A Scriptural and Practical Examination of the Ordinance of Baptism

DR 30060 Integrating Christian Faith and Practice

September 4, 2015

Joseph Jones

  1

Introduction

Every Sunday in the year, in any given community, believers representing myriad

denominations gather in their respective church buildings. While these individual churches hold

some beliefs in common, there are those on which they differ. One belief on which

denominations disagree is the ordinance of baptism. These differences include who can be

baptized, when a person should be baptized, and by what mode baptism should be performed. In

light of these variations in belief concerning baptism, it must be determined what Scripture

teaches and how to apply its teaching.

Developing a clear and concise definition of baptism is difficult. One’s personal view of

baptism is determined in large part by his faith tradition and its interpretation of Scripture. This

tradition dictates whether one views baptism as symbolic, sacramental, or covenantal, and

governs whether one practices believer’s baptism or infant baptism, as well as whether baptism

is conducted by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling. The one thing that all traditions agree upon is

that baptism involves the use of water. Clearly, although tradition and Scripture are often at odds

with one another, the former plays a large part in the doctrine of baptism. It is my goal to

determine, outside of tradition and without any presuppositions, what the Scripture teaches

regarding the ordinance of baptism.

The purpose of this research project is to seek and develop a theological understanding of

baptism. I will examine its biblical foundations through the exegesis of relevant passages of

Scripture, and, in turn, will state and defend my own personal theology on the subject, followed

by the theology of First Baptist Church in Quanah, Texas. In conclusion, I will utilize all of this

information to compare and contrast my theology of baptism with that of my ministry location

and explain how the two can be made compatible.

  2

Biblical Foundations

When developing one’s theology, the first place to begin is the Bible, and this

development must be done outside the realm of tradition and presuppositions; therefore, this

project will examine the biblical foundations of baptism. While there are myriad pertinent

passages one can exegete on this subject, this project will focus on only nine. These passages

will include, from the gospel accounts, Mark 16:16 and John 3:5; from the book of Acts, Acts

2:38, 16:33, and 22:16; from the Pauline epistles, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, and Colossians

2:12; and from the general epistles, 1 Peter 3:21.1

Mark 16:16

Proponents of the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation substantiate their

argument with Mark 16:16,2 which reads, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be

saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” The question of whether baptism is

required for salvation is a priority, and it must be determined through proper interpretation if this

verse suggests such necessity. A major question regarding this passage is whether its context, the

conclusion to Mark’s gospel (16:9-20), is authentic or not.

The Question of Marks’ Conclusion. While there is some debate about whether Mark’s

gospel originally ends at 16:8, scholars generally agree that both the short ending and long

                                                                                                               1. Scriptures used are New American Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.

 2. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 981.

  3

ending are pseudo.3 History reveals that the writings of people as early as Eusebius, Jerome,

Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and Cyril of Jerusalem show no awareness of anything

existing past 16:8. The earliest recorded witness of anything beyond verse eight is Irenaeus,

although Justin could have referred to 16:20 in Apology XLV.4 Clearly, historical writings

suggest that 16:9-20 is not a part of Mark’s original gospel.

Further study by modern-day scholars advocates that Mark was not the author of 16:9-20

and that he either ends his gospel at 16:8 or his actual conclusion has been lost or destroyed.

James Brooks asserts with certainty that Mark ends his gospel at 16:8, basing his claim on the

ideas that the long ending starts the conclusion over as if 16:1-8 does not exist and Mary

Magdalene is introduced as though she does not previously appear in the gospel.5 Likewise, on

the basis of its language, William Lane argues Mark did not write the longer ending. He further

maintains that the purpose of the ending is to round off verse eight, indicating the women have

obeyed the command of verse seven6 to “Go, tell His disciples.”

Pertaining to the language of 16:9-20, one word that should be called into question is the

word in 16:16 translated “condemned” (κατακριθησεται). While Mark twice uses κατακρινω

(10:33; 14:64), this is the only time in Mark’s gospel the passive κατακριθηεσται is used.

Moreover, while Paul talks about “speaking in tongues,” Mark’s conclusion is the only place in

                                                                                                               3. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M.

Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (n.p.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001), Nelson Reference & Electronic, Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

4. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 601-05.  

5. James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1991), 273.  

6. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 601-02.

  4

the New Testament where γλωσσαισ...καιναισ (“new tongues”) is mentioned (16:17).

Additionally, the word οφεισ (“serpents”) does not appear anywhere else in the Greek Bible

other than in the apocryphal Acts of John. In the New Testament, the word βλαϕη (“hurt”) only

occurs in Luke 4:35, and while Mark uses καλωσ (“recover”) in other passages, the combination

καλωσ εξουσιν (“they will recover”) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (16:18).7

These inconsistencies in the language lend credibility to the idea that the ending of Mark’s

gospel is not authentic.

While there are those who believe Mark’s gospel originally ends at verse eight, there are

some like Robert Stein who argue otherwise. Stein agrees that Mark did write an account of

Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances but that those writings are missing. Furthermore, he

contends that Mark might not have written his ending either because of persecution or

martyrdom. Nevertheless, Stein maintains that 16:9-20 is not Mark’s authentic conclusion.8

That the conclusion of Mark’s gospel is under scrutiny is undeniable. I maintain that,

based on its abruptness and language, 16:9-20 is not a part of Mark’s original gospel. Whether

there is an authentic conclusion, until confirming evidence is discovered, one can only speculate.

What is clear is that as long as the gospel’s conclusion is under question, any theological

foundation based on 16:16 must be closely examined; however, because verse sixteen has been

included in the modern canon, it must be determined what it teaches regarding baptism.

                                                                                                               7. John Christopher Thomas, “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark,” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 26, no. 4 (Dec. 1983): 411, accessed July 4, 2015, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=9bc6d53f-b91d-4216-b298-c524cec9271c%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4104.  

8. Robert H. Stein, Mark, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 736-37.

  5

Interpreting Mark 16:16. Regarding the interpretation of 16:16, two things must be taken

into consideration. First, the absence of “baptized” with “disbelieved” must not go unnoticed.

This indicates that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. According to Jesus, if He,

in fact, says this, condemnation rests on disbelief and not on baptism; therefore, salvation rests

only on belief.9 Jesus did say, “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe

has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of

God” (John 3:18). It is clear from this verse that the lack of condemnation is based only on belief

in Jesus as the Son of God.

Second, Wayne Grudem argues it must not be overlooked that the verse says nothing

concerning those who believe and are not baptized.10 While he establishes this fact as an

argument against the necessity of baptism for salvation, there is more involved in this argument

that one must not ignore. If one takes the construction of Jesus’ words as authentic, these words

suggest the importance Jesus placed on baptism as a post-salvation act of obedience. Jesus does

not perceive of an unbaptized believer, so it can naturally be determined that he would associate

“has been baptized” with the one “who has believed.” In light of this, there is no reason to

associate “and not been baptized” with one “who has disbelieved.” By understanding the

construction of these words in this way, one takes everything about baptism into consideration.

This becomes especially true when the words of John the Baptist in John 3:36 are taken into

consideration. The Baptist says, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does

not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him (italics mine).” John

                                                                                                               9. Archibald Thomas Robertson, “The Gospel According to Mark,” in The Gospel

According to Matthew/The Gospel According to Mark, vol. 1, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), 405.  

10. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 981.

  6

places belief in the Son alongside obedience to the Son. While the word “obey” is broad, part of

obeying the Son involves baptism. There is no doubt that John the Baptizer understands baptism

to be important, since he is the person who baptizes Jesus and many other people.

Craig Evans argues that sections of Mark’s long ending could be based on various

elements found in other gospel accounts and the book of Acts; therefore, the basis for Mark

16:16 could be founded on the aforementioned verses John 3:18 and 3:36.11 If this is true, in light

of what I have discussed, it lends credibility to the importance Jesus places on the baptism of the

believer, an importance so great that He does not anticipate an unbaptized believer.

William Klein and his associates assert there is no evidence to support Jesus’ ever saying

anything about baptism being necessary for salvation.12 While I agree this is true, there is a

danger of advancing the words of Jesus above those the biblical authors write in Scripture under

the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I add to this that neither Paul nor any other biblical author

writes anything (this includes the recorded words of Jesus) about baptism being necessary for

salvation. What is clear, however, as the progression of my exegesis will reveal, is they put much

emphasis on baptism.

Mark 16:16 is a foundational verse for any faith tradition that believes baptism is

necessary for salvation. It is my argument that any theological foundation based on 16:9-20,

specifically 16:16, must be scrutinized. If the authenticity of the passage is questionable, then

any doctrine based on it is unsettled. Even if it is authentic, I maintain it does not necessitate

baptism for salvation. He does, however, place the utmost importance on baptism and how it

relates to one who confesses belief in the Son of God.

                                                                                                               11. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 12. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to

Biblical Interpretation, ed. Kermit A. Ecklebarger (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 72-3.

  7

John 3:5

Within the context of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus about rebirth, Nicodemus poses

the question, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his

mother’s womb and be born, can he?” (John 3:4). Jesus replies, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless

one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (3:5). As a result of

this dialogue, the theological question is raised whether or not Jesus was making reference to

baptism.

Interpreting υδατοσ and πνευµατοσ in John 3:5. Interpretations of 3:5 are myriad.

Because of Jesus’ mentioning “water” (υδατοσ), and since it involves the application of water to

the human body in one form or another, there are those who claim that Jesus was likely making

reference to baptism or some entrance ritual, although the word “baptism” is not used.13 Klyne

Snodgrass asserts that the biggest debate regarding 3:5 is how “water” should be understood.14

There are those like Rudolf Bultmann who assert that υδατοσ και is an addition added by a

redactor.15 This indicates that Jesus makes reference only to “the Spirit” (at this point it is

unclear whether “spirit” should be capitalized as a reference to the Holy Spirit), implying a

baptism by “the Spirit.” I contend that this is not possible and agree with Snodgrass that those

                                                                                                               13. Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, in New Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed.

Ben Witherington III (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 80.  

14. Klyne Snodgrass, “That Which is Born from Pneuma is Pneuma: Rebirth and Spirit in John 3:5-6,” The Covenant Quarterly 49, no. 1 (Feb. 1991): 17, accessed July 8, 2015, http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=9bc6d53f-b91d-4216-b298-c524cec9271c%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4104.

15. Carroll D. Osburn, “Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:5-8,” Restoration

Quarterly 31, no. 3 (1989): 134, accessed August 8, 2015, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=b049a005-1a2b-4930-b1c6-7fa56014924c%40sessionmgr111&hid=110.

  8

who see this as an addition still do not know what to do with “water” in explaining the verse.16 It

is clear from this evidence that “water” presents some interpretation problems, so Snodgrass

suggests six possibilities: (1) water is a negative concept contrasted with spirit, (2) water is a

positive reference to the baptism of John, (3) water is positive and refers to Christian baptism, (4)

water is to be taken as referring to physical birth, (5) “born of water and the spirit” is understood

born of “spiritual seed,” (6) and “water” and “spirit” are to be taken as a hendiadys, meaning

“spirit” is most important and defines and explains “water.”17

Where πνευµατοσ is concerned, it must be determined if this is a reference to “the

Spirit” or “spirit.” That there was no capitalization in the original Greek texts is known, and it

makes this determination difficult. As Snodgrass argues, capitalization is a linguistic concern that

raises questions in the English translations of 3:5.18 Capitalization of the word varies across

translations. The New English Translation (NET) and the World English Bible (WEB) do not

capitalize “spirit,”19 while the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New International

Version (NIV) do capitalize the word. While it is unclear whether the word should be capitalized,

in the end it does not matter because the intention of the verse must still be explained.20 To help

determine how one should understand 3:5, the Greek grammar must be examined.

Interpreting εξ and και in John 3:5. It must not be overlooked that neither “water” nor

“spirit” possesses a definite article, both are governed by one preposition, and the two are joined

                                                                                                               16. Snodgrass, “Pneuma,” 17. 17. Ibid., 17-9.

 18. Ibid., 15. 19. Bible Hub, “John 3:5,” accessed August 8, 2015, http://biblehub.com/john/3-5.htm. 20. Snodgrass, “Pneuma,” 15.

  9

by a conjunction (εξ υδατοσ και πνευµατοσ). Craig Keener asserts that και functions to

clarify meaning. In other words, the conjunction seems to suggest that “water” and “spirit” are

conceptually unified, or, as Origen and John Calvin argue, “that ‘water’ differed from the ‘Spirit’

here only in ‘notion’ and not in ‘substance.’”21 As Markus Barth and Karl Barth argue, John

often uses “pairs in tension” in which και is epexegetic and the second item is the most

important and explains and defines the first (hendiadys); thus, John does not mean anything

different with “water and Spirit,” and they should be understood as referring to one entity. This

argument is substantiated by the Old Testament associating “water” and “Spirit” in describing

the life-giving work of God, as revealed in Ezekiel 36:25-27.22 According to Ezekiel, God will

“sprinkle clean water on you…Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within

you…I will put My Spirit within you.” According to this interpretation, a spiritual washing

occurs at the moment of salvation, at which time a believer receives a new spiritual heart.23

George Beasley-Murray, in light of a connection with water and the Spirit having Old

Testament precedence and the employment of water for cleansing in the last day, takes εξ

υδατοσ as a reference by Jesus to Christian baptism. He compares it to John 6:51 ff, arguing that

as the eating of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of His blood brings to mind the Lord’s Supper (if,

in fact, it is a reference to the Lord’s Supper), a new birth by water and Spirit inevitably draws

attention to baptism.24 He asserts that entering God’s kingdom requires baptism of water and

                                                                                                               21. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 550-51.  

22. Snodgrass, “Pneuma,” 18-9.  

23. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 974. 24. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), 228-29.

  10

spirit; however, he likens “water” to John the Baptist and “Spirit” to Christ Jesus, arguing that

there is an eschatological hope attached to 3:5.25 For Nicodemus to enter God’s kingdom, he

must be baptized on repentance and faith in the word preached by John the Baptist, and he must

know the life of the Spirit. The Baptist is the one who baptizes with water, and Christ is the one

who baptizes with the Spirit. After Christ’s death on the cross and His ascension to the Father,

the two will become one, and the baptism commanded by Christ will be a baptism in Spirit, or a

being born of water and Spirit.26

While understanding the grammar of the Greek text is important, it is clear that in this

case grammar does not help in determining how 3:5 should be interpreted. Snodgrass insists

there are no grammatical rules that can be applied to answer the questions. In John 3:5-8,

πνευµα occurs five times, twice without the article and three times with the article. John does

not always use the article when referring to the Holy Spirit, as evidenced in John 7:39, where

πνευµα occurs twice, the first with the article and the second without it (του πνευµατοσ and

ην πνευµα).27

Despite all of the possible interpretations, and in light of the grammatical stalemate, I

maintain that context must become the determining factor in deciding why Jesus makes mention

of “water” and “Spirit.” The topic of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus is being “born again”

(3:3). Somewhat puzzled, Nicodemus wants to know how one can be born again, for he knows a

man “cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb” (3:4). In light of this conversation,

“water” refers to physical birth and “Spirit” refers to spiritual birth. A person is born once,

                                                                                                               25. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A.

Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 49.  

26. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 230.  

