The continuation of water baptism after A.D. 70 is pretty well rejected by most in the Full Preterist community. For some, they boast that their salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and since baptism is a “work,” baptism can't be required for salvation. Others recognize the error of this, but propose that Matthew 28:19-20 tells us it would cease after the parousia. There are, of course, more reasons, reasons that will be addressed, but I will start with these two issues.
I find myself distanced from Full Preterists as each day passes. It is the people who identify themselves with this nomenclature that I have begun to distance myself from, however, though not the belief itself. For me, the Bible's never made as much sense to me as it does now, and I continue to grow in my knowledge every day. And while I recognize that each of us are at a different place in our pursuit of truth and knowledge, I can't help but feel...alone, perhaps? Many Full Preterists have audience relevanced (yes, I made that word up) God right out of the picture! Others think that just because Jesus spoke certain words to Jews, those same words can't possibly have relevance to us. Such is the case with baptism.
And this is why I have distanced myself from a lot of Full Preterists. Most have a good handle on applying hermeneutics, but they've also taken themselves right out of the text. Now, as Preterists, we recognize that the Bible was written to a certain people, and that the text was relevant to those living at the time of each book's authorship. I'm not challenging this. What I am challenging is just how we understand the fact that heaven and earth would pass, but Jesus' words would never pass (Matthew 24:35)! Futurists are guilty of making the Bible about us way too much, but Preterists are starting to become guilty of exactly the opposite. Full Preterism, while currently on an incline in popularity, will not survive very long if we continue on this same path. And given the truth contained in this paradigm, I refuse to watch that happen.
So, at risk of being branded “inconsistent,” “incorrect,” and “one who doesn't follow proper hermeneutics,” I'm going to tackle post-A.D. 70 water baptism and its relevance today, because I believe it had relevance then, and has relevance now.
Why the Big Deal All of a Sudden?
A friend of mine, Mike Miano, posted a Facebook status inquiring thoughts on this very topic. By the time I saw the post, nearly sixty comments had been made. I read through all of these comments, and I disagreed with the majority of what was said. Some made fairly strong points for and against baptism's continuance, while others made arguments that didn't make sense in the first place. I'll be interacting with these posts, leaving the names of the authors out for the sake of privacy.
Before I get started, I'm going to define “salvation” in the way I believe the Bible makes it relevant to us today: life in the kingdom of God. When I say someone is “saved,” I mean to say they've had their sins remitted and have entered through the gates of new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2,22ff). When we die, we will depart from the flesh and remain with God eternally. This is “salvation” post-parousia, if I were to give it a brief definition. Thus, you might imagine the disagreements I have with baptismal cessationists when I read, “I think we need to understand 'salvation' and 'baptism' hand in hand here. If we don't get salvation right, we won't get baptism right either!”
Of course.
But before we get into the tangled mess of some of the more complex objections made by the cessationists, I want to address Matthew 28:19-20, because I believe Full Preterists shoot themselves in the foot with these verses, causing problems for the paradigm as a whole:
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)
This is always a passage used by the cessationists to prove their point. What they do not acknowledge, however, is their hypocrisy. Notice that if baptism ceased at the parousia, so too did Jesus' presence among us! The apostles were to commanded to teach all nations to observe all things that Jesus commanded, and to baptize them in his name. They understand this to mean baptism would cease at the “end of the [age]” given the kingdom's arrival. Besides the fact that the text doesn't actually say anything close to this, if baptism ceased, then at the end of the age, so did Jesus' presence among his people. This is a sticky situation for people who claim Jesus is still with us—within us—despite this passage saying the complete opposite according to their application in regards to baptism. I can just imagine Robin saying to Batman, “Holy contradiction, Batman!”
Is this not clear? Why is baptism singled out in this passage? The text never says anything about baptism ceasing, yet it's read into the text. Did teaching all Jesus commanded cease at the end of the age, too? See, Full Preterists can't accurately apply cessation to baptism without applying it to the other aspects of the text. If they were consistent they would acknowledge this in two ways: 1) since the text clearly doesn't regard baptism's cessation in any way, shape, or form, then it stands to reason that Christ's presence and his teachings would not cease, either; 2) if the text does tell us of baptism's cessation, then it stands to reason that Christ's presence and his teachings would cease at the end of the age.
Point two is a predicament for the Full Preterists who reject the Hyper Preterist view of complete cessation after A.D. 70. It also doesn't make a lot of sense when we consider Jesus' completely opposite statement about a week prior to him giving the great commission (cf. Matthew 24:35).
