Water Baptism is a Mere Christian Symbol?
Water baptism is an often raised theological topic in the New Testament and by Christians in general. In our post-Reformational world, there are an increasing number of views and nuanced variations of those views as to what baptism is and how it functions in the life of a Christian.
Some view it as merely a symbol of an invisible spiritual reality. Others hold it as an invisible reality made truly visible. Some view it as a non-essential symbolic picture of God’s grace. Others hold it as both a symbolic picture and essential means of God’s grace.
In this article, I want to simply observe and reflect on five important passages regarding baptism, think about the implications, and draw a few conclusions.
As it normally does, a bit of history will help us find our bearings.
A Bit of History
The Protestant Reformation saw the formation of new Christian traditions and doctrines. Most of these new doctrines can be traced to a few individual Protestant teachers.
Personally, I grew up in the doctrinal wake of a 16th century Swiss man’s interpretive tradition. That man, Ulrich Zwingli, approached reformation in a more extreme sense than his contemporary, Martin Luther. Where Luther was content with retaining traditional Church practices and teachings as long as they didn’t contradict the Bible (as he saw it of course), Zwingli took the next logical step. He “insisted that all that had no explicit scriptural support must be rejected.”
No sacred or ancient Church practice was safe from Zwingli’s interpretive axe. That included commonly used musical instruments he couldn’t find in the Bible (e.g., organ), practices he could find in but detracted (in his opinion) from a focus on the Bible, and most relevant of all for this discussion, the sacraments.
With the restraints of Church dogma no longer an issue, Zwingli’s own unrecognized neoplatonic views of Christianity — an undervaluing of the material world — led him to reject Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist. Those who followed his logic with greater clarity (anabaptists) ended up declaring all the long held sacraments of grace, which included baptism, as mere symbolic ordinances. Before the 16th century, beliefs like these were unheard of in Christian orthodoxy and were in fact deemed unorthodox by both Catholics and many Protestants alike.
Baptism In Scripture
So, how does the New Testament present baptism? Here are five passages all Christians must deal with when thinking about baptism.
1
First, the writer of John’s Gospel recounts a conversation between Jesus and a Pharisee named Nicodemus. The subject is entrance into the “kingdom of God”:
Nicodemus: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew (or from above or again) he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Nicodemus: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Being that Christ is at the epicenter of Christianity, listening carefully to a straightforward teaching is important. Also notice how John, or according to John, Jesus, really wants to make this point in particular during the dialogue with Nicodemus. “Truly, truly” is biblical speak for listen up, this is really important!
2
The second passage is found in Titus. This letter, claimed to be written by the apostle Paul, encourages Titus to authoritatively “teach what accords with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1). In it we find an echo of Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus:
…when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior…
Paul doesn’t seem to mince words here. Part of his “sound doctrine” is the baptism of water and the Spirit as the norm by which entrance into salvation is availed to humanity because of the mercy of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
3
Third, much like Paul’s allusion in Romans to the function of being in Christ through the example of previously being in Adam, Peter alludes to the function of baptism through the example of how Noah and his family were saved:
…in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal [pledge] to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…
The word translated here as corresponds is the word antitypos in Greek. It could also be translated as “is a fulfillment of this type” or “is a fulfillment of this pattern.” So to put it in simpler terms, just like how Noah and his family were really saved through actual water, says Peter, baptism really saves you through actual water.
4
Fourth takes us to Acts of the Apostles. After the dramatic filling of the Holy Spirit during the Feast of Weeks celebration, Peter gave a sermon to those who witnessed this momentous event. In it he argued the Jewish prophets predicted what they just witnessed, and that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled a Davidic foreshadowing through his resurrection. He finished by proclaiming the risen Jesus as both Lord and Messiah.
Acts records the reaction of some Jews who heard Peter’s sermon:
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Notably, this is the first direct answer in the first history of the Christian Church given by the first of Jesus’ apostles. No insignificant feature to brush aside.
Considering the Gospels for a moment, Peter is the most visible and vocal apostle. Whenever the twelve apostles are listed, Peter is first. He is given the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19). He is given deference by the other apostles in key moments (e.g., entering the empty tomb). And Jesus often sets him aside for vital roles and responsibility (e.g., Jn 21:15).
