baptism

Great Commission Baptism and Infant Baptism Part 1

“Buried unto death in Christ, rise again to walk in newness of life.” – my pastor when I was baptized thirty-four years ago at the age of thirty-one.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” – Jesus Christ giving the Great Commission to His church in Matthew 28:19-20.

THE BEAUTIFUL PLAN – THE GREAT COMMISSION (MATTHEW 28:19-20)

Almost four years ago, on December 20, 2021, I had posted an article (Post #471) presenting the beautiful picture given to us by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20. In these two short verses, known as the Great Commission, Jesus instructs His church of their responsibilities in making disciples and thus in building His church to the end of the age. The picture is simple and elegant. First, the church is to proclaim the gospel “in Jesus’ name to all the nations” (Luke 24:47), “even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Those who respond in repentance and faith are to be publicly baptized as a testimony of their faith and are then to join themselves to a local church to be taught all that Jesus commanded. And this same pattern of proclamation-unto-faith and then baptizing and then training in righteousness is to continue through the church until the Lord returns. This is the basic blueprint for how Jesus is going to build His church (Matt. 16:18). The purpose of Post #471 was to reveal that blueprint and then display the beauty of Jesus’ disciple-making plan in operation in a local church. (It might be helpful to read that post before reading this one.)

BAPTISM OF DISCIPLES AT THE CENTER

At the very center of this Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), this divine plan for making disciples of all the nations, is the command to baptize disciples. The risen Lord Jesus, to whom has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18), commands His church to baptize disciples. This article will not take the time to explain the reason that Jesus commanded the baptism of disciples, but we will insist on the fact that Jesus commanded the baptism of disciples. The Lord of the church has told us to baptize (i.e., immerse) those who confess Jesus as Lord and our obedience to Jesus requires that we do so.

A DISTORTED APPROACH

Despite the unambiguous command in the Great Commission to immerse disciples, there are many in the Christian church who do not obey the Lord’s command regarding baptism but instead practice a man-made alternative. In this article (Post #719), I will critique one of these “other plans,” namely paedobaptism, which is more commonly known as infant baptism. We will see that ignoring the beautiful pattern that Jesus gave to His church in the Great Commission distorts the entire task of disciple-making. We will also see that an erroneous practice of baptism produces much confusion about salvation.

PAEDOBAPTISM (INFANT BAPTISM)

First, we consider the unbiblical way in which infant baptism (IB) is practiced. (NOTE: I will use the abbreviation “IB” when referring to infant baptism.) As we noted in Post #471, IB is a foundational practice in all Catholic churches and all Protestant denominations that descend from the Catholic Church. In this practice of IB, a minister of the church sprinkles a little bit of water on the head of an infant (or young child) being presented by its parents. After invoking the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the minister declares that the passive, unaware, and sometimes unconscious infant has now been “baptized” and is therefore a member of the church. All of this ceremony is done without the slightest participation by the infant and is done without any biblical warrant.

Now, regardless of how this practice of IB is justified by the church (and the ways of justifying the practice of IB vary widely between denominations and even within the same tradition or denomination), it should be observed that violence has been done to the Great Commission. The pattern for making disciples that Jesus gave His church in Matthew 28:19-20 was “Go and evangelize unto faith and salvation” followed by baptism followed by teaching by the church. But the pattern for the church that practices IB begins with something they call “baptism” and ignores or overlooks the critical starting point of the faith and salvation of the disciple. Having thus ignored Jesus’ prescribed pattern for making disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) and invented their own (Romans 10:3), the church is now also on their own for the other steps in the disciple-making process.

QUESTIONS RAISED BY IB IN THE CONTEXT OF MATTHEW 28:19

In Matthew 28:19, the risen Lord Jesus unambiguously commanded the baptism of disciples. But this command provokes significant questions for the church that “baptizes” (sprinkles) infants. For example, since Matthew 28:19 is explicitly about the baptism of disciples, we should ask the IB church, “Is the infant being presented for ‘baptism’ a disciple?” For if the infant is not a disciple, then, according to Matthew 28:19, this sprinkling-as-baptism ceremony is meaningless, for this is a ceremony which only baptizes disciples. But if, on the other hand, the infant is deemed to be a disciple by the IB church and is therefore eligible for “baptism” (sprinkling), we must ask, “How and when did they become a disciple?” Were they born as a disciple? If they were not born as a disciple, then the infant must have become a disciple between birth and their sprinkling ceremony, because, as we have already seen, Matthew 28:19 is only for the baptizing of disciples. What occurred between the infant’s birth and his sprinkling ceremony that changed him from not-disciple to disciple? There are other questions which could be mentioned here, but the main point is that the practice of IB raises many questions.

But as interesting as these questions are, of far greater significance are questions about how IB relates to salvation. In His Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, we have already seen Jesus presenting the church with her task which begins with the church going (“Go, therefore!”) and proclaiming the gospel message so that some will call upon the name of the Lord and be saved (Romans 10:13-15). Thus, Jesus begins with salvation. Then those who “call upon the Lord” are the disciples who are baptized, and those disciples are then taught obedience in the context of the church. And the church is to be engaged in this task until the end of the age. The Lord’s plan is simple and clear: proclamation results in salvation which is celebrated in baptism which is then worked out with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13) in the local church. Go-Baptize-Teach-Repeat. By this means the Lord Jesus will build His church (Matthew 16:18).

Next time we will see how infant baptism confuses and distorts the New Testament’s clear teaching on salvation as contained in the Great Commission.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 10/10/2025                 post #719

The LORD promises Abram a seed (Genesis 13:16)

OVERVIEW. A commentary on how Genesis 13:16 displays the physical seed and the spiritual seed of Abraham. Circumcision and baptism.

“I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered.” Genesis 13:16

In this verse, the LORD is speaking to Abram and is repeating and confirming the promise which He made to Abram in Gen. 12:2-3. Also note that, in the original Hebrew, “descendants” is literally “seed.”

EXEGESIS / COMMENTARY

The LORD promises Abram that his descendants (literally “seed”) will be as numerous as the dust of the earth. This is a repetition of the promise the LORD made in Gen. 12:2 when He promised Abram that He would make him a “great nation.”