This matter is simple to correct, but it's not so simple for those that believe baptism never had any part in salvation. Per my definition of salvation above, I believe this statement is erroneous. Jesus taught of the kingdom of God throughout his entire ministry. I will use John 3 as my first argument against the “easy-believism” that is popular today:
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus 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. (John 3:1-5)
“But Jesus was speaking to a Jew,” they say, trying to invoke audience relevance. And? Jesus commanded his apostles to teach all nations all things he had commanded. Does one believe being “born of water and of the Spirit” is different than baptism? This is exactly what Jesus commanded his apostles to teach the nations! What's the result? Entrance into the kingdom of God! As Full Preterists, we believe this kingdom is present today. The unrepentant and faithless have no such part in this kingdom after its full establishment at the parousia (Revelation 21:27), but I don't see very many Full Preterists rejecting faith and repentance as requisites for entrance into the kingdom (excluding the Universalists). So, why reject being born of water and Spirit as a requisite, when Jesus' plainest answer to Nicodemus was that the kingdom of God is not available to those who have not undergone such a rebirth?
Romans 6 is another place where we find the relevance of baptism:
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11)
Dead, how? Through the burial of baptism. Upon rising from this baptism, we are a new creature:
16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)
A cross-reference of 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 6 seals the deal. There should be no question of baptism's relevance in the first century, and if it was necessary to enter into the gates then, it is certainly necessary now. The establishment of this kingdom does not nullify the requirements for entry. If this were true, then we'd have to accept Universalism, for even faith and repentance would not be necessary to come into covenant with Christ! This is absurd!
Equally absurd is the fact that Full Preterists use Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 5 to prove the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21, claiming that those coming into covenant with Christ in the first century were already partaking of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1), entering into the gates of new Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), but they make this argument whilst contradicting scripture. I do not disagree with using these passages to make this clear, but many of these same people who claim baptism was never necessary for “salvation” are using passages which state the contrary to prove another point. But the truth is, without acknowledging the first point (baptism's necessity), they can't make the second point with Biblical consistency!
To put it more simply, baptism signifies our burial and resurrection with Christ. We are made new creatures, becoming dead to sin (cf. Acts 2:38), and walking in the newness of life (cf. John 14:6). The old man could not enter into the kingdom of God before the parousia (John 3:1-5), just as the old man cannot enter into the kingdom of God after the parousia (Revelation 21:27). Therefore, if baptism is the means by which we shed the old man, then it is, in fact, necessary for “salvation” (entrance into the kingdom of God).
This angers many people, because they claim baptism is a “work” by which we earn merit, or favor. This slaps God himself in the face, for it is his work. One such comment on brother Miano's thread brings this into question: “I'm lost on the 'it being a work of God thing.'” This shouldn't be a problem, however:
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, where in ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; (Colossians 2:11-14)
This is clearly a work of God, not of man.
We should be mindful of what baptism signifies, which is circumcision. Just as the old covenant required circumcision of the flesh for one to be in covenant with God, the new covenant of Christ required circumcision of the heart. This was always the circumcision God wanted:
1If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. 2And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. 3For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. 4Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jeremiah 4:1-4)
Simply put, God always wanted his people to be circumcised of the heart, to put away evil. In Christ, this became possible, and when we are baptized we are baptized into his death and resurrection, putting away the old man, the evil, the sin. This is the circumcision of the heart per the terms of the new covenant of Christ!
The practice of immersion was not foreign to first century Jews. When John the Baptist came preaching the imminence of the kingdom of God, he did so with the command to baptize, and those who heeded his words were not ignorant of what he was asking of them. Jesus also gave baptism its relevance in regards to the kingdom of God (John 3:1-5; Matthew 28:19-20). Many then argue that this was for the circumcised Jews only. Colossians 2:11-14 blows that idea out of the water (no pun intended) since Paul regards them as uncircumcised in their flesh.
See, there are a lot of nonsensical arguments that arise when people try to take things too far. Like I said at the beginning of this article, some have “audience relevanced” God right out of the picture. Likewise, many have done the same to key teachings of Christ.
Paul made clear the distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism. It is Christ's baptism (or, believer's baptism, some call it) that has Christ's authority behind it. Note Paul's words:
1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)
Paul makes a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism. John had the task of preparing the way for the Jesus, turning the hearts of men toward Christ and his kingdom. Baptism in the name of Christ, however, carries much more significance, and an even greater purpose, as I have already explained. So, while baptism was not foreign to the first century Jews, it by no means limits its relevance to them alone. For John, baptism was solely a means of exercising repentance. Under Christ, baptism became the circumcision of the heart that God always sought for his people, the seal of his covenant relationship with us through faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Another topic that always arises is whether there is a difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism. Another person commenting on Mike Miano's thread asked, “Water baptism or spirit baptism?” Why the distinction? Truth be known, there is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), yet scripture mentions at least six kinds of baptism. So, when Paul is referring to baptism, which of the six is he referring? Any good Bible student will narrow this down to water baptism and Spirit baptism. However, these same people will attribute water baptism to John the Baptist (requiring immersion, naturally) and Spirit baptism of Christ (requiring faith alone). A distinction of this kind is inaccurate.
