Baptism in the Bible

Dr. Couch, where did baptism come from?

ANSWER: The idea of “the washing” comes from the washings from the OT. The water did not actually spiritually cleanse one, but it was a picture of such a cleansing. There are two words used in the OT context. The Greek word used in the LXX was baptizomai and the related word bapto. The baptismal work of the Holy Spirit is prophesied in Ezekiel 36:25. This is tied in to the coming of the New Covenant that was made for Israel, based on the death and the sacrifice of Christ. The New Covenant would replace the Law Covenant. See Jeremiah 31-on.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 is tied together: “I will sprinkle (“slosh” zarach) clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (v. 25). Physical water does not make one spiritually clean. The verses go on and say, “And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes …” (v. 27). “And you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers …” (v. 28). The great Jewish/Christian scholar Dr. Charles Feinberg (who was one of my profs in grad school) writes: Ezekiel 36:25 “is a parallel to Jeremiah 31:31-34. … This is the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Israel in the future. … The gift of the Spirit is frequently connected with the coming of the new economy (dispensation) for Israel (see 39:29; Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:16 f.).”

This is the spiritual baptism carried out by the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Christ. It launches the New Covenant that was first for Israel but would be applied to the church. The church does not fulfill the New Covenant but presently benefits from it. Israel under the dispensation of the kingdom will in the future fulfill the New Covenant when the Jewish people come to Christ in the land. We are not now in the kingdom! The New Covenant was ratified by Christ’s death and launched at Pentecost, and will be fulfilled when Israel is back in the land and trusting in their Messiah!

Keep the dispensational lines straight and the Bible will all come together. Mix up the dispensations and you have chaos, and, you’ll get rid of Israel and certainly not understand how the Word of God goes together! Only dispensationalists have it right. The covenant guys have it all wrong and they allegorize and spiritualize the great prophecies of Scripture. They are into replacement theology and get rid of Israel just like the Catholic Church does.

Thus, the idea of a washing comes from the OT. But that washing is symbolic of the washing of the Holy Spirit, a baptism! This is what truly saves one, based on faith in Christ. Water baptism does not save! It is but the sign of the spiritual work and the spiritual reality carried out by the spiritual washing, and the union that follows with Christ, all done by the work of the Spirit.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Baptism and the Washing Away of Sin

Dr. Couch, Acts 22:16 seems to say that water baptism “washes” away our sins. How do you answer?

ANSWER: To understand 22:16 you have to start with 3:19. 3:19 reads, speaking to the nation of Israel: “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away (blotted out, ‘exaleipho’), …” Repent and return are both Second person Plurals, Aorist Imperatives. Or, “All of you repent and all of you return [back to God] [with the result that] your sins will be blotted out (wiped away).” “Wiped away” is an Aorist Passive Infinitive. Or, “Your sins will be acted upon, blotted away, by God”—“They are to be acted upon by the Lord. He will cause them to be gone!” This is based on their repentance and their returning to God! Of course the message they are to believe in is the fact that “Christ should suffer” [for you], and this “He has thus fulfilled” (v. 18).

This idea then is picked up and applied to Paul here in 22:16. Ananias tells Paul that “it was appointed for him to know God’s will, and to hear an utterance from His mouth. Because he was to be a witness for Him to all men of what he has seen and heard” (v. 15).

22:16 reads from the Greek: “Having gotten up, you are to be baptized yourself, and yourself have your sins washed away, and called yourself upon His name.” All of these verbs show parallel action going on at once. The Middle Voice is used continually, “yourself.” They are all Aorist Tenses. It is all happening at once. 3:19 certainly clarifies what is happening in 22:16. Baptism alone could not be saving Paul or any Israelite, and no other passage would give that idea.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Baptism and Regeneration

Dr. Couch, is the baptism of the Holy Spirit and regeneration the same?

ANSWER: No, but they both happen instantly upon salvation. Baptism of the Spirit has to do only with the church and not with Israel. The OT saints are not said to be baptism into Christ or His body. This does a cleansing work (baptism) on the believer and imparts the gifts of the Spirit. The key passage is 1 Cor. 12:12-27, and on.