PHYSICAL SEED. Certainly this refers to a promise of many physical descendants. (As a side note, consider that at this time, Abram had exactly zero descendants and his wife was barren. The LORD likes to act  in the face of impossible odds! This is also a testimony to Abram’s faith, for he believed that the LORD’s promise would be fulfilled even when there was no human possibility. Romans 4:18-22; etc.) The LORD was promising Abram a multitude of physical descendants, and the Scriptures attest that the LORD fulfilled that promise in the Old Testament nation of Israel. But we also see that promise fulfilled today, for the modern nation of Israel lives in the land of Canaan and is a testimony to the LORD’s fulfillment of His promise given to Abraham of a physical seed which would dwell in the land “forever” (Genesis 13:15).

SPIRITUAL SEED. But the LORD’s promise here is not only of a physical seed, but this promise to Abram is also of a spiritual seed. As we examine the New Testament, we read that “it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) and “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (3:29). Thus we see that all believers are Abraham’s spiritual seed by faith in Jesus. Paul’s argument in Romans 4:11-16 is that Abraham is the spiritual father of circumcised believers and uncircumcised believers because of their shared faith in Jesus. Thus in Genesis 13 the LORD is promising Abraham that he will be the father “of a great multitude which no one could count” (Rev. 7:9) of spiritual seed.

SIGNS. To prove that the LORD kept His promise of a physical seed, He gave Abraham the covenant sign of circumcision and commanded that all male descendants of Abraham receive the sign of circumcision (Gen. 17). Circumcision marks the physical seed of Abraham.

And to prove that He kept His promise to Abraham of a spiritual seed, the Lord Jesus commanded that all disciples must be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Baptism marks the spiritual seed.

Since, regarding the physical seed, Hebrew males who did not receive circumcision “shall be cut off from His people” (Gen. 17:14), it follows regarding the spiritual seed that those who do not receive biblical baptism shall likewise be cut off from Abraham’s spiritual people.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 5/20/2025                   #716

Romans 6:5 – “united with Him in a resurrection like His”

POST OVERVIEW. An exegesis of Romans 6:5 seeking to obtain a correct interpretation of Paul’s use of “resurrection.” The case is made that “resurrection” here must be understood not as referring to our future glorification but as speaking of our figurative “resurrection” to new life in Christ.

Part of the Appendix for my upcoming book, “The Resurrection: when the church is glorified.”

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. – Romans 6:5 (ESV)

DEATH AND RESURRECTION IN ROMANS 6:5: LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?

In this article we are going to be examining Romans 6:5 to determine whether the “resurrection” of this verse is to be understood literally, as referring to the final glorification of the saints at the end of the age, or to be understood figuratively.

THE BASIC TEACHING OF 6:1-11. Before we dive into the details of Romans 6:5, we will step back and ask, “What is the essence of Paul’s teaching here in Romans 6:1-11?” Briefly stated, Paul is declaring that the believer cannot continue in sin because, in Christ, they have died to sin and have been raised to a new life of holiness. So, as we take an initial high-level view of the passage, it is apparent that Paul is using died and raised figuratively when he speaks of the believer.

THE CONTEXT OF 6:5. Then, as we look at the immediate context of Romans 6:5, it becomes clear that Paul is not speaking here of our literal death but is using death and died in a figurative sense.

In 6:2, “we died to sin.”

In 6:3, “we have been baptized into His death.” (Christ’s death is literal, but our death is figurative.)

In 6:4, “we were buried with Christ into death.” (Christ’s death and burial are literal, but our death and burial are figurative.)

BAPTISM AS FIGURATIVE DEATH AND RESURRECTION. There is no clearer display of the believer’s figurative death to his old life of sin and figurative resurrection to his new life of righteousness than we see in water baptism. The believer is plunged under the water as a picture of his death and burial to sin and then he is raised up out of the water to walk in new life.

LITERAL DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. We must also notice that, in this passage, Paul is drawing an analogy between the physical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the figurative death and resurrection that the believer experiences when they first trust Christ as Lord and Savior. His argument goes, “As Christ physically died and was resurrected, so the believer has figuratively died to sin and has been made alive to God.” In this analogy, the literal, physical resurrection of Christ provides the “stage” for all that happens figuratively in the believer. This analogy between Christ’s physical experience and the believer’s figurative experience is crucial to Paul’s teaching in this passage.

ROMANS 6:5. Now as we turn our attention to Romans 6:5 itself, we realize that much of the interpretive work has already been done. First, we have already seen that, when referring to a believer, death and resurrection are figurative, so we would expect that, in 6:5, death and resurrection would likewise be figurative.

But second, there is another point here that removes the possibility of this verse referring to literal resurrection. Since in Romans 6:3 and 6:4, Paul has presented the believer’s death as figurative, he cannot now be speaking of the believer’s literal resurrection in glory. Further, since it is certain that the “death” of this verse (6:5) is a figurative death, we know that the resurrection must likewise be figurative. Remember the analogy, that as Christ’s physical death resulted in a physical resurrection, so the believer’s figurative death must result in a figurative resurrection. Since the death here is figurative, the resurrection is also figurative.

CONCLUSION

The evidence presented leads to the conclusion that the “resurrection” of Romans 6:5 does not refer to the literal final glorification of the saints on the last day but refers to a figurative resurrection of the believer to new life in Christ.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 3/8/2024                     #697

Why was “baptize” not translated but transliterated?

POST OVERVIEW. An exploration of why, during the Reformation, translators of the New Testament transliterated the Greek words “βαπτίζω” and “βάπτισμα.”

THE PROCESS AND GOAL OF TRANSLATION

Although the Bible is the word of the living God, and even though all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable, the process of translation of the New Testament from koine Greek into a modern language is no different than the translation of any other book or document into another language. The process begins by determining the meaning of a given word in the original language (in this case, Greek). Next, any necessary rules of grammar in both the original language (Greek) and the target language are taken into account. Then the meaning of the original word is translated into the most accurate word in the target language having the same meaning. Then another (Greek) word is selected and the process repeats. The goal of New-Testament translation is that the precise meaning of the original koine Greek is preserved by the translation into the target language. Preservation of meaning is paramount. Poor translations are those which, either intentionally or accidentally, introduce wrong, ambiguous, or misleading meanings into the text of the target language.