27. Snodgrass, “Pneuma,” 15-7.

  11

physically, but he must be born a second time, spiritually. According to many passages from

rabbinic, Mandaean, and Mermetic sources, words like “water,” “rain,” “dew,” and “drop” are

often used to refer to male semen.28 Regarding John’s use of πνευµατοσ in 3:5, I contend that

this is a reference to the Holy Spirit. In the conversation, Jesus is making reference to the divine

miracle of rebirth, something not achieved by human effort, but is only wrought by God’s Holy

Spirit. In this miracle, the Spirit remakes a person, and it is such that Jesus can only describe it as

being “born again.”29

There is no solid evidence to support any direct reference by Jesus to Christian baptism in

3:5. The fact that Jesus makes mention of water does not mean it is a reference to baptism. On

the other hand, regarding the Bible’s high value on Christian baptism, it is implied that when one

is born again, he will be baptized as his visible profession of faith in Christ.

Acts 2:38

It is unquestionable that repentance is necessary for salvation and baptism is commanded

in Scripture. It is at salvation that the remission of sins takes place, not by human merit, but by

the grace of God. To argue that repentance and baptism are necessary for salvation is to make a

claim not found in the Bible. Those who profess such things assert this claim is made in Acts

2:38 and further argue that the Holy Spirit cannot be manifest in a believer until baptism has

been completed. For example, John Castelein writes, “For those who in faith and repentance

embrace God’s offer of grace on the cross, it seems fair that at baptism the forgiveness of sins

                                                                                                                  28. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed. in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 191-92.  

29. Ibid., 193.

  12

and the gift of the indwelling Spirit are added.”30 I contend this statement suggests that during

water baptism, a human work it must be noted, one receives forgiveness and the Holy Spirit;

thus, it is implied that salvation, according to this view, is based on human works and renders

moot the embracing of “God’s offer of grace on the cross.” To the contrary, Thomas Nettles

writes, “Baptism signified all that is involved in repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The

baptism ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’…identified their present acceptance of the truth preached

about Jesus (italics mine).”31 While I agree with Nettles’s statement, one must closely examine

the verse in question to discover what it truly teaches regarding baptism.

Interpreting εισ in Acts 2:38. In his Pentecostal sermon, Peter preaches, “Repent, and

each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will

receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). The Greek preposition translated “for” (εισ) in

this passage has prompted some debate. It has been suggested that while the preposition can

indicate purpose, as it does in 2:38, there is “ample” evidence in the New Testament to show that

the word can also be translated “on the ground of” or “on the basis of.”32 The former suggests

that baptism is a prerequisite for the forgiveness of sins and the latter that baptism is “on the

basis of” forgiveness.

A. T. Robertson discusses other biblical passages where εισ should be translated as the

basis or ground rather than the purpose or aim. He cites three cases found in Matthew 10:41-42,

                                                                                                               30. John D. Castelein, “Baptist View: A Christian Churches/Churches of Christ

Response,” in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, ed. Paul E. Engle and John H. Armstrong (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 53-4.  

31. Thomas J. Nettles, “Baptist View: Baptism as a Symbol of Christ’s Saving Work,” in Understanding Four Views on Baptism, ed. Paul E. Engle and John H. Armstrong (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 29.

32. John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery

(Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1992), 117.

  13

which reads, “in the name of a prophet” (εισ ονοµα προφητου); “in the name of a righteous

man” (εισ ονοµα δικαιου); and “in the name of a disciple” (εισ ονοµα µαθητου). Another

example, according to Robertson, is found in Matthew 12:41, in which Jesus remarks on the

preaching of Jonah and declares, “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the

judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah

(εισ το κηρυγµα Ιωνα).”33 According to William Mounce, this preposition is used 1,767 times

in the New Testament, and instances where the word can be translated “on the ground of, on the

basis of,” or “in accordance with” are limited.34 Based on the limited evidence that the

preposition can mean “on the basis of” in view of the numerous times it is used, I conclude that it

should be translated “for.” I can find no English translation that translates the word in any other

way. There are, however, other grammatical issues that must be examined.

The Concord Rule and Acts 2:38. According to Luther McIntyre, “The basic rule of

concord stipulates that a personal pronoun…agrees with its antecedent in gender and number.”35

There are two imperatives in 2:38, “repent” and “be baptized.” The former is second person

plural, and the latter is third person singular. There are also two occurrences of υµων (“each of

you” and “your sins”), both second person plural genitive case. McIntyre asserts that the pronoun

“your” does not agree with its antecedent “be baptized.” In view of this argument, he insists that

                                                                                                               33. Archibald Thomas Robertson, The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 3, Word Pictures in the

New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930), 35.  

34. William D. Mounce and Rick D. Bennett, Jr., eds., Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (n.p.: 2011), OakTree Software, Inc., Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.

35. Luther B. McIntyre, Jr., “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38,” Bibliotheca Sacra

153, no. 609 (Jan.-Mar. 1996): 53, accessed August 9, 2015, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=21&sid=229ded65-9ecb-4097-88af-c1bde2fe6fa0%40sessionmgr114&hid=107.

  14

the command to be baptized is a parenthetical statement and is not connected to the remission of

sins; thus, the remission of sins is connected only to the imperative to repent.36

Refuting McIntyre’s claim specifically, Ashby Camp argues there are 263 instances in

Luke’s writings where he ends a sentence or clause with a noun followed immediately by a

genitive personal pronoun. In these cases, the pronoun modifies the noun it follows.37 McIntyre’s

argument, Camp claims, does not substantiate a clear absence of a logical connection between

baptism and forgiveness of sins. While the forgiveness of sins may not be syntactically

connected to the command to be baptized, baptism may be epexegetical and, thus, logically

connected to the forgiveness of sins. Peter is, therefore, explaining how their repentance is to be

manifested for them to be forgiven of their sins.38 Ashby claims that interpretations such as this

may be driven by one’s own Greek style rather than Luke’s.39 It is clear that debate about the

grammar and syntactical construction of 2:38 exists; therefore, the verse should be examined

within the context of Luke’s writings.

Interpreting Acts 2:38 in the Context of Luke’s Gospel and Acts. As has been discussed,

some use this verse to substantiate the argument that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy

Spirit must be predicated by repentance and baptism; however, John Polhill argues that other

passages in Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts indicate otherwise. The forgiveness of sins is

usually connected to repentance with no mention of baptism. For example, at the end of his

                                                                                                               36. McIntyre, “Baptism and Forgiveness,” 54 and 57.

 37. Ashby L. Camp, “Reexamining the Rule of Concord in Acts 2:38,” Restoration

Quarterly 39, no. 1 (1997): 40-41, accessed August 9, 2015, http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=23&sid=229ded65-9ecb-4097-88af-c1bde2fe6fa0%40sessionmgr114&hid=107.

38. Ibid., 38. 39. Camp, “Rule of Concord,” 41.

  15

gospel account, Luke records the words of Christ, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer

and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be

proclaimed” (Luke 24:46-47). Furthermore, he documents Peter as preaching, “Therefore repent

and return, so that your sins may be wiped away” (Acts 3:19). Finally, Luke further records Peter

saying, “He is the one whom God exalted at His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant

repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). It is noticeable in these examples that

the association of the forgiveness of sins is with repentance alone with no mention of baptism.

Polhill further contends that no other passage in Acts presents baptism as bringing about the

forgiveness of sins.40

While the aforementioned verses associate the forgiveness of sins with repentance, there

are other verses that suggest forgiveness is also associated with faith. According to Acts 10:43,

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him

receives forgiveness of sins.” Luke also writes, “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that

through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is

freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses” (Acts

13:38-39).41 As before, there is no mention of baptism in these verses.

Additionally, the Bible provides evidence that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer

before baptism. According to Luke’s account, those in Cornelius’ house receive the Holy Spirit

and are then baptized.42 Luke writes, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized

                                                                                                               40. Polhill, Acts, 117. 41. Polhill, Acts, 117.

 42. Ajith Fernando, Acts, in The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 106.

  16

who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he? And he ordered them to be baptized in

the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:47-48).

In Luke’s writings, there are numerous passages that declare salvation and the remission

of sins is predicated by repentance and faith. It would also seem, based on Cornelius’ biography,

that one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit before baptism. All of this, however, does not explain

Peter’s statement with its heavy emphasis on baptism in 2:38.

Baptism as Profession and Incorporation. In order to understand the importance Peter

places on baptism in 2:38, one must first understand the purpose for which he calls the people to

repent. When one looks at the content of Peter’s Pentecostal sermon, it becomes clear that he is

speaking to a Jewish crowd about Israel’s rejection of the Messiah. To sum up his sermon, Peter

says, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord

and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). Specifically, it is for their rejection of

Jesus as the Messiah that these are commanded to repent. A complete change of heart, a spiritual

about-face, is necessary if those present are to receive the deliverance procured by the Deliverer

they have rejected. Jesus and John the Baptist call for the same repentance prior to Jesus’

crucifixion (Mark 1:4, 15; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5), and it remains an essential part of the apostolic

message (Acts 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20).43 As it is with John’s preaching, so it is with

Peter’s: conjoined with the call to repentance is a call for baptism as an outward, visible sign of

repentance. Regarding the baptism to which Peter is calling, there are two new features: (1) it is

“in the name of Jesus Christ,” and (2) it is associated with “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” It is

administered in Jesus’ name because it is His name that is being invoked or confessed by the one

                                                                                                               43. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, in The New International Commentary on the New

Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 69; see footnotes 96 and 97; see also Polhill, Acts, 117.

  17

being baptized. Baptism in the Spirit is an inward work, and baptism in water now becomes its

external token; therefore, in light of Christ’s saving work and the reception of the Spirit, it is

given a richer significance than it had formerly.44

The baptism of the Spirit is something that takes place once and for all on the day of

Pentecost. This is the time when God pours out the promised gift on the apostles and constitutes

them as the people of God in the new age. Baptism in water continues to be the visible sign by

which those who believe the gospel, repent of their sins, and acknowledge Jesus as Lord are

publicly incorporated into the Spirit-baptized fellowship of God’s new people. The words “for

the forgiveness of your sins” should not be linked to the command “be baptized” at the exclusion

of the prior command to “repent.” There is no biblical support to show any value in water

baptism without the accompaniment of the work of grace within oneself. As 3:19 reveals, the

forgiveness of a person’s sins is conditional upon his repenting and turning to God; nothing is

said about baptism, although it is, no doubt, implied. As F. F. Bruce asserts, “The idea of an

unbaptized believer does not seem to be entertained in the New Testament. So here the reception

of the Spirit is conditional not on baptism in itself but on baptism in Jesus’ name as the

expression of repentance.”45

In light of 2:38, the direct correlation between repentance, baptism, the forgiveness of

sins, and the gift of the Spirit cannot be denied. Peter does not perceive an individual confessing

Jesus as Lord but not being willing to give visible evidence of his confession through baptism.

                                                                                                               44. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 69-70. 45. Ibid., 70.

  18

The command for baptism “is an explanation of how their repentance is to be manifested for

them to receive the forgiveness of their sins.”46 McIntyre sums it up well:

Today, as then, baptism remains a unique testimony of the life-transforming change brought about by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. In water baptism a believer identifies with Jesus Christ in an action that symbolizes the shared experience of death and resurrection with and in Him.47

Acts 16:33

Found in Acts 16 is the account of Paul and Silas’ imprisonment in the Philippian jail.

After witnessing the power of God in the earthquake that opened the doors and broke their

chains, the Philippian jailer, thinking the prisoners have escaped, draws his sword to kill himself.

Paul and Silas command him not to harm himself, and the jailer asks, “Sirs, what must I do to be

saved?” (Acts 16:30). Paul and Silas reply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,

you and your household,” after which Luke writes, “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him

together with all who were in his house” (Acts 16:31-32). The result is that “he took them that

very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his

household” (Acts 16:33).

Acts 16:33 raises two important theological questions. First, one must notice that the

Philippian jailer is baptized “immediately,” raising the question of when a person should be

baptized. Second, Luke writes that the jailer “and all his household” are baptized, requiring one

to determine whether this verse lends any support to the baptism of infants or the children of

believing parents.

Interpreting παραχρηµα in Acts 16:33. The Greek word translated “immediately”

                                                                                                               46. Camp, “Rule of Concord,” 38.

 47. McIntyre, “Baptism and Forgiveness,” 62.

  19

(παραχρηµα) refers to “a point of time that is immediately subsequent to an action,” and can be

translated “immediately” or “at once.”48 Robertson prefers the translation “at once,”49 and with

the exception of twice in Matthew 21:19-20, the word is used only in the gospel of Luke and

Acts.50

According to Luke’s account, Paul and Silas share the gospel with the jailer and his

household. Following this, the jailer takes the missionaries and washes their wounds, after which

he is baptized “immediately.” Some contend that this passage demands baptism take place

immediately after conversion. According to the United Church of God, “Being baptized and

receiving the Holy Spirit are the beginning of a new life in Christ. We should request baptism as

soon as possible after repenting (italics mine).”51 Among other biblical passages, including Acts

16:33, their primary argument for immediate baptism is “Paul was baptized immediately,”52

which is questionable.

Luke records in Acts 9:18, “And immediately there fell from his eyes something like

scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized.” Rather than παραχρηµα, the

Greek word translated “immediately” in this passage is ευθεωσ, which can also be translated

                                                                                                               48. Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and

Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 773.  

49. Robertson, The Acts of the Apostles, 262.  

50. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 773.  

51. United Church of God, “When Should We Be Baptized?,” Beyond Today, accessed July 13, 2015, http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-study-course/bible-study-course-lesson-8/when-should-we-be-baptized.  

52. Ibid.

  20

“immediately” or “at once.”53 It is unclear why Luke uses a different word.

What is also undetermined is whether only the scales immediately fall from Paul’s eyes

or whether the scales immediately fall and he likewise immediately regains his sight,

immediately gets up, and immediately is baptized. The NIV translates the verse in a different

way than the NASB, suggesting that only the scales immediately fall from Paul’s eyes. It reads,

“Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and

was baptized.” Polhill argues, “The first,” that is the scales falling from his eyes, “occurs

immediately as Ananias performed the healing gesture of laying his hands upon Paul.”54

One must also consider the timeline of Paul’s conversion in determining whether he is

baptized “immediately.” According to Luke’s narrative, Paul meets Christ as he is approaching

Damascus” (Acts 9:3). Those traveling with him take him by the hand and bring “him to

Damascus” (Acts 9:8), meaning he completes his journey, although it is not specified how much

time passes. It is after Paul regains his sight that he is baptized; however, Luke writes that before

Ananias comes to restore Paul’s vision, he is “three days without sight” (Acts 9:9). While

studying this timeline one must not overlook that Ananias has not only come to restore Paul’s

sight but also so that he might “be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). This makes the

moment of Paul’s conversion unclear, that is, whether it is on the road to Damascus or after

Ananias arrives to minister to Paul, but Luke does not record Paul’s reception of the Holy Spirit.

It is my assessment that Paul is not converted until he arrives at Damascus and is greeted

by Ananias who has come so that he might “be filled with the Holy Spirit.” The fact that Paul

refers to Jesus as “Lord” on the Damascus road does not suffice to say that he is converted at that

                                                                                                               53. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 405.

