Baptism: The Water that Divides

Well, baptism is indeed the water that divides and it has always been so. At the crossing of the red sea, the water divided, and the waters of judgment were such that there were those on the one side and those on the other, and some survived and some did not. And the waters at the flood were such that there were some who were within the ark, and they survived. Others who were without, pardon the pun, were fully immersed in their troubles and travails. But the fact of the matter is the Bible uses both of these as examples or types of baptism and so that tells us we should not be surprised that the waters of baptism do indeed divide.

Now the issue is not quite as simple as some would have it to be. There are those who would say "well, if you could just show me a command that says baptize children and include them in the covenant, I would believe it." Or, "if you could just show me a command that says this is what baptism symbolizes, then I would buy it." But you see, the Bible doesn’t always work that way. In fact, on some very significant points it clearly works otherwise. Let me give you a couple of examples. Can anyone find a commandment anywhere in Scripture that tells us to shift our worship from the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Lord’s day? You don’t actually find such a commandment do you? You find commands that Christians are not to absent themselves from their worship, but you do not find anything that tells us "quit doing that and start doing this." Yet, apostolic example is such that they did do just that. They shifted the day of worship and they did so not because there was a clear command, but because of their understanding of the theological significance of the Lord’s Day. In the old covenant, at the end of God’s creative activity, he rested. In order to observe and memorialize and to reflect upon his creative activity, at the end of that time God set aside the seventh day. So at the end of creation, there was a time of rest. In the new covenant, God is engaged in a work of recreation and the first day of the week is the day on which Jesus Christ—the first fruits of them that sleep—has risen from the dead. So the Lord’s day is the beginning of the work of re-creation. Christians, recognizing the importance of that, have very naturally and easily transitioned to a first day of the week worship in commemoration of the risen Lord, and in expectation of the completion of this work of re-creation.

Let me give you another more pointed example that has to do with about half of you who are here tonight. Did you know that there are no explicit examples in the New Testament where we have women taking communion. Further, there is no command that women should take communion, and yet no one here has any problem with doing that because we recognize the meaning of what it is to be in Christ. We understand the theological significance of communion and therefore we move right ahead inviting men and women, baptized Christians who know Christ, to participate in the Eucharist or the Lord’s supper. And we do so because of what it means, not because we have a command that says to do this. Would it not be a terrible travesty to exclude half of the Christian church because we cannot point to a text that says, "Do this"?

Now we come to baptism. The Scriptural teaching on baptism must be built up from the bottom, and as we put the pieces together we find that baptism (in the Bible) looks remarkably like what we have summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of course, you would expect me to say that; I’m a Presbyterian, right? But I would remind you, I was not always so. I spent many years as a proponent of believer’s baptism. So I was not taught this; I was not brought up in a Presbyterian home. In fact, I became a Presbyterian in a college-setting that was Baptistic. So it’s not as though someone brainwashed me; instead, in an environment that discouraged Presbyterian teachings, I embraced certain beliefs because they made sense to me. They appeared to be Biblical.

The issue, at one level, can be resolved simply in terms of a question of hermeneutics. That is, the issue of baptism can be viewed as an interpretive issue. Last night we looked at just one thing: how God, from the beginning to the end, has been working in a covenant relationship with his people. The issue for us is quite simply this: what is the relationship of the new covenant, the New Testament, to the old covenant. When we come to the New Testament are we on entirely new ground? So much so, that everything that is not reiterated is done away with? That is typically a Baptistic hermeneutic. This new covenant is so new that whatever is not reiterated is gone, obsolete. Now, there are some things that are reiterated. Take the ten commandments, for instance. Nine of the ten commandments are clearly reiterated in the New Testament. So you could argue that the moral law carries over. But everything else, unless it is reiterated in the new covenant, is passé. Now that’s fairly standard among Baptist interpreters.

The other approach, favored by Presbyterian and Reformed theologians, says that everything that is in effect in the old covenant continues to be in effect in the new covenant- unless it is specifically fulfilled or done away with. Now there are some things that are fulfilled. The offering of Christ on the cross is the fulfillment of all those typical sacrifices in the Old Testament. And so the book of Hebrews teaches that all of those things that pointed to Christ are gone, such as the ceremonies and ordinances regulating sacrifices and festivals. The books of Colossians and Galatians tell us these things are gone. And they’re gone not because they were not important; they’re gone because they are fulfilled. They were the shadow that pointed towards Christ. Now he is the substance and now that he has come, they are done away with. So the question for us is, how in the new covenant does God deal with his people? Are the children of covenant parents no longer in the covenant? Or is there continuity? This is one of the key interpretive questions.