Note some of the phrases: "One body, many members," "God has composed the body." "Should be no division in the body." "You are Christ's body and individual members of it." "God has appointed in the church ..."

Regeneration is mainly found in Titus 3:5. Spirit baptism and regeneration are two different works. From the Greek: "He has saved us according to His mercy by the washing of the 'again birth,' the "rebirth." The word "generation" is in the word "again-birth [genesia]" and the other word is "again making," renewing, or "remaking" done by the Holy Spirit. The Greek word here is "the up-newing". The word "new" is in this second word.

From genesia we get the English word "to generate."

When the rapture takes place only those "in Christ" are taken up, not the OT saints. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 we have actually two doctrines mentioned. (1) the fact that when Christ comes He has with Him the souls and spirits of "those who have fallen asleep 'in Jesus'" (v. 14), the church saints. And they receive their new bodies to return with Him back to glory. And when the rapture trumpet sounds the "dead in Christ" shall rise first (v. 16). "We who are alive," the church saints who have not died, shall be caught up (harpazo, raptured) in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we (the church saints) shall always be with the Lord (v. 17).

Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (2/11)

Baptism for the Dead

Dr. Couch, what is the baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29? ANSWER:  Good question and an issue that has stumped many through the years. There are three views: (1) People are substituted for those who have been previously baptized. (2) This is a vicarious baptism, like Mormonism. You can save uncle Bill be being baptized for him. (3) To be baptized for the dead is clarified by the expression "For the dead," using the preposition "uper" which can be translated with the idea "of in place of those who have been baptized but then died and went to heaven." In other words, other believers are coming along after those who have gone before.    The Mormon-like baptism is not found in any other teaching, or place, in the NT. It does not make sense for Paul to introduce some doctrine that has never before been mentioned in any place in the Bible. His audience must have understood what he was writing about, the problem is that we just don't!    The best way to understand this is that through the centuries many people have trusted Christ and then were baptized. They have died and gone on to glory. We are another generation that has followed, and we believed and then were baptized, replacing them as the church goes forward.    On a Mormon-like baptism, some modern commentators say that by the second century there were some being so baptized. But, Mitchell in his commentary points out, "One searches in vain for any independent historical or biblical parallel to the practice of baptisms for the dead. There was nothing like this among the Greeks and Romans. "It is extremely doubtful that the apostle would have made reference to this heretical practice without condemning it in the same breath."    Thanks for asking.    Dr. Mal Couch  (6/10)

Acts 2:38 and Salvation

Dr. Couch, is Acts 2:38 saying that baptism produces salvation? ANSWER: Oh, heavens no! But you need some Greek to understand grammatically what's going on in the verse. Ger, in our commentary series from AMG, gets it right. He writes: "Peter is not saying that the physical act of baptism results in forgiveness of sin, but rather, that baptism is the closely related physical sign of the spiritual reality of repentance, which results in forgiveness. "Repentance is linked with the forgiveness of sin based upon grammatical agreement in both gender and number (both are second person plural). The 'eis' indicates that forgiveness of sin is the result of repentance. This makes the command to be baptized (third person singular) a parenthetical idea. The verse could then be paraphrased as follows, 'Repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and be baptized.' Peter only associates repentance or belief with the forgiveness of sin, making no mention of baptism as a condition of forgiveness (3:19; 5:31; 10:43)." Be careful of legalists and those who do by study by fear! They are usually very ignorant and try to put a legalistic spin on verses in Scripture. They always move to the extreme and have no sense of how doctrine and truth really work in the Word of God. Such folks avoid! I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch

