BAPTISM
AND THE BLOOD
Why do we
baptize? When do we baptize? How do we baptize? What, if anything,
does baptism do for or to the believer? It is certain that all of these
questions have been answered many times over since the day the Lord told his
disciples to go out and teach all nations and to baptize those who would
believe. Yet, no one can doubt that there is no uniformity within the Church
today as to how these questions should be answered.
When
interpreting Bible passages and seeking to answer theological questions one
would hope it would be done without bias and with a sincere desire to know
God's will. It is unfortunate that it has not always been the case. And it is
equally true that, for any number of reasons, sincere men have been sincerely
wrong. What has happened all too often in the past, and likely will continue to
occur, is that scholars interpret with an eye toward defending their own
position or refuting that of another. When they come to a passage of Scripture
they know is used by a false cult or teacher in a manner they believe to be
incorrect there is a tendency to take an opposite view of the passage even if
it is unwarranted within that text in an effort to distance themselves from
that teacher or group.
The primary
purpose of this study is to address the issue of baptism with a special look at
its relationship to the blood of Jesus Christ shed at Calvary. This will
naturally address the concept of baptismal regeneration since there can be no
such teaching unless it includes the idea of having sin washed away at
salvation by the blood.
First we
will address the idea suggested by some that the Bible tells us we must be
baptized to go to heaven and that the Bible gives examples of baptism washing
sin away.
The majority
of support for baptismal regeneration comes from the book of Acts. Acts is a
history book. It accurately accounts the events that occurred in the early
church but it does not seek to define, explain, or expound upon the reasons or
theological implications of those events. The epistles to the Churches and
their leaders were written for that purpose.
It is to those epistles that one must resort for an understanding of why
we do what we do within the Church. However, let’s look at the passages
proposed to support baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38; 16:30-33; 22:16; Mark
16:16; John 3:5).
First, Mark
16:9-20 is a highly debated passage as to whether or not these verses were in
the original text at all. Ignoring that (time and space will not allow
discussion here) let’s look at verse 16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned. It says those who believe will be baptized and saved but those
who do not believe will be damned. It does not say those who are not baptized
will be damned. The saving element is belief not baptism. God did not forget
to add “baptized” to that final phrase. This is God's inspired Word, it is
complete and accurate. He did not say, “...he that believeth not and is not
baptized shall be damned.” Salvation comes with belief, and baptism is fully
expected to be there too. But what is it that baptism actually does, what does
it accomplish? By this passage it clearly does not prevent the individual from
going to heaven. That is the work of belief alone.
Second, John
3:5 is blatantly misinterpreted. The passage clearly refers to the physical
birth and the spiritual birth with no reference at all to baptism. One must be
born physically and then spiritually in order to go to heaven. This is a
discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus in which Nicodemus is obviously confused
by the idea of being born again, or being born a second time. He asks if it is
then necessary for him to re-enter his mother's womb in order to be reborn.
Jesus' answer is very simple, (I paraphrase) “Listen closely Nicodemus, it is
essential that a person is born physically (of water) but he must also be born
by the Holy Spirit of God.” John 3:5
(KJV) Jesus answered, Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Water
could have reference to the water of the womb or the birthing pool as a natural
response to Nicodemus' statement of reentering the womb. But, to introduce the idea of water
baptism here is to confuse the natural flow of the conversation. Jesus talked
of a second birth. Nicodemus asked if it was re-entering his mother's womb like
the first birth. Jesus said, no it was being born of God's Spirit. Suggesting
baptism here would introduce a third idea with no reference or explanation of
what it is or how it fits into this dialogue. This is held onto tightly by
those teaching baptismal regeneration because it is the only place that it is
remotely possible to find Jesus supporting their view, which we see here that
he does not actually do at all. Jesus never said you must be baptized in
order to go to heaven. Note also that the words ‘water’ and ‘baptism’
are never used interchangeably anywhere in scripture or in any of the extant
manuscripts or even in any early secular writings. To assume this is the one
and only time it was ever done is absurd at best.
The final
three passages are all from the historical account of Acts and do not attempt
to explain baptism at all. However, let’s look at what they do say. Keep in
mind also that to this point Christ himself had never told the Apostles to
baptize for the purpose of removing sin or that baptism would in some way
secure heaven for them.
Acts 2:38
says since your sins have been remitted you should be baptized. The key word is
“for” which is a Greek term that can mean any number of things but is best
understood by the context in which it is used. An example of which can be seen
in our own use of the word today in the following two sentences. “He went to
the store for bread” or “He went to prison for murder.” In one case he went in
order to acquire and in the other he went as a result of his actions. A significant argument against this
understanding of the use of the word “for” is found in its general use. It is
seldom used the way we suggest here. However, if a word is used 87 times one
way and 4 times another way (87 and 4 are only examples here and not real
figures) should we never expect it might be used again in its lesser meaning?
The fact that it was used 4 times tells us we need to view the context
carefully before assuming the majority definition. We might discover that this
text would make it the 5th time for the minority use.