But before we look at the question of infant baptism, I want to take us back to the text, to see what the Old Testament precedent is, because there are really two major issues. First, what is the meaning of baptism? You see, if we understand the meaning of baptism, we will understand something about its mode. After all, there is a great disagreement over that, isn’t there? Once we understand something about the meaning and mode of baptism, then we can ask ourselves the second question, who should be included in baptism? And once we answer those two questions, we have a fairly good idea of what constitutes the new covenant doctrine of baptism. So look at our text: Jesus comes to be baptized; John the Baptist is not so sure he should be doing this, but Jesus appeals to him on the basis of fulfilling all righteousness. Now that’s a legal term. To "fulfill all righteousness." And so we, we conclude, if it’s a legal term, he must be talking about some law. There must be something in the Scriptures that Jesus is alluding to. And the fact of the matter is, when we stop and think about what is taking place, we come up with an idea of what Jesus might be talking about. Now what is about to happen here? We know that Jesus is going to be baptized, he is going to be anointed. He is being set apart for his ministry. He is going to enter into his mediatorial role as prophet, priest and king. Specifically, over the next three years, through his active and his passive obedience, Christ will fulfill the law of God and become the great covenant keeper by whom we are brought once again into relationship with God.

Now what conceivably could be expected, legally, at the beginning of this mission? When we go back to the book of Numbers, chapter 8, we find that in the old covenant, before the Levitical priest could enter into priestly duty, it was necessary to go through a ritual cleansing. Without that ritual cleansing it was impossible for the priest to be set apart. Now Jesus is not a priest according to the Aaronic line; he is not a priest according to the Levitical order, but instead is the great priest for whom this is merely a type and a shadow. Nevertheless, there is the principle of being set apart for ministry as a priest. If this is not the Old Testament law that Jesus had in mind, we have no idea what that law was! We do not know what the righteousness was that he felt compelled to fulfill. But since we know that Jesus was about to enter into a priestly ministry, according to the order of Melchezedic, a more ancient and more foundational priestly ministry, it makes good sense to conclude that he saw fit to undergo the sign by which the Levitical priests were set aside. They were ceremonially washed and then anointed with oil, even as Jesus was baptized and anointed by the Holy Spirit. And so in Numbers chapter 8, verse 5, the Lord said to Moses, "take the Levites from among the other Israelites and make them ceremonially clean." To purify them, do this, "sprinkle the water of cleansing on them, then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves."

Now this brings up a very important set of data from the Scripture. In the Old Testament we find numerous kinds of cleansing. For example, look back at the book of Leviticus, chapter 8, and you will see some more references to cleansing. Leviticus, Chapter 8, talks about the ordination of Aaron and his sons. Leviticus 8:6, "Moses brought Aaron and his sons forward and washed them with water." Then in verse 10, "Moses took the anointed oils, anointed the tabernacle, sprinkled the oil on the alter." Also, see verse 12, "Poured the anointing oil on Aaron’s head." So again, you have a washing followed by an anointing. If you were to look in Numbers, chapter 19, you would see additional references to rites of purification. In Numbers chapter 19, verse 6, "the priest takes cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool, throws them onto the burning heifer. The priest washes his clothes and bathes himself with water." Verse 8 mentions, "bathing with water." Verse 12 talks about, "purifying himself with water." This is explained further in verse 13, where "the water of cleansing" is described as "sprinkling." Then, again in verse 18, we read that one who becomes "ceremonially clean" must "take hyssop, dip it in the water, and sprinkle." Verse 19 says, "the man who was clean shall sprinkle the unclean person." Finally, in verse 21, "the man who sprinkles the water of cleansing must also wash his clothing."