We see those roles and responsibilities come to fruition in the early Church. Not only does Acts show his leadership role more explicitly, the book also makes it clear average people recognized his leadership role:
“Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles… more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them.
Just one example of how these early Christian testimonies record the significance of Peter in the Church. Therefore, one would think what Peter says regarding baptism should be taken seriously, especially as it coincides well with Christ in John 3.
5
Fifth, it seems the earliest evangelists took seriously what Peter, and assumedly the rest of the apostles, taught and passed that teaching along. Acts tells a fascinating story of a Jewish God fearer and worshiper. He was an Ethiopian eunuch who also, apparently, read the Scriptures. What happens during an encounter between this Ethiopian and an evangelist is telling:
So Philip [the evangelist] ran to him [the Ethiopian], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him… Then Philip opened his mouth, and… told him the good news of Jesus. And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Apparently baptism was a pressing point made by Philip as he “told him the good news of Jesus.” The way Acts portrays the eunuch’s immediate reaction to a random body of water in light of hearing the Gospel, it would lead one to think, at least, that the eunuch understood Philip to communicate baptism consistently with Peter’s earlier sermon. For if Philip taught that baptism were a mere symbol, the eunuch’s urgency doesn’t make much sense. He already had an internal faith in Jesus and presumedly voiced repentance to Philip. If Phillip taught baptism as a mere symbol, why wouldn’t he say to the eunuch, “Brother, don’t worry about getting baptized in this random body of water. When you return to Jerusalem next, we will have a proper celebration (with all the apostles) and you can publicly profess your faith in Jesus by getting baptized. You already have an internal faith in Jesus. That’s all that’s needed for salvation.” Phillip doesn’t say anything like this, makes no correction or qualification upon the eunuch’s reaction, and proceeds to baptize him. We are instead given every reason to presume the norm: Philip baptized him “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of [his]sins.”
Extenuating Circumstances
All that being said, this “norm” isn’t presented in the Bible as always being possible because it isn’t in reality. Jesus realized this, and so did the early Church. St. Augustine of Hippo perhaps explains the teaching of Jesus and the early Church best when he writes:
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:5), made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, “Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father Who is in heaven” (Mt. 10:32).
The norm for Augustine, and seemingly the earliest Christians, was being washed in the sacred font of baptism for the remission of sins, which sounds identical to being Peter’s baptized for the forgiveness of sins. But there are also extenuating circumstances in the real world, and God is fully capable of recognizing those imperfect situations and examining the human heart as only he can (1 Kn 8:39).
A good example of this “normative but not absolute” understanding is the thief next to Jesus on the cross. Recognizing his own failures and desiring to be a part of Jesus’ kingdom, the thief turned to Jesus and said, “[R]emember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus replied, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Of course, the thief was not in a normative position either physically or mentally to follow Christ’s command about needing to be born of water and the Spirit. He was physically restrained and likely ignorant of Christ’s teaching on the matter! He looked to Jesus for aid and Jesus answered; a baptism of desire into God’s kingdom.
What one shouldn’t do, I think, is take an example like the thief and forget or subjugate clear, normative teachings elsewhere about what baptism is and what it does. In the passages above, baptism is not presented as a merely symbolic or celebratory addition to trust in Jesus. It is presented as something much stronger… however mysterious that may appear to our westernized minds.
So, what’s the takeaway?
When explicitly asked about entering God’s kingdom, Jesus answered clearly. When explicitly asked what to do upon hearing and believing the Gospel, Peter answered clearly. When Peter talked about baptism, it was that which “saves you.” When sound doctrine was exposited by Paul, it included salvation “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
Observing what Jesus, Peter, and Paul seem to explicitly communicate, it’s no wonder the substantial majority of Christians today, and the near unanimous voice of the initial 1500 years after Christ, including Luther and Calvin, believe that baptism is more than merely a symbol.
As for those Zwinglian-esque and anabaptist rooted Christians who grew up in the doctrinal lineage of mere symbolism, examining our 16th century tradition more closely may be in order.