TRANSLITERATION, NOT TRANSLATION

When translating from koine Greek into a target language like English, there are times when transliteration also occurs. What is transliteration? Transliteration is when the translator, for one reason or another, decides not to translate the meaning of the Greek word, but instead simply reproduces or approximates the sound of the Greek word in the target language. The overwhelming majority of examples of transliterations are the names of people and places given in the Greek New Testament. In fact, there is really no other circumstance where transliteration is appropriate since the paramount objective of any translation is to preserve the meaning of the original Greek and transliteration would obviously obscure meaning.

TRANSLITERATION OF “BAPTIZO” INTO ENGLISH

The background given above brings us to a very interesting question. Why, during the Reformation, did the English-speaking translators of the New Testament choose to transliterate the Greek words “βαπτίζω” and “βάπτισμα” (baptize and baptism, respectively) rather than translate them? For it is not as though the translators did not know the meaning of these Greek words. The meaning, for example, of “βαπτίζω” is known by all Greek scholars. It means “immerse” or “submerge.” But if the meaning of “βαπτίζω” was well known, as it certainly was, why was the meaning of the word not preserved in the translations into English?

The only logical reason that the word “βαπτίζω” was transliterated and not translated was to obscure the meaning of the Greek word. But why would English-speaking translators want to obscure the meaning of words like “βαπτίζω” and “βάπτισμα”? The reason was because virtually all the Reformers who were able to understand Greek and so were able to translate the Greek New Testament into English were committed Paedobaptists. They were committed to the practice of sprinkling infants and calling that practice “baptism.” If the Reformers had translated “βαπτίζω” into English as “immersed” or “submerged,” not only would infant “baptism” have been exposed as an unbiblical practice, but they would also have been affirming the Anabaptist practice of baptism by immersion. To avoid these problems, the Reformers hid the true meaning of βαπτίζω under an English transliteration. And the beauty of a transliterated word is that you can give it whatever meaning you want because it’s your word. So transliteration of these words into English proved to be a convenient way to separate the original meaning of βαπτίζω from its place in the new language, especially when the original meaning would produce theological difficulties. The average readers in the pew who did not know Greek would never discover the irregularity and would assume that the word “baptize” had always existed and had always meant the practice that they witnessed in church, namely the sprinkling of a few drops of water on the head of a passive infant. In this way, infant baptism became “baptism” and appeared to be according to the biblical practice.

TRANSLITERATION OF “BAPTIZO” INTO OTHER LANGUAGES

This same phenomenon of transliteration of βαπτίζω has been used in all the so-called Romance languages, including French, Italian, Romanian, Spanish, and Portuguese, and it has been used for the same reason. The translators, whether Protestant or Catholic, were Paedobaptists and wanted to avoid the problems that a translation of βαπτίζω would create. Transliteration provided the needed alternative.

A LUTHERAN EXAMPLE

Martin Luther, a committed Paedobaptist, used a different approach with his 1545 German translation of the New Testament. Now, we know that the Greek word βαπτίζω has the meaning of “immerse” or “submerge.” Luther knew this as well. The German word for “immerse” or “submerge” is “tauchen.” Therefore, when translating βαπτίζω into German, Luther used the word “tauchen,” right? Wrong. Instead of “tauchen,” Luther invented the word “taufen” and assigned the meaning of “baptize” to his word.

But here we should pause and ask the question, “Why did Luther not use the existing German word ‘tauchen’?” It accurately expresses the meaning of the Greek word βαπτίζω. What could be the problem? The problem was that Lutherans were Paedobaptists who sprinkled drops of water on the heads of infants as their practice of baptism. If the people in the pews of the Lutheran churches started reading the word “tauchen” in their New Testament, eventually they would start asking awkward questions about the so-called baptizing of infants by sprinkling. To prevent that from happening, Luther invented the word “taufen” (a word that sounded a lot like “tauchen”) and gave it the meaning of “baptize.”

What were the results of Luther’s mistranslation? For every Lutheran, “taufen” (baptize) came to mean the sprinkling or christening of an infant because of the “infant faith” (another Lutheran invention) of the subject being “baptized.” By means of this mistranslation, the βαπτίζω of the New Testament, which involved the public immersion (“tauchen”) in water of a new believer as an expression of their commitment to Christ, became a ceremony (“taufen”) performed on passive infants by sprinkling a few drops of water on the infant’s head.

SUMMARY. A brief account of how the Greek word βαπτίζω was transliterated by Paedobaptist translators during the Reformation to obscure the word’s real meaning.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 11/20/2023                 #679

Why does Paul not explain the form of baptism? (Rom. 6:4)

POST OVERVIEW. An examination of why the apostle Paul did not explain the proper form of baptism nor define the proper subjects of baptism. This article will be part of a future book on the subject of baptism.

FORM INSTRUCTED IN THE LORD’S SUPPER

In 1 Corinthains 11:23-34, Paul goes to considerable length to explain how the Lord’s Supper is to be done. He talks about the bread, that it is broken as a representation of Christ’s body broken for us (11:24). Then the apostle talks about the cup (“the fruit of the vine” in Luke 22:18), that it represents the new covenant in Christ’s blood which has been shed for us (11:25). We take these elements in remembrance of Christ. Then Paul teaches the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, this taking of the bread and the cup. “For as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:26) Thus, in this fellowship meal, God’s people proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. The point to notice, though, is that Paul is very careful to give instruction on the form of the Lord’s Supper. This must mean that the form is important and that there is one correct, God-given form to be followed. To do anything else and call it the Lord’s Supper would be unthinkable. Obviously, the form matters.