 54. Polhill, Acts, 238.

  21

time because “Lord” is also a title meaning “Sir”; therefore, I assert that Paul also is baptized

immediately after he receives the Holy Spirit at Damascus. I contend that baptism should follow

conversion and repentance as quickly as possible.

Household Baptism in Acts 16:33. The Greek language indicates there are those in

addition to the jailer who are baptized. The verb εβαπτισθη is singular agreeing with αυτοσ;

however, it is followed by και οι αυτου παντεσ. According to Robertson, the literal rendering

would be “and was baptized, he and all his.”55 Clearly, the Philippian jailer and all those who are

a part of his household are baptized, but it is not clear who or of what ages these are.

Household baptisms like this one of the Philippian jailer, the household of Lydia (Acts

16:15), and that of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16) is one of several points used to substantiate the

argument for paedobaptism, the practice of baptizing infants, including those of believing

parents;56 however, several things must be taken into consideration.

First, one must not assume that Luke is inferring a “proxy” faith.57 By saying to the jailer,

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31), Paul

and Silas are not offering salvation to everyone in the household. They are, on the other hand,

offering it to the household on the same terms it is offered to the jailer: “Believe in the Lord

Jesus, and you will be saved.” The jailer’s faith cannot save his family.58 As Beasley-Murray

                                                                                                               55. Robertson, The Acts of the Apostles, 262. 56. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 975-76.

 57. Polhill, Acts, 356.

 58. Fernando, Acts, 446.

  22

rightly contends, και ο οικοσ σου (Acts 16:31) indicates the “same way was open to them as to

him: ‘Believe, and thou shalt be saved; and the same of thy household.’”59

Second, offering salvation to the household on the same grounds offered to the jailer

would explain why “they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his

house.” All must hear this word before all can believe and become with the jailer a part of the

faith community.60 If all hear the word, and all are baptized, then all believe before they are

baptized,61 which is in line with the instructions that Paul and Silas give to the jailer.

Finally, while it mentions an entire household, it must be considered that there is no

explicit mention of infants. Even Richard Pratt, of the Reformed tradition, admits, “The NT does

not explicitly command or indisputably illustrate the baptism of children. The few references to

household baptisms may have included children, but these references are not explicit (italics

mine).”62 For the paedobaptist tradition to be viable, Beasley-Murray argues that one must

assume the infants are removed from bed, are brought outside in the early morning, hear the

instruction of Paul and Silas, are baptized, and then rejoice with the household as they join Paul

and Silas for a meal.63

For paedobaptism to be theologically reliable, too many assumptions must be made.

What is clear, not only in the story of the Philippian jailer, but also in other household baptism

                                                                                                               59. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 319.

 60. Ibid., 319.

 61. Fernando, Acts, 446. 62. Richard L. Pratt, Jr., “Reformed View: Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant,” in

Understanding Four Views on Baptism, ed. Paul E. Engle and John H. Armstrong (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 107), 70.  

63. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 315.

  23

accounts, is the consistent order of activities leading up to the baptism. When Paul comes in

contact with Lydia, he preaches the gospel to her, her heart is opened, and she responds to the

message, which leads to her and her household’s being baptized (Acts 16:13-15). As in the case

of the Philippian jailer, he asks what he must do to be saved. He is instructed to believe in order

to be saved, and this offer is true for his whole household. This, perhaps, leads the jailer to invite

Paul and Silas to his house, where his whole family would receive the word of the Lord. Upon

hearing and believing, as evidenced in the jailer’s washing of Paul’s and Silas’ wounds, he and

his household are baptized. One finds a consistent order: instruction, belief, and baptism.64

Acts 22:16

While in Jerusalem, Paul makes his way to the temple where he is seized by an angry

mob. It is before this group of Jews that Paul gives a defense of his apostleship. He speaks of his

journey to Damascus, his meeting Christ on the road to the city, and Ananias’ coming to restore

his sight and commission him to the ministry for which Christ has called him. According to Paul,

Ananias says to him, “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your

sins, calling on His name” (Acts 22:16).

Again, in the book of Acts, there is a direct connection between baptism and the

remission of sins, reminiscent of Peter’s exhortation in Acts 2:38.65 Moreover, there is added the

act of “calling on His name,” which Calvin rightly insists is the name of Christ, “not because the

                                                                                                               64. Nettles, “Baptist View,” 35. 65. Richard N. Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles, in The Expositor’s Bible

Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), OakTree Software, Inc., Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.

  24

name of Christ alone is called upon in baptism, but because the Father commandeth us to ask of

him whatsoever is figured in baptism.”66

Interpreting τι µελλεισ in Acts 22:16. As in Acts 16:33, one is met with an immediacy

toward baptism. According to Paul, Ananias comes to him and says, “The God of our fathers has

appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His

mouth. For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard” (Acts

22:14-15). This is Paul’s commission. He has seen the risen Christ, has heard His voice, and he

is instructed to engage in the ministry of being one of His witnesses, proclaiming that Jesus has

died and has been raised as Lord of all.67

Having commissioned Paul, Ananias asks him, “Now why do you delay?” (και νυν τι

µελλεισ). This phrase is a common Greek idiom and simply implies that Paul needed to act on

his commission from the Lord.68 The phrase τι µελλεισ is found frequently in Greek literature,

generally meaning “What are you waiting for?” There is a possibility, however, that it could

have the meaning “What are you going to do about it?”69 Regardless of the interpretation, the

stress is on the fact that Paul must act on his commission from the Lord, the first step being

baptism. Bruce rightly argues that Paul must first be baptized as an outward expression of an

inward spiritual cleansing.70

                                                                                                               66. John Calvin, Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, in Calvin’s

Commentaries, ed. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), 303.

67. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 417-18.

 68. Polhill, Acts, 461.

 69. Ibid.; see footnote 38.

 70. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 418.

  25

Paul’s Baptism in Acts 22:16. Since the word translated “be baptized” (βαπτισαι) is in

the middle voice, it is possible to take the word as a strict reflexive (“baptize yourself”).71 The

word, however, while it is a first aorist middle, is not reflexive but rather causative. Thus, its

literal translation should be “get yourself baptized”72 or “have yourself baptized.”73 It is possible,

based on the context, that Ananias administers the rite for Paul. Translated as the former, this

verse is often taken as evidence for the practice of self-baptism.74 Bruce says this cannot be true,

not only because βαπτισαι is in the middle voice, but also because Acts 9:18 renders

εβαπτισθη in the passive voice (“he was baptized”) and απολουσαι in 22:16 is also in the

middle voice (“have [your sins] washed away”).75 Clearly, the evidence is against this being a

reference to self-baptism.

According to Paul, Ananias instructs him to “Be baptized, and wash away your sins,

calling on His name.” It must be determined whether Paul’s sins would be washed away through

his rite of baptism or by his calling on the name of the Lord. Paul is making his defense before a

Jewish crowd. One will, therefore, notice that in his defense (22:12-16) his language has a heavy

Jewish overtone. He describes Ananias of Damascus as “a man who was devout by the standard

of the Law, and well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there” (22:12). Moreover, the

expression “The God of our fathers” and the messianic title “the Righteous One” (22:14) are of a

                                                                                                               71. Polhill, Acts, 461; see footnote 39.

 72. Robertson, The Acts of the Apostles, 391.

 73. Polhill, Acts, 461; see footnote 39. 74. Polhill, Acts, 461; see footnote 39.

 75. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 418; see footnote 22.

  26

Jewish connotation.76 Paul is addressing a Jewish crowd with a Jewish language that they can

comprehend. “Wash away your sins” is another Jewish phrase the crowd would have recognized.

Rebirth is understood in relation to the metaphor of washing. Paul writes in Titus 3:5, “He saves

us…according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”

At the entrance of Israel’s tent of meeting was a laver, a visible sign of entrance into the

covenant community, and it was there that the priests ritually washed their hands and feet before

entering the holy place. Likewise, the “washing of regeneration” does not refer to an external rite

alone, but to the spiritual turning and transformation to which baptism points.77 While Luke does

record Paul making a reference to the washing away of sins in 22:16, he does not make any

reference to this in 9:18. Here, therefore, Paul is not asserting that his sins were washed away

through baptism; rather, he is speaking to a Jewish crowd in Jewish terms they understand.

The emphasis of the passage is not on “be baptized” but on “calling on His name”

(επικαλεσαµενοσ το ονοµα αυτου). The participle is the means or manner, meaning the

calling upon the Lord affects the washing away of Paul’s sins.78 Frank Stagg translates it “having

called upon his name.”79 Nettles, who translates the word “by calling on his name,” asserts the

participle should be considered instrumental, meaning the washing away of Paul’s sins is

connected with his calling on the name of the Lord and not with his baptism. This would echo

                                                                                                               76. Longnecker, The Acts of the Apostles, OakTree Software, Inc. 77. Thomas C. Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology (New York:

HarperOne, 1992), 626-27.  

78. Cleon L. Rogers, Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 292.  

79. Beth Allison Barr et. al., eds., The Acts of the Apostles: Four Centuries of Baptist Interpretation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 816.

  27

Peter’s quote of the prophet Joel in his Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2:21), words that Paul himself

recalls in Romans 10:13.80

Paul’s sins are washed away by his calling on the name of the Lord, not through his

baptism. According to Revelation 1:5, it is by the blood of Jesus that men are “released”

(λυσαντι) from their sins. Some manuscripts (P, Q) read “washed” (λουσαντι).81 The sins that

Jesus’ blood have washed away in Paul’s life are symbolically washed away in his baptism.82

As has been shown by my exegesis, scholars debate whether the remission of Paul’s sins

is connected to his baptism or to his calling on Jesus’ name. Once again, I maintain that there is a

direct correlation between baptism, salvation, and the remission of sins. For Paul to call upon the

name of Christ and declare his sins forgiven, it would be unthinkable for him to refuse baptism.

For Paul, his baptism is the time when he professes his faith in Christ and his incorporation into

God’s new people takes place. Paul himself will stress the importance of baptism in Romans 6:3-

4.

Romans 6:3-4

The sixth chapter of Romans, a continuation of Paul’s argument that “where sin

increased, grace abounded all the more” (5:20), begins with a Roman style of questioning called

“enthymeme,” a type of argument in which a false premise or conclusion is stated. Paul imagines

                                                                                                               80. Nettles, “Baptist View,” 31. 81. Archibald Thomas Robertson, “The Revelation of John,” in The General Epistles and

the Revelation of John, vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1960), 287.  

82. Allison et. al., The Acts of the Apostles, 815.

  28

an argument presented to him in which one would draw a false conclusion.83 He presents the

following false conclusion: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may

increase?” (6:1). He responds to his own rhetorical question with his resounding, “May it never

be!” followed by another question: “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (6:2). To

answer these questions, Paul continues his development of the doctrine of justification, which he

began in 3:21. Beginning at 6:1, he gives attention to the relationship of justification with

sanctification. It is in this sixth chapter that Paul, using the image of baptism, analyzes the

believer’s identification and union with Christ.84

Interpreting η αγνοειτε in Romans 6:3. Paul begins 6:3 with the same phrase found in

7:1 and one similar to that in 2:4.85 The opening question, “Do you not know?” (η αγνοειτε)

signals that baptism “into Christ” is something familiar to the Christians at Rome. Some suggest

that the phrase is merely a good teaching style or a polite way of presenting new knowledge.

Since Paul asks the same question in 7:1, it is possible that Paul has in view some further or

fuller teaching, such as a point that is obvious and familiar.86

I am in agreement with Beasley-Murray that Paul is addressing something familiar to the

Roman believers, but he intends to deepen their understanding of it. He is writing to them about

their association with Christ in baptism with the goal of helping them understand the cleansing

                                                                                                               83. Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 242. 84. Daniel L. Akin, “The Meaning of Baptism,” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist

Churches, ed. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008), 65.  

85. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 244; see footnote 130.  

86. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker (n.p.: Word, Incorporated, 1988), Nelson Reference & Electronic, Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.

  29

that has taken place and the new life in which they now live.87 This can be seen in the language

Paul uses: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have

been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him (italics mine).”

Interpreting εβαπτισθηµεν εισ Χριστον Ιησουν in Romans 6:3. Douglas Moo points

out that, in light of the emphasis Paul places on justification by faith in the first four chapters of

Romans, it is surprising here that he uses the language of baptism. Rather than writing “all of us

who have believed in Christ Jesus have been united in His death,”88 Paul asserts that Christians

“have been baptized into Christ Jesus” (εβαπτισθηµεν εισ Χριστον Ιησουν). It must be

determined why Paul uses this baptismal language.

The Greek word translated “have been baptized” εβαπτισθηµεν) is the aorist passive

indicative form of βαπτιζω,89 literally translated “to plunge, dip.” The English transliteration

translates “to baptize,” referring to the use of water in a rite for the purpose of renewing or

establishing a relationship with God.90 At this point debate begins about whether Paul is

discussing baptism as a metaphor, baptism by the Spirit, or water baptism.91

Daniel Akin asserts that arguments over whether Paul has in mind water baptism or Spirit

baptism are immaterial. Paul would not separate the two because, for him, the thought of an

unbaptized believer is impossible. Baptism is not the theme of 6:3-4, nor does Paul intend to

                                                                                                               87. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 128. 88. Douglas J. Moo, Romans, in The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 196.  

89. Rogers and Rogers, Exegetical Key, 326.  

90. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon, 164.  

91. Moo, Romans, 196.

  30

convey a theology of baptism in this passage.92 Moo argues that baptism refers to the whole

conversion experience.93 Albert Hultgren contends that Paul does not intend to set forth a

doctrine of baptism. Paul uses the common tradition of baptism, well known to the Roman

believers, to illustrate the point that believers live a new life in Christ, which involves a struggle

with sin.94 Likewise, Ben Witherington and Darlene Hyatt agree that Paul is not seeking an

argument about baptism and its nature; he is simply referring to the ritual that all Christians

undergo in order to point them to the spiritual and theological implications of this ritual.95

Similar to some of these arguments, those like Witherington, Hyatt, and Hultgren, I maintatin

that Paul is using the imagery of baptism to illustrate the spiritual and theological implications

that take place at the moment of the believer’s conversion. As Robertson says, “A symbol is not

the reality, but the picture of the reality.”96

That Paul would insist Christians are “baptized into Christ Jesus” through the water rite is

hard to imagine. It is Paul who finds it necessary to correct the heresy in Galatia that

circumcision is needed to complete one’s salvation (Gal. 5:1-6).97 Paul, therefore, having learned

the inadequacy of circumcision, will not ascribe salvation to another external rite (water

baptism); it is the importation of the Spirit in one’s response by faith that makes the convert a

                                                                                                               92. Akin, “The Meaning of Baptism,” 68-9.

 93. Moo, Romans, 197. 94. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 242.

 95. Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-

Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), 157.  

96. Archibald Thomas Robertson, “The Epistle to the Romans,” in The Epistles of Paul, vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), 362.  

97. Nettles, “Baptist View,” 32.

  31

new creation.98 An evangelist who is thankful he did not baptize more people than he has, and

one who would insist that Christ did not send him to baptize (1 Cor. 1:13-17), would not be

pressing for the external rite, as if it somehow placed a believer “into Christ Jesus.”99 It must be

considered that faith is discussed in every chapter in Romans, while baptism is mentioned in only

two verses; therefore, genuine faith must be sufficient for salvation.100 Paul is insisting that the

Roman believers understand why, in the spiritual sense of baptism, they are baptized in water.

