The Need for Christian Baptism

Friends,

*I have been away from the writing keyboard for a while…time to get back into the saddle with a really important topic.

One of the points of discussion that arose with the 5th grade class that I taught this past Wednesday at camp was, why did Jesus need to be baptized by John the Baptist?  I believe that there are some important reasons for this, one -- Jesus' baptism by John was the beginning of Jesus' ministry.  Mark 1:1 starts out: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" and then Mark starts telling us about Jesus' baptism by John. Obviously, for some reason, Jesus' ministry began with His baptism.  Here are some things to note -- at this point in Jewish history, water baptism served one of three purposes. First, there was the baptism of repentance. This was what John the Baptist was preaching.  Of course Jesus didn't need to repent, because He hadn't sinned.  The second kind of baptism was for people who desired to convert to Judaism.  It was a baptism of conversion.  If you were a Gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism, they baptized you in water. Once again, Jesus had no need to convert to Judaism. He already was one. He had been born a Jew.  So baptism in those days could be for repentance or conversion... and Jesus did not need to be baptized for those reasons. So, for what other reason would a person be baptized in water back then?  The only other people who experienced baptism - in the Jewish faith in that day were priests. The Law dictated that especially the High Priest was to "be washed with water." And the Temple had pools set aside for just that purpose. Jesus did fulfill this role, as He is our Great High Priest.  But, there are other important reasons for Jesus’ baptism – one, it sets a good example for those who were going to follow Him.  He had no sin, but his disciples did, and we do, as well.  And as one friend has pointed out, “it fulfills all righteousness.”  We need to see in Jesus’ action, an example of obedience. Likewise, we need to be obedient to the Father, a response in faith. Finally, after His baptism, the Father anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit as it descended on Him in form of a dove. And the Father put His mark of approval on Jesus by loudly declaring: "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17)  This signifies something for us as well, as we will discuss…the Holy Spirit comes upon us at our baptism and He helps us in our spiritual walk, ministry.

Jesus’ experience helps us to understand what Paul has to say as it relates to baptism with a certain group of disciples.  In Acts 19:1-7, Paul providentially connects with several disciples at the city of Ephesus. Just as Priscilla and Aquila apparently had discussed Christian baptism with Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), so Paul does here with these men. He asks them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed, that is, were converted, baptized. Paul apparently already expects them to have the Spirit...and would this not be consistent with Acts 2:38-39 and every other Christian baptism in Acts?  But, these believers have received the baptism of John only, and as we discussed, this was “for repentance.” The message concerning baptism is clear here and Paul baptizes them; they receive Christian baptism -- a water and Spirit birth (see Jesus and Nicodemus, John 3:1-8). Paul goes on to give these disciples a special, exceptional dispensation of power from the Spirit for this time. But, the point is this -- these disciples still had the same conversion experience that every Christian has in coming to the Lord. (See 1 Corinthians 12:13).

It is interesting that the baptism of John was not sufficient for them, but why would it be? It was administered by John the Baptist under the Old Law. Christian baptism involves not only repentance, as did John's baptism, but also the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is primarily what separates the two baptisms. It is awfully difficult to live according to the fruit of the Spirit or experience the gifts of the Spirit if we don't really acknowledge, understand, or trust the source.  I have known many Christians who talk about Acts 2:38, as Peter says "...be baptized for the remission of your sins..." and this is it. But, is it? Is the part concerning the Holy Spirit just an oversight? Is it assumed? Or, is it intentionally omitted? (Is it really even understood?)  Some believers may have received the baptism of John -- at least in language, hopefully not intent. Why take the chance? Is the power of Christian baptism not sufficient for us? It should be so. We need to consider it as Peter shares it right from the text -- there is nothing to lose, but everything to understand and gain as it relates to the Christian walk. I will say this, I wouldn't have an opportunity to walk upright, blameless or spiritually for the Lord without the help of His Spirit to guide me along the way. He is our guide -- not in an arbitrary, controlling sense -- but quietly, indirectly.  We are not robots, but free moral agents with freedom of choice. The Spirit uses the Word to teach us and help us (Ephesians 6:17), and helps us in our prayers (Romans 8:27). He also is our seal so that when the Lord comes again, He will identify those who are His by whether they have His Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). There certainly had to be a wonderful transformation for Apollos and the Ephesian disciples as they would continue to grow in knowledge, wisdom and experience with and in the Lord…as it should be for all of us.