FORM EXPLAINED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES

This precision of form was also a prominent part of the Old Testament sacrificial system. The instructions given to the priests for how the various sacrifices were to be done (Leviticus chapters 1-5) seem almost impossibly complicated. The burnt offerings, the peace offerings, the sin offerings, and the guilt offerings each had their own separate set of instructions, and the instructions within a particular offering (e.g., the sin offering) varied depending on what animal was being sacrificed. The procedures for the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 were so critical that the priest who did not follow the instructions to the letter would die in the temple. Following the God-given form was literally a matter of life and death. Obviously, the form mattered.

NO FORM GIVEN FOR BAPTISM

It is, therefore, very curious that Paul, in Romans 6:3-4, in this foundational doctrinal text about the meaning of baptism and about how baptism relates to our salvation and relates to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, does not give any instructions or guidelines for how baptism is to be done or about who the proper subjects of baptism are. Instead, Paul’s entire emphasis is on the meaning of baptism. Why is this so? Why no mention of form or subjects?

As we consider this question, we know that, if there had been confusion or controversy about the way baptism was done, or if some believers did baptism one way and other believers did baptism in an entirely different way, it would have been incumbent upon Paul, as an apostle and therefore as a final authority on baptism, to give authoritative instruction on this matter. But he doesn’t. In fact, there is not in this passage even a hint of explanation or discussion about these crucial questions of the prescribed form of baptism or the proper subjects of baptism. Remarkably, as we expand our search into the rest of the Pauline corpus and then into the entire New Testament, we search in vain for a single mention anywhere about these two questions. This would be a glaring oversight unless one of two things were true: either the form of baptism and the subjects for baptism (i.e., the people who were to be baptized) did not matter and was of no consequence, or there was universal agreement in all the churches “from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum” (Romans 15:19) on the answers to these two questions.

Exploring the first option, we ask ourselves, “Is it possible that the form of baptism and the qualifications of the people being baptized do not matter?” Maybe Peter baptized three thousand people on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) using one method of baptism but then used an entirely different means to baptize Cornelius and his friends in Acts 10. Maybe Paul, since he was going to the Gentiles, did something more “Gentile-oriented” when he baptized them. Maybe each apostle had his own form of “baptism” that he preferred and that he then taught to the people to whom he preached the gospel. Maybe Jesus had no particular form of baptism in mind when He commanded His church to make and baptize disciples until He returned at the end of the age (Matthew 28:19-20). Maybe.

Of course, this suggestion is beyond absurd. When the risen Lord Jesus Christ gave His Great Commission to His church, He commanded baptism of disciples. Our King thus explicitly declares the proper subjects of baptism (disciples), and it is certain that He also had a very specific form of baptism in mind. We can, therefore, reject the first option, that the form of baptism and the subjects of baptism do not matter. As with every other major component of our faith, there is an orthodox position that is given to us in the Scriptures and that we are obligated to obey. The form and the subject of baptism matters.

We are, therefore, led to conclude that there is no apostolic instruction about the form of baptism or about the proper subjects of baptism because there was universal agreement in all the churches, whether mainly Jewish or entirely Gentile, whether “barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (Colossians 3:11), on the answers to these two questions. It is unnecessary to give instruction or correction when there is universal understanding and complete agreement. When the New Testament speaks about “baptize” or “baptism,” there was no ambiguity in anyone’s mind about what was being said. No one was asking for clarification or demanding that the author define their terms. There were no metaphorical quizzical expressions on people’s faces as they wondered what the writer or speaker meant. In the second half of the first century in any place that had been reached by the gospel, there was universal agreement on the form of baptism and on who got baptized. Believer and unbeliever alike understood that when a person believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and thus became a disciple of Jesus, the new disciple testified to their faith in Jesus by being publicly immersed under water and being raised to newness of life. No one was confused about that. That is the baptism that Jesus commanded, that was what the apostles taught and practiced as they established churches, and that was, therefore, what was universally understood and done. This explains why we have no scriptural instruction on the form of baptism.

A SUBMARINE LECTURE

Imagine we are visiting a classroom at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, where the instructor is giving a lecture on submarines to these Navy officer trainees. Would the trainer spend the first third of his lecture telling these men what a submarine was and where a submarine operated? Of course not. That would be beyond absurd. There is universal agreement among all the men in that classroom of the word “submarine” and there is universal knowledge about where a submarine operates. The trainer is not going to waste time telling these naval officer trainees things that he should assume to be common knowledge. No one at the Naval Academy is confused about submarines.

Why is this? First of all, the word “submarine” itself supplies a description of the object. “Sub” means underneath something or below something. Anyone who speaks English knows that. “Marine” is a word that has to do with water, specifically anything associated with the sea. Thus, just by the word itself, “submarine” must be something that is under the sea. So, if these cadets knew nothing else about these things called submarines, they could figure it out just by their knowledge of English.

But also, these men are future Navy officers. They have immersed themselves in all things Navy because this is part of their identity. They have seen submarines in movies and magazines and books. They watched “The Hunt for Red October” five times. They have probably been onboard submarines and may have already taken trips on these vessels. All of this makes basic definitions an unnecessary waste of time. This also means that if the instructor begins telling these men things that are true of battleships and aircraft carriers but that have nothing to do with submarines, there will be mutiny in the classroom. They will not be convinced that a battleship is a submarine simply because the instructor insists that it is so.

THE ANALOGY WITH BAPTISM

Using this submarine illustration as an analogy will help us understand more about why baptism was so well understood during the apostolic era. In that time, the common language of the Mediterranean world was koine Greek. This was the language used for the New Testament. So, if someone in Rome were reading the letter of Romans to the church, the reader would have encountered the Greek word βαπτίζω (baptizo). This is a common word in the New Testament which anyone who knew koine Greek would understand as meaning “immerse” or “submerge.” Thus when the listeners hear the reader telling about “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3), they hear “ ‘immersed’ into Christ” or “ ‘submerged’ into Christ.” Even if they had never seen a baptism or heard anything else about baptizing, just because they knew Greek, they would know that baptism had something to do with immersing or submerging someone. That’s just what the word means.

(NOTE: I plan to write a future article speculating about why the original translators of the Greek New Testament into English chose to transliterate βαπτίζω rather than translate it.)