What Type of Baptism is Going On In Ephesians 5:26

Dr. Couch, what is going on in Ephesians 5:26? What baptism is this? Some hyper-dispensationalists say that immersion was only during the period of John the Baptist and is not now applicable during the church age. ANSWER: They are wrong! Paul spoke of his baptizing some of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:1:13-17. He separates water baptism from the gospel in this passage. Paul writes, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, …" (v. 17). And of course Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26-39. Philip was a deacon in the Jerusalem church but he baptized outside of a church setting, and did so near the seashore. Ephesians 5:25-27 is about spiritual baptism and how Christ sanctified His church. The cleansing is not by water but by the sanctifying ministry of the Word. There is no way one can turn this into water baptism, though the passage speaks of the cleansing of the church "by the washing of water with the word." This brings about a cleansing that He "might present to Himself the church in all her glory, …" (v. 27). Read carefully Ezekiel 36:24-28 that describes the work of the new covenant. This work will take place with the Jews after they have been brought back to the Holy Land (v. 24), during which time the larger portion of the Jews will be converted by the work of the Holy Spirit (vv 26-27). The church presently benefits by this spiritual "washing" of the Spirit though the church does not fulfill this spiritual work. It will be finalized or fulfilled when the Jews are back in the land. That's what the passage teaches. But my main point is that the "sprinkling of the clean water, that will cleanse Israel from their filthiness" is a spiritual work done by the Spirit. One more verse down explains this. "And I will put My Spirit within you" (vv. 25-26). Thus, Ephesians 5:25-27 is about the work of the new covenant with the church. Water baptism is the picture of this event; it is a spiritual work, and not a literal work of being immersed in water! I hope this helps. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch

Does Water Baptism Wash Away Our Sins?

Dr. Couch, Acts 22:16 seems to say that water baptism “washes” away our sins. How do you answer?

ANSWER: To understand 22:16 you have to start with 3:19. 3:19 reads, speaking to the nation of Israel: “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away (blotted out, ‘exaleipho’), …” Repent and return are both Second person Plurals, Aorist Imperatives. Or, “All of you repent and all of you return [back to God] [with the result that] your sins will be blotted out (wiped away).” “Wiped away” is an Aorist Passive Infinitive. Or, “Your sins will be acted upon, blotted away, by God”—“They are to be acted upon by the Lord. He will cause them to be gone!” This is based on their repentance and their returning to God! Of course the message they are to believe in is the fact that “Christ should suffer” [for you], and this “He has thus fulfilled” (v. 18).

This idea then is picked up and applied to Paul here in 22:16. Ananias tells Paul that “it was appointed for him to know God’s will, and to hear an utterance from His mouth. Because he was to be a witness for Him to all men of what he has seen and heard” (v. 15).

22:16 reads from the Greek: “Having gotten up, you are to be baptized yourself, and yourself have your sins washed away, and called yourself upon His name.” All of these verbs show parallel action going on at once. The Middle Voice is used continually, “yourself.” They are all Aorist Tenses. It is all happening at once. 3:19 certainly clarifies what is happening in 22:16. Baptism alone could not be saving Paul or any Israelite, and no other passage would give that idea.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

Where Did Baptism Come From?

Dr. Couch, where did baptism come from?

ANSWER: The idea of “the washing” comes from the washings from the OT. The water did not actually spiritually cleanse one, but it was a picture of such a cleansing. There are two words used in the OT context. The Greek word used in the LXX was baptizomai and the related word bapto. The baptismal work of the Holy Spirit is prophesied in Ezekiel 36:25. This is tied in to the coming of the New Covenant that was made for Israel, based on the death and the sacrifice of Christ. The New Covenant would replace the Law Covenant. See Jeremiah 31-on.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 is tied together: “I will sprinkle (“slosh” zarach) clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols” (v. 25). Physical water does not make one spiritually clean. The verses go on and say, “And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes …” (v. 27). “And you will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers …” (v. 28). The great Jewish/Christian scholar Dr. Charles Feinberg (who was one of my profs in grad school) writes: Ezekiel 36:25 “is a parallel to Jeremiah 31:31-34. … This is the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Israel in the future. … The gift of the Spirit is frequently connected with the coming of the new economy (dispensation) for Israel (see 39:29; Isa. 44:3; 59:21; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:16 f.).”

This is the spiritual baptism carried out by the Holy Spirit as mentioned by Christ. It launches the New Covenant that was first for Israel but would be applied to the church. The church does not fulfill the New Covenant but presently benefits from it. Israel under the dispensation of the kingdom will in the future fulfill the New Covenant when the Jewish people come to Christ in the land. We are not now in the kingdom! The New Covenant was ratified by Christ’s death and launched at Pentecost, and will be fulfilled when Israel is back in the land and trusting in their Messiah!