Now, here is a great thought for you. In the Old Testament there were many ritual cleansings, many rites of cleansing that took place. Take your concordance, take your Bible and check me out on this. I would assert that you find the following: a number of places where water is "poured on," and a number of places where water is "sprinkled." You will find a few places where water is used to "wipe." You will not find any Mosaic ceremonial cleansing that explicitly requires anyone to be immersed in water. You can find a few references that may allow it, but the vast multitude of Old Testament ritual cleansings are exactly of the nature we have seen. Now why is this significant? Well, it’s significant because the mode of baptism is tied directly to its meaning. Turn over to the book of Hebrews and let me give you something else, more food for thought. In Hebrews chapter 9, beginning about verse 6 or so it talks about the Old Testament priests and their activities. In verse 9 the Scripture tells us that the gifts and sacrifices that were offered were unable to cleanse the conscience of the worshipper. Then the author to the Hebrews makes this comment, "they are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings, external regulations applying until the time of the new order." So in the old covenant, there were these external washings. These ceremonial cleansings were there just for that time, and now they are done away- because they have been fulfilled in Christ. But if you were to look at the Greek New Testament you would see that the word here for cleansings is the word, baptismois. That is, these are various baptisms. Now I don’t know if that means anything to you or not, but let me draw a clear picture. If the Old Testament ritual cleansings which involved pouring, wiping, sprinkling, and at best, may have allowed immersion, if these are all described as baptisms, then it is a mission impossible to prove that in the New Testament baptism must be by immersion.

Now let me nail this down for you by talking about the meaning of baptism. The mode is not unrelated to the meaning. You have heard it said by many that baptism is what? A symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Now I say to you that that is not at all what baptism symbolizes. First of all, the death of Jesus is symbolized, sacramentally, by what we do at the communion table. The resurrection of Jesus is symbolized by our Sunday worship- day after day, every Lord’s day, we celebrate the resurrection. And there is nothing profound about the burial. In fact, if anything, the burial of Jesus looks remarkably unlike an immersion, for there was no placing down into and lifting up out of. If you know anything at all about the burial of Jesus, he was actually placed into the side of a cave on a hewn bed, and then a rock was rolled over to cover it. So what then does baptism signify? Well, you’re still in the book of Hebrews. So if you’ll flip over to Hebrews 10:19, "therefore brothers since we have confidence to enter the most holy place by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way open for us through the curtain, that is his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled, to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." What do you think he was talking about? This washing is the washing of baptism. And the washing of baptism has to do with the outward cleansing that inwardly is effected by the blood of Christ. It is the Holy Spirit who applies the blood of Christ to us inwardly. And it is in the outward washing that the work of the spirit is symbolized.

Let me take you a little further into this so you can see some additional cross-references. Go to First Peter, 3:18, "for Christ died for sins once for all the righteous for the unrighteous to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the Ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water. And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also. Not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscious toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." You get this? Baptism, this water symbolizes baptism that saves you. Now when was the last time you heard anyone use that language? Baptism saves you! Well the Roman Catholics say that, the Lutherans say that, and the Episcopalians say that, but the Presbyterians don’t say that because we don’t read this text. Do you see what the author does? He explains exactly what he means. He says baptism saves you—he says, "now wait, I don’t mean the washing away of dirt from your body," which is what baptism actually does. Granted, a little bit of water doesn’t wash away a lot, but its the symbolic ritual cleansing that’s involved; it is not the full cleansing. It is not as though you are actually trying to get rid of every particle of dirt. But you are symbolically "washing away." He says baptism saves you; not the outward washing of water, but what? That inward cleansing. It’s the cleansing, the pledge of a good conscience towards God. It is the blood of Christ that is the basis of a good conscience. So that which takes place outwardly is directly related to that which takes place inwardly. Baptism is the outward washing that symbolizes the inward washing.

Now we’re not going to have enough time to turn to them, but let me give you a number of related texts in the Old Testament. If you were to look in Isaiah, 32:15, Isaiah 44:3, Ezekiel 39:29, Joel 2:28, you would find numerous references to the Holy Spirit being poured out or the Holy Spirit being sprinkled upon the people of God. And, lo and behold, what happens in the book of Acts? What do we see in Chapter 2? Chapter 2 is Pentecost, and what takes place? The disciples are all praying for the Holy Spirit to come- and the Holy Spirit does come! How is this coming described? Why, it’s quitesimple- the Holy Spirit is poured out upon them. You see, baptism has nothing to do with the death, burial and resurrection. It has everything to do with the cleansing work of God’s Spirit, applying to us the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.

