A Bible History of Baptism

by Samuel J. Baird

4. With this view, the whole subsequent history of the apostolic church agrees. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles. He was prompt and decided in asserting and vindicating their liberty from the obligations of the law; but was himself conscientious in the observance of all its requirements, and fully recognized their obligation upon himself and his brethren of Israel. These facts were brought into question, and publicly established in the most signal manner. When he came to Jerusalem after his third missionary tour, in an interview with James and the elders of the church, they said to him “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands (muriades, how many tens of thousands,) of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come. Do, therefore, this that we say to thee. We have four men which have a vow on them. Them take and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things whereof they have been informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”—Acts xxi, 20-25. To this suggestion Paul agreed, and was in the temple in fulfillment of it, awaiting the time when “an offering should be offered for every one of them,” when a tumult was raised by the unbelieving Jews, and his imprisonment took place, which resulted in his being sent, in chains, to Cesarea, and to Rome. (Acts xxi, 26, 27.)

Respecting this matter, the first point to be noticed is the fact that the myriads of Jewish Christians were unanimous.—They “were all zealous of the law.” The imagination of Conybeare and Howson and others that the proceeding was the work of a Judaizing faction and was consented to for the sake of peace, is not only without warrant in the record, but is in contradiction to its whole tenor, and spirit. In fact the entire conception of the first named writers on the subject is characterized by a strained and perverse ingenuity, rather than by the simplicity of a sound criticism. And yet they have to admit that the law continued in unimpaired authority over all Jewish believers. Why then labor to stigmatize the church in Jerusalem or an imaginary faction therein for being zealous in its maintenance?

The purpose and intent of this transaction as expressly avowed by James and the elders was to draw a broad line of distinction between Jews and Gentiles in relation to the law. In their very suggestion to Paul, they refer to the former council and decree.—“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing.” Thus, avowedly, the course proposed was designed to interpret that decree, and to limit its purview to the Gentiles. It was, moreover, a transaction taking place in circumstances which imparted to it the very highest moment. It was in Jerusalem, the center whence Jesus had commanded his apostles that the gospel should go forth. They were to preach in all the world, “beginning at Jerusalem.” There, consequently the first labors of the twelve were expended; there, some of them were almost always found; and to that church the Gentile churches looked as the fountain of their faith and authoritative exponent to them of the will of Christ. Such had been the prophetic anticipation long before respecting this very time.—“Out of Zion shall go forth the law; and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”—Isa. ii, 3. Already had that church sent forth the law concerning the relation of the Gentiles to the Mosaic institutions. And now the question to be decided was equally important, and the action proposed, although different in form, was equally responsible and decisive. A decree of confirmation of the law, which had stood unimpeached for fifteen centuries would have been inappropriate and calculated rather to awaken doubts than to strengthen conviction. The course proposed and adopted was more appropriate and effective. Paul was the great apostle of the Gentiles, the recognized and world-renowned champion, not only of the freedom of the Gentiles, but of the liberty of the gospel, the liberty of all Christ’s people. The spectacle, therefore, of this great apostle, performing Levitical rites of purifying and publicly appearing at the temple, in order to the offering of sacrifices, in completion of a Nazarite vow, would constitute a most decisive demonstration and announcement of the continued obligation of the law, over all Israel. It was not a case, therefore, in which a privilege might be waived for the sake of peace. Submission to these proposals, if they were unwarranted, would have been treason, at once to Christ and to the liberties of the apostle’s own people. How likely it was that Paul, having already vindicated with firmness and success the freedom of the Gentiles from the bondage of the law, should have conspired to betray the liberties of his own beloved Israel, on the very same point, in the interest of a time-serving policy, may be judged from his whole history and writings. The alternative presented by the facts is of itself conclusive. Either the law remained in unimpaired authority, over Israel,—or, Paul and James, the elders, and all the myriads of believing Jews, were united, without dissent or exception, in a conspiracy to repudiate the authority of the Lord Jesus, and re-establish a law repealed by him.