Paul argues that the believer is baptized “into Christ Jesus” (εισ Χριστον

Ιησουν). There is a debate as to whether this is the shorthand version of “into the name of

Christ” (εισ το ονοµα Χριστου). This, as 1 Corinthians 1:13-16 makes clear, would certainly

refer to the ritual act of water baptism.101 Beasley-Murray suggests that εισ may equal εισ το

ονοµα, and, if it does, Paul may be abbreviating the longer version, implying that he is using the

traditional language of baptism.102

Concerning the preposition εισ, Robertson finds it difficult to translate it “into.” To do

so, according to him, would make Paul a sacramentarian. He argues that εισ is no different than

                                                                                                               98. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1977), 281. 99. Witherington and Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 157.

 100. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, in The New International Commentary

on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 366.  

101. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic.  

102. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 129.

  32

εν; therefore, it is better translated “unto Christ” or “in Christ.” Baptism, he writes, is the

outward manifestation of the inward relation to Christ that has taken place before baptism.103

Kenneth Wuest offers the following insight: the Greek word βαπτιζω is related to the

word βαπτω, translated “dip.” The word is used in classical Greek of a blacksmith dipping hot

iron in water and also of Greek soldiers dipping their swords in a bowl of blood. In the

Septuagint, in Leviticus 4:6, “The priest shall dip [βαπτω] his finger in the blood seven times,”

and in Luke 16:24, Lazarus is asked to dip (βαπτω) his finger in the water. Based on these

examples, the definition of βαπτιζω then becomes “the introduction or placing of a person or

thing into a new environment or into union with something else so as to alter its condition or its

relationship to its previous environment or condition.” This then, according to Wuest, who

asserts this is the intended use of the word in Romans 6, “refers to the act of God introducing a

believing sinner into vital union with Jesus Christ.”104

What Paul refers to is the Christian’s identity. For Paul, being in Christ is more than

identification with Him; it is being joined to Him in such a way that what happened to Him is

claimed to have happened to the believer (death, burial, and resurrection). These are the

consequences of the union with Christ105 to which Paul shifts his focus.

Interpreting εισ τον θανατον αυτου εβαπτισθηµεν in Romans 6:3. The believer who

has been baptized “into Christ Jesus,” Paul says, “has been baptized into His death” (εισ τον

                                                                                                               103. Robertson, “The Epistle to the Romans,” 361. 104. Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, in vol. 1, Wuest’s Word

Studies from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 96-7.  

105. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 246.

  33

θανατον αυτου εβαπτισθηµεν). Again, “baptized” (εβαπτισθηµεν) is the aorist passive

indicative, and with the preposition, the word refers to a movement into something in order to

become involved with or part of the object. The believer is “baptized into Christ Jesus,” thus

moving into Christ and becoming a part of Him, further suggesting one is “baptized into His

death,” which implies an involvement with Christ in His death.

Since baptism is not normally associated with death but rather cleansing, it is interesting

that Paul parallels the two.106 However, while Jesus addresses discipleship throughout His

ministry, He does not address union with Himself until He is near the cross (John 15:1-11). It is

Jesus who speaks of death under the symbol of baptism (Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50). Union

with Christ, therefore, means union with Him in His death.107 In view of this evidence, the

association of baptism with death is probably distinctively Christian.108

What Paul has done is answer his own question: “How shall we who died to sin still live

in it?” (6:2). The believer identifies with Christ in His death in that His death for sin becomes the

believer’s death to sin.109 Paul is not asserting that sin is dead to the Christian; therefore, he is not

proposing that it becomes possible to live a sinless life, only that the believer’s life is no longer

dominated by sin.110 Paul is pointing back to the Adam/Christ contrast of 5:12-21. The believer

                                                                                                               106. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 107. Everett F. Harrison, Romans, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E.

Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), OakTree Software, Inc., Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

108. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic.  

109. Robert H. Mounce, Romans, vol. 27, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (n.p.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 149.  

110. Harrison, Romans, OakTree Software, Inc.

  34

has died to sin only because he has died with Christ, and because Christ now lives beyond sin

and death, the believer can have a share in this life.111

Interpreting ουνεταφηµεν and βαπτισµατοσ in Romans 6:4. Having been “baptized

into Christ Jesus,” and, therefore, “baptized into His death,” the believer has also “been buried

[συνεταφηµεν] with Him through baptism [βαπτισµατοσ] into death.” Moo provides different

approaches for why Paul introduces the image of burial in 6:4. First, and the one with which

Moo agrees, burial with Christ is a description of the Christian’s own burial, which is mediated

by baptism. It is not that the believer is laid in his own grave; rather, he is set alongside Jesus in

His grave. This means, however, “Baptism is then a sacrament that is efficacious because there is

in it—as, it is argued, in the Eucharist—a ‘real presence’ of Christ.”112

Second, which Moo says is the most popular view among evangelicals, burial with Christ

symbolizes the Christian’s complete break with the old life, and baptism serves as a symbolic

picture of this breaking away from the old life in order to walk in new life. Moo has a problem

with this view because it does not agree with the prepositions δια and συν. Baptism, he argues,

is the means (δια) by which the believer is buried with Christ, not the place. Moreover, he

questions whether the preposition συν (“with”) can be stretched to mean that the believer is

buried in his life as Christ was buried in His.113

Dunn asserts with near certainty that “baptism” refers to the ritual act.114 According to

Robert Mounce, βαπτισµα, from which βαπτισµατοσ comes, is only used in Christian

                                                                                                               111. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic. 112. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 363.

 113. Ibid., 361-62.

 114. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

  35

literature. In the New Testament it is used in reference to the baptism of John, Christian baptism,

and figuratively of martyrdom.115 Mounce agrees that Paul is making reference to the ritual act of

baptism.116

There is some debate about whether this verse should read “buried into death.” Mounce

argues that this is an awkward phrase, so “baptism into death” is to be preferred.117 Dunn, on the

other hand, asserts this phrase would not have been strange to Roman believers. Dying was

concluded by burial, and the death of which Paul writes refers not to a process or moment but to

a condition into which one passes.118

Again, I maintain that Paul is insisting the Roman believers understand from a spiritual

standpoint why they are baptized physically. There is too much read into the phrase “through

baptism into death,” which is why I argue that Paul is simply referring to the phrase “baptized

into His death” in 6:3. Through this baptism into Christ’s death, naturally the believer identifies

with Christ in His burial. As Origen writes, “Paul is saying by this that if we have died to sin

then we must necessarily be buried with Christ in baptism, but…if we have not died to sin, then

we cannot be buried with Christ. For nobody is buried while still alive.”119

Paul’s Main Point in Romans 6:3-4. Paul is not trying to establish a doctrine of baptism

or its nature in these verses and he comes to his main point at the end of 6:4. The believer is

                                                                                                               115. Mounce, Romans, 149; see footnote 11.

 116. Ibid., 149. 117. Mounce, Romans, 149; see footnote 10.

 118. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 119. Gerald Bray, ed., Romans, vol. 6, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New

Testament, ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 154.

  36

baptized into Christ Jesus by being baptized into His death; he is buried with Him, and all of this

is done “so we too might walk in newness of life” (ουτωσ και ηµεισ εν καινοτητι ζωησ

περιπατησωµεν). Moo contends this brings together the “indicative” of the believer’s

incorporation into Christ and the “imperative” of Christian living that is the heart of Romans 6. It

is a life empowered by realities of a new age, especially God’s Holy Spirit (7:6), and one that

should reflect the values of this new age.120

The words translated “newness of life” would be better translated “a new sphere which is

life.” The believer is dead in his sins apart from Christ (Eph. 2:1), but through faith in Christ, he

enters an entirely new sphere of existence.121 Returning to Wuest’s discussion of the word

βαπτω, the believer is placed in a new environment that is Christ. In that new environment the

believer has righteousness and life, being now a saint and no longer a sinner. The “newness of

life,” therefore, does not refer to a new quality of experience or conduct but to a new quality of

life imparted to the believer. Nor does the “newness of life” refer to a new kind of life the

believer must live, but to a new source of ethical and spiritual life imparted to him by God,

which enables him to live the life that Paul exhorts throughout Romans.122

The Greek word translated “walk” is περιπατησωµεν and is literally translated “to order

one’s behavior” or “to conduct one’s self.”123 The “walk” becomes the evidence of the new life

granted by God to the believer. It is a distinctive life, one realized only by union to Christ, in

                                                                                                               120. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 366-67.

 121. Mounce, Romans, 150.

 122. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, 97.

 123. Ibid.

  37

which Christ is its dynamic.124 That it is written in the aorist tense signifies this is a decisive

transition to a new life. Dunn prefers the New English Bible (NEB) translation: “so also we

might set our feet upon the new path of life.”125

All of this, it must be mentioned, is held in comparison to the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Paul writes, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead…so we too might walk in newness of

life (italics mine).” Paul, at this point, does not have in mind the future resurrection of the

believer; this will come at 6:5. Paul, in 6:4, is insisting that because a termination of life in

accord with sin has occurred, a new future has been opened up, one in which the believer walks

“in newness of life.”126 As Moo explains it, there is more than comparison involved in this

context. While the believer’s actual resurrection may be future, he is already experiencing the

power and influence of that resurrection. Paul further explains this in 6:11 where he writes,

“Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.”127 There is a

careful balance in the way Paul writes 6:4: “so that as Christ…so we too” (ωσπερ Χριστοσ...

ουτωσ και ηµεισ). This is the same pattern found in 5:12, 18, 21, revealing that the principle of

solidarity proposed in 5:12-21 is still thought to be operating in the significance of baptism.128

It is Paul who writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new

creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” Without the mention of

baptism, this is what Paul has insisted the Roman believers understand in 6:3-4. Returning to the

                                                                                                               124. Harrison, Romans, OakTree Software, Inc.

 125. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Nelson Reference & Electronic. 126. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 247.

 127. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 367.

 128. Harrison, Romans, OakTree Software, Inc.

  38

conversation and context surrounding John 3:5, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again

he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The expression “born again,” a metaphor

signifying spiritual birth, graphically explains the reality of new life in Christ. As different as life

is from death, so should a believer’s life be from his pre-conversion days.129 Theodor of Cyr

writes, “For baptism is a type of the death of Christ. In it we have become participants in the

death and resurrection of Christ. Therefore, because we have shared in Christ’s resurrection, we

ought to live a new life now.”130

Galatians 3:27

Beasley-Murray argues that Galatians 3:27 forms the climax of that chapter. It is in this

chapter that Paul seeks to refute the Judaizers who assert that men become sons of Abraham

through strict adherence to the Law and urges them to realize the sons of Abraham are men of

faith.131 Hence, Paul says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (3:26).

What follows is the only explicit reference to baptism in all of Galatians,132 where Paul writes,

“For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” In this

passage, once again, the implications of being “baptized into Christ” must be understood, along

with having “clothed yourselves with Christ.”

Interpreting εισ Χριστον εβαπτισθητε in Galatians 3:27. Paul begins both 3:26 and 27

with “For” (γαρ). In the Greek language, this word is repeated twice for one of two reasons: (1)

                                                                                                               129. Mounce, Romans, 150. 130. Bray, Romans, 156.  131. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 146.

 132. Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray

Clendenen (n.p.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 275.

  39

to introduce several arguments for the same assertion, or (2) to have one clause confirm the

other, which is what takes place in this particular context. What Paul says in 3:26 is confirmed

by 3:27; and the repetitiveness of this word marks the beginning of a balance between these two

verses. The masculine plural “all of you” (οσοι) in 3:27 is the equivalent of the masculine plural

“all” (παντεσ) in 3:26. Moreover, “through faith in Christ Jesus” (δια τησ πιστεωσ εν Χριστω

Ιησου) parallels “baptized into Christ” (εισ Χριστον εβαπτισθητε) revealing the close

association faith and baptism have in Paul’s theology.133

The word translated “baptized” is the aorist passive indicative of βαπτιζω.134 It must be

determined whether Paul is referring to water baptism, baptism of the Spirit, or is using baptism

as a metaphor. Some argue that Paul is speaking metaphorically, which is further substantiated

by his next phrase that all those who have been baptized have clothed themselves with Christ.135

On the other hand, there are others who contend, and I agree, that Paul is referring to the inward

reality of spiritual cleansing that comes by faith, which is visibly manifested through water

baptism.136 Paul, in Romans 6:3, asserts that believers “have been baptized into Christ Jesus.” He

makes the same assertion in Galatians 3:27, and it must be that Paul would not have changed his

theology between the two letters.

                                                                                                               133. Richard N. Longnecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce

M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (n.p.: Word, Incorporated, 1990), Nelson Reference & Electronic, Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

134. Rogers and Rogers, Exegetical Key, 427.  

135. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, in Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: A&C Black (Publishers) Limited, 1993), 203-04.  

136. Philip Graham Ryken, Galatians, in Reformed Expository Commentary: A Series, ed. Richard D. Phillips and Philip Graham Ryken (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005), 145.

  40

The context of Galatians does not allow for Paul to be referring to only water baptism. A

sacramental theology is the furthest thing from Paul’s mind in this epistle. Paul’s burden

throughout is salvation received through faith in Christ alone apart from works of the Law,

specifically circumcision. After everything Paul says against the Judaizers and circumcision as a

prerequisite for a right standing with God, it is unfathomable that Paul would now put forth his

own rite of initiation into God’s favor.137

Interpreting Χριστον ενεδυσασθε in Galatians 3:27. The word translated “clothed”

(ενεδυσασθε) is the aorist middle indicative form of ενδυω,138 and refers to the putting on of

anything, especially garments, on oneself. It can literally mean “clothe oneself in, put on,” or

“wear.” It is often used metaphorically, signifying the taking on of characteristics, virtues, or

intentions.139 Regarding the believer, the figurative use of ενδυω with a personal object such as

Christ means so much is acquired from Him that the believer actually becomes like Christ.140

The Septuagint contains frequent references to being clothed with righteousness, salvation,

strength, and glory (2 Chr. 6:41; Job 29:14), as well as references to being clothed with shame

(Job 8:22).141

The language of “putting off” and “putting on” is a common theme throughout Paul’s

epistles. For Paul it usually symbolizes the ethical transformation that takes place in a true

                                                                                                               137. George, Galatians, 277.

 138. Rogers and Rogers, Exegetical Key, 427.

 139. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon, 333-34.

 140. Longnecker, Galatians, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 141. Ibid., Nelson Reference & Electronic; Longnecker lists a total of ten references

regarding righteousness, salvation, strength, and glory; he lists three in reference to shame, including one in the Apocryphal writings.

  41

believer. For example, Paul writes in Romans 13:11-14 about putting off the deeds of darkness

and putting on the armor of light. Similarly, he exhorts Christians in Ephesians 6:11-14 to put on

the full armor of God in order to resist the spiritual forces of evil. In Romans and Ephesians “put

on” is written in the imperative, while in Galatians it is indicative. In Paul’s writings the

imperative presupposes the indicative, meaning the believer has put on Christ; therefore, he must

put on the full armor of God.142

Baptism in the early church becomes an extensive ceremony, symbolizing in a dramatic

way what takes place at salvation: a dying to sin and rising with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).