Now one of the great texts concerning baptism is that of the Ethiopian eunich, who is reading from Isaiah 53. That’s what we find in Acts 8:28. He’s reading Isaiah 53, and as he’s reading the text he blurts out, "What about me? What hinders me from being baptized?" Is there any reference to baptism in Isaiah 53? No, there’s not. There’s no baptism in Isaiah 53, but somehow he’s reading the text of Isaiah and baptism comes to mind. Oh well, you know, Isaiah 53 is an artificial invention. In those days they had continuous scrolls. They did not have chapter and verse divisions, right? So, the quotations we have in the book of Acts from the first few verses in Isaiah 53 would tell us that he probably was reading a larger context before and after, wouldn’t you say? So going back to Isaiah 52, what do we have? In Isaiah 52:14, we read, "just as there were many who were appalled at him, his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond human likeness." This is a reference to the Messiah and the suffering he was going to undergo. And then in verse 15, it says "so will he sprinkle many nations and kings will shut their mouths because of him." From there we read further that "he was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities." The messiah comes to sprinkle the nation.

You see, the Old Testament sprinkling of blood was frequently accompanied by the ritual sprinkling with water. It was the blood and water that poured out of the side of Jesus, and it is the blood that cleanses our conscience and washes away our sin, even as the waters of baptism outwardly cleanse us and set us apart. That’s the meaning. That’s the mode of baptism.

Now, how does any of this relate to our covenant children? What is the relationship of covenant children to this issue of baptism? To whom was the scripture given? In the old covenant, to the Jews. In the books of Acts, who constituted the first audience that heard the gospel? Not the gentiles- that’s later on in the Book of Acts. From the beginning, it is the Jewish audience, Jewish people who had expectations that God dealt with them through this covenant relationship. A covenant relationship said, "I will be your God and you will be my people" and this promise is for you and for your descendants after you, forever, as an everlasting covenant. "For your descendants after you." So, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preaches, "You wicked Jews have crucified Jesus, and God has made him both Lord and Christ." The people heard this (and I’m reading from Acts 2) and they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, "brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

And then he said something very interesting, something that just passes by most of us because we are not covenantly conscious. He said "the promise is for you and your children." And then, thank God, he says this "and for all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call." Now you know who are those people who are far off; you know who that refers to. We are those people! We’re the people who are far off, the ones on the other side of the divide. But God has broken down that wall, that partition, and so now we are able to come in. But to the Jew, the message is, "its for you and for your children."

Now of course some of my Baptist friends object to this and they say "wait, look at this text. It says repent and be baptized." See, and small children can’t repent and be baptized! Well, first of all, let me say that no good Presbyterian ever quarrels with any of our brothers and sisters about the requirement for adult admission into the church. In an evangelistic context, in a mission context, people outside the covenant must first repent and believe before they receive the sign of baptism. Just as in the old covenant, people had to repent, affiliate themselves with the nation of Israel, and then the men had to undergo the right of circumcision. It has always been so, and we do not disagree there. But I would point out to you that we have a real problem here. If the requirement for infants to be saved is exactly what we have here, then my Baptist friends prove way too much. The text says "repent and be baptized." Now, if we cannot baptize them until they repent, then what about infants who die in infancy? If it is necessary for them first to repent, and identify themselves with the people of God before they can be baptized, what about those who never reach such an age where they can wittingly repent?

You see, you don’t really want to go there because that proves that not only could these people not be baptized, but it also proves that they cannot be saved. And yet we all want to believe that infants, those elect infants dying in infancy, are nonetheless saved, though not being capable of being called by ordinary outward means. That is, after all, what the Confession teaches. So what then do we say about children who participate in the covenant and the promise that is to be given to them? Well, in I Corinthians 7:14, you have this strange reference to the child of one believing parent. It says that such children are "holy" unto the Lord. If there is one believing parent identified with Jesus Christ in covenant relationship, then even the child of that family, the children of that family are holy, and the word holy means "set apart unto the Lord." That, my friends, is covenantal language. It is the language of God’s promise.