5. The action of Paul upon this occasion was not an instance of mere occasional conformity, but was expressly designed by the apostle as a testimony to the Jews that he did not repudiate the law, but “walked orderly and kept it.” And an examination of his manner of life and ministry will show that this testimony was true,—that he was constant and conscientious in his own observance of the law, and recognition of its authority. Wherever he went, his first recourse was to the worshiping assemblies of the Jews, to which he joined himself as one of them, withdrawing only when rejected from their company. (Acts xvii, 2; xix, 8, 9, etc.) One incident in the story of his ministry affords us a glimpse into the inner chamber of his sentiments and the spirit of his personal life, as toward the law. On his second missionary tour, leaving Corinth, he sailed into Syria, “and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”—Acts xviii, 18. Some expositors have explained this vow as taken by Aquila and not by Paul. Olshausen, who, however, rejects this theory, says that “those learned men who deny the reference of the words to Paul, suppose that the statement can not be applied to him, because it would have been inconsistent with his principles regarding the abrogation of the ceremonial law of Moses, to have taken upon him a vow.” Conybeare and Howson, who hesitate between the two views, say that “the difficulty lies not so much in supposing that Paul took a Jewish vow (see Acts xxi, 26) as in supposing that he made himself conspicuous for Jewish peculiarities while he was forming a mixed church at Corinth.” But all admit that the Greek in this place points as distinctly to Paul as does the common English version. We already know enough, certainly, to caution us against forcing an interpretation, on the ground that the ceremonial law was abrogated. We have seen the apostle take upon him such a vow, in the most public and demonstrative manner. And, as to the difficulty made by Conybeare and Howson, it is founded in a palpable mistake of the facts. The vow may have been made in Corinth. Of that we know nothing. But the shaving of his head, to which alone the suggestion as to “making himself conspicuous” could apply, took place in Cenchrea, after leaving Corinth and when in the act of sailing for Syria. So that the facts as recorded look rather to the avoidance of notoriety than seeking it. So far as the record indicates, the vow being connected with Paul’s own private religious life, was only known to his personal attendants, in connection with the fact of his shaving his head, and the diligence with which he sought to reach Jerusalem in time for the feast. (Vs. 21, 22.) This was no doubt connected with the fulfillment of his vow, which of necessity required offerings at the temple. It thus appears that not only did the apostle maintain an outward and formal observance of the law; but that his private devotional life and experience took its form from the ordinances of that law, and found expression in them; a fact utterly irreconcilable, as was his whole life and teachings, with the assumption that he looked upon them as being abrogated or obsolete.

On this and other occasions, there are intimations that as often as was consistent with the duties of his ministry, he was accustomed to resort to Jerusalem, in observance of the annual feasts, and for the purpose of making offerings at the temple. “I came,” says he to Felix, “to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple.”—Acts xxiv, 17, 18; comp. xx, 16.

Another important fact appears in the record. With a significant discrimination, Paul circumcised Timothy the son of a Jewess; although, his father being a Greek, he might have claimed exemption as a Gentile (Acts xvi, 1-3); “But, neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek was compelled to be circumcised; and that because of false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place, by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”—Gal. ii, 3-5. Thus, in Timothy and Titus, Paul’s favorite disciples and constant attendants and helpers in his later ministry, he carried with him exemplars and representatives of the opposite relations to the law, which he recognized in the Jews and the Gentiles.

Moreover during his imprisonment, in reply to the charge of being a contemner of the law, the apostle repeatedly[repeatedly] and unqualifiedly asserted that he had been constant and faithful in observance of it. In the presence of the council of Israel, he announced himself a Pharisee. Of the same thing he writes to the Philippians, that he had “no confidence in the flesh, Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless.”—Phil. iii, 3-6. It is true that the description here given by the apostle has especial reference to the past time of his unconverted zeal. But it is also true, that his introductory comparison with others, as to grounds of self-righteous confidence, is in the present tense, and indicates a conscious fidelity to the law down to the time of his writing. When accused before Festus, “he answered for himself,—Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended any thing at all.”—Acts xxv, 8. And when at last he was taken to Rome, he there called the chief of the Jews together, and said to them, “Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”—Acts xxviii, 17.