As I continue in my own study of this important subject, questions arise. This is a subject where it is easy to propagate answers, but I think we are better off not to be dogmatic (and I certainly used to be)…rather, we should be students, learners. There are indeed so many things that happen when we come to the point of baptism -- many that we do not have the maturity to understand at that point, (including "forgiveness of sins" and "receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit" -- both part of the "formula" described in Acts 2:38-39...and this, not to mention "repentance" and "confession"). At times, some have treated baptism as some sort of “an end of the road” after a disciple has been "taught" everything that he should know. For these, baptism has been a law to fulfill the requirements of certain passages...which is not much different than what we see regarding Old Testament theology and practice. There must be more to it than this. We need to consider Apollos. As much as he already knew about "the Scriptures" and about God, he was surely in for a spiritual rebirth and for a totally new experience when he received Christian baptism (cf. Acts 18).

I believe baptism is much closer to the beginning of our journey. It is truly a spiritual event in every way. La Gard Smith calls it "the believers wedding ceremony" -- a fitting description, I believe. How much can we know at baptism? (How much does a baby know at birth?) We barely understand the elementary things, but certainly not the deep things of God; these are revealed over time by the Holy Spirit. And how do we qualify or quantify His work? We cannot...it is discerned and appropriated by faith. This is a significant part of what comprises the heart of the new covenant. We do grow in our understanding of critical principles as we walk with the Lord. Consider the disciples as they became the apostles sent out with the mission of Jesus (Acts 1-2). The Spirit came and illuminated their minds and their eyes were opened to the experiences they had had with Jesus. He does the same for us as our Helper (John 14-16), if we are open and willing to study as we walk with Christ over the course of our lives.

In many circles of the fellowship I belong to, baptism has been one of the "most legalized" events, experiences, etc. in modern Christian practice.  It is easy to see why it is such, given a lot of people’s propensity to need book, chapter, and verse to explain everything about our faith and practices.  But, if the Holy Spirit is involved in it...then it is a spiritual event...and it no longer becomes something that we can “pigeon hole” as "this is precisely how it is supposed to be,” or “this is exactly what happens every single time." It certainly wasn't that way in the early church, as we discern from Paul's experiences in Acts 8, Acts 10. I respect that there are certain elements involved in it, and a number of Scriptures (some that we have discussed) that indicate what these are...but, at the end of the day, the most important "element" is what the Holy Spirit is doing through the blood of Jesus in the life of believer...however that is to be for each individual.  God’s blessings be with you as you continue on your journey of understanding the Lord’s will and this important subject.

Blessings, Don

Reconciling the Abijah Accounts

Friends,

I am going in a different direction from the norm here, but hopefully it will be a blessing to you.  Something struck me while I was reading 2 Chronicles.  It was an insight that provides an illustration for something that I have come to understand for a while now concerning interpretation…and it is interesting that I would find something of an Old Testament illustration to help provide insight for a New Testament principle.  This is certainly not the first time this has happened.  As I have stated in other places, if I had a dollar for all of the poor exegesis and illustrations using Noah and gopher wood, as well as Uzzah and the ark, to try to justify new covenant authority, I would be further ahead in my retirement account.  That said, the following illustration is actually in context, and concerns two distinct, but related passages. 

What we see in 2 Chronicles 13 is that Abijah becomes king of Judah, following his father, Rehoboam.  In the Chronicles account, Abijah appears to be a man of God who leads the armies of the Lord to victory over the armies of North Israel.  There are twenty-two verses displaying the heroics of what took place under Abijah’s reign.  But, something occurred to me while reading this…there are only four kings of Israel and Judah in the divided kingdom that were considered “good kings” (and all were from Judah, by the way).  They were Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah.  Abijah is not on the list.  This is because we need to go to the Kings’ account concerning Abijah to get the other side of the coin.  The account in 1 Kings 15 is about a third as long as the account in 2 Chronicles.  It is here that we see that he “committed all the sins of his fathers.” There is very little information about Abijah and the war with Israel here…it is pretty succinct, and the basis of the message is – Abijah was a bad guy like his father (and most of those who came after him).

So, the question that comes into focus is – how does one reconcile these two accounts?  Many people would have to deduce that one of the stories is correct, while the other one must be in error, because there could only be one possible explanation that is correct.  Yet, I believe that this is the beauty of both accounts -- they can both be reconciled. Both stories concerning Abijah are true…it is simply that the Chronicler has a different focal point than does the author of 1 Kings.  (It is similar, in some respects, as to what we see with the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Each is accurate, but from the unique perspective of the author…even as to whether there were one or two angels at the open tomb).