But also, the people who were listening to the Bible being taught and who were listening to βαπτίζω being used in epistles and in sermons were also those who had seen baptisms done. They would have been exposed to the practice of Christian baptism. They had witnessed that, when any person became a disciple of Jesus, that person made their commitment public by confessing Christ before the gathered church and then being immersed under the water and raised up out of the water. Their old life was gone, their “old man” had died, and they rose out of the water to a new life in Christ. The apostles had done that, now the elders of the church did that, and it was expected that, when anyone came to faith in Jesus, they would be baptized. There was no ambiguity or confusion. That was baptism. The word βαπτίζω means immerse, so the new believer was immersed into Christ.

CONCLUSION. Since the immersing of the new believer in water before the gathered church is the God-given means for Christian baptism, I appeal to those who practice a non-biblical means to abandon their disobedience and follow Christ’s command.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 10/6/2023                   #674

Romans 6:3-4 – Paul teaches meaning and form of baptism.

POST OVERVIEW. This article is the first in a series of articles on Romans 6:1-14. This section of Scripture is packed with theological truths, and in this series, we hope to explore many of these doctrines and to understand what Paul is teaching in this powerful section of Scripture.

This first article is focused mostly on Romans 6:3-4 where Paul teaches about the meaning and the form of baptism.

3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. – Romans 6:3-4 (NASB)

As we move through the book of Romans, we must keep in mind that, as God’s chosen instrument (Acts 9:15-16), Paul the apostle is communicating divine truth. In other words, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul is teaching unchanging doctrine. And in Romans 6:3-4, it is clear that the doctrine in view is baptism. In these verses, the apostle Paul gives his clearest teaching on the meaning of baptism and, by implication, its form. So, what does the apostle teach about the form?

THEN. From the pages of the New Testament, it is clear that the apostle Paul knew only one form of baptism, and that was the form which was inaugurated by John the Baptist and received by the Lord Jesus in His own baptism (Matthew 3:16), the form that, upon profession of faith, immerses the subject in water and then raises them up out of the water. This was certainly the baptism that Paul himself received (Acts 9:18). The point here is that, to Paul’s original audience in Rome or to any other professing believer who lived at that time, the only known baptism was the immersing in water of the believer upon the believer’s profession of faith. That’s what the apostles taught and that’s what the apostles did, so that was baptism. This baptism was the common experience of all believers. There simply was no other baptism in existence.

NOW. And there is no reason that baptism should be different for us today. Baptism is still the immersing in water of the believer upon the believer’s profession of faith in Jesus. This is the apostolic, God-given form of Christian baptism and is therefore the only acceptable form. Any “baptism” that deviates from this is meaningless and man-made and is done, whether knowingly or ignorantly, in disobedience to the one God-given ordinance. Only this baptism illustrates the theological truths about salvation taught in Romans 6 and in the rest of the New Testament. Therefore, the form cannot be changed. Anything else is simply not baptism.

What, then, are the theological truths taught in Romans 6 that are so well illustrated by immersion into water and being raised from the water? Discovering these theological truths will be the subject of the next several posts as we explore Romans 6:1-7.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 9/25/2023                   #673

Belief and baptism, but no Holy Spirit (Acts 8:12-17)

POST OVERVIEW. Another study from Acts 8 as the gospel spreads to the Samaritans. Here we consider the difficulty of the Samaritans believing in the name of Jesus Christ and not immediately receiving the Holy Spirit.

This post is part of a short series of articles wrestling with the difficulties of the events of Acts 8. Earlier we considered the situation of Simon the magician (post #597, #598) and now we look at the Samaritans who truly believed and were baptized and yet did not immediately receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:12-17.

GENERAL THOUGHTS ON INTERPRETING ACTS

Before we dig into this very interesting episode, we need to remember that we are reading the book of Acts, which is part of the New Testament’s history section. Acts covers a time of rapid change as the work of God on earth transitions from the ministry of Jesus to the ministry of the church.

To review our teaching from post #597 (12/7/2022), Jesus was sent from heaven to earth primarily to accomplish the atonement and to ransom His people from sin. In His crucifixion, He finished His work (John 19:30). Then He was resurrected, He commissioned His church to proclaim the gospel to the end of the age (Matt. 28:19-20) and to the remotest part of the earth (Acts 1:8), and He ascended into heaven until the Father’s appointed time for His return. That was Jesus’ ministry.

When Jesus ascended to heaven, the ministry of the church began. The book of Acts describes the initial spread of the church from one hundred twenty timid Jewish disciples in an upper room in Jerusalem with no new-covenant doctrine or practice to many thousands of mostly Gentile believers scattered all over the Mediterranean world with well-established doctrinal teaching and church practice. The result of this massive transition is that, while all the events of Acts certainly occurred and occurred as described, all the events that occurred were not normative for the church age. In other words, the student of Acts must carefully discern if the event under study is merely descriptive (just describing what happened) or if this event is prescriptive (giving a normative practice of the church until Jesus returns). Some of the events that occur in Acts are unique and simply occurred as part of this transition landscape.

How do we discern what is merely descriptive? There are two basic principles to detect these events. The first principle asks, “Is the event unique in the Scriptures?” For example, Acts 2 relates the coming of the Holy Spirit. This event is marked with a mighty rushing wind and tongues of fire resting on the disciples (Acts 2:2-3). Do we expect this to occur again? Should this be a regular occurrence in our local church? No, it is not normative. The events of Acts 2 are unique and unrepeated.

But a second principle is to consider whether the events of the scene are consistent with New Testament teaching on this subject. What do the epistles teach about this and did Jesus say anything about this subject during His ministry? For example, in our current study in Acts 8, we see that the Samaritans believe in Jesus and are baptized before they receive the Holy Spirit. Should we in our churches today teach that the Holy Spirit is received some time after we believe by the laying on of someone’s hands? No, we should not teach that, because the epistles contradict that doctrine (e.g. Ephesians 1:13-14).