In the case
of Acts 2:38 another explanation has been put forward which is worth
considering. In the early church the idea of repenting, believing the gospel
and being baptized were taught almost as a unit. There has been a tendency
(sadly) in the modern church to remove baptism from the incident of repentance
and belief and implementing it at some later date. So, for the early church, as
in Peter's case, to say be baptized for the remission of sin was tantamount to
saying all three, “repent, believe and be baptized for the remission of sin.”
Or to say any one of these “repent,” or “be baptized” or “believe the gospel”
would also include the others by implication.
Peter could not have said be baptized in order to have your sin remitted
because Jesus never said it and the teaching of the Old Testament law, which
was the example of this very thing, never indicated such a teaching (which we
will see later).
Notice in
Acts 16:30-33 is a good example of what we just mentioned above, “(v30) And brought them out, and said, Sirs,
what must I do to be saved? (v31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (v32) And they spake unto him
the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (v33) And he took them
the same hour of the night, and washed their
stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”
We are shown
in verse 31 that salvation would come as a result of their belief. Verse 33
says they were baptized after believing and with that we would agree. It does
not say they were baptized in order to be saved; only as a result of having
been saved. They expressed belief and it was just understood that they would be
immediately baptized just like the expression we saw in Mark 16 where scripture
then clarifies it is belief not baptism that saves.
Acts 22:16
recounts Paul’s own baptism and says, “…be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord.” Remembering there is no punctuation in
the Greek you can read this as “wash away your sins calling upon the name of
the Lord, and be baptized.” Which way should it be read? You have only to look
at Paul’s own writings about salvation in Ephesians, Galatians, Romans, and
Hebrews to see Paul taught salvation by faith without works. If baptism was so
integral to salvation why did Paul never stress it or explain it in any detail
as he did faith in the blood of the Lamb? Why did he say he was glad he never
baptized very many, 1Co
1:14 I thank God that
I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius....I know he was making this statement to show his
disdain for those who were creating cliques around who their teachers were, but
it reveals also the fact that he only baptized a few people. Paul had been
preaching the Word of God for many years and only baptized a couple of people.
If baptism is the path to regeneration and salvation then Paul should have been
baptizing multitudes. Why didn't he? And again, why did Jesus
never teach it if it was essential to entering heaven? Look at all that Jesus
taught as being important to the believer and yet He never said, unless you are
baptized you will never make it into heaven.
In Acts
10:44-48 we see a group believing the gospel and then receiving the Holy Spirit
and then being baptized. Could they receive the Holy Spirit before they were
saved? No. So, they were saved by believing and then they were baptized. Act
10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the
Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (v45) And they of the
circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(v46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered
Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be
baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
1Peter 3:18-22 says, For Christ
also hath once suffered for sins, the just for The unjust, that he might bring
us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were
disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by
water. The like figure whereunto even
baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ: who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and
authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
Peter states
that Christ is the one who suffered for sins to bring us to God by His death
and resurrection, clarifying that the work of salvation was done by Jesus
Christ. Baptism here is said to be a
"figure" that is, an outward expression to help us understand some
truth. By its own declaration this
passage says baptism does not put away sin or "the filth of the
flesh". In this text baptism is
said to be a “like figure” which is a term used only here and in Hebrews
9:24. It is used to show some connection
in the thought or idea expressed but is not used to express an exact
duplicate. Baptism does show our
connection to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:4-6) and
since it is done in water can also be said to show that sin has been washed
away. However, that is as far as one can
take the “figure” since nowhere else in scripture is baptism said to save. Also, consider the word “sodezo” which is
translated “saved” in this passage.
Salvation of the soul is not the only definition possible. Before determining what is intended with the
word in this text one would do well to study the entire idea of Biblical
salvation first. The Bible consistently
teaches throughout the Old and New Testament that it is the blood that saves
(Lev. 17:11, Heb. 9:22 and all of Hebrews chapters 9-10).
If baptism has a
relationship to cleansing from sin then it must be related to the blood in some
way. In a resent conversation I was told that it was in baptism that we come in
contact with the blood sacrifice. His reference was to Romans 6:3-4a Know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (v4a) Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death....” My friend explained that since we were baptized into Christ's death
and it was in death that Jesus bled then it is in baptism that we come into
contact with the blood of His sacrifice and our sins are washed away.
Regardless of how logical the
explanation might be the first problem with this explanation is that Paul never
mentions the blood here or in any of the remaining passage. The remainder of
the text deals with the death of the “old man” which is the obvious
reason for introducing the idea of death in verses 3-4. However, before
one attempts to tie baptism to the blood sacrifice it must first be determined
if the believer is ever expected to come in contact with the blood at all.
The
answer is to be found in the Old Testament. Paul testified that the Old
Testament was
there for us to learn from and that it was in those writings that
we would find our hope, Romans
15:4 For whatsoever things were written
aforetime were written for our learning, that we through
patience and comfort
of the scriptures might have hope. And again in his letter to the Church at
Galatia he says
that the law was there to show us our need of Christ and reveal to us how we
might
be justified, Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ, that
we might be justified by faith. In fact, Paul said that Jesus is the
“end,” or the very completion, of
the law for all of us who believe. This idea is further
explained in the book of Hebrews where the
ministry of Christ is explained in detail in its relationship
to the law. Christ fulfilled all of the
requirements of the law on our behalf, all of the demands of the law
were met in Him.