Furthermore, it signifies the putting off of sin and the putting on of new life. The words “clothed

yourselves with Christ” probably refer to the early Christian ceremony of stripping and then re-

clothing oneself in a white robe after the ritual was completed, dramatically symbolizing the

taking off of sin and clothing oneself with the character of Christ.143 According to Timothy

George, the baptismal ceremony has changed much since the late second century. At that time

the baptismal process had become an elaborate ceremony consisting of the following ten steps:

(1) catechesis, (2) fasting and prayer, (3) renunciation, (4) credo, (5) disrobing, (6) immersion,

(7) new robe, (8) anointing, (9) laying on of hands, and (10) the Lord’s Supper. Not all of these

features date back to the time of Paul’s congregations; however, it reveals that baptism

graphically symbolized the “putting on” of Christ.144 In Romans 13:14 Paul exhorts his readers

to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” which Bruce argues expresses more directly what Paul meant

                                                                                                               142. George, Galatians, 279.

 143. Scot McKnight, Galatians, in The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 198.  

144. George, Galatians, 281-82.

  42

when he said, “put on the new self” (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24). He asserts, however, that in Galatians

3:27, “clothed yourselves with Christ” probably refers to this early baptismal catechesis.145

What is clear in Galatians is the emphasis on faith in Christ and not baptism. Between

3:23 and 3:29 faith is mentioned five times and baptism only once.146 Chrysostom writes, “For if

Christ is the Son of God and you put him on, having the Son inside yourself and being made like

him, you have been made one in kind and form.”147 For this reason, as Wuest asserts, the word

ενδυω conveys the act in which one enters into actual relationship with someone else.148 This is

certainly the spiritual reality that Paul is emphasizing and one that balances with Romans 6:4.

There, where the believer is also said to “have been baptized into Christ,” he walks “in newness

of life”; in Galatians he is “clothed with Christ.”

Colossians 2:12

Although he has personally never been to Colosse, Paul receives word that a dangerous

philosophy is threatening the Colossian church, and, along with Epaphras, the missionary who

founded the church, Paul is greatly concerned. As a substitute for his personal presence, Paul

                                                                                                               145. Bruce, Paul, 112. 146. James Montgomery Boice, Galatians, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed.

Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), OakTree Software, Inc., Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

147. Mark J. Edwards, ed., “Galatians,” in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, vol. 8, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 51.  

148. Kenneth S. Wuest, Galatians in the Greek New Testament, in vol. 1, Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 111.

  43

pens Colossians as a letter to the church.149 He writes that this philosophy is “according to the

tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to

Christ” (2:8). He reminds his readers of the sufficiency of Christ, for in Him is the fullness of

Deity exists, in Him the Colossian believers have been made complete, and in Him is all rule and

authority (2:9-10). That Christ is sufficient means the Colossians do not have to submit

themselves to Jewish ordinances, least of all to circumcision.150 It is within this context that the

passage in question is found. Paul reminds his readers that they have undergone a much more

radical circumcision: “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without

hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (2:11). To further

explain this circumcision, Paul writes, “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you

were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the

dead” (2:12).151

Interpreting ουνταφεντεσ αυτω εν τω βαπτισµω in Colossians 2:12. Similar to

Romans 6:4, Paul writes, “having been buried with Him in baptism”; however, unlike Romans

6:3-4, he omits any discussion of death and deals only with burial, with the assumption of death

since only the dead are buried.152 There is the possibility that a reference is made in 2:11 to their

participation in Christ’s death: “in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of

Christ.” Bruce argues that these words could refer to one of two things. They could be a

                                                                                                               149. David E. Garland, “Colossians,” in Colossians/Philemon, of The NIV Application

Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 23. 150. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 152.

 151. Ibid.

 152. Richard R. Melick, Jr., “Colossians,” in Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, vol. 32,

The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991), 259.

  44

reference to the circumcision undergone by Christ (not to His circumcision on the eighth day as a

Jewish boy but to His crucifixion). In this case the “removal of the body of the flesh” signifies

what Christ does in His death. The other option, with which Bruce agrees, refers to the

circumcision which Christ effects. This is the inward cleansing brought about by His redemptive

work and indwelling presence in those united to Him by faith. With this option the “removal of

the body of the flesh” then refers to the believer’s spiritual baptism, which Romans 6:6 describes

as the crucifixion of the old self and the destruction of the sinful body. This is the necessary

prelude to walking “in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4) and clothing oneself “with Christ” (Gal.

3:27).153 David Garland sees 2:11 as a vivid description of Christ’s crucifixion, one that best

explains the progression from circumcision (death) to burial to resurrection in 2:11-12.154

However one interprets 2:11, the participation in Christ’s death is ascertained by Paul’s reference

to their participation in His burial.

The Greek word translated “buried” (συνταφεντεσ) occurs only twice in the New

Testament (2:12; Rom. 6:4) and in both occasions, it is used figuratively of a believer being

buried with the Lord in baptism. The burial of Christ is proof of His death, just as burial will be

proof of the believer’s death. If a real death has occurred, then the old life is now a thing of the

past, meaning the believer can no longer go on living as a slave to sin,155 or, as the context of

Colossians reveals, as a “captive through philosophy and empty deception.”

                                                                                                               153. F. F. Bruce, “The Epistle to the Colossians,” in The Epistles to the Colossians, to

Philemon, and to the Ephesians, of The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 104.  

154. Garland, “Colossians,” 148-49.  

155. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, in Colossians, Philemon, vol. 44 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (n.p.: Word, Incorporated, 1982), Nelson Reference & Electronic, Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.

  45

With regards to the word “baptism” (βαπτισµω), I continue to maintain, as I did with

Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27, that Paul is referring to the inward spiritual reality that takes

place at one’s conversion. There are three points of identification with Christ: death, burial, and

resurrection. All of this is done vicariously as one accepts the work of Christ on their behalf,

which is made evident by the numerous references to “in Him” and “with Him.” It is at the time

of salvation that all of this takes place. In the only other Pauline context that discusses baptism in

this same manner, the believer is said to be baptized “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3-4). As Paul is

emphasizing the spiritual aspect in that passage, the same is true in this passage. This baptism is

one with Him into the grave (burial). No believer is baptized into a grave with Christ; instead,

they are incorporated into this grave spiritually at the moment of salvation.156

Interpreting εν ω in Colossians 2:12. There is some debate concerning the interpretations

of the Greek preposition εν and the pronoun ω. Beasley-Murray insists that the two should be

translated “in which” rather than “in whom,” relating to the raising up of the believer to his

baptism. He contends that this sets the parallelism between “buried with Him” and “raised up

with Him,” with the latter words “with Him” binding the two verbs together. He further argues

that constructing the verse in this way makes plain the elements of theology set forth in Romans

6:1 ff. Moreover, he argues that having the passage read “in whom you were also raised up with

Him” creates an awkward expression.157

It is the preference of Peter O’Brien, however, to take the words as pointing to Christ (“in

whom”). He insists that throughout the paragraph the expressions “in Him” and “with Him” are

used multiple times to show that the Colossians are complete in Christ alone. It is, therefore,

                                                                                                               156. Melick, “Colossians,” 259.

 157. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 153-55.

  46

more consistent to interpret εν ω as “in Him” rather than “in it” (baptism). Regarding Beasley-

Murray’s concern about the awkward expression using “in” and “with” together, O’Brien refers

to a passage that does just that. Ephesians 2:6 reads, “and raised us up with Him, and seated us

with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”158

There are good arguments for both interpretations. The NASB translates the word as “in

which,” while the NIV avoids the issue all together, reading “and raised.” It is my preference to

translate the Greek phrase as “in whom.” Again, Paul is not seeking to establish a theology of

baptism but rather to emphasize the spiritual reality of being in Christ. Christ, throughout

Colossians, is the point of emphasis; He is the sufficient one and the one in whom the Colossian

believers are made complete. It is in Christ and because of Christ that they have been raised,

implying that without Him there could be no resurrection for the believer. Baptism, that is the

water rite, is a dramatic symbol of what has been done in Christ. Regardless of how one

translates the phrase, two things are true: (1) the believer’s being raised is a result of faith and (2)

it is the work of God. It is to these truths that Paul now shifts his focus.

Interpreting ουνηγερθητε in Colossians 2:12. Because the believers in Colosse have

been buried with Christ in baptism, Paul can say they “were also raised up with Him.” The word

translated “you were raised” is written in the aorist tense and signifies that their resurrection has

already taken place; however, this does not mean their eschatological resurrection has been

realized, which is made clear in Colossians 3:1-4. Colossians and Ephesians are two epistles in

which Paul speaks of Christians as already raised with Christ, putting these letters at odds with

others like 2 Corinthians, Philippians (see 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:11), and Romans. For example, in

Romans 6:5-8, Paul writes, “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death,

                                                                                                               158. O’Brien, Colossians, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

  47

certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection…Now if we have died with Christ,

we believe that we shall also live with Him.” These differences in language should be attributed

to the different circumstances that called for each letter. In Romans 6 Paul is seeking to answer

the question “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” (Rom. 6:1). To say that one

has already been raised with Christ might lead to self-satisfaction in which the Roman believers

would glory. This is not the case in Colosse, where they need to know that in Christ they are

complete. For this reason Paul asserts that they have already been raised with Christ.159

Just as being buried with Christ conveys the burial of an old way of life and a

participation with Christ in His death and burial, so being raised with Christ communicates a

rising to new life and sharing in Christ’s resurrection. Paul does not believe this is accomplished

through the ritual of baptism, and the fact that he adds “through faith in the working of God” is

proof.160 Paul upholds the resurrection of Christ as the greatest demonstration of God’s power.

The Colossian believers have placed their faith in this resurrection power of God; therefore, as a

result, they have been raised with Christ and are now energized to maintain the new life to which

they have been raised.161 Faith, according to Richard Melick, has two dimensions. First, there is

the identification with Christ and His death, and second is the expectation of resurrection to new

life based on the power of God in the resurrection of Jesus.162 In light of these dimensions, faith

                                                                                                               159. O’Brien, Colossians, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 160. Curtis Vaughan, Colossians, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E.

Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), OakTree Software, Inc., Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

161. Bruce, “The Epistle to the Colossians,” 105.  

162. Melick, “Colossians,” 261.

  48

is the cause of everything the Colossian believers have experienced in Christ, and apart from

faith baptism becomes nothing but an empty, useless ceremony.163

Again, Paul is not defending nor developing a theology of baptism in Colossians 2:12. He

is simply insisting that the believers in Colosse realize the sufficiency of Christ and their

completeness in Him. Through their faith, the saving act of Christ, and the regenerative power of

God, the Colossian believers have been brought into union with Christ.164 The spiritual aspects,

not the symbolic, are the focal points of Paul in this passage,165 as with other Pauline passages

examined in this project. Baptism in water, therefore, is an act of obedience where one’s faith is

physically and visibly expressed and the essence of what God’s Spirit has done inwardly is

symbolized.166

1 Peter 3:21

It is not difficult to determine to whom Peter addresses his first epistle: “To those who

reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1:1),

Roman provinces in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Considering how rapidly the church has

grown, by the time this letter is written, the churches addressed would be made up of both Jewish

and Gentile Christians. There are several indicators in the letter revealing a large segment of

                                                                                                               163. Vaughan, Colossians, OakTree Software, Inc. 164. Bruce, “The Epistle to the Colossians,” 106.  165. Melick, “Colossians,” 259.

    166. Vaughan, Colossians, OakTree Software, Inc.

  49

Gentile Christians among Peter’s readers (1:18; 2:10; 4:3-4).167 Being the socially

disenfranchised Christians they are, they are suffering a great deal for their faith, making Peter’s

message an exhortation to live steadfastly in the sight of God with faithfulness, holiness, and

love. Peter ends the epistle by saying, “This is the grace of God. Stand firm in it!” (5:12). Their

steadfastness has led to suffering, so Peter seeks to help them properly understand persecution so

they can go forward faithfully in spite of it. The foundation of their faithfulness will be a deeper

understanding of their salvation, which Peter addresses.168

To help strengthen their understanding of salvation, Peter points to the example of Jesus’

suffering and His saving ministry (2:21-25; 3:18-22). It is through Jesus’ suffering that salvation

is made available to mankind (3:18), and after His suffering comes His vindication (3:22).169

Within this context is a reference to the “days of Noah” (3:20) and Jesus’ going and making

“proclamation to the spirits now in prison” (3:19). The mention of Noah’s time allows Peter to

insert the only explicit reference to baptism in this letter.170

Scholars generally agree that this passage is one of the most difficult in the New

Testament to comprehend. Edwin Blum goes as far to say, “This section contains some of the

                                                                                                               167. Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, vol. 17, Tynadale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon

Morris (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 37-8. 168. Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, in The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 29.  

169. Ibid., 30.  

170. M. Eugene Boring, 1 Peter, in Abingdon New Testament Commentaries, ed. Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 141.

  50

most difficult exegetical problems in the NT,”171 while Scot McKnight says the passage’s being

“highly complex and controversial” has left commentators shaking “their heads in despair.”172

Despite the confusion, McKnight offers the following insight. To understand the early church’s

attitude toward baptism, two things must be considered: (1) early Christians are more ritualistic

than most modern-day Christians, and (2) all early Christians are baptized, meaning an

unbaptized believer in Peter’s day is unconceivable. This approach to baptism allows Peter to

elucidate things about the rite that many modern-day Christians would not want to say.173 An

exegesis of this verse is necessary to truly understand what Peter says about baptism.

Interpreting ο και υµασ αντιτυπον in 1 Peter 3:21. At this point, Peter asserts the

typological thrust of the passage.174 The Greek word ο, translated “which, that,” refers to its

antecedent “water.”175 The NIV, without questioning the antecedent, clearly translates it “this

water,” while the NASB simply reads “to that.” Grudem argues the Revised Standard Version

(RSV) translation “which” best renders the force of the words.176 Although the two are not in

                                                                                                               171. Edwin A. Blum, 1 Peter, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E.

Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), OakTree Software, Inc., Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

172. McKnight, 1 Peter, 215. 173. McKnight, 1 Peter, 215; see footnote 8.

 174. Thomas R. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” in 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American

Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 193.  

175. J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (n.p.: Word, Incorporated, 1988), Nelson Reference & Electronic, Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015.  

176. Grudem, 1 Peter, 162.

  51

alignment on every detail, Peter is saying that the water of the flood portrays the water of

baptism.177

The word under the most scrutiny is αντιτυπον, which the NASB translates

“corresponding to” and the NIV “symbolizes.” Although the Greek word is a noun, both of these

versions translate it as a verb.178 Robertson emphasizes that the word is used only twice in the

New Testament, the other occasion being Hebrews 9:24. In that verse the earthly tabernacle is

seen corresponding to (αντιτυπον) the heavenly, although the NASB translates it “copy.”

Moreover, the word τυπον, translated “pattern” or, as the NASB translates it, “copy,” is used in

Hebrews 8:5. So, according to Robertson, baptism is presented as corresponding to, or prefigured

by, the floodwaters in Noah’s day.179

J. Michaels argues that “corresponding to” is the simplest way to translate the text,

although there are other possible constructions. It is not the same water that saves Noah that now

saves Christians, but something “corresponding to” it. To translate the word with a substantive

meaning such as “copy, antitype, representation,” he says, runs the risk of complicating Peter’s

argument and raising more questions than can be answered.180 Blum, however, maintains that

baptism is the “copy” or “representation” of the Old Testament deliverance from judgment and

                                                                                                               177. Blum, 1 Peter, OakTree Software, Inc.

 178. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 193. 179. Archibald Thomas Robertson, “The First Epistle General of Peter,” in General

Epistles/Revelation, vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933), 119.  

