Baptism

Does baptism take the place of circumcision in this dispensation?

The whole question of circumcision in relation to the Gentile believers in Christ in this dispensation came up before the council at Jerusalem, described in the 15th chapter of Acts. The thought of the Jewish believers in Christ was a very natural one. If the Jews must, in order to have the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant, receive circumcision, it naturally seemed to them that much more the Gentiles must receive the sign of that covenant if they were to share in its blessings. But the decision of the council at Jerusalem was that the Gentile converts did not need circumcision, and there is not in all that discussion a single hint of the notion that baptism takes the place of circumcision as a sign for Christians in this age. There is a theological teaching that as the Jews had circumcision in order to enter the Abrahamic covenant, so the Christian has baptism for the same purpose; but there is not one syllable of Scripture connecting baptism with the Abrahamic covenant. It is purely and only a theological concept. Baptism was a new ordinance instituted for believers of this age, as a public witness to identification with Christ.

What is the meaning of “baptized for the dead’”’ in 1 Corinthians 15:29?

It does not mean baptized in behalf of the dead, as if, some having died after believing but before baptism, others took their place as proxies and received baptism in their behalf. The apostle’s thought is of an army or procession of believers passing on to the presence of the Lord through death, and of baptism as the act of confession by which others took the places in the ranks which were left vacant by those who had fallen. It is as if a Union soldier during the Civil War had exclaimed: “If the union is to be destroyed, then those already dead in its defense are dead in vain, and what shall we do who are enlisted in their places?”’

What is meant (Matt. 3:11) by being baptized
“with fire’’?

“With fire’ (Matt. 3:11) refers to the Spirit, but in His office as (1) the Energizer of the believer’s service, (2) the Purifier from evil within. Hence the exhortation (1 Thess. 5:19) “Quench not the Spirit,” where “quench” means literally, “put not out the fire.”

What was the difference between John’s baptism and Christian baptism?

John’s baptism was the voice of God to Israel, and the believing remnant responded (Matt. 3:5, 6; see also Acts 13:24 and 19:4). John’s baptism required repentance or a change of mind concerning dead works — Abrahamic descent as meritorious (Matt. 3:9) — ceremonial righteousness to give place to practical righteousness (Luke 3:8-14); and all this in view of the imminence of the kingdom of heaven, the chief characteristic of which is righteous doing.

Christian baptism has no reference to repentance, as a believer has already the changed mind concerning the person and work of Christ, but is a symbol of the believer’s union with Christ in His death and resurrection.

Did John the Baptist and Jesus seek the same end in their preaching and baptism?

This question cannot be answered categorically. (1) Jesus did not baptize (John 4:2). (2) The inference is that Jesus’ disciples baptized as did John “with the baptism of repentance” (Acts 19:4; Matt. 3:2) unto the kingdom “at hand,” since both John and Jesus and His disciples preached the kingdom of heaven as ‘at hand” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:5-7). (8) But the preaching of Jesus and of John, alike in the message, ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” had this great distinction, that John’s preaching was concerning “one who should come after him,” while Jesus preached Himself as the One who had come. Doubtless the Judean ministry of Jesus laid the foundation doctrines of the grace to be preached to the whole world, but it required the death and resurrection of Jesus to give the facts upon which those doctrines could be preached (Rom. 8:24-26; 4:24; 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:18-21).

John’s baptism brought his disciples into an attitude toward Christ of expectant faith (John 1:29-87; Acts 19:4).

Since Acts 19:5 asserts that the Ephesian disciples of John were re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, is it not reasonable to suppose that all of the disciples of John and Jesus were re-baptized after Pentecost?

There is no authority for affirming that all of John’s disciples afterwards received Christian baptism. An assertion either way would rest upon a mere inference.

There is no vestige of authority for asserting that Jesus’ disciples, made before the crucifixion, were re-baptized as they believed after the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit. If any of Jesus’ followers had not really believed before Pentecost that He was “‘the Christ the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16; 1 John 5:1), but were among those who “gladly received his (Peter’s) word’ on the day of Pentecost, then such certainly were baptized on that day (Acts 2:41). But even if it be assumed that some of Jesus’ disciples were not converted till after Pentecost — and it would be pure assumption, for no word of Scripture affirms it — it could not be positively affirmed that their baptism on that day was a “re-baptism,” for except the Apostles John and Andrew, there is no evidence that any of Jesus’ disciples were baptized by John the Baptist, though it is a reasonable conclusion that they were.

Is there any connection between the Old Testament ceremonial cleansing and John’s baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

None whatever. The latter was unto repentance, while the former was for external transgressions, e. g., coming in contact with a dead body, a leper, etc. In the ordinance of the red heifer (Num. 19), the water used signified cleansing from defilement (sin has two aspects — guilt and uncleanliness) and is a type of both the Spirit and the Word (John 7:37-39; Eph. 5:26). Neither is there any connection between John’s baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the baptism with the Spirit unites believers to the body of Christ and imparts gifts for service.

John’s appointment and mission were of God (Luke 1:13-18) and exceptional, as was his being filled with the Holy Ghost, the dispensation of the Holy Ghost not yet having been begun. There is but little light given in Scripture as to the how, why and wherefore of John’s mission — we accept it as it is, coming as it does in the transitional period from the dispensation of law to grace, and legitimate in a prophet, as one sent from God. His baptism was a form, signifying that the believer wished to be separated from his sinful habits. Many were baptized with John’s baptism who were never saved, while all baptized with the Spirit had been saved.

Into how many baptisms does the believer enter?

A great deal of the confusion of mind concerning the word “‘baptism’”’ disappears when we see that Christ was the subject of a three-fold baptism. First, He was baptized with water (Luke 3:21); second, He was baptized with the Holy Ghost by the Father (Luke 3:22); and thirdly, He was baptized with death on the cross (Luke 12:50). Every believer is, in this dispensation, identified with Christ in the last two of these baptisms (1 Cor. 12:12, 13; Matt. 20:22, 23), and every believer should be baptized with the first of these baptisms. The passage in Colossians 2:12 refers to the identification of the believer in the first, and Romans 6:4, 5, to the identification of the believer with Christ in the last of these baptisms.

How can there be remission of sins in baptism as suggested in Luke 3:3?

There can be no remission of sins in baptism apart from repentance, which means, in these passages, a change of mind on the part of the Jews concerning Christ, the Messiah whom they had crucified. Baptism is the outward confession of an inward change from unbelief to faith.

When repentance, faith and baptism in water were the fundamental conditions for receiving the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 2:38), was it not the baptism in water of the adult, and not infant baptism that is here meant?

Peter is addressing Jews in regard to their attitude toward Jesus. Undoubtedly it was the baptism of the adult which is here meant.