One of the difficulties that came as the result of being raised in a church culture and exposed to a model of interpretation where an “either/or” deduction reigned was that it would often pin us into the corner and we would have to take a stand that only one thought could be correct.  And therefore, by the rules of deduction that were in place, the other position, by necessity, would have to be wrong.  So, it could only be gopher wood, and therefore, it could only be Matzos used for the Lord’s Supper (for example). The Chronicler offers a perspective concerning Abijah that is unique in that he is not really as interested in what Abijah is doing, as he is in what God is doing in the situation concerning the war with the kings in the divided kingdom.  It may be true that Judah was “seeking the will of the Lord” in relationship to their battle with Israel, but it would not necessarily mean that Abijah was “a righteous and holy leader for God’s people.”  Abijah himself is not as important in the Chronicles account as much as God is and what He is doing through Abijah in the situation.  It is not the first time that God would have used people with some significant struggles, who would even be at odds with Him…Jacob and Jonah are two others that come to mind.  Besides, if God did not respond to sinful people who sought Him and trusted in Him, we would all be in trouble.  So, Judah has a moment in the sun, where they seek the Lord and He responds by delivering them from a force that was twice their size…once again, a story that is repeated in the Scriptures. It is about what God can and will do with and for His people.

So, what does this mean as it relates to the new covenant?  There are accounts where it seems that there might be discrepancies.  I will offer two thoughts briefly that can be expanded at a later time.  How often a person participates in the Lord’s Supper, for example – was it daily (Acts 2), or was it once per week on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  The text in 1 Corinthians 11:17ff offers some insight, but it is not definitive as to which is should be.  It is easy to get pushed into an “either/or” scenario, when “both/and” may be quite acceptable, as well as accurate.  Paul spends the better part of the last section of Romans (particularly chapter 14) explaining how these matters can be so…that there can be a church that has members where some are vegetarians and others eat meat, (or where some meet at the building on Sunday evenings and others meet in homes) -- and it all works.  Even more challenging – are the believers in Acts 2 in the same spiritual situation as those in Acts 8 and Acts 10?  It is apparent that all are in good standing with the Lord and the church at that time…but what of today?  Many believers would say – those Christians are not acceptable…I cannot fellowship with them.  Yet, it is hard to see how we could or would not accept what those in the first century church did accept.  Furthermore, how can we “critique beyond a doubt” using “deductive methods” an event that is altogether spiritual and led by the Holy Spirit?  It is not any different today than it was then.  It is important to consider that there is more than one proper perspective that could be available and acceptable to the Lord and His body as it relates to the above matters, as well as many others…some things to study, ponder and consider.

Blessings, Don

Resting His Case

Friends,

Alan Smith offers this -- I heard a story about a young mother with three children. The phone rang one day and a voice on the other end of the phone said, "Honey, it's Mom. I called because I know that you're busy with the kids, and I want to give you some help. I'm going to stop by to clean the house, take care of the baby, and prepare dinner for when the boys get home from school. "I want you to get ready to go to my beautician, I've paid her already, and she's going to give you 'the works,' your appointment is at 1:00. Give George a call at the office and tell him that you'll meet him at Olive Garden for dinner, it's on me..." At that point, the young mother interrupted and said, "George, who is George?"  "Your husband."  She said, "My husband's name is John."  "Oh. Is this 365-3212?"  "No this is 365-3213."  The caller said, "Oh, I'm so sorry. I've got the wrong number."  After a pause, the young mother said, "Does this mean that you're not coming over?"  Do you ever feel like you could use a phone call like that? Do you ever find yourself wishing someone would just come along and take care of things for you so that you can have a little rest?  I remember back in the 1970's, there was a big concern that computers and technology would radically change how many hours a week people would work.  In fact, there was testimony given to a Senate sub-committee forecasting that within 20 years, the average American would be working only 22 hours a week.  They said, "The great challenge would be figuring out what to do with all the excess time."  Now here we are, 40 years later, after major advances in technology – and how many of us are wondering what to do with all the excess time on our hands?  Our world has become the world of the Red Queen of Alice in Wonderland, who said, "It takes all the running you can do to stay in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that."

Rest is a theological principle that should lead to a practical principle, but it seems hard to come by.  It is interesting to note that this section of Scripture immediately follows Jesus message from Matthew 11:28-29, which says…"Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."  When Jesus says, "I will give you rest", I believe that He is talking about more than just heaven.  Keeping the Sabbath was a sacred principle for the Jews under the Old covenant…it was an integral part of the fabric of their culture and religion. As we are probably aware, commandment #4 of the Top Ten was, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8ff)  The theological foundation for this principle concerning “rest” is that God created the heavens and earth in six days…and on the seventh, He “rested.”  So God’s people were to consider the seventh day, Saturday as it would fall on our calendars, as a rest from their labors. God intended for this to be a “spiritual principle” that would be beneficial to His people so that they could be restored.