With these principles, we read in Acts 8:12 that the Samaritans “believed Philip preaching the good news about the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no reason to doubt that these Samaritans genuinely believed. Philip had proclaimed Christ to them (8:5), he had performed signs of casting out unclean spirits and of healing the paralyzed and the lame (8:6, 7; see also 8:13). The expected result of preaching Christ and performing attesting miracles is that the people would believe. After they believe, the Samaritans are baptized, exactly according to the pattern at Pentecost.

KEY CONCEPT BASED ON ACTS 1:8

“When the apostles in Jerusalem (8:1) heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John” to Samaria (8:14). Why did they send Peter to Samaria?

These events serve to introduce a KEY CONCEPT for understanding some of the events of Acts. Recall that Acts 1:8 is the theme verse for the book of Acts. According to that verse, the gospel of Jesus Christ will spread from Jerusalem to (all Judea and) Samaria and even to the remotest part of the earth (to the Gentiles). What we see happening is that, as each new threshold is crossed (the Jews in Jerusalem, the Samaritans in Samaria, and the Gentiles in Caesarea), the apostle Peter is required to confirm that salvation has actually come to each group and so that group may receive the Holy Spirit as a sign of their salvation. Accordingly, Peter is the one who preaches the sermon at Pentecost and declares that all those who repent and believe will receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Here in Acts 8, although Philip has faithfully proclaimed the gospel and the Samaritans have genuinely believed, the Holy Spirit is withheld until Peter prays for them and lays his hands upon them (Acts 8:15-17). This is because Peter, as the lead apostle (Matt. 16:18-19; John 21:15-17), must confirm that the Samaritans are indeed included in the gospel before the Holy Spirit can be received. Finally, in Acts 10, when the gospel goes to the Gentiles, to Cornelius and his relatives in Caesarea, Peter is again there to confirm that “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (Acts 10:44), when “the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also” (10:45). Peter “ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (10:48) because they had “received the Holy Spirit” (10:47) just as the Jews in Jerusalem had received Him on Pentecost.

CONCLUSION

The point is that, in this transition period, as the gospel of Jesus Christ is going out first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, and finally to the Gentiles, the apostle Peter must confirm that each new group is truly included in the gospel before the Holy spirit is received. Thus, what occurs in Samaria in Acts 8, where there is genuine belief without the receiving of the Holy Spirit, is a one-time, unrepeated event and is not normative for the church age.

What is normative for the church age? Now that Peter has confirmed that the gospel has gone to all groups, whether Jew or Gentile, anyone from any group who has genuinely believed in the Lord Jesus receives the Holy Spirit immediately at salvation (see Romans 8:5, 9, 11, 14; 1 Cor. 12:7, 11, 13; Eph. 1:13-14; etc.). The teaching of the New Testament is that all believers are sealed and in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit from the moment of initial faith.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 12/29/2022                 #605

Lessons and applications from Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24)

POST OVERVIEW. In the last post (#597, 12/7/2022), we had studied the passage about Simon the magician in Acts 8:9-24. From that study we will observe a couple of lessons and also make a couple of applications.

In the most recent post (#597, 12/7/2022), we had studied the passage in Acts 8 about the false faith of Simon the magician and his baptism by Philip the evangelist. We saw that, despite his claim of belief in Jesus, Simon never truly believed. We also determined that Philip’s baptism of Simon based on his profession of faith was the appropriate thing to do, even though Simon’s profession was false.

In this post, we will extend our study into lessons learned and applications made.

LESSONS FROM SIMON MAGUS

What do we learn from this situation with Simon the magician?

First, this passage makes it unambiguously clear that baptism does not save. The proof is irrefutable: Simon the magician was baptized and yet he was not saved. A review of this passage should serve to silence those who hold to baptism as the means of salvation rather than as a marking of those who have believed and are saved.

Second, we learn that it is possible for a sincere minister of the gospel to baptize an unbeliever unintentionally. The New Testament teaches that a person is baptized upon their profession of faith in Jesus. It is possible, however, that the person’s professed belief is not genuine. Our study passage shows that Philip, already identified as a “man of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom” (Acts 6:3, 5), a sincere minister of the gospel who is identified in Scripture as an evangelist (Acts 21:8), baptized Simon the magician based on his profession of belief. The pattern in Acts, and so the practice in the church age, is that a person’s profession of faith, of declaring Jesus as Lord (1 Cor. 12:3), is assumed to be sincere and a person is baptized upon profession of faith.

By the way, it is interesting to note that the apostle Peter does not rebuke or correct Philip for baptizing Simon Magus. If Philip had done something that was wrong, then it is certain that, at this infant stage of the church, the Holy Spirit would have prompted Peter to correct that error so that the error was not repeated throughout the life of the church. The fact that Peter does not correct Philip in any way indicates that Philip’s baptism of Simon based on his profession of faith was entirely appropriate. The fault and guilt lay entirely with Simon because he had essentially lied about his belief (see also Acts 5:3, 4).

APPLICATIONS

As we think about this episode with Simon the magician, we need to ask the question, “How does the church today avoid this situation of baptizing unbelievers?” Ultimately, the possibility of baptizing someone based on a false profession of faith cannot be removed. There are no apostles around today who have the gift to discern genuine faith from false. In the absence of this apostolic discernment, however, the church can take steps to try to ensure that a candidate for baptism is a genuine believer. For example, the person’s profession of faith can be examined carefully by wise elders to test the authenticity of their profession. Also, if the person has been a professing believer for some time, the persons interviewing the candidate for baptism can look for “the fruit of repentance” (Matt. 3:8; see also Luke 13:6-9; John 15:2) since their conversion. If after this investigation, the candidate’s profession of faith appears genuine, then baptism is done.

So, it is possible for even the most careful pastor to unintentionally baptize a person because the person made profession of a faith they did not possess. But this event is not a cause of undue concern, and that for two reasons.

