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