A Bible History of Baptism

by Samuel J. Baird

To the Ephesians, Paul thus writes. Eph. v, 25-27. “Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” It is asserted that here baptism with water, and its effects are described. The “washing of water” is the baptism, “the word,” is the formula of the ordinance and unblemished holiness, the effect. But

1. The subject of Paul’s discussion is the relation of husband and wife, and the reference to the church is incidental, and by reason of the analogy of the subjects. The conception which runs through and controls the passage is that of a bridal, and each particular of the language is suggested by this conception. Thus, in the phrase, “a glorious church,” rather “a church gloriously adorned” (compare Luke vii, 25, “gorgeously apparelled,”) the apostle seems to have had in his mind (Psa. xlv, 3),—“The king’s daughter is all glorious, within; her clothing is of wrought gold.” So, the washing of water is expressly stated to be in order to his presenting her to himself “not having spot or wrinkle.” The immediate reference, therefore, of the language is to the washing and decking of the bride, before marriage; and the original of the whole conception is to be found in Ezekiel xvi, 9-14. “Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badger’s skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets on thy hands and a chain on thy neck.” It will hardly be pretended that in this language of the prophet, the washing with water implies any mixture of the natural element with that process of grace which is there described. And that the prophet and the apostle refer to the same thing is manifest. There is no direct allusion in the passage to ritual baptism. The water is the familiar metaphor of the Spirit, and the washing is the expression for his renewing and sanctifying influences on the soul.

2. The assertion that (rēma) “the word,” here means the formula of baptism, is an assumption, wholly indefensible. In the first place, there is no formula of baptism ordained by Jesus, or recognized or used by the sacred writers. Of this, the evidence will hereafter appear. Moreover, in the New Testament, and especially in the writings of Paul, the word in question, rēma, is invariably used in the sense of the testimonies,—the doctrines,—the word of God,—the gospel. Thus, the angel said to the apostles,—“Go, stand and speak in the temple, to the people, all (ta rēmata) the words of this life.”—Acts v, 20. Peter tells the house of Cornelius,—“That word (rēma) ye know ... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power,” etc.—Ib. x, 37, 38. Paul, in this very same epistle, tells the Ephesians (vi, 17) that “the sword of the Spirit” “is the word (rēma) of God.” And Peter declares that “the word (rēma) of the Lord endureth forever; and this is the word (rēma) which by the gospel is preached unto you.”—1 Peter i, 25. No word in the Scriptures is of a more unequivocal meaning than this.

3. The interpretation of rēma as meaning the baptismal formula, is a recognition of the unquestionable fact that “the word” is made by the apostle the instrumental cause of the sanctifying. Literally translated the passage reads,—“That he might sanctify it,—having purified it by the washing of water,—by the word.” Thus, the word is the instrument of the sanctifying, and the parenthetic clause states the figure by which the analogy of the bride is sustained. The sanctifying and the purifying are the same spiritual phenomenon, the one phrase being conformed to the idea of the church, the other to that of the bride. And, whether the common English version be accepted, or the construction of the original be literally followed, as above, the result remains the same, that “the word” is distinctly stated to be the instrument of the process described by the two words, “sanctify” and “cleanse.” In what sense the word is sanctifying, let Jesus testify. “The words (ta rēmata) that I speak unto you” (literally, “that I have spoken unto you,” that is, in his preceding discourse), “they are spirit, and they are life.”—John vi, 63. “Now ye are clean, through (tou logou) the word that I have spoken unto you.”[you.”]—Ib. xv, 3. “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word (logos) is truth.... And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified through the truth.”—Ib. xvii, 17, 19. “Chosen unto salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”—2 Thes. ii, 13. The word is the means and the Spirit the efficient author of grace.

Part XIV.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.

Section LXXXIV.—The Ritual Law was not Repealed.

In the entrance of the church upon her new commission, her constitution was unchanged. But the ordinances of testimony with which she was entrusted received an essential modification. The nature and the manner of this were alike remarkable; and as the subject has not received the attention due to its importance, it requires here the more careful consideration. In the course thereof, it will appear that the Hebrew Christian church remained with its institutions all unaltered, as they were received from Moses, and the ceremonial law in full authority and operation, down to the close of the New Testament canon. But the Gentile element, which was by the preaching of the gospel gathered in and incorporated with the church, was, by express statute, exempted from the obligation of that law.

1. The Lord Jesus was “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers; and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”—Rom. xv, 8, 9. He lived and died in the full communion of the church of Israel, in so far as his own action or will was concerned; although he was in the end excommunicated and betrayed by the rulers of that church. He assured his disciples that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill. (Matt. v, 17.) Neither by example nor by precept did he set aside or abrogate it; but, on the contrary, having himself obeyed every precept and observed every ordinance, he left it, at his ascension, in full and unimpaired authority.

2. The apostles and the church over which they presided in Jerusalem were not only zealous in their observance of the law; but were not altogether exempt from the influence of some of the most obnoxious of the traditions of the elders. Of this, the case of Peter’s visit to the house of Cornelius presents a signal illustration. To prepare him to listen to the message from the Roman centurion, a miraculous vision was shown him. And, when the disciples in Jerusalem heard of the matter, they accused him, for having gone in to men uncircumcised and eaten with them. And yet there was not a syllable in the laws of Moses to justify such extreme reserve. It was wholly based upon the traditions of the elders. So powerful and prevalent was the sentiment among Jewish Christians, on this subject, that it subsequently became the occasion of a very singular dereliction on the part of Peter. Says Paul,—“When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”—Gal. ii, 11-13. Respecting this it is not enough to say that Peter and the Judaizers were all wrong. True. But such a state of things could not have existed, had the church or the apostles understood the law of Moses to be, in any manner, abrogated or set aside.

3. The calling and decree of the council of Jerusalem are very important facts, as bearing on this subject. The occasion of the council was the attempt of Judaizing teachers to impose circumcision and the ritual law upon the Gentile converts. (Acts xv, 1-5.) Hereupon, “the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter.”—v. 6. Here, at once, it is impossible that such a question could have arisen, had the abrogation of the Mosaic law been a fact known to the church in Jerusalem; and assuredly in that case, there would have been no room for the apostles and elders to “consider” such a question, the very raising of which would have been the erection of a standard of open rebellion against Christ. The discussions and decree of the council were equally conclusive. No doubt was suggested, in any quarter as to the continued authority of the law. No one hinted at the idea of its repeal. The discussion turned entirely on the privilege of the Gentiles to be specially exempt from its requirements. The evidence of such exemption was found in the fact that God had, in a special manner, shown his acceptance of them, outside the law. Upon this point, the whole issue turned; and the proof respecting it was formally given by Peter, in a rehearsal of the facts concerning the house of Cornelius (vs. 7, 8); and by Paul and Barnabas, in an account of “the miracles and wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”—vs. 12. Moreover, the conclusion reached (vs. 14-19), and the decree issued, had express relation, to the Gentiles, only, and not to the whole body of the church. In a word, it was a decree recognizing and proclaiming the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligation of the existing law.—“The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles, in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment.... It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”—vs. 23-29. Such is the only rule or decree found in the New Testament, respecting the ritual law. It exempts the Gentiles from its obligations; but otherwise leaves it in unimpaired authority.