THE CHURCH’S CLEANSING BY CHURCH DISCIPLINE

First, the church does have a remedy for this situation. It is difficult for the person who is an “unsheep” to remain undetected in the flock forever. This is because every baptized believer is to bear fruit as a disciple of Jesus. The Spirit-sealed disciple says no to sin and yes to righteousness. He worships, he witnesses, he grows in his faith. So if, over time, it is discovered that a professing believer is not exhibiting the fruit of repentance, but is instead evidencing the fruit of unrighteousness, the church will respond and confront this problem. If the sinning church member does not change and does not repent of his unrighteousness, eventually the church will exercise discipline and will remove this one from the flock (Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 5) because the person’s unrepentance is counted as evidence of unbelief.

THE LORD’S PERFECT CLEANSING AT THE AND OF THE AGE

But second, there is an even more compelling reason that the unintentional baptism of an unbeliever is not a problem. The one who makes sure that His true church is composed only of genuine believers is the Lord Himself. If there are “unsheep” in the earthly flock, they are known to the Lord and will be removed by the Lord. The following are Scriptures that attest to this truth.  

“The Lord knows those who are His” (2 Tim. 2:19). No matter how cleverly those who are not true believers disguise themselves, the Lord will find them out because He knows those who are His and those who are not.

“I am the good shepherd, and I know My own, and My own know Me” (John 10:14). Jesus plainly declares that He knows His sheep. Only His true sheep will be saved from the judgment. (Consider John 10:26 – “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.”)

In the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43), Jesus teaches that there will be true believers (wheat) and unbelievers (tares) in His visible church until the end of the age. Then, at the end of the age, He will throw the unbelievers into the furnace of fire (13:42). Again we see that those who make false profession on earth do not deceive the Lord of heaven.

The parable of the dragnet is similar to the parable of the wheat and the tares. In this parable (Matt. 13:47-50), Jesus tells us that the dragnet of the gospel brings in both “good fish” (true believers) and “bad fish” (false), but at the end of the age, the Lord will take out the wicked from among the righteous and will throw them into the furnace of fire.

These Scriptures make clear that, even though man or the devil may sow those who are false in the field of the visible church (Matthew 13:38-39), the Lord is the One who reigns over His church and He will ensure that, at the last day, His bride has no wrinkle or spot.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 12/08/2022                 #598

The case of Simon the magician (Acts 8:9-24)

POST OVERVIEW. A study of Acts 8:9-24 and the episode involving Simon the magician. We consider the implications of Simon’s professed belief and subsequent baptism despite his unbelief.

In Acts 8:5-24, we read how Philip preaches “the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (8:12) in Samaria and, as a result, some of the Samaritans believe and are baptized. This is exciting news, indeed, but this event also presents to us a couple of situations which can be misinterpreted and thus cause doctrinal confusion. The first situation involves Simon the magician and his professed belief and baptism and the second situation relates to the Samaritans receiving the Holy Spirit well after they had believed in Jesus and been saved. We will carefully examine these two situations in an attempt to remove this potential confusion.

GENERAL THOUGHTS ON INTERPRETING ACTS

Before we begin looking at Simon the magician, we should note that there are several considerations to keep in mind as we study the book of Acts. First, Acts portrays a time of great transition in redemptive history. At this time, the Jew-Gentile divide is firmly in place; there are still people who have believed in “the baptism of John;” the gospel is spreading first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, and finally to the Gentiles; and the apostles are the authority in this new gospel movement. The fact that this is a time of transition constrains our interpretations of the individual episodes in Acts.

Second, because things are in transition, we must repeatedly ask the question, “Is this event merely descriptive or is it also prescriptive?” Luke is an excellent historian and includes many details of these events in Acts. His accounts are very descriptive of what occurred. The bigger question, however, is whether this description is also the way things should occur. That is, is this event a prescription for what should happen in all churches or with all believers throughout the church age till Jesus returns? In other words, is this episode in Acts describing for us what is normal in the church? Carefully answering these questions helps keep our interpretations on solid ground.

Third, in the early chapters of Acts as the gospel is spreading from Jerusalem to Samaria to the Gentiles (“remotest parts of the earth” in Acts 1:8), each new group of believers must be folded into the church in the same way. The pattern is established at Pentecost (Acts 2), where those who believe are baptized and, upon apostolic confirmation, they receive the Holy Spirit. What happened at Pentecost with the first fruits of the Jews happened again in Samaria (our current study in Acts 8) as the Samaritans, a mixed race of Jew and Gentile, are brought into the fold, and finally this happened (as we will see later on) when the first Gentiles come to saving faith in Christ (Cornelius in Acts 10). This process of apostolic confirmation and incorporation in the Body was unique in redemptive history, but its occurrence can cause confusion for readers of Acts.

With that as background, let’s begin our study of Simon the magician (Acts 8:9-24).

SIMON HIMSELF BELIEVED AND WAS BAPTIZED

The first situation we will address involves Simon the magician (“Simon Magus”). This Simon is a curious character. Before Philip came to Samaria preaching the gospel, Simon “was astonishing the people of Samaria” with his magical tricks (Acts 8:9). But when Philip performs miraculous signs and preaches the good news, the people give their attention to him, believe in the name of Jesus, and are baptized. The potential difficulty arises when the Scripture says, “Even Simon himself believed” and was baptized (8:13). To this point in Acts, when anyone believed and was baptized, it meant that they had been saved. Belief in the good news followed by baptism was the formula for salvation. But with Simon the magician, it becomes apparent that, despite his professed belief and his subsequent baptism, he is not a genuine believer but is still “in the bondage of iniquity” (8:23). How do we explain this?

PROFESSED BELIEF AND BAPTISM

To understand this situation, It is necessary to examine both professed belief and baptism to see what is happening here.

Our doctrine teaches us that water baptism does not save a person. We could say that “Baptism marks a person as saved, but it is not the means by which a person is saved.”

But we must go further. We can say “Baptism marks a person as saved” because their baptism is based on that person’s profession of faith (belief, trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that faith and salvation precede baptism. “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). In all examples of baptism in the New Testament, salvation by faith precedes baptism. Therefore, we can conclude that a person is baptized because they have professed Jesus Christ as Lord and are therefore assumed to be saved.