Is it asked, how all this is to be reconciled with the doctrine of the epistle to the Galatians, and other testimonies of Paul respecting circumcision and the law? I answer,—Paul nowhere utters a syllable in disapproval of the observance of the law by the Jews, as a rule of life. What he assails is, a trusting in it, for themselves, or imposing it on others, as a rule of righteousness unto salvation. While he proclaimed salvation by grace, through faith alone, without the works of the law, moral or ritual, he with perfect consistency not only himself kept the law, but enjoined it on his brethren after the flesh. His principle of action in this respect, he states explicitly, “Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free use it rather.”—1 Cor. vii, 18-21. Thus distinctly does Paul recognize circumcision as still being, to the Jews, a commandment of God; as exemption from it was to the Gentiles. And it need scarcely be said, that circumcision here stands for the whole law. It is to be considered, moreover, that this language of Paul is not a mere recognition of circumcision as still existing by the providence of God; but it is an express and unreserved re-enforcement of the law, by his whole authority, as an apostle of Jesus Christ,—a re-enforcement broad and unlimited as to time or circumstances as was the law itself. This unlimited character of the apostle’s decree, is emphasized and strengthened by the exception which he appends to the general form of his enunciation;—“Let every man abide in the calling wherein he was called.” Lest any should interpret this rule as designed to apply to cases outside the theme in hand, he adds,—“Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.” So far from moderating or weakening the force of the apostle’s previous language, this adds greatly to it; showing as it does, that the question of exceptions and limitations was present to his mind. Then was the time, if ever, for him to have intimated the doing away of the ritual law; or, at least, to so guard his language as to harmonize it with its ultimate abrogation, had such been the purpose of God. The fact, therefore, that neither here nor elsewhere does he allude to such a purpose, but on the contrary gives the above unreserved injunction as a permanent part of the written word of God, leaves us but one alternative,—to reject the authority of Paul, as an inspired apostle, or to recognize circumcision and the law as being, to the Jew, the commandment of God, unrepealed.

If, we further examine the epistles, we shall find that while they all are unanimous in repudiating the righteousness of the law; they do not, anywhere assert or imply its repeal, as toward Israel. It will moreover be found that any inference as to the abrogation of the law, which may be deduced from the doctrine of grace, as taught by all the apostles, applies as directly to the moral as to the ritual code; both of which are by them commonly comprehended together under the designation of, “the law.” Upon their principles, reliance on a righteousness of works is just as much to be reprobated in the one form as in the other; and the doctrine of salvation by grace is as consistent with the continued obligation and observance of the ritual, as, of the moral law.

6. It is no slight argument in proof of the view here presented, that it alone exhibits the apostolic history as consistent and harmonious, based upon definite and inflexible principles, unanimously recognized and obeyed by the apostles and elders. That such must have been the case, is involved in the manner in which the apostles were appointed to preside over the transition period in the history of the church, and the Spirit given for their guidance therein. Many writers have assumed without the trouble of proof, that the ritual law could not any longer possess legitimate authority—that the coming of Christ, and his one offering of himself, of necessity, superseded and set it aside. They are, at once, involved in the necessity of treating the whole history of the apostolic church as one of compromising policies and timeserving expedients. We are told of the extreme Judaism of James, the more moderate conservatism of Peter, and the free evangelical spirit of Paul. Their principles and parties are represented as maintaining a continual struggle, and the various facts of the history are explained as the prevalence of one or the other set of opinions, or the result of compromise. On the contrary, there is not a trace of the least diversity of sentiment on these questions between the parties named, or any of the apostles or leaders of the church. Some “false brethren, unawares brought in” (Gal. ii, 4), attempted to create division; but only developed harmony. The decree of the council of Jerusalem was no compromise, but the expression of unanimous sentiments (‘omothumadon, “with one heart,”—Acts xv, 25), and was, moreover, dictated by the Holy Spirit. “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” The so-called partisans of James, the Judaizing zealots, who troubled Paul’s ministry, were expressly repudiated in that decree, which was moved in the council by Peter and James, and apparently drafted by the hand of the latter.[^[112]] The reason why the labors of James and Peter were mainly confined to the circumcision in Judea, while Paul preached among the far off Gentiles, was precisely the same in both cases,—the will of Christ. Says Paul,—“When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;) and when James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”—Gal. ii, 7-9. No. The blood-bought church of Christ, was not left, at this critical time, to the mercies of the passions and prejudices, the narrowness and factions of fallible men. It was under the direction of the Lord Jesus, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The prayer “that they all may be one,” was not unheard, nor unanswered of the Father; and the promise that the Spirit should guide them into all truth was fulfilled.