180. Michaels, 1 Peter, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

  52

goes as far to suggest that it is the “fulfillment.”181 Baptism is not a “copy” of the floodwaters

but a present reality for Christians in which Peter finds correspondence in the story of Noah.182

Interpretations of how Peter finds correspondence in baptism and the story of Noah are

myriad. M. Boring asserts they correspond in that they represent a definitive break with the old

world and draw a parallel with Paul’s thought in 1 Corinthians 10:1-6, where Israel’s deliverance

at the Red Sea is a typological reference to baptism. As the Israelites are separated from their

enslaved past, Christians can no more return to their old life than Noah and his family could

return to the world destroyed by the flood.183 Peter Davids also refers to Paul’s mention of

Israel’s deliverance at the Red Sea, specifying that rather than referring to that miracle, Peter

chooses Noah and the flood. As it does with Noah, salvation separates those who will be saved

from the majority of those who will experience judgment, the water being the symbol of that

salvation.184

According to Thomas Schreiner, the floodwaters are the agent of death in the ancient

world. Similarly, baptism, administered by immersion in the New Testament, is the submerging

of an individual under water, representing death, as Paul suggested in Romans 6:3-4. Jesus,

likewise, describes His death in terms of baptism (Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50), meaning that

according to Him baptism aptly describes death. Just as the floodwaters are an agent of

destruction, so baptism involves destructive water. New Testament theology, however, teaches

                                                                                                               181. Blum, 1 Peter, OakTree Software, Inc.

 182. Michaels, 1 Peter, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 183. Boring, 1 Peter, 141. 184. Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, in The New International Commentary

on the New Testament, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 144.

  53

that Christians survive these waters because they are baptized into Christ, being rescued through

His resurrection, leaving Peter’s readers unsurprised when he writes at the end of 3:21 “through

the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”185 Grudem says that as Noah passes through the waters of

judgment by fleeing into the ark, Christians escape Christ’s judgment by fleeing to Him, thus

emphasizing the spiritual reality that believers are “baptized into Christ,” of which water baptism

is a symbol.186

Interpreting νυν σωζει βαπτισµα in 1 Peter 3:21. I have maintained throughout this

project that water baptism is a dramatic symbol of an inward spiritual reality. Yet, Peter says,

“baptism now saves you” (νυν σωζει βαπτισµα). The question now becomes what salvific

nature, if any, does Peter believe baptism has. The Greek word translated “baptism” is

βαπτισµα, which the Greek-English Lexicon says refers to the Christian rite.187

“Saves” (σωζει) is the present active indicative form of the word σωζω, literally translated “to

save, rescue.”188 In contrast to the time of Noah, the Greek adverb νυν translates “now,”

referring to Peter’s present eschatological age when Christ has come bringing with Him the age

of salvation.189

Clearly, this verse raises some exegetical challenges. It must not be assumed, however,

that Peter has some mechanical view of baptism in mind, as if the ritual itself possesses some

inherent power to save. As his later statement reveals, it is in Jesus’ resurrection that Peter

                                                                                                               185. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 193-94.

 186. Grudem, 1 Peter, 162-63. 187. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon, 165.

 188. Rogers and Rogers, Exegetical Key, 576.

 189. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 194.

  54

believes salvation is rooted; therefore, a sacramental view of baptism is not in Peter’s mind.190

This implies that if a direct line of thought could be drawn in Peter’s statement, 3:21 would read

“Baptism now saves you…through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”191 The saving power

regarding baptism is symbolic, not actual.192 To make sure his readers understand salvation and

baptism in the truest sense, Peter adds two clauses that deserve careful attention. It is in the sense

to be defined in these clauses, one negative and the other positive, how baptism saves and does

not save.193

Interpreting ου σαρκοσ αποθεσισ ρυπου in 1 Peter 3:21. The first of Peter’s two

clauses insists that baptism does not save in the sense of “the removal of dirt from the flesh.” The

word translated “removal” (αποθεσισ) in the New Testament is found only here and in 2 Peter

1:14, while “dirt” (ρυπου) is found only in 3:21. The word ρυπαοσ, however, is found in James

2:2 and Revelation 22:1, where it is translated “dirty, filthy.”194 “Flesh” is the Greek word

σαρκοσ from σαρξ, the common word for “flesh,” not σοµα, the common word for “body.”

The NASB has it “flesh,” although the NIV translates the word “body.”195

It is not likely that Peter intends to convey that baptism’s purpose is not to wash dirt off

of the body. Early Christians do not have so shallow a view of baptism, forcing Peter to correct

                                                                                                               190. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 194.

 191. Ray Summers, “1 Peter,” in Hebrews-Revelation/General Articles, vol. 12, The

Broadman Bible Commentary, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), 165.  

192. Robertson, “First Epistle of Peter,” 119.  

193. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 260. 194. Robertson, “First Epistle of Peter,” 119.

 195. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 194.

  55

it.196 Likewise, Peter is not referring to circumcision, since the language Peter employs is too

remote to insinuate this ritual. Moreover, if, as I stated earlier, there is a heavy population of

Gentile Christians whom Peter is addressing, it is difficult to conceive Peter implying

circumcision.197

Now that it is understood what Peter is not conveying, it must be determined that Peter

has in mind a moral defilement, that is, the lifestyle that governs the lives of his readers before

their conversion.198 Schreiner argues that at this point the distinction between “flesh” and “body”

becomes important. Peter, according to Schreiner, employs the word “flesh” rather than “body”

because the former concerns the moral aspect (symbolic) and the latter a physical (literal). Peter

does not want his readers to think that baptism removes their sin or that it saves them.199 I

contend, however, that this distinction is not as important as Schreiner makes it, because Peter

often employs the word “flesh” in a bodily sense (1:24; 3:18; 4:1). While the use of “flesh” or

“body” is not important, Peter is not making the point that baptism physically washes away sin;

however, symbolically it does. Grudem paraphrases this first clause as “Baptism now saves

you—not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body.”200 A believer’s sins are

washed away in repentance at conversion, and baptism dramatically symbolizes this cleansing.

This is made clear in the second clause.

                                                                                                               196. Michaels, 1 Peter, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 197. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 195.

 198. Michaels, 1 Peter, Nelson Reference & Electronic. 199. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 194-95.

 200. Grudem, 1 Peter, 163.

  56

Interpreting αλλα συνειδησεωσ αγαθησ επερωτηµα εισ Θεον in 1 Peter 3:21.

Having begun with the negative clause (how baptism does not save), Peter now moves to the

second and positive clause (how baptism does save). It must be considered that the first clause

begins with the Greek adverb ου (“not”) and the second begins with the conjunction

αλλα (“but”). Together, this establishes the clauses as either signifying baptism’s profound

significance (not merely a physical cleansing but a decisive transaction with God) or as an actual

correction of a misunderstanding regarding baptism. Either way, Peter is implying something

that is absolute (“not this, but that”).201

The controversial word in this clause is επερωτηµα. There are two primary ways in

which this word is translated: “pledge” (NIV) and “appeal” (NASB). This word becomes

difficult to translate because this is its only occurrence in the New Testament.202 It is also used in

the Septuagint (Dan. 4:17) in which case it means something to the effect of “decree,” which

does not fit this passage. The meaning of the noun can be derived form the verb (επερωταω),

occurring fifty-six times in the New Testament, usually meaning “to ask, request.” According to

Schreiner, if the word is taken in this way, “ask, request,” or “appeal” fits the context.203

There are those who contend that “pledge” is the better translation. This is argued on the

basis that this sense of the word is found in later Greek papyri, although Grudem is careful to

emphasize that the earliest cases come into use after the time of the New Testament in the second

century AD. He also argues that making a “pledge to God” to live an obedient life places the

emphasis on the believer’s own effort and strength of resolve and not on God. Grudem asserts,

                                                                                                               201. Michaels, 1 Peter, Nelson Reference & Electronic.

 202. Robertson, “First Epistle of Peter,” 120. 203. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 195-96.

  57

therefore, that the word is most accurately translated “appeal.”204 Beasley-Murray, however,

understands the word “pledge” as an answer to a demand. In baptism the Christian is answering

affirmatively God’s request for faith and obedience.205

The genitive word συνειδησεωσ (“conscience”) presents a further problem. It must be

determined whether the word should be understood as subjective or objective. If one takes the

text to be referring to a pledge, the genitive could be understood as subjective or objective. If

subjective, the pledge flows from a good conscience. On the other hand, if the word is taken as

objective, the person making the pledge promises to maintain a good conscience, meaning the

individual pledges to live for the glory of God. If, on the other hand, one takes the text to be

referring to an appeal, the subjective can be ruled out, because it cannot be known what the

believer is appealing for since he already has a good conscience. This would mean the genitive is

taken as objective, signifying the believer’s appeal is being made from a good conscience. This

being the case, the Christian is appealing to God on the basis of the death and resurrection of

Christ to cleanse his conscience and forgive his sins.206 Beasley-Murray, taking the genitive as

“pledge,” asserts that whether one takes it as subjective (flowing from a good conscience) or

objective (maintaining a good conscience) is immaterial, because from either view the “pledge”

is given in response to God’s request for faith and obedience.207

It is my determination that the word should be taken as an “appeal” to God on the basis of

the death and resurrection of Christ to cleanse the believer’s conscience and forgive his sins. It is

                                                                                                               204. Grudem, 1 Peter, 163-64.

 205. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 261. 206. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 196-97.

 207. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 261.

  58

my assertion that the noun’s meaning is derived from the verb and fits the context of 1 Peter

better than “pledge.” First Peter 3:18-22 emphasizes Christ’s death and resurrection as the means

by which believers are brought into the presence of God. Peter writes, “For Christ also died for

sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God” (3:18). It is not Peter’s

intention to focus on promises a believer makes when baptized; rather, the thrust is on the

salvific work of Christ. At baptism believers can be confident that their appeal to God for a good

conscience will be answered based on the work of the crucified and risen Lord.208

Peter ends 3:21 with Christ’s resurrection, through which He rises from His redemptive

death in order to act on the believer’s behalf to bring about deliverance from sin and death and

give new life and righteousness. This, therefore, provides the believer his “good conscience.”209

This interpretive process flows naturally into 3:22, where Christ is said to be “at the right hand of

God,” where Christ acts with all the authority and power a king possesses. While all of this

guarantees the believer a “good conscience,” it does not insinuate that the believer’s “appeal to

God for a good conscience” provides the basis for salvation. Salvation has ultimately been

earned by Christ, and all that baptism represents comes to the believer not by any personal merit

or response from him, but through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The believer’s rising out of

the baptismal waters symbolizes his being raised with Christ to new life with a “good

conscience.” Peter’s argument, according to Grudem, could be paraphrased as “Baptism now

saves you—not the outward physical ceremony of baptism but the inward spiritual reality which

                                                                                                               208. Schreiner, “1 Peter,” 197.

 209. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 261-62.

  59

baptism represents.” By constructing his argument in this way, Peter guards against any view of

baptism that would attribute saving power to a physical ceremony.210

At the end of his discussion on baptism from a Baptist’s viewpoint, Nettles offers an

insightful application of Peter’s argument in this exegetically challenging passage. The larger

context of 1 Peter must be kept in mind: Christians should endure persecution with steadfastness

because their triumph is secure in Christ. The larger theology, found especially in 3:18-22, is the

suffering of Christ, not for His own sin, but for those of others, with His purpose being to bring

them to God. It is this suffering that brings about salvation. The floodwaters bring eight people

safely through God’s judgment, while all the other inhabitants of the earth are killed. Likewise,

the death of Christ, what He refers to as “baptism,” brought judgment on Him and all those who

remain in sin, but took out from under condemnation all of those who repent and come to Him.

The point, therefore, is that what is judgment and wrath for one is salvation for another. Baptism

then becomes a dramatic symbol of all that God has done for the believer through Christ and

stands as a constant witness to the substance of salvation.211

Concluding Remarks

What I have always believed concerning the ordinance of baptism has been confirmed

through this exegesis; however, my understanding of the ordinance has been deepened as a result

of this study. I have never believed that baptism is regenerative, and this exegesis has further

substantiated this belief. On the other hand, I had never understood baptism as an initiation or

incorporation. I argue that this is how the apostles and the early church understood baptism.

                                                                                                               210. Grudem, 1 Peter, 163-65. 211. Nettles, “Baptist View,” 37-8.

  60

Baptism, I assert, is a symbolic act of obedience that must be emphasized by all church

leaders to anyone who comes to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. This emphasis is seen in the

teaching of the apostles and other church leaders. For example, Peter commands his listeners to

be baptized (Acts 2:38), and Ananias commands Paul to be baptized as he begins his evangelistic

ministry (Acts 22:16). Furthermore, I argue that baptism is a believer’s first step of obedience

after his newfound salvation. After his conversion, the Philippian jailer is baptized

“immediately” (Acts 16:33). Jesus commands the church that as they make disciples, they are to

baptize them (Matt. 28:19). I concur with Bruce that “The idea of an unbaptized believer does

not seem to be entertained in the New Testament.”212

It must be that church leaders understand the theological importance and reasoning for

baptism and teach such things to their congregations. I have determined that there is no passage

in the New Testament that straightforwardly puts forth a doctrinal teaching regarding baptism.

One’s theological foundation regarding baptism must be pieced together based on the meaning of

the word “baptism” and from passages in the Bible that speak of baptism and narrate the act of

baptism. A theological foundation of baptism is essential for the life of any church; therefore, in

view of my completed exegesis, I will state and defend my personal theological foundation of

baptism.

My Personal Practice and Belief

The ultimate purpose of biblical study, whether it be exegetical, devotional, or for sermon

preparation, is not simply to gain knowledge, but rather to gain knowledge and apply it to one’s

                                                                                                               212. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 70.

  61

thoughts, speech, actions, and belief system. I have gained a great deal of knowledge through my

exegesis, and now I will apply that knowledge.

Several years ago, I attended funeral services for a church member’s sister. She had been

a longtime member of the local Church of Christ, so her services were held in their building. In

the pastor’s message, he said that her eternal home was certain because she had been immersed

in the baptismal waters. Not many days later, another church member who had attended the

service asked me where it was taught in Scripture that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Pointing to several Scriptures, some of which were those I exegeted, I tried to show her that it

was not. By stating my own theological foundation of baptism, I helped this individual develop

her own. I will now do this again, this time by answering five questions. (1) What does baptism

mean/accomplish? (2) Who can be baptized? (3) Who can baptize a person? (4) When should a

person be baptized? (5) How should baptism be performed?

The Meaning of Baptism and What It Accomplishes

It is my belief that baptism is one of the two ordinances—the other being the Lord’s

Supper—Jesus has commanded His people to observe until His return at the end of the age.

While I have heard some Baptists refer to it as a sacrament, I believe this word carries too many

unfavorable connotations; therefore, I do not believe that baptism is in any way sacramental. In

view of this, I argue that baptism symbolizes two things: (1) a believer’s identification, that is,

his being joined with Christ, and (2) his visible profession of faith in Christ as Lord.