So then, as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Philip appropriately baptized the Samaritans based on their profession of belief in the Lord Jesus. He assumed that their profession of faith was genuine, so he baptized them. In the same way, he also baptized Simon the magician based on Simon’s false profession of faith. But Philip was not an apostle, so he did not have the apostolic gift that allowed him to discern a false profession.

APOSTOLIC DISCERNMENT

In Acts and during the apostolic period, one of the gifts of the apostles was the ability to discern genuine faith. When the three thousand believed on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), the apostle Peter was there to confirm the faith of those believers. But Peter was not there in Samaria when the gospel was proclaimed by Philip and so he could not confirm that these Samaritans had actually believed in Jesus and should now be included in the church. The Samaritans, including Simon the magician, had professed belief in Jesus, but without apostolic sanction, it was not certain that they possessed belief in Jesus.

Peter went down to Samaria for the purpose of putting his apostolic stamp on this move of the Spirit of God. In this instance, the apostle Peter was able to discern that Simon’s profession of belief was false. The Scripture makes clear that Simon had not truly believed in the Lord Jesus and was not saved, and so Peter exposed his unbelief and did not lay hands on him.

Having looked at Simon’s unbelief and his baptism and having determined what is happening in this passage, we also want to consider what lessons can learn and what applications we can draw from this study. The next post will take that next step.

Soli Deo gloria            rmb                 12/07/2022                 #597

Inauguration, identification, and commitment in Jesus’ baptism

INTRODUCTION. An examination of Matthew 3:13-17 with the goal of discovering why Jesus was baptized, then applying those ideas to the life of a believer/disciple.

When He was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23), Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. Here is the account from the gospel of Matthew 3:13-17:

13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him. 16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

The Scriptures are clear that Jesus was baptized. All four gospels unambiguously attest to this fact. But the question that must be answered is, “Why was Jesus baptized?”

WHY WAS JESUS BAPTIZED?

Let’s explore this question. We can start by saying what is not the reason Jesus was baptized. John the Baptist was “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4). In Matthew 3:6 we read that John was baptizing people “in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins” (Matt. 3:6). But since Jesus was sinless (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; etc.), He had no sins to confess, so He was not being baptized for repentance.

So, we are back at square one. “Why was Jesus baptized?”

MATTHEW 3:15

Jesus’ words in Matthew 3:15 seem to provide some helpful information. First, Jesus commands John to permit His baptism. In the Greek, this is an imperative, meaning Jesus is giving John a command. “Allow My baptism!” With this command, Jesus is telling John, “I know you do not understand why I am doing this, but I know why, and so I am commanding you to baptize Me and to trust Me about this.”

Notice also that John is to permit this baptism “at this time.” This phrase could also be translated from the Greek as “at the current time” or simply “now.” There is something about this particular time that is significant and that makes it “fitting” (or “proper”) for Jesus to be baptized at this specific time. This new information has changed our question to, “Why was Jesus baptized at this specific time?” As we consider the timing of this scene, we see that this is the time Jesus began His earthly ministry. And it is “fitting” (or “proper”) to mark the start of Jesus’ earthly ministry “in this way,” that is, with baptism.  

WHY JESUS WAS BAPTIZED AT THIS TIME

Putting these pieces together, then, we would say that it was appropriate and fitting to fulfill all righteousness for Jesus to mark the launch of His earthly ministry with baptism. To say this more simply, it was right (or righteous) for Jesus to mark the start of His earthly ministry with baptism. So, the answer to the question, “Why was Jesus baptized?” is that He was baptized to mark the start of His earthly ministry. But that is not the complete reason.

At His baptism, Jesus emerged from complete obscurity and was publicly identified as the Son of God when God the Father declared from heaven, “This is My beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17). Prior to this event, Jesus had been an unknown carpenter in the backwater town of Nazareth, quietly living His days with His mother and brothers. Now, by His baptism, His days of quiet obscurity are forever ended and His anonymity is gone. Through His baptism, He is now identified as the Son of God. Thus, a second reason for His baptism was His identification as the Son of God.

But there was another reason for Jesus to be baptized, for at His baptism, Jesus committed Himself to the cross. After He emerged from the waters of baptism, there was no turning back, there would be no distractions, there was no other possible ending to the story. His baptism was the visual sign that Jesus was committed to His mission all the way to His death. As Jesus went down into the waters of baptism, He was picturing His own physical death on the cross and subsequent burial, and when He was raised up out of the water, He was picturing His own glorious resurrection. His baptism, then, was also about His commitment to be obedient till death (Philippians 2:8).

APPLICATION TO THE BELIEVER

We have seen that in His baptism, Jesus inaugurated His mission, He identified as the Son of God, and He committed to the cross. But Jesus’ baptism has even more significance than that.

When I was baptized, after my pastor requested from me a verbal testimony of my faith in Jesus Christ, he said these words before he plunged me under the water: “Based on your profession of faith, IN IMITATION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST and in obedience to His divine command (Matthew 28:19), I baptize you, my brother in Christ, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Buried unto death in Christ (plunge into water), rise again to walk in newness of life (bring up out of the water).”

As believers, we worship a crucified Savior, but we also worship a baptized Savior. Jesus Christ was baptized, and He thus left His disciples an example of what we are to do when we make disciples, according to Matthew 28:19. And as Jesus was baptized as a sign of inauguration, identification, and commitment, so the baptism of a disciple is also a sign of inauguration, identification, and commitment.

In his public baptism, the disciple publicly inaugurates his discipleship and starts his lifelong walk with Jesus. Baptism is the fitting sign to mark the start of a disciple’s earthly journey with Jesus.

Also, in baptism the disciple publicly declares his faith in Jesus and vows to follow Jesus forever. His baptism publicly identifies him as a follower of Jesus Christ. From that moment on, the baptized disciple is always identified with the crucified and risen Savior.

Finally, in the disciple’s baptism he visually makes a commitment to follow Jesus until death, no matter the cost and no matter the consequences. To live is Christ and to die is gain (Phil. 1:21), and so as long as he draws breath, the disciple is a committed witness for Jesus Christ.

Thus, the disciple is baptized IN IMITATION OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.

SDG                 rmb                 6/10/2022                   #542