If not clear already, I argue that the baptism Paul refers to is water baptism. This was commanded by Jesus himself, for all nations (Matthew 28:19). The apostles commanded this baptism in response to the gospel for the Jews (Acts 2:38), as well as the Gentiles (Acts 10:48). If there is only “one baptism” in Christ, it has to be this one, otherwise it must be thrown out (which has obviously been done by many, if not most Christians).
If this is the “one baptism” Paul spoke of, then what is the baptism of the Spirit? John the Baptist promised that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (and fire—a third baptism?). Jesus also promised that he'd baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). When Peter converted Cornelius (Acts 10), the Holy Spirit fell on him. This was not all that needed to be done for his conversion, however. Peter said that even though Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit, he still needed to be baptized. Notice the distinction here. Peter later recalled Cornelius' conversion (Acts 11). What came to Peter's mind was that John baptized with water, but Christ would come to baptize with the Spirit. He connected the receiving of the Spirit by Cornelius with what happened on Pentecost (cf. Acts 2). Spirit baptism was fulfilled on Pentecost. Thus, any kind of distinction made in this regard between John's baptism and Christ's baptism is misplaced, because scripture does not separate John's baptism from Christ's baptism in this way.
When discussing baptism with believers, every so often I am told, “Paul said he was glad he wasn't called to baptize. Doesn't this mean it wasn't necessary?” It's unlikely a single statement made by Paul can nullify every single point I've made thus far, and fortunately, this isn't even what Paul was trying to say. It is wise to observe Paul's statement in context:
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by then which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:11-17)
Paul was glad he hadn't baptized more than two of them, but not because he wasn't “sent...to baptize,” but because people were identifying themselves with those who did baptize them. His gratefulness came from not having many claim, “I am of Paul.” Paul clearly baptized people (Acts 19), and knew its relevance. He wasn't “sent” to baptize in the same way John the Baptist was, but this did not relieve him of his duty to baptize his converts. Those who use 1 Corinthians 1:17 as an argument against baptism aren't reading in context.
Does all the relevance presented in this article suddenly disappear just because a "transition period" between the cross and parousia is over? I recognize that there are more objections, and will likely take the time to address the biggest ones in another article. Until then, I hope this has been enlightening and beneficial, and that it encourages further study in the pursuit of truth.
Blessings in Christ,
Jason Watt
<iframe src="http://www.preteristdoctrine.com/Baptism_webring.html" width="400" height="230" frameborder="0"
marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no">
</iframe>
A friend of mine, Mike Miano, posted a Facebook status inquiring thoughts on this very topic. By the time I saw the post, nearly sixty comments had been made. I read through all of these comments, and I disagreed with the majority of what was said. Some made fairly strong points for and against baptism's continuance, while others made arguments that didn't make sense in the first place. I'll be interacting with these posts, leaving the names of the authors out for the sake of privacy.
Before I get started, I'm going to define “salvation” in the way I believe the Bible makes it relevant to us today: life in the kingdom of God. When I say someone is “saved,” I mean to say they've had their sins remitted and have entered through the gates of new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2,22ff). When we die, we will depart from the flesh and remain with God eternally. This is “salvation” post-parousia, if I were to give it a brief definition. Thus, you might imagine the disagreements I have with baptismal cessationists when I read, “I think we need to understand 'salvation' and 'baptism' hand in hand here. If we don't get salvation right, we won't get baptism right either!”
Of course.
But before we get into the tangled mess of some of the more complex objections made by the cessationists, I want to address Matthew 28:19-20, because I believe Full Preterists shoot themselves in the foot with these verses, causing problems for the paradigm as a whole:
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)
This is always a passage used by the cessationists to prove their point. What they do not acknowledge, however, is their hypocrisy. Notice that if baptism ceased at the parousia, so too did Jesus' presence among us! The apostles were to commanded to teach all nations to observe all things that Jesus commanded, and to baptize them in his name. They understand this to mean baptism would cease at the “end of the [age]” given the kingdom's arrival. Besides the fact that the text doesn't actually say anything close to this, if baptism ceased, then at the end of the age, so did Jesus' presence among his people. This is a sticky situation for people who claim Jesus is still with us—within us—despite this passage saying the complete opposite according to their application in regards to baptism. I can just imagine Robin saying to Batman, “Holy contradiction, Batman!”