It is my determination that Paul is referring to both water and spiritual baptism in

Romans 6:3-4. What the Spirit does inwardly for a believer water baptism symbolizes in

dramatic fashion. As he is immersed in the water (death), surrounded by the water (burial), and

  62

raised up out of the water (resurrection), the believer is symbolizing and identifying with all

three facets of Jesus’ redemptive work.

Peter, in one of the first evangelistic sermons recorded in Scripture, demands that his

hearers repent of their sins and be baptized (Acts 2:38). The Philippian jailer, after he and his

household hear the preaching of the gospel, are instructed to believe for salvation, and after

doing so he and his household are baptized (Acts 16:31-33). Likewise, Paul meets Christ and

hears His voice on the Damascus road, after which he is instructed to be baptized (Acts 22:16).

The Scripture is consistent: hear the word of the Lord, believe in the Lord, receive the

forgiveness of sins, and follow this with baptism. Clearly, the Scripture reveals that baptism is a

visible, dramatic profession of one’s faith.

There is one other item that should be mentioned, which is whether or not Scripture

supports baptism incorporating one into the local church. I formerly believed that it did not until

I read Thomas White’s article “What Makes Baptism Valid?” He asserts that scripturally baptism

does initiate one into the local church. He bases his argument on the Great Commission (Matt.

28:18-20). According to White, the commission is to make disciples whose acceptance of Christ

is an inward decision of faith and repentance. This decision is made public through baptism, after

which they must then gather and associate for teaching. The place for instruction is the New

Testament church. He refers to Acts, contending that baptism led to the new believers gathering

daily for further instruction. He concludes his argument by saying, “The New Testament knows

nothing of a baptized believer not associated with a local church.”213 I would also add, based on

the apostles’ and the early church’s emphasis on baptism, the salvation of anyone who refuses

                                                                                                               213. Thomas White, “What Makes Baptism Valid?,” in Restoring Integrity in Baptist

Churches, ed. Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008), 111.

  63

baptism should be questioned. It must be, therefore, that a local church should not want an

individual who refuses baptism.

The Subjects of Baptism

Since baptism is vital for incorporation into the local church, church leaders must be as

certain as possible that all of its members are regenerate, for Scripture teaches that the universal

church is made up only of such people. This is why believer’s baptism has been a foundational

belief for Baptists. Even the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, believed to be written primarily by

Michael Sattler, states:

First. Observe concerning baptism: Baptism shall be given to all who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him…This excludes all infant baptism.214

I maintain with Sattler and many other early Baptists, including Anabaptists, that there is no

scriptural support for the practice of paedobaptism. While it is true that Scripture records several

household baptisms (the household of Lydia, Acts 16; the Philippian jailer, Acts 16; the

household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1), there is no proof, only assumptions, that there were any

infants in these homes. It is likely that there were children in these homes, providing for the

argument that children of believing parents can and should be baptized. Additionally, Scripture

clearly teaches that baptism is only for believers. The Great Commission commands the church

“to make disciples…baptizing them” (Matt. 28:19). Peter preaches in Acts 2:38, “Repent,

and…be baptized.” The Ethiopian eunuch hears the gospel, believes, and then requests baptism

                                                                                                               214. Michael Sattler, “The Schleitheim Confession 1527,” in Anabaptist Beginnings

(1523-1533): A Souce Book, ed. William R. Estep, Jr. (Nieuwkoop, Holland: B. De Graaf, 1976), 99-101.

  64

(Acts 8). These passages rule out the baptism of infants or children simply because they belong

to believing parents.

Regarding the baptism of children, it is my assertion that there is no age limit on baptism.

I disagree with Mark Dever and his fellow elders regarding the baptism of children. His church

has adopted the following statement:

We believe that the normal age of baptism should be when the credibility of one’s conversion becomes naturally evident to the church community. This would normally be when the child has matured, and is beginning to live more self-consciously as an individual, making their own choices, having left the God-given, intended child-like dependence on their parents for the God-given, intended mature wisdom which marks one who has felt the tug of the world, the flesh and the devil, but has decided, despite these allurements, to follow Christ. While it is difficult to set a certain number of years which are required for baptism, it is appropriate to consider the candidate’s maturity. The kind of maturity that we feel it is wise to expect is the maturity which would allow that son or daughter to deal directly with the church as a whole, and not, fundamentally, to be under their parents’ authority.215

My son, in July 2015, at five years of age, professed Christ as His Lord and Savior and was

baptized in front of his church. It was my fear that he was too young; however, after much

counseling and listening to his belief in Christ be made manifest through word and deed, as his

father and pastor it was my conclusion that he should be baptized. Pastors and church leaders

should exercise caution where the baptism of children is concerned. I make it my personal

practice to counsel both the child and his parents. It should never be done without the parents’

permission, but it should also never be done at the sentimental request of the parents. Baptism

must remain a sacred ordinance that visibly manifests one’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his

identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

Baptism should be reserved only for those who have consciously confessed their faith in

the Lord Jesus Christ. The church represents people who have been called out of the world, out

                                                                                                               215. Capitol Hill Baptist Church, “Baptism of Children,” 2004, accessed August 18,

2015, http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/ministries/children/baptism-of-children/.

  65

of darkness, and into God’s marvelous light. Being “called out,” no doubt, refers to only those

who have experienced the regenerative power of God. For this reason, believer’s baptism must

be the practice of the church. As Charles Deweese asserts:

Believer’s baptism helps to protect the regenerate character of church life. When all the persons who are baptized recognize accountability for the spiritual condition, repent of sin, respond to God’s forgiveness, and eagerly seek to find fulfillment through commitment to Christ, the church will have a better opportunity to meet New Testament standards for its worship, education, ministry, and mission.216

The Administrator of Baptism

The question of who should or is allowed to baptize a believer is difficult to answer. It is

my assertion that no passage I exegeted dealt with this question; therefore, I will refer to another

passage in defense of my argument. I maintain that any person, as long as he is a believer, is

qualified to baptize another believer. Regarding the person’s church membership, he does not

have to be a member of my local church, that is, as long as he is authorized by the church. It

would not be consistent for a non-believer to baptize an individual who is professing his belief in

a Savior the administrator does not know.

Paul writes to the church in Ephesus, and many other churches if the epistle is circular as

I believe it is, that God has appointed “some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as

evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of

service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). As a pastor it is one of my

primary responsibilities to equip my people for the work of ministry. Baptizing another

individual is a joyful example of a believer doing ministry. It would be fulfilling to know that my

                                                                                                               216. Charles W. Deweese, “Believer’s Baptism Is Covenant,” in Defining Baptist

Convictions: Guidelines for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Charles W. Deweese (Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996), 105.

  66

church had sent out an individual to do mission work in a place like Africa and to hear that he

evangelized another person, led him to a river, and baptized him.

I have heard the argument from some that only an ordained minister, deacon, or other

officer should do the work of baptism. It is my assertion that if baptism is not so holy as to

mediate salvation, it is not so holy to require an ordained administrator. This is a matter that

comes down to another foundational Baptist belief: the autonomy of the local church. I concur

with Everett Goodwin that “The validity of baptism is not dependent on the administrator but on

the profession of faith in the candidate.”217

The Time of One’s Baptism

Regarding when a person should be baptized, there is one thing on which Scripture is

clear: one should not be baptized until he has confessed his faith in Christ and repented of his

sins. Again, Peter is clear on this in Acts 2:38, where baptism is associated with repentance.

While there is some ambiguity about its authenticity, Mark 16:16 does reveal a close association

with belief and baptism. If believer’s baptism is the foundational belief of the Baptist church,

baptism must be done only for one who has become a believer.

While there is some debate about the immediacy of one’s baptism, I contend that baptism

should be performed as quickly as possible after a person’s confession of faith. The Scripture

teaches that the Philippian jailer is baptized “immediately” (Acts 16:33). I argue in my exegesis

on Acts 16:33 and 22:16 that Paul is baptized immediately after his conversion. There is a

scriptural precedence for immediate baptism.

                                                                                                               217. Everett C. Goodwin, The New Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches (Valley Forge,

PA: Judson Press, 1995), 133.

  67

I do understand that, in the United States, culture plays a large part in the timing of one’s

baptism. Churches have installed baptisteries that require being filled. Additionally, there is

some sentiment that comes with being baptized, meaning it is a celebration at which one’s family

and friends are invited to attend. These factors are acceptable; however, baptism should not be

delayed for an extended amount of time. I also believe that baptism Sundays are acceptable as

long as they are conducted on a monthly basis. I agree with the membership classes that some

churches require. On the other hand, one should not have to wait to be baptized until he has

completed these courses. As Rustin Umstattd stated, delaying baptism for this reason “makes

baptism a certification of faith rather than a profession of faith.”218 Moreover, baptism should not

be a certification for voting membership. Things like this should be stated in the church’s

Constitution and Bylaws.

The Mode of Baptism

Baptists have always believed, and I agree, that baptism should be done solely by

immersion. The Greek word βαπτιζω, from which the English transliteration “baptize” is

derived, literally means “to immerse, plunge,” or “dip.” While some contend that sprinkling or

pouring suffices, I hold to the more literal, complete meaning of the word, and it is clear from

Scripture that this is how the first-century church practiced baptism. While ordinary

circumstances should demand immersion, there are extraordinary circumstances (medical

reasons, handicapped individuals, those in the hospital or on their deathbeds, etc.) where

sprinkling or pouring is acceptable.

                                                                                                               218. Rustin Umstattd, “Baptism” (lecture, Integrating Christian Faith and Practice,

Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO, August 5, 2015).

  68

The gospels record that when Jesus is baptized, he “came up immediately from the

water” (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10), and during the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, Scripture

records he “went down into the water” (Acts 8:38). Clearly, there are examples in Scripture

during the first-century that reveal believers being baptized by immersion, but there are also

places in Scripture where immersion is implied. Using the physical act of baptism to point to the

spiritual reality taken place in one’s life, Paul teaches that the believer has been “baptized into

Christ Jesus…baptized into His death…buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as

Christ was raised from the dead…so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-4). No

other form of baptism paints this picture more vividly than immersion. Furthermore, Paul said

that those “who were baptized into Christ have clothed [themselves] with Christ” (Gal. 3:27).

While the word “clothed” probably refers to the early baptismal ritual of disrobing and re-robing,

immersion dramatically pictures the clothing of oneself with Christ. Finally, Paul paints another

vibrant picture of baptism. He writes, “having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you

were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the

dead” (Col. 2:12). Again, it is immersion that vibrantly manifests the spiritual reality that Paul

has described. I concur with Calvin, who wrote:

But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should be sprinkled with poured water—these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.219

                                                                                                               219. White, “What Makes Baptism Valid?,” 109; written by Calvin in chapter xv, vol. 2,

book iv, in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion.

  69

The Practice and Belief of First Baptist Church in Quanah, Texas

According to the Constitution and Bylaws of the First Baptist Church (FBC) in Quanah,

Texas, the congregation shall observe two ordinances: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Regarding

baptism the document states:

A person who receives Jesus Christ as Lord by personal faith; who professes him publicly at any worship service; and who indicates a commitment to follow Christ as Lord, shall

be received for baptism. (1) Baptism shall be by immersion in water. (2) Baptism shall be administered by the pastor or whomever the church shall authorize. (3) Baptism shall be administered as an act of worship during any worship service. A person professing Christ and failing to be baptized after a reasonable length of time shall be counseled by the pastor and/or staff and deacons. If negative interest is ascertained, he shall be deleted from those awaiting baptism.220

While this is an accurate summary of what the church believes regarding baptism, I will provide

a more extensive look at what this congregation accepts. For this deeper examination, I

interviewed two members of the congregation, Richard Griffin and Dewain Phipps, to better

understand what the church believes regarding baptism.221 I will utilize their answers to my

questions as a means of stating what this congregation believes.

The Meaning of Baptism and What It Accomplishes

According to Phipps, baptism signifies obedience to God’s command and helps fulfill

one’s relationship to God. Furthermore, he asserts that there is nothing salvific about baptism;

therefore, if an individual is not baptized he will not be condemned.222 Along those same lines,

Griffin contends that baptism is merely symbolic, signifying that the believer is following in

                                                                                                               220. The First Baptist Church of Quanah, Texas, Constitution and Bylaws of the First

Baptist Church of Quanah, Texas, rev. July 2004 (Quanah, TX: First Baptist Church, 2004), 5. 221. Please note that these men answered my questions based on what they perceive to be

the beliefs of First Baptist Church in Quanah, Texas.     222. Dewain Phipps, interview by author, Quanah, Texas, August 28, 2015.

  70

Christ’s footsteps.223 While I agree with what these two men say, I believe baptism is much

more. Neither man says anything about baptism being an incorporation, profession, or

identification with Christ.

Looking at the Constitution and Bylaws of FBC, it is clear that there is nothing written

about what baptism means and accomplishes. It does state that people “shall be received for

baptism” when they “profess [Christ] publicly at any worship service (italics mine).”224 I have

argued throughout this project that baptism is the profession of one’s faith in Christ, signifying

his identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. I have also argued that

baptism is the public incorporation of an individual into the new people of Christ, baptized by

the Spirit, called the church. In addition, the church’s document states nothing regarding this. I

contend that a person may confess Christ at any worship service, but that baptism stands as the

person’s profession of faith, his incorporation into the new people of God, and his identification

with Christ in His redeeming work, which is also done publicly. Confession is merely admitting

to oneself his sinfulness, his need for salvation, and his need for Christ to be the Lord of his life;

profession, however, is making this confession known publicly.

The Subjects of Baptism

In their respective interviews regarding baptism and its subjects, both men answer the

question in the same way. Phipps states that only a believer, that is, “one who makes a

confession of faith” can be baptized.225 In agreement with him, Griffin says that only those who

                                                                                                               223. Richard Griffin, interview by author, Quanah, Texas, August 28, 2015.

 224. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5. 225. Phipps, interview, August 28, 2015.

  71

have trusted Christ as their Lord and Savior should be a candidate for baptism.226 Furthermore,

the Constitution and Bylaws of FBC read, “A person who receives Jesus Christ as Lord by

personal faith…and who indicates a commitment to follow Christ as Lord, shall be received for

baptism.”227

It is interesting that for this question Phipps uses the word “confession.” Based on this, it

seems he agrees that one confesses Christ as Lord in a personal way, whether at home or in a

worship service, and baptism stands as the individual’s profession. This, however, is not how the

church’s Constitution and Bylaws describe the ordinance. Again, the document states anyone

“who professes [Christ] publicly at any worship service…shall be received for baptism (italics

mine).”228 While I agree with what Phipps and Griffin argue, and while I agree in part with what

the church’s document records, it is clear there needs to be some clarification on what is a

confession and what is a profession.

The Administrator of Baptism

Concerning the administrator of baptism, both men explicitly stand in agreement with the

church’s Constitution and Bylaws. The document reads, “whomever the church shall authorize”

can administer one’s baptism, although it said previously, “Baptism shall be administered by the

pastor.”229 Both men argue that “Anybody authorized by the church” can perform the baptismal

                                                                                                               226. Griffin, interview, August 28, 2015.

 227. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5. 228. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5. 229. Ibid.

  72

rite.230

When asked if the baptismal administrator should be a Christian, both men responded

positively. They also assert that the person performing the baptism does not have to be a member

of the church, that is, as long as the church has authorized the person.231 While I agree with these

men, I do argue that a few words should be added to the Constitution and Bylaws, which I will

address at a later point.

