who seeks baptism. The usual question in my experience has been simply, “Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the unique Son of God?” If the convert says, “Yes,” then the questioning should be finished.
When a Christian moves to a new community, the only question the new congregation has any right to ask before welcoming the newcomer is the same question with the added, “And are you a repentant baptized believer?” If the answer is yes, then no further questions need be asked. But they often are asked if the congregation has a creed, in our case usually unwritten, “Will you be obedient to our elders as a part of this congregation?” And I think that question is impertinent and inappropriate at best.
Why? First, because elders are not rulers, and may sometimes be mistaken. If the elders are mistaken, the members of the church should NOT be obedient to them. So what should the members do in that unusual event? They should quietly leave that congregation and either start an independent church in their home or in rented space, or join another congregation with elders who are not mistaken on doctrine or practice.
Wow! I just spoke of leaving a congregation. And this discussion is about joining with the Lord Jesus. So, a change of subject. But related in that once we have submitted to Jesus as Lord, we should eagerly follow Him all the rest of our lives. Wherever He leads us. Back to the question we can go. We should baptize new believers without asking them for references or pledges other than they want to be a good Christian and will be glad for our help in that endeavor.
Be careful, Jay! The phrase “make disciples” is actually one word, a verb in the Greek: matheteusate. The “them” we baptize are “the nations”.
I know this because “baptizing disciples” is a keystone to Boston Movement/ICOC/ICC/McKeanist theology!
X-Ray,
I quote from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [dont’ know why the Greek isn’t copying right] —
I stand corrected. The Greek says that the means of making disciples is baptizing and teaching all things.
Interesting, isn’t it, that “baptizing” is seen as a means toward discipling. Why? Well, if baptism includes an element of acceptance by the church into community, it makes sense. If it’s merely forgiveness of sins, the logic of the verse is hard to follow. After all, “disciple” means much more than “saved person.”
But since Jesus is speaking to Jews about preaching to the Gentiles, inclusion into community was clearly a part of the thought of the verse. We read it as being solely about salvation, but that’s our Reformation theology poking through. In cultural and historical context, it’s just as much about inviting the Gentiles into God’s eklessia with the Jews.
Jay,
One point that I have made in the past in regard to baptism being passive in the NT is that it is inconsistent with the nature of a work. No one is calling repentance or confession works and yet those are active verbs we are commanded to do. Baptism is the one passive verb that we submit to at the hands of others and yet it is called out as a work that earns salvation. That view cannot be based on a biblical study of baptism. It is possible that people have come to that conclusion as a reaction to the way baptism has been viewed and taught, even by those in the Restoration Movement.
I make that point more thoroughly here – http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2009/07/07/baptism-related-to-salvation-but-not-a-wor/
and here – http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/the-beauty-of-baptism/