Is this not clear? Why is baptism singled out in this passage? The text never says anything about baptism ceasing, yet it's read into the text. Did teaching all Jesus commanded cease at the end of the age, too? See, Full Preterists can't accurately apply cessation to baptism without applying it to the other aspects of the text. If they were consistent they would acknowledge this in two ways: 1) since the text clearly doesn't regard baptism's cessation in any way, shape, or form, then it stands to reason that Christ's presence and his teachings would not cease, either; 2) if the text does tell us of baptism's cessation, then it stands to reason that Christ's presence and his teachings would cease at the end of the age.
Point two is a predicament for the Full Preterists who reject the Hyper Preterist view of complete cessation after A.D. 70. It also doesn't make a lot of sense when we consider Jesus' completely opposite statement about a week prior to him giving the great commission (cf. Matthew 24:35).
This matter is simple to correct, but it's not so simple for those that believe baptism never had any part in salvation. Per my definition of salvation above, I believe this statement is erroneous. Jesus taught of the kingdom of God throughout his entire ministry. I will use John 3 as my first argument against the “easy-believism” that is popular today:
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5Jesus 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. (John 3:1-5)
“But Jesus was speaking to a Jew,” they say, trying to invoke audience relevance. And? Jesus commanded his apostles to teach all nations all things he had commanded. Does one believe being “born of water and of the Spirit” is different than baptism? This is exactly what Jesus commanded his apostles to teach the nations! What's the result? Entrance into the kingdom of God! As Full Preterists, we believe this kingdom is present today. The unrepentant and faithless have no such part in this kingdom after its full establishment at the parousia (Revelation 21:27), but I don't see very many Full Preterists rejecting faith and repentance as requisites for entrance into the kingdom (excluding the Universalists). So, why reject being born of water and Spirit as a requisite, when Jesus' plainest answer to Nicodemus was that the kingdom of God is not available to those who have not undergone such a rebirth?
Romans 6 is another place where we find the relevance of baptism:
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:1-11)
Dead, how? Through the burial of baptism. Upon rising from this baptism, we are a new creature:
16Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)
A cross-reference of 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 6 seals the deal. There should be no question of baptism's relevance in the first century, and if it was necessary to enter into the gates then, it is certainly necessary now. The establishment of this kingdom does not nullify the requirements for entry. If this were true, then we'd have to accept Universalism, for even faith and repentance would not be necessary to come into covenant with Christ! This is absurd!
Equally absurd is the fact that Full Preterists use Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 5 to prove the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21, claiming that those coming into covenant with Christ in the first century were already partaking of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1), entering into the gates of new Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22), but they make this argument whilst contradicting scripture. I do not disagree with using these passages to make this clear, but many of these same people who claim baptism was never necessary for “salvation” are using passages which state the contrary to prove another point. But the truth is, without acknowledging the first point (baptism's necessity), they can't make the second point with Biblical consistency!
To put it more simply, baptism signifies our burial and resurrection with Christ. We are made new creatures, becoming dead to sin (cf. Acts 2:38), and walking in the newness of life (cf. John 14:6). The old man could not enter into the kingdom of God before the parousia (John 3:1-5), just as the old man cannot enter into the kingdom of God after the parousia (Revelation 21:27). Therefore, if baptism is the means by which we shed the old man, then it is, in fact, necessary for “salvation” (entrance into the kingdom of God).
This angers many people, because they claim baptism is a “work” by which we earn merit, or favor. This slaps God himself in the face, for it is his work. One such comment on brother Miano's thread brings this into question: “I'm lost on the 'it being a work of God thing.'” This shouldn't be a problem, however:
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, where in ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; (Colossians 2:11-14)
This is clearly a work of God, not of man.
We should be mindful of what baptism signifies, which is circumcision. Just as the old covenant required circumcision of the flesh for one to be in covenant with God, the new covenant of Christ required circumcision of the heart. This was always the circumcision God wanted:
1If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. 2And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. 3For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. 4Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. (Jeremiah 4:1-4)
Simply put, God always wanted his people to be circumcised of the heart, to put away evil. In Christ, this became possible, and when we are baptized we are baptized into his death and resurrection, putting away the old man, the evil, the sin. This is the circumcision of the heart per the terms of the new covenant of Christ!