Yet, by the time of Christ, a couple of millennia down the road, the Sabbath was no longer the spiritual/practical principle that God intended for His people.  It had become representative of the many legal traditions that the Jews were now imposing on themselves and others.  They made what was supposed to be a “spiritual principle” a heavy laden burden of rules and regulations that it was never intended to be.  So, it is from this perspective that Jesus presents His case concerning not only the Sabbath, but the entire Jewish “legal” system of regulations. In fact, as we see, Jesus deliberately violates the Sabbath “traditions” on several occasions…here, Luke 4, Luke 13, John 5 and John 9.  From the time that Jesus spent with the people teaching them from “the Sermon on the Mount” up to now, He was teaching them that mere external laws could never save them or make them holy. True righteousness has to come from the heart!

The Hebrew word – sabat means, “repose” or “rest.”  This explains why Matthew introduces these Sabbath conflicts at this point. (12:1-8) To satisfy your hunger from your neighbor’s field was lawful (Deuteronomy 23:24-25), but to do it on the Sabbath was a breach of the Law…according to the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees.  This would mean having to do work.  Jesus’ response is poignant and powerful.  The consecrated bread was to be eaten only by the priests, yet David and his soldiers at it. If David “broke the law” and was not condemned, the Lord would be guiltless for breaking man’s traditions.  Surely the Son of David has the right to eat His Father’s grain from the field!  The Old Testament priests had to offer a given number of sacrifices on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), and yet were not condemned.  Their service was in obedience to the Law given by God, which suggests that man’s traditions about the Sabbath ran in contradiction even to God’s own law. Finally, the great quote from Hosea 6:6, “I desire compassion and not sacrifice,” reveals Jesus’ heart on this matter. (He also quotes this in Matthew 9:13).  Once again, it is all a matter of the heart. Sabbath law was given to Israel as a mark of her relationship to God (Exodus 20, also 31:13-17, Nehemiah 9:12-15).  But, it was also an act of mercy for both man and beast, to give them needed rest each week.  Any religious law that would be contrary to mercy should be considered with concern and even skepticism – God desires mercy, not sacrifice…love, not strife over traditions and words. We will come back to this later.

Diane Eaton shares this -- As a piano teacher, my job involves training students to work less.  It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. For example, overworking arm muscles interferes with finger development. The student must "make every effort" to train the arms to relax so that the fingers can work freely and expressively. Unchecked tension causes the music to sound forced, weak, and unsteady. It can eventually cause pain, injury, and even the end of a musical career.  I see a spiritual parallel. Christians are cautioned to "make every effort to enter [Christ's] rest". This is not a passive affair. It takes "every effort" to cease from fruitless striving and enter into Christ's rest. As we come to rest in Him, then He can make beautiful "music" through us.  Concerning the beginning piano student: At his first lesson, he discovers that his fingers are so weak that they may make no sound at all — especially the pinky finger. His reaction is predictable. Instinctively, his arm pushes down on the hand in an attempt to compensate. With such force bearing down on it, it merely collapses on the keys. A little finger cannot develop its potential until the bigger muscles learn to rest. This really does take "every effort" — involving intentional and careful practice.  Do you see yourself as an over-functioning muscle? Are you habitually overworking? I'm not referring to physical work. Perhaps you strain your mind with anxiety and doubt. Perhaps you work too hard trying to prove your love-worthiness, or you are habitually working to absolve your sense of guilt. All these besetting habits deplete your energy and squelch God's Spirit.  Perhaps you have a habit of overcompensating for weaker "muscles": You do what others should learn to do. Perhaps you do the thinking for them, or the worrying. Such efforts merely hinder them from growing into maturity. In the long run, the entire Body of Christ suffers.  Just as for piano students, it takes "every effort" to surrender fruitless habits and to adopt new, effective life habits. Really, it's a joint effort involving support, encouragement, mentoring, faith, prayer, and so forth. This is how we come to function harmoniously — and make beautiful "music" together — displaying God's glory to a fallen humanity.

This is the challenge for each of us…finding ways to rest in the midst of the hustle and bustle of life.  Finding ways to work hard at working less from the correct perspective is a challenge, but also a blessing.  So, while we may not keep a “literal” Sabbath rest in the religious sense, we can and should do so from a practical and spiritual perspective, because the original principle is still important as it relates to how we live, move and breathe.

Blessings, Don