The Time of One’s Baptism

In a discussion regarding the time frame of one’s baptism, the answers I received in the

interviews were somewhat ambiguous. Griffin says that baptism should be done as soon as

possible. He goes on to say, “A person should not put it off because it becomes easier not to do

it.”232 Phipps agrees with Griffin in that baptism should be done quickly; however, he contends,

“I do not see that it is a problem if a person waits a few months or a year. Once again, there is

nothing about baptism that gives a person salvation.”233

An examination of the church’s Constitution and Bylaws reveals that there is some

expected amount of time in which baptism should be performed, although the exact length of that

time is unclear. The document reads, “A person professing Christ and failing to be baptized after

a reasonable length of time shall be counseled by the pastor and/or staff and deacons (italics

                                                                                                               230. Griffin and Phipps, interviews, August 28, 2015.

 231. Ibid. 232. Griffin, interview, August 28, 2015.

 233. Phipps, interview, August 28, 2015.

  73

mine).”234 Clearly, confusion within this congregation exists regarding how quickly baptism

should be performed. Of course, like many modern-day churches, there is a baptistery that must

be filled, along with other considerations; however, the church must be specific on the

immediacy of one’s baptism, especially in light of Scripture’s emphasis on its quickness.

The Mode of Baptism

These men, in their respective interviews, agree on the mode of baptism; it should be

conducted by immersion, to which they add the qualifier “under normal circumstances.”235

Griffin recalls a story of a woman in this congregation, years ago, who was baptized in her home.

She was unable to come to church; therefore, the pastor went to her house. She dressed in

appropriate clothing and sat in a filled bathtub; the pastor then poured a pitcher over her head.236

This would certainly qualify as an example of abnormal circumstances.

The Constitution and Bylaws specifically state, “Baptism shall be by immersion in

water.”237 While I agree with this assertion, the document contains nothing about abnormal

circumstances. For this reason, at a later point I will address the fact that a qualifying statement

should be added.

                                                                                                               234. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5.

 235. Griffin and Phipps, interviews, August 28, 2015. 236. Griffin, interview, August 28, 2015.

 237. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5.

  74

Aligning the Practice and Belief of First Baptist Church in Quanah, Texas

With My Personal Practice and Belief

I began this project with the belief that my personal practice and belief and that of FBC

were one and the same. While they predominantly are, I have found that a few points need to be

aligned. I have identified the biblical foundations for the ordinance of baptism, followed by a

statement regarding my personal practice and belief. As I have argued, it is my assertion that

baptism stands as the profession of one’s faith, his incorporation into Spirit-baptized new people

of God, and his identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Based on the

interviews I conducted for this project and also FBC’s Constitution and Bylaws, there is some

confusion within my congregation where these matters are concerned.

The Constitution and Bylaws of First Baptist Church in Quanah, Texas

To begin the process of aligning the belief and practice of FBC with my personal practice

and belief, it is my argument that some attention needs to be given to the church’s Constitution

and Bylaws. What this document states regarding the ordinance of baptism does not need to be

an exhaustive, theological treatise; however, a few things need to be added for clarification

purposes.

First, since I have argued that baptism is a person’s profession of faith, based on the fact

that Scripture clearly teaches this, I contend that the wording of the statement that anyone “who

professes [Christ] publicly at any worship service…shall be received for baptism (italics

mine)”238 should be changed to read that anyone “who confesses [Christ] publicly at any worship

service…shall be received for baptism.” This serves the purpose of clarifying what is confession

                                                                                                               238. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5.

  75

and what is profession. A confession is what takes place in the individual’s life personally, while

the profession is the public manifestation of one’s confession. Baptism, in this case, is the

visible, public profession.

Second, regarding the administrator of baptism, it is agreed upon between myself and the

two men interviewed that anyone, whether a member of this congregation or not, can baptize an

individual as long as he is authorized by the church. It is also agreed that the person must be a

Christian. The church’s Constitution and Bylaws state that “whomever the church shall

authorize” can administer the rite of baptism.239 While I agree with this statement, I assert that

the statement should be changed to read, “Baptism shall be administered by the pastor or

whomever the church shall authorize, understanding that the administrator must be a baptized

Christian.” This will help those individuals authorizing the administrator to understand they have

a responsibility to inquire of the person’s spiritual status, keeping the rite as holy and worshipful

as possible.

Third, since I have argued that baptism must be done as quickly as possible, the

Constitution and Bylaws should reflect this as well. Currently, the way the document reads is

ambiguous. For this purpose, I argue that a specific timeframe should be added, whether that is a

month, two months, or six months. The words “after a reasonable length of time”240 should be

changed to include a specific length of time agreed upon by the church.

Finally, while I agree that baptism should be done by immersion, there are abnormal

circumstances that do not allow for such a mode, and the two men I interviewed also agree. The

                                                                                                               239. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5. 240. Ibid., 5.

  76

Constitution and Bylaws simply state, “Baptism shall be administered by immersion in water.”241

The qualifying statement “under normal circumstances” should be added to prevent any legalistic

approach to what the document reads.

Changes to a document as important as a church’s Constitution and Bylaws should be

made before a situation arises which requires the changes. To change the church’s Constitution

and Bylaws, of course, requires a church vote in a business meeting. I do not expect the church

to change this document simply because of my request. When it comes to these issues, the

congregation will require a reason why the changes should be made. Therefore, I see this as an

opportunity to do a biblical study on the ordinance of baptism. The church must understand from

a biblical viewpoint why their document is written the way it is.

The Invitation

As is the case in many Baptist churches, FBC designates the end of the worship service,

the point immediately after the message, as the “Invitation.” This is a time when I, the pastor,

invite people to come and receive salvation or request prayer. I assert that this time is important

because a lost person has just heard the gospel message; therefore, this gives the person an

opportunity to receive salvation and confess Christ as his Lord and Savior.

It may be that someone chooses to confess Christ as Lord during this period of time.

There are, however, those times when a person makes his confession in my office or perhaps in

his home. It is at this point that people in the congregation expect the new believer to “walk the

aisle” during the invitation in order that he may profess publicly what he has confessed, complete

                                                                                                               241. First Baptist Church, Constitution and Bylaws, 5.

  77

a membership information card, and be introduced to the church body. This is where I believe a

problem exists.

In the average Baptist church, one’s public profession of faith in Christ, which should be

baptism, has been replaced with walking an aisle. Coming forward on Sunday morning at the end

of a worship service should not be required if someone has confessed his faith in Christ at

another place and time. If that person has confessed privately Jesus as Lord, at the first

opportunity the individual should simply be taken to the baptismal waters to visibly and publicly

manifest his confession before the church.

I maintain that the invitation should be held at the end of a worship service for the sake of

those who may choose to make a confession after hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. This period

of time, however, should be conducted in such a way that the individual does not feel forced to

walk the aisle as a public profession. It is my assertion that this will involve wording the

invitation in a specific way. It should be stated that this time is available for anyone seeking

prayer or for someone who wishes to confess his faith in Christ. If he chooses not to, he will be

informed that I, the pastor, will be available after the service to visit with him about salvation.

Along these same lines, in order to make sure that baptism remains the visible, public

profession of one’s confession, I will change what I say to the individual being baptized as we

stand in the baptismal water. Normally, I say to the individual, “Do you believe that Jesus came

to the earth, died on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, that he was buried, and three days

later rose again?” I then have the candidate reply by saying, “I do,” which is followed by his

immersion. After this project, I have decided that from this point forward I will say to the

individual, “What confession brings you to this baptismal water?” I will then have him reply by

saying, “Jesus is Lord,” which will be followed by his immersion in the water.

  78

By changing the wording of FBC’s Constitution and Bylaws, by adapting the invitation to

ensure the biblical model of baptism as profession is followed, and by changing what I ask the

candidate in the baptismal water, I believe that this will help to align FBC’s practice and belief

with mine and, more importantly, with what Scripture says regarding baptism. While baptism is

symbolic, which this church and I believe, it is also a visible, public profession of one’s

confession, his incorporation into the Spirit-baptized people of God, and his identification with

Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Conclusion

While the subject of baptism will continue to be debated across denominational lines, I

must ensure that my theological foundation of baptism and that of my church is clear. The Bible

does not include a passage of Scripture that presents a clear theological teaching on the

ordinance of baptism. It does, however, offer several passages that, when pieced together, assist

in formulating a biblical foundation on baptism. Through the exegesis of myriad pertinent

passages, I have stated my own belief and practice concerning baptism and that of my

congregation. I now must work to make sure the two are in line.

While this is a task that will demand the utmost diligence, tact, and faithful teaching, it is

a task that must be completed. As this church’s pastor, I must make sure that the congregation is

being as obedient to biblical teachings as possible. The ordinance of baptism is a sacred,

worshipful part of every believer’s salvation experience, and it must be held with the highest

regard. To hold it with such value requires that my church and I remain faithful to the Bible’s

teaching regarding baptism.

  79

Bibliography

Barr, Beth Allison, Bill J. Leonard, Mikeal C. Parsons, and C. Douglas Weaver, eds. The Acts of the Apostles: Four Centuries of Baptist Interpretation. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987. Blum, Edwin A. 1 Peter. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. OakTree Software, Inc. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Boice, James Montgomery. Galatians. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gabelein and J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. OakTree Software, Inc. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Boring, M. Eugene. 1 Peter. In Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Victor Paul Furnish. Nashville: Abindgon Press, 1999. Bray, Gerald, ed. Romans. Vol. 6, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Brooks, James A. Mark. Vol. 23, The New American Commentary. Edited by David. S. Dockery. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1991. Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988. _____. “The Epistle to the Colossians.” In The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Of The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984. _____. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977. Calvin, John. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, Vol. 2. In Calvin’s Commentaries. Edited by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949.

  80

Camp, Ashby L. “Reexamining the Rule of Concord in Acts 2:38.” Restoration Quarterly 39, no. 1 (1997): 37-42. Accessed August 9, 2015. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=23&sid=229ded65-9ecb-4097-88af-c1bde2fe6fa0%40sessionmgr114&hid=107.

Capitol Hill Baptist Church. “Baptism of Children.” 2004. Accessed August 18, 2015.     http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/ministries/children/baptism-of-children/. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Ned. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing House, 1990. Deweese, Charles W., ed. Defining Baptist Convictions: Guidelines for the Twenty-First Century. Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1996. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. In Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: A&C Black (Publishers) Limited, 1993. _____. Romans 1-8. Vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. N.p.: Word Incorporated, 1988. Nelson Reference & Electronic. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Edwards, Mark J., ed. “Galatians.” In Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. Vol. 8 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament. Edited by Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Estep, William R. Jr., ed. Anabaptist Beginnings (1523-1533): A Source Book. Nieuwkoop, Holland: B. De Graaf, 1976. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. Vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. N.p.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001. Nelson Reference & Electronic. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015 Fernando, Ajith. Acts. In The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. First Baptist Church of Quanah, Texas. Constitution and Bylaws of the First Baptist Church of Quanah, Texas. Rev. July 2004. Quanah, TX: First Baptist Church, 2004. Garland, David E. “Colossians.” In Colossians/Philemon. Of The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

  81

George, Timothy. Galatians. Vol. 30, The New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. N.p.: Broadman & Homan Publishers, 1994. Goodwin, Everett C. The New Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1995. Grudem, Wayne. 1 Peter. Vol. 17, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988. _____. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Harrison, Everett F. Romans. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. OakTree Software, Inc. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Hultgren, Albert J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003. Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomber, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Kermit A. Ecklebarger. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974. Longnecker, Richard N. The Acts of the Apostles. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank Gaebelien and J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. OakTree Software, Inc. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. _____. Galatians. Vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. N.p.: Word Incorporated, 1990. Nelson Reference & Electronic. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. McIntyre, Luther B., Jr. “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153, no.

609 (Jan.-Mar. 1996): 53-62. Accessed August 9, 2015. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=21&sid=229ded65-9ecb-4097-88af-c1bde2fe6fa0%40sessionmgr114&hid=107.

McKnight, Scot. 1 Peter. In The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. _____. Galatians. In The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

  82

Melick, Richard R., Jr. “Colossians.” In Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. Vol. 32, The New American Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1991. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. N.p.: Word Incorporated, 1988. Nelson Reference & Electronic. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. _____. Romans. In The NIV Application Commentary. Edited by Terry Muck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995. Mounce, Robert H. Romans. Vol. 27, The New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. N.p.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994. Mounce, William D. and Rick D. Bennett, Jr., eds. Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. N.p.: 2011. OakTree Software, Inc. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Nettles, Thomas J., Richard L. Pratt, Jr., Robert Kolb, and John D. Castelein. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Edited by Paul E. Engle and John M. Armstrtong. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. In New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Edited by Ben Witherington III. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. O’Brien, Peter T. “Colossians.” In Colossians, Philemon. Vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker. N.p.: Word Incorporated, 1982. Nelson Reference & Electronic. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. Oden, Thomas C. Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology. New York: HarperOne, 1992. Osburn, Carroll D. “Some Exegetical Observations on John 3:5-8.” Restoration Quarterly 31,

no. 3 (1989): 129-138. Accessed August 8, 2015. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=b049a005-1a2b-4930-b1c6-7fa56014924c%40sessionmgr111&hid=110.

Polhill, John B. Acts. Vol. 26, The New American Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1992.

  83

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 3, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930. _____. “The Epistle to the Romans.” In The Epistles of Paul. Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931. _____. The General Epistles and the Revelation of John. Vol. 6, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1960. _____. “The Gospel According to Mark.” In The Gospel According to Matthew/The Gospel According to Mark. Vol. 1, Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930. Rogers, Cleon L. Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Ryken, Philip Graham. Galatians. In Reformed Expository Commentary: A Series. Edited by Richard D. Phillips and Philip Graham Ryken. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2005. Schreiner, Thomas R. “1 Peter.” In 1, 2 Peter, Jude. Vol. 37, The New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003. Snodgrass, Klyne. “That Which is Born from Pneuma is Pneuma: Rebirth and Spirit in John 3:5-6.” The Covenant Quarterly 49, no. 1 (Feb. 1991): 13-29. Accessed July 8, 2015.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=9bc6d53f-b91d-4216-b298-c524cec9271c%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4104.

Stein, Robert H. Mark. In Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Summers, Ray. “1 Peter.” In Hebrews-Revelation/General Articles. Vol. 12, The Broadman Bible Commentary. Edited by Clifton J. Allen. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972. Thomas, John Christopher. “A Reconsideration of the Ending of Mark.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26, no. 4 (Dec. 1983): 407-19. Accessed July 4, 2015.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.mbts.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=9bc6d53f-b91d-4216-b298-c524cec9271c%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4104.

Umstattd, Rustin. “Baptism.” Lecture, Integrating Christian Faith and Practice, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO, August 5, 2015. United Church of God. “When Should We Be Baptized?” Beyond Today. Accessed July 13,

2015. http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-study-course/bible-study-course-lesson-8/when-should-we-be-baptized.

  84

Vaughan, Curits. Colossians. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J.D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. OakTree Software, Inc. Accordance 10 v. 10.4.6, 2015. White, Thomas, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcolm B. Yarnell III, eds. Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008. Witherington, Ben III and Darlene Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Wuest, Kenneth S. Vol. 1, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973.