Baptism

I’ve been thinking a lot about baptism lately.

I wonder if the modern church is missing some of the profound significance of this sacred rite.

As I understand it, the argument splits the church into two factions – those that believe the act of baptism is salvative, and those that believe baptism to be a symbol of an inner working of the Spirit.

I think I’m in the middle.

While I don’t think that simply immersing someone in water can, in and of itself, guarantee life everlasting to those who partake, I wonder what the significance is if it’s just a symbol.

The importance of baptism to the early church is clear, with nearly 100 references to baptism in the New Testament. Jesus Himself began His ministry by being baptized, and He commanded us to baptize in the Great Commission.

The argument that I hear against baptism as a requirement for salvation is the thief on the cross, who clearly had not been baptized when he died, and yet Jesus declared that he would be saved.

I get it.

But why the command?

If you CAN be saved without baptism, why would Jesus tell us to do it?

I think perhaps the disconnect is in our western mindset.

As I’ve discussed previously, Hebrew thought is very different from western thought.

I believe we have to look at baptism through Hebrew eyes in order to discern what it meant to the first followers of Jesus.

In the Old Testament, physical acts were very clearly assigned spiritual properties. I would say the entire Levitical law is based on this premise. The Jews, through following the laws, remained pure and blameless before God. By refusing to eat certain food, or touch certain things, or behave in certain ways, God declared that they were righteous.

Now, we know that they really weren’t. We see in the New Testament that the law was only meant to be a shadow of the truth, a tutor that showed us the way into the light before we could really comprehend what light was. I still love the analogy of Plato’s cave when considering these revelations. The law was the shadow on the cave wall, showing us the outline of things, but was never the thing itself. And so when Jesus said that the law was not being replaced, he meant that the shadow wouldn’t change, since the truth it’s based on is never going to change. The law didn’t perish, we simply don’t have to rely solely on the law now that we’ve been given the revelation of Jesus. The law made it possible for us to recognize Jesus when He came. This is why He was so hard on the Pharisees – because they knew the law so well, yet didn’t recognize Him as its foundation and Creator.

Was the law just a symbol?

No.

Does the law save us?

No.

Galatians makes our position on the law very clear – the law never saved anyone.

So if we look at baptism as we look at the law, I think we begin to see it for what it truly is.

Baptism is a shadow of what truly is.

Not merely a symbol, but a tangible, physical expression of a spiritual reality.

In the Old Testament, kings were crowned through an anointing. Oil was poured over their heads, and their were kings.

So we too receive an anointing upon our entry into the kingdom of Heaven.

We are baptized into the body of Christ by participating in an act that connects us physically, intimately with His death and resurrection.

Can that connection occur without the physical manifestation of the spiritual reality?

In extreme circumstances, sure.

Perhaps in those situations, the physical manifestation simply takes on a different form. Perhaps the thief on the cross was baptized in blood. But I believe there was some physical sign of His spiritual condition when He freely chose to believe that Jesus was who He said He was.

The law helps us to define and assimilate truths bigger than the law itself, but it was never meant to be the sole mechanism of salvation for the people of God. It was a sign, pointing forward to the cross.

Baptism is a sign pointing back to the cross.

One of the pictures I hear used today in explaining baptism is the wedding ring.

It is a symbol of being married, but taking off the ring doesn’t negate the marriage.

What I would ask is, consider when that ring comes into the picture.

“With this ring, I thee wed.”

If two people are trapped on a desert island and fall in love, want to be married, but don’t have a ring, can they still make a vow before God and be pronounced man and wife?

I believe they can.

But for most of us, the ceremony is how we get there.

And within the ceremony, the ring is what speaks.

For twenty years, the ring on my hand has spoken of the vow I made to my wife.

It doesn’t make me married.

But it’s so much more than a symbol.

Jesus spoke of baptism as more than simple conversion.

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” He said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” They said to him, “Permit one of us to sit at your right hand and the other at your left in your glory.” But Jesus said to them, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I experience?” They said to him, “We are able.” Then Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism I experience, but to sit at my right or at my left is not mine to give. It is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

Mark 10:35-40 (NET)

I believe baptism, in this context, is so much more than a literal immersion in water. Their lives, all that they experienced in following Jesus, were their baptisms. It was a physical manifestation of the spiritual reality that Jesus here affirms.

And so when I make decisions in my walk as a man to honor my wife, to stay faithful to her, to support and encourage her through sickness and health, for richer or poorer, until death, my actions become extensions of the ring on my hand. My life is my ring.

And that is no mere symbol.