How shall we approach the doctrine
of baptism? Can we simply search through the concordance for every occurrence
of the word, carefully exegete each passage in context and then come to
conclusions about the meaning of baptism? Superficial consideration may suggest
that this basic approach is not only legitimate, but the only possible method.
How else can we discover the meaning of a Biblical word? This is the approach
generally taken by Baptists, most of whom insist that any other approach
distorts the meaning of baptism in order to force it to fit alien theological
contexts. William Shirreff, whose lectures on baptism come recommended by
Charles H. Spurgeon, insists at great length that "the Scriptures of the
New Testament are the only rule to direct us in regard to the positive
institutions of the Gospel." [1]
It is my contention in this paper
that there are Biblical reasons for rejecting this approach. In a sense,
however, my rejection of this approach is partially based upon this approach.
In other words, when we examine the New Testament passages about baptism we
discover that baptism is part of a larger theological idea--the Biblical
doctrine of the covenant. It is the covenant that supplies the answer to the
most basic questions of water baptism: Why should Christians practice baptism?
What does baptism mean? Who is qualified to receive baptism? No matter what our
understanding of baptism is, we are forced to consult some larger theological
context. We cannot avoid the question: How does baptism fit into the whole
context of the Biblical teaching about man's relationship to God. Also, any
approach must consider the larger context of Biblical ceremonial teaching in
general as an aspect of man's relationship to God.
But it should not be thought that we
impose these theological considerations on the text of the Bible. It is rather
the Bible, specifically the New Testament, that forces us to think in broader
theological terms. There are at least three types of passages that compel us to
examine the Old Testament to understand the doctrine of baptism.
First, there is the ministry of John
the Baptizer. John is a transitional figure, a prophet of the old covenant
preparing the way for the new. Jesus specifically identifies John as a prophet
of the old covenant:
"Verily I say unto you, Among
them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven
suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and
the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which
was for to come" (Mat. 11:11-14; cf. Mat. 17:11-13; cf. Luk. 3:3ff.).
John was not merely an Old Testament
prophet, he was a prophet, like Ezekiel, from a priestly family (Luk. 1:5).
John's baptism, thus, was an old covenant ceremony conducted by an old covenant
priest. In this connection it is important to note that when he was examined by
the priests and levites, they made no objection to the practice of baptism;
they only questioned his authority to baptize (John 1:19ff.), suggesting that
John's baptism conformed to Jewish ceremonial standards.
Everything that the New Testament
tells us about John, in other words, points us to the old covenant and its
ceremonies as the only possible source of understanding. How would an old
covenant prophet, especially one belonging to a priestly family, practice
"baptism"? What does "baptism" mean to priests and levites
in the days of Jesus? Can anyone answer these questions honestly or Biblically
without considering the Old Testament?
A second type of New Testament
passage that compels us to consider the Old Testament background of baptism is
those passages that refer to old covenant ceremonial washings as
"baptisms." Mark refers, for example to the pharisees' perversion of
the Old Testament system of ceremonial washings as "baptisms" (Mark
7:1-8). The book of Hebrews identifies the old covenant ceremonial washings
themselves as "baptisms" (Heb. 9:10). The word "baptism,"
then, is clearly not a technical term that only refers to Christian baptism.
The New Testament tells us that the Old Testament ceremonial washings are also
baptisms.
A similar type of passage, although
not speaking of regular Old Testament ceremonies, is seen in Paul's epistle to
the Corinthian Church, which had experienced various problems with baptism (1
Cor. 1:11-17). Paul, in a context emphasizing the relevance of the Old
Testament for Christians, says that Israel fleeing from Pharaoh's army was
"baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2).
Taking into consideration both the facts that the Corinthian Church had
problems with baptism and that Paul's purpose here is to stress the importance
of the Old Testament teaching, this passage is especially meaningful.
The third, and most significant type
of passage is found in the New Testament teaching about baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Both of the Christian ceremonies are clearly depicted as covenantal ceremonies.
Baptism in particular is expressly designated as a covenant ceremony like
circumcision in the Old Testament (Col. 2:11-12). The Lord's Supper is called
the new covenant in His blood (1 Cor. 11:25) and is also said to be analogous
to the passover (Luk. 22:15ff.; 1 Cor. 5:7ff.).
When the New Testament itself places
the doctrine of baptism and the related doctrine of the Lord's Supper in the
larger context of the covenant, we are obligated to consider the whole teaching
of the Bible on the subject of the covenant and the whole idea of covenantal
ceremonies. To entirely separate the new and old covenants is virtually to
posit two different religions in the Bible, one for people before the coming of
Christ and another for those after His coming. This is certainly not the
teaching of the Bible. Paul, for example, argues in various epistles that the
Christian religion is the fulfillment of the religion of the old covenant, that
we are saved just as Abraham was saved, that Christians are the true heirs of
the Abrahamic covenant, that to keep the true teaching of the law and the
prophets is to believe in Jesus. Neither Paul or any other New Testament writer
even suggests that the new covenant is different from the old covenant in its
fundamental principles. Paul believed he was continuing the teaching of the law
and the prophets at the higher level of new covenant fulfillment, not that he
was replacing a dead religion with a living one.
To restate this point in different
terms, to argue that the doctrine of baptism is part of the larger Biblical
teaching on the covenant is simply to argue that the Bible is one book, not
two. Indeed, the very idea of dividing the Bible into two books, the Old
Testament and New Testament, while convenient for purpose of reference, like
chapter and verse divisions, is not a Biblical idea. The Bible is one book from
Genesis to Revelation. It is not two books under one cover, the older part of
which is believed by Jews and the newer part of which is believed by
Christians.
The so-called Old Testament is an
incomplete revelation which Jesus came to complete. The Gospels, Acts, the
epistles and the Revelation of John complete the revelatory project that began
with Moses. We must insist that the Bible is one, its religion is one, its
teaching is unified and that everything taught in the Bible, although not
directly addressed to us and perhaps not directly applicable, is applicable in
some manner: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Conclusion
Examination of the New Testament
references to baptism informs us in no uncertain terms that no
"declaration of independence" can separate the doctrine of baptism
from old covenant ceremonies or the doctrine of the covenant. The example of
John the Baptizer, the explicit use of the word baptism to refer to old
testament ceremonies, and the express identification of both baptism and the
Lord's Supper as covenantal ceremonies compel us to construct a
"whole-Bible" doctrine of baptism as opposed to a merely "New
Testament" doctrine of baptism.
If we read the Bible beginning from
Genesis rather than Matthew, a covenantal meaning for baptism and the Lord's
Supper is what we expect since all religious ceremonies in the Old Testament
are covenant making or covenant renewal ceremonies. Ceremonies in the Bible are
not magical, as in paganism, nor are they mere ceremonies, outward rites
practiced merely for their educational value.
Given the covenantal nature of
Biblical religion, how could the new covenant ceremonies of baptism and the
Lord's Supper be fundamentally different from the old covenant ceremonies which
they replace? And how is it possible for us to have a Biblical understanding of
new covenant ceremonies unless we study them in the light of the old covenant
ceremonies which they fulfill?
Notes
[1] William Shirreff, Lectures on
Baptism (London: Passmore and Alabaster, 1878; reprinted by: Ft. Smith,
Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987), pp. 12-33.