The practice of immersion was not foreign to first century Jews. When John the Baptist came preaching the imminence of the kingdom of God, he did so with the command to baptize, and those who heeded his words were not ignorant of what he was asking of them. Jesus also gave baptism its relevance in regards to the kingdom of God (John 3:1-5; Matthew 28:19-20). Many then argue that this was for the circumcised Jews only. Colossians 2:11-14 blows that idea out of the water (no pun intended) since Paul regards them as uncircumcised in their flesh.
See, there are a lot of nonsensical arguments that arise when people try to take things too far. Like I said at the beginning of this article, some have “audience relevanced” God right out of the picture. Likewise, many have done the same to key teachings of Christ.
Paul made clear the distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism. It is Christ's baptism (or, believer's baptism, some call it) that has Christ's authority behind it. Note Paul's words:
1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)
Paul makes a clear distinction between John's baptism and Christ's baptism. John had the task of preparing the way for the Jesus, turning the hearts of men toward Christ and his kingdom. Baptism in the name of Christ, however, carries much more significance, and an even greater purpose, as I have already explained. So, while baptism was not foreign to the first century Jews, it by no means limits its relevance to them alone. For John, baptism was solely a means of exercising repentance. Under Christ, baptism became the circumcision of the heart that God always sought for his people, the seal of his covenant relationship with us through faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Another topic that always arises is whether there is a difference between water baptism and Spirit baptism. Another person commenting on Mike Miano's thread asked, “Water baptism or spirit baptism?” Why the distinction? Truth be known, there is one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), yet scripture mentions at least six kinds of baptism. So, when Paul is referring to baptism, which of the six is he referring? Any good Bible student will narrow this down to water baptism and Spirit baptism. However, these same people will attribute water baptism to John the Baptist (requiring immersion, naturally) and Spirit baptism of Christ (requiring faith alone). A distinction of this kind is inaccurate.
If not clear already, I argue that the baptism Paul refers to is water baptism. This was commanded by Jesus himself, for all nations (Matthew 28:19). The apostles commanded this baptism in response to the gospel for the Jews (Acts 2:38), as well as the Gentiles (Acts 10:48). If there is only “one baptism” in Christ, it has to be this one, otherwise it must be thrown out (which has obviously been done by many, if not most Christians).
If this is the “one baptism” Paul spoke of, then what is the baptism of the Spirit? John the Baptist promised that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit (and fire—a third baptism?). Jesus also promised that he'd baptize them with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). When Peter converted Cornelius (Acts 10), the Holy Spirit fell on him. This was not all that needed to be done for his conversion, however. Peter said that even though Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit, he still needed to be baptized. Notice the distinction here. Peter later recalled Cornelius' conversion (Acts 11). What came to Peter's mind was that John baptized with water, but Christ would come to baptize with the Spirit. He connected the receiving of the Spirit by Cornelius with what happened on Pentecost (cf. Acts 2). Spirit baptism was fulfilled on Pentecost. Thus, any kind of distinction made in this regard between John's baptism and Christ's baptism is misplaced, because scripture does not separate John's baptism from Christ's baptism in this way.
When discussing baptism with believers, every so often I am told, “Paul said he was glad he wasn't called to baptize. Doesn't this mean it wasn't necessary?” It's unlikely a single statement made by Paul can nullify every single point I've made thus far, and fortunately, this isn't even what Paul was trying to say. It is wise to observe Paul's statement in context:
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by then which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:11-17)
Paul was glad he hadn't baptized more than two of them, but not because he wasn't “sent...to baptize,” but because people were identifying themselves with those who did baptize them. His gratefulness came from not having many claim, “I am of Paul.” Paul clearly baptized people (Acts 19), and knew its relevance. He wasn't “sent” to baptize in the same way John the Baptist was, but this did not relieve him of his duty to baptize his converts. Those who use 1 Corinthians 1:17 as an argument against baptism aren't reading in context.
Does all the relevance presented in this article suddenly disappear just because a "transition period" between the cross and parousia is over? I recognize that there are more objections, and will likely take the time to address the biggest ones in another article. Until then, I hope this has been enlightening and beneficial, and that it encourages further study in the pursuit of truth.
Blessings in Christ,
Jason Watt
<iframe src="http://www.preteristdoctrine.com/Baptism_webring.html" width="400" height="230" frameborder="0"
marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no">
</iframe>
Great article!!
ReplyDeleteThank you so much!
DeleteI was raised as,a church of christer. I am trying to figure out my faith. This article is where I am at this time.
ReplyDelete"I recognize that there are more objections, and will likely take the time to address the biggest ones in another article"... Hello, I have no objections to this article and so was Wondering if you tackled the bigger objections, thanks.
ReplyDelete