Although
Jesus fulfilled all of the requirements of the law, the blood sacrifice for
remission of sin is our special focus in this discussion.
The
book of Leviticus deals with the requirements of the sin sacrifice and the
procedure the priests were to follow in making the sacrifice. All that Jesus
did in his life, on the cross and in his ascension to heaven met the
requirements of that sin sacrifice. And he did it all for us because we could
not possibly do anything required in the law for ourselves.
The
reason given for the blood sacrifice is found several places but it is most
concisely expressed in Leviticus 17:11. (Note: in all of the following
explanation pay close attention to the whereabouts of the penitent believer who
has come to make the sacrifice.) We are told in Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that
maketh an atonement for the soul.”
The blood sacrifice was given to us by God for the purpose of atoning
for sin. The sacrifice for sin is mentioned several times in the Old Testament
so the following is given as an example. The length of the passage was not
abbreviated so that it could be read in its entirety and in context allowing no
room for claims of distortion or selective reading.
Lev 16:2-19 And the LORD said
unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into
the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark;
that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. (v3) Thus
shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering,
and a ram for a burnt offering. (v4) He shall put on the holy linen coat, and
he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a
linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy
garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. (5)
And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the
goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. (v6) And Aaron
shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an
atonement for himself, and for his house. (v7) And he shall take the two goats,
and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation. (v8) And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for
the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (v9) And Aaron shall bring the
goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. (v10)
But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented
alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a
scapegoat into the wilderness. (v11) And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin
offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and
for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for
himself: (v12) And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from
off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten
small, and bring it within the vail: (v13) And he shall put the incense upon
the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy
seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not: (v14) And he shall take of
the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat
eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his
finger seven times. (v15) Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that
is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood
as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat,
and before the mercy seat: (16)And he shall make an atonement for the holy
place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of
their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle
of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their
uncleanness. (v17) And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the
congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he
come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and
for all the congregation of Israel. (v18) And he shall go out unto the altar
that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the
blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns
of the altar round about. (v19) And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with
his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of
the children of Israel.
It is
immediately, and glaringly, obvious that the penitent person/persons during the
sin offering is nowhere near the offering when it is being made. Equally
striking is the fact that the blood of the sin sacrifice was never applied to
any person or group of people. The picture we are given is one of a broken law,
exemplified by the tablets within the altar, being atoned for by the blood of
the sacrifice in the presence of God within the temple. That picture is very
important because it was a picture given to us by God of a real event yet to be
fulfilled by Christ in heaven.
In the
book of Hebrews we see the fulfillment of this picture or image which
God gave us, Hebrews 9:23-28
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens
should be purified with these (the blood of animals); but
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (the
blood of Jesus). (v24) For Christ is not entered into
the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: (v25)
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into
the holy place every year with blood of others; (v26) For then must he often
have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the
world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(v27) And as it is appointed unto men
once to die, but after this the judgment: (v28) So Christ was once offered to
bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the
second time without sin unto salvation.
`The underlining and parenthesis are
my own but they are there to emphasize what we have just stated. The author of
Hebrews declares that the temple in Jerusalem was designed after the very
pattern of the real temple which was in heaven. But what follows is even more
astonishing and instructive. That into that temple, the real temple of God in
heaven, Jesus Christ himself entered. And, acting as our high priest (Hebrews
8:1ff) under the new covenant Jesus offered his own perfect blood sacrifice to
God upon that heavenly alter. WE WERE NOT THERE, THE BLOOD WAS NEVER APPLIED TO
US. Our sin was represented by the broken law inside the altar and the atoning
blood was applied to the altar to be accepted by God who was present within the
temple exactly as pictured in the Old Testament.
It is impossible to find the blood
of the sin sacrifice applied to the penitent sinner anywhere in the Bible. The
only references I have even seen anyone attempt to use, apart from Romans 6
which we addressed earlier, are found in Exodus 24 and Hebrews 9. In these two
passages, the actual account in Exodus 24:6-8 and a reference to it in Hebrews
9:18-21, Moses
sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on (or over) the people and the temple
with its vessels as a dedication of the covenant God had made with them. This
is never said to be a sin sacrifice and most commentators agree that it is most
likely that he sprinkled the blood over the 2-3 million people rather
than on each of them. The text can be read either way. But in neither
case would it make any difference at all since this was not a blood sacrifice
being made for the remission of sin.
What is abundantly clear in both the Old Testament and the
New Testament (Rom 3:24-28;
Romans
5:8 -12; Ephesians 1:7-9) is that only the blood of Jesus Christ could ever
provide remission
of sin
and never did the Word of God ever demand the blood of that sacrifice be
applied to any
individual for
any reason.
Baptism does not bring the believer
into contact with the blood of Jesus Christ, it does not
provide
remission of sin. Baptism does not save for this or for any other reason since
remission of sin
is
through the blood alone being applied to the altar of God, in the presence of
God, over the broken
law
in heaven itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment