Baptism:
"The Washing of Regeneration"

In order to find the basic, underlying meaning of baptism one must try to imagine what the sacrament would mean to people in the first century A.D. or even to those in the previous century, the first century B.C. when the Jewish religion first began to use ceremonies of baptism. The baptism of Gentile proselytes to Judaism certainly was not intended to symbolize the coming of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of Christ but was a dramatic statement of the Jewish belief that Gentiles were unclean and by coming into the covenant of Israel with Jehovah they became clean. No more dramatic depiction of the idea could be found. The Essenes of the Dead Sea community of Qumran, had a strong emphasis on numerous acts of baptism. This sect of Jews often betrays the influence of Persian dualism which later was to plague the church in the form of Gnosticism and its various intellectual cousins through the years. The Essenes showed a great need to purge away the uncleanness of the material aspects of them and for that they used baptism. John the Baptist may well have had his youthful training among these people inasmuch as he was said to have been "in the wilderness till the day of his manifestation to Israel" (Luke 1: 80). Considering the fact that his first preaching was "in the wilderness" (Mark 1: 4) only a few miles from the Dead Sea Community the evidence is strong that he once lived at Qumran. Certainly it is not likely that as a child he lived alone in one of the many caves which dot the area. 

Because of this, John's ordinance almost certainly has continuity with these earlier forms of baptism in its basic meaning. John clearly interpreted baptism as an admission of sinfulness (Matthew 3: 14) and as a ritual washing away of sins. (Mark 1: 4) 

It seems clear that the Christian ordinance is to be understood in terms of John's ordinance. It was at the first, after all, contemporaneous with John's baptism until it finally replaced John's baptism all together. There is no reason to suppose that Christian baptism had a different form or radically different meaning. We are to understand that it conveys the same meaning of washing. In the language of the New Testament, it symbolized "the washing of regeneration." This is confirmed by the many allusions to the idea of washing in the Apostolic writings and practice as well as in the period of church history immediately following the Apostles. 

Baptism is intended to both signify and dramatize the washing away of sins as a result of Christ's atonement applied to the believer. The believer is freed from his sins because those sins are imputed to Christ in the moment of redemption. At the same time Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to the individual. In an instant, the sinner not only receives forgiveness of sin; but more than that, he becomes perfectly righteous as Jesus Christ is righteous. At the same time, the Holy Spirit comes upon him and makes him, who was dead, alive. One may, therefore, refer to baptism as the sacrament of the coming of the Holy Spirit and of life with Christ. 

However, the idea that the form of baptism is intended to dramatize these things confuses the ordinance. The coming of the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a baptism (John 1: 23), no doubt because of his cleansing work rather than for any symbolism of the coming of the Holy Spirit in the form of baptism. 

The common notion that the form of baptism signifies death, burial and resurrection with Christ would have struck the first century mind as imaginative even if strained. The idea that baptism by immersion backward signifies this death, burial and resurrection is based upon the modern custom of burying people on their backs under the surface of the ground. In fact, the burial of Christ was, like all the burials of his day, in the side of a hill. He did not come "up from the grave" as the popular Easter hymn would have it. He came OUT from the grave. (Matthew 27: 60) This view is thought to be supported by Romans 6: 3-4. A careful examination of the passage will show, however, that the idea is that the believer is united to Christ by the ordinance of baptism. The believer does not, in baptism, symbolize Christ's death burial and resurrection; he experiences them through spiritual union with his Representative and Redeemer Jesus Christ. As Christians , we are baptized into his death (6: 3); we are buried with him (6: 4); we died in the person of our Redeemer. When he was buried, we were buried. When he rose from the dead, we rose from the dead with him. (6: 4) We are, therefore, said to have been crucified with him (6: 6) and to have died with him (6: 8). And we have a guarantee that as he lives we shall live. (6: 8) In all of this, the idea is not that we act out these successive stages in Christ's ministry on our behalf but that by our union with him, effected (sacramentally) by our baptism, we participate vicariously in these things. 

The form and formula of baptism have long been the subjects of controversy. The controversy about the formula has to do with the book of Acts' usual representation of people baptized "in the name of Jesus" (e.g. 2: 38; 8: 16; 19: 5, etc.) while the orthodox church has universally baptized people "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as commanded in the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 19). 

The apparent discrepancy between the Gospels and the orthodox churches on the one hand and the statement in Acts on the other, is of simple solution. The Great Commission gives the formula of baptism while the numerous references to baptisms "in the name of Jesus" (or, "of the Lord") designate Christian baptism as distinct from Johannine baptism or some other pre-Christian form. Acts is not giving a formula but is merely specifying what kind of baptism these people now received. Some of these alternate baptisms may even have mentioned God in the formula. Christian baptism, that is, baptism in the triune name would in that case be designated as baptism "in the name of Jesus" since this was the thing which apparently set it apart from all other practices of baptism. 

Trine baptism is baptism three times, once for each member of the Trinity. It has been practiced by both immersionists and effusionists, though it should be noted that the trine immersionists mercifully baptize the subject face forward instead of subjecting him to the thrice terrifying backward plunge used by mono-immersionists. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (often known by its Greek name, The Didache) from the early second century prescribes trine baptism when the mode of pouring is used but it is not clear if it was three times repeated when another mode was used. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence in the New Testament to prove trine baptism and the analogy of Christian baptism with Johannine baptism (e.g. John 3: 23) would lead one to assume that the primitive ordinance among Christians was not trine baptism. Assuredly, John did not baptize three times for the three Persons of the Trinity and probably the Lord did not either. Nor do we see any evidence that the Apostles changed the ordinance after the resurrection. 

The issue of exclusive immersion as over against other forms is one which has divided Christians. Immersionists have on their side even Calvin and Luther among the reformers and also they have the practice of the English Church. Calvin and Luther did not practice immersion, of course, but affirmed their belief that immersion was the primitive form of baptism. They argued that immersion was unnecessary and inconvenient in colder climates. (No doubt they had never interviewed anyone who had spent a winter in Palestine.) Their opinion notwithstanding, there is incontrovertible evidence that the primitive ordinance was not immersion. 

The first sure reference we have in early church history for immersion is in Canon 50 of the Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles, a work written no earlier than the third century. The canon strictly charges bishops and presbyters with performing trine immersion in the name of the Three Persons, presumably one dip for each Person. However, the very wording of the canon suggests that it was not a practice universally observed. One could not be sure if the practice of immersion was just then gaining acceptance or if it had been previously practiced and had fallen into disuse. 

A careful examination of the New Testament supports the idea that either there were two alternate forms of baptism in the earliest period or there was essentially just one form of baptism which was not immersion and was made adaptable to indoors as well as out of door situations. One might argue for the notion that there were two forms but such diversity is unlikely at such an early date. The burden of proof certainly lies with those who would suggest that there were two forms of the ordinance. There was likely only one form. What was that form? 

It cannot be denied that the baptism of John the Baptist, at least got the individual drenched. That does not necessarily mean that the subject was immersed. The oft-quoted words "down into the water" and "up out of the water" do not refer to the act of baptism itself as many suppose but to the subject's wading down into the water where the baptism took place. This meaning is clear from Acts 8: 38 where Philip, the officiant, as well as the Ethiopian Eunuch is said to have "gone down into the water." 

The fact is, that there are several places in the New Testament where it is virtually certain that immersion could not have been performed and several other places where it is highly unlikely that immersion was performed. Of the first category is the Ethiopian mentioned above, who was baptized in a desert (Acts 8: 26). The body of water mentioned in the account could hardly have been of sufficient size for immersion. One who disagrees is perhaps not familiar with the incredible scarcity of water in the ancient Near East. It is likewise unthinkable that there was a body of water sufficiently large for an immersion in the Philippian jail where the suddenly-converted jailer was baptized at midnight (Acts 16: 33). 

In at least two places, the language of the New Testament implies baptism in some other form than immersion. In Acts 9: 18 Saul of Tarsus seems to have been baptized in a standing (or perhaps, kneeling) position. He was told to "rise and be baptized." In Acts 10: 47 Peter seems to imply that water was to be brought to him with which to baptize the assembled friends and household of Cornelius. The high improbability of three thousand or more (inasmuch as women and children were, no doubt, also baptized) immersions in Acts 2: 41 ff. would tend to support the above passages in showing a baptism other than immersion. One wonders at the confusion that would reign at such an immersion and the abundance of water which would be required for immersing so many people. 

Still we have the example of John baptizing in the River Jordan and at "Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there." (John 3: 3) John's form of baptism seemed to require a great deal of water. 

We must consider whether there were two different forms of baptism, immersion and effusion. This is, of course, possible. But it is not likely. It is more likely that the mode was always basically the same. If the mode was pouring, the varying quantities which were used by, say, John the Baptist in the Jordan River baptisms and Peter in the baptism at the house of Cornelius, were insignificant. If one used immersion and the other used pouring then they would be quite different ceremonies. The likelihood is that in the outdoor baptisms, the candidate waded out into the body of water to, perhaps, waist deep and a large amount of water was scooped over his head with the hands or a vessel of some sort. In indoor baptisms we would imagine that a smaller amount of water was poured over the head. How much or how little was used in each case is unimportant and also impossible to guess. 

The earliest post-apostolic witness which we possess would suggest that these alternate ways of using the basically similar ordinance were still in use in the second century. The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles prescribes baptism in "living water" (probably running water) or by pouring three times in each of the names of the Trinity when baptism in living water is not possible. (Chapter 7) 

In later times people saw the New Testament in a different light due to, perhaps, their wetter climate or perhaps even due to their own hostility to the decadent mainline church. For these or other reasons, they supposed that immersion was the primitive form of baptism and the form must be followed if baptism was to be baptism at all. 

The opinion of the writer is that baptism in the names of the Trinity in any quantity of water is indeed baptism, though one ought to normally follow the practice of the Apostles as much as possible. Often forms of baptism are used which are so bizarre that they inescapably call attention to themselves. The writer has on occasion immersed a subject in such freezing water that the minds of the celebrant, the candidate and the witnesses were unanimously preoccupied with the likelihood of martyrdom for the cause of baptism. Other cases of candidates coughing, gasping, and struggling as a result of careless administration of the ordinance, might have been eliminated by the choice of a form closer to the Biblical ideal. 

On the other hand, the writer has observed baptisms out of horribly unpleasant vessels or with such a meager amount of water one would fail to associate it with any idea of washing. It would be best to try to follow the New Testament example insofar as we can in a vastly different culture. 

Simplicity, dignity and spirituality which avoids both the theatrical on the one hand and the crass on the other, are minimal requirements for the celebration of God's ordinance. Some forms of baptism more than others more readily promote these important things in any particular culture and it is natural and wise that the form would be influenced by the cultural situation.