Think, for example, of Paul’s comments in I Corinthians 10:2 where he affirms that all the fathers in Israel were baptized into Moses. Surely the great throng of Israel that crossed the sea included toddlers and infants in their parent’s arms. All passed through the sea, and all were baptized, or brought into union and communion with Moses as their Mediator. And you see, once again we return to the significance and meaning of baptism. Baptism is first and foremost not your testimony about your faith in God. It is not your witness to your participation in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is, instead, God’s promise to you, that you will be his dear children, that he will bring you into union with Jesus Christ. We get this thing backwards sometimes. Interestingly enough, I have a number of Baptist friends who say, no, their children are not part of the church. They are not part of the covenant community. And yet they feel compelled to dedicate their children to the Lord. They feel compelled to teach their children to pray the Lord’s prayer and other prayers, and yet by their own theology, these children are outside the covenant. They are outside the promises of God. Now you can’t have it both ways. I remember a professor at Westminster Seminary, Norm Shepherd, who once said "you know, I always find baby dedications to be curious." He said "it seems to me that what those who practice baby dedication seem to be so concerned that God has said nothing to them about their children, that they feel compelled to say something to God about their children."

Now the good news is, and I’m not here to beat on Baptists tonight, the good new is that most of our brothers and sisters who practice believer’s baptism are more biblical than they are consistent with their first principles. Most of you have friends who are in such churches. What do they do with their kids from early age on? They teach them to read the Bible; they teach them to pray to the Lord; they teach them to give thanks for their food; they teach them to do their good night prayers, and yet I would suggest to you that all of this is inconsistent with the theory that these children are outside the covenant of God. It is only because these children have received the promises of God that we can respond, because that is the way this thing works. "I will be your God, and you will be my people." And because God has made a way, we are then able to respond to him.

Now, let me pause and shift gears to something else at this point because there is a great danger in Reformed and Presbyterian circles. That great danger is that we are presumptuous. We take it for granted that since the sign of baptism has been placed upon our children, that is the end of the matter. Now this is not at all the way it works. In the old covenant, the Jewish child was circumcised on the eighth day; was that the end of the matter? No, that’s just the very beginning. What was expected thereafter from the parent and the child? Well, we don’t have to guess at this because the Scripture tells us. In Deuteronomy chapter 6, all this is laid out before us: "These are the commands, decrees and laws, the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you’re crossing the Jordan to possess so that you, your children, and their children after them may fear the Lord your God as long as you live by keeping all his decrees and commands that I give you and so that you may enjoy long life. Hear, O Israel and be careful to obey so that it may go well with you." Verse 4 of the great shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul, with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home, when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up, tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads, write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates." Verse 12, "be careful that you do not forget the Lord who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery." Literally, the text says "guard yourself" that you don’t forget. You see what’s happening. God has said, I will be your God and here is the sign, here is the marvelous, wonderful promise.

Now how do you and I avail ourselves of that promise? The answer is quite simple. We love the Lord our God. And it is our responsibility to teach that love for God to our children. So we are to nurture them. Teaching them to love God becomes an ordinary daily activity. When you’re walking by the way, when you’re getting up in the morning, when you’re going to bed at night. The metaphor of having the Word on your forehead and on your hands and on your doorpost simply means that you cultivate a God-filled environment and you continue to struggle to look at things from God’s standpoint, using God’s interpretive grid. As we do that, we find that we raise up children of faith, who in due season, as responsible covenant partners, embrace that part of the covenant that says "I will be your people."

You see? So the danger for Presbyterians is that we get hung up on the promise of God, as wonderful as that is, and forget that along with that promise comes a responsibility. For the covenant is both promise and obligation. And our obligation is not simply to assume that somehow our children will get all this "stuff." Instead, we are to see to it that they are placed in an environment, in the home, in the church, in the school, where the law of God, the love of God, and a commitment to Christ are all paramount. This worldview should be presented in a clear and undiluted manner, and then, whether through confirmation or through interviews with the session, through whatever mechanism we put into place, then we will have another generation that comes along and assumes the responsibility of being faithful, covenant partners with the Lord. Sometimes, those whose theology is, at points, less Biblical are nevertheless better at bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord than those of us whose theology is much more consistent with scripture. What an indictment of us that is.

Let me summarize what I’ve tried to say in such a short period of time—so much to say, so little time. The baptism in which we participate is a promise from God concerning our cleansing. Just as inwardly God washes us by the blood of Christ, so outwardly he washes us by the element of water, cleansing the dirt from our flesh. This is a promise that is given unto you and to your children and insofar as we hear the promise of God and obey that promise, we are to bring our offspring to the Lord. Claiming that promise, we seek all our lives to give our children back unto the Lord. Then we are to engage in teaching so that these children who, at an early age received the sign of the covenant, may throughout their lives improve their baptism, to use the language of the Larger Catechism. By improving their baptism, their walk with the Lord may become exactly that which God expects of all adult believers.