Keep the dispensational lines straight and the Bible will all come together. Mix up the dispensations and you have chaos, and, you’ll get rid of Israel and certainly not understand how the Word of God goes together! Only dispensationalists have it right. The covenant guys have it all wrong and they allegorize and spiritualize the great prophecies of Scripture. They are into replacement theology and get rid of Israel just like the Catholic Church does.

Thus, the idea of a washing comes from the OT. But that washing is symbolic of the washing of the Holy Spirit, a baptism! This is what truly saves one, based on faith in Christ. Water baptism does not save! It is but the sign of the spiritual work and the spiritual reality carried out by the spiritual washing, and the union that follows with Christ, all done by the work of the Spirit.

Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch

What Are Your Views on Baptism?

Dr. Couch, what are your views on Baptism, its mode, formula, and relation to soteriology?

Answer: In your email you asked a bunch of questions about baptism, about issues on the subject. I am doing a very special series for the Gathering Storm monthly CD subscription list. I plan to do an in-depth theological treatment on the issues of mode, formula, etc. Only those who are members will be able to get it.

Thanks for asking, and I hope you are receiving the monthly Gathering Storm.

Dr. Mal Couch

Is Baptism Replacing Circumcision?

Dr. Couch, how does dispensationalism differ with the Reformed folks on infant baptism? And is baptism replacing circumcision? 

 

    ANSWER: The heart of dispensationalism is to take the Bible at face value, in its normal grammatical-historical sense. Dispensationalism believes in all the rules for solid hermeneutics but the Reformed people do not. They allegorize second coming prophetic passages, for the most part. Dispensationalists are consistent with the issues of "Progressive revelation, normal interpretation, and studying the Word of God by "context, context, context"! Depensationalism is not a system, it is "a way of life" in that you just take the Bible in its normal sense. Israel means Israel and not the church. Rapture means a "going up," not Christ "coming down" to reign. If you know up from down you are a dispensationalist. The church goes up in the rapture; Christ comes down to rule o­n the Davidic throne over Israel. Read what was told to Mary in Luke 1:30-33. Christ will be reigning over the house of David. The house of David is not the church! Anyone who thinks the house of David is the church is not reading their Bible. When the OT says God brings back the Jews to Jerusalem, this is not the gathering of the church! IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS! Now to your questions: 

    Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, though it was also later after the time of Abraham included as part of the Law system. It was not a sign of salvation, as baptism is. Baptism does not replace circumcision because that would cut out 50% of the population being baptized, women! 

    As for infant baptism passages, you cannot find any! Read Acts 2:38-39 carefully. (This is what dispensationalists do!) The passage urges the Jews to do something actual and literal. "Repent (individually) each o­ne of you for the forgiveness of your sins." This is a conscious act. This "promise" of forgiveness "is for you and your children." The promise includes the action of the o­ne receiving forgiveness—repenting. You cannot foist that blessing of forgiveness over o­nto your children, your infants, unless they can consciously "repent." And they cannot! 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of Cornelius and his household. Peter said when in that house "everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). The Spirit fell o­n "all those who were listening to the message," not o­n the little infants who could not process that message. (1) those who believed, (2) received the Spirit, and (3) were baptized. 

    About infant baptism you cannot use the story of the jailer at Philippi. He asked Paul, "what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). THERE IT IS! INFANT BAPTISM within the household! Keep reading. Paul and Silas preached the word of the Lord "to him together with all who were in his household." The word "was preached and heard" by the household. This would not be small infants who could not process the message! Note verse 34: "they" in the house rejoiced greatly, "having believed in God with his whole household." The Greek is saying "the whole household" believed along with the jailer. 

    Infant baptism will not fly! Unfortunately, the Reformed, following Luther and Calvin, just carried infant over from Catholicism, though in some ways, not with the same heavy punch as is in Romanism. It is unfortunate too, that they do not admit this. While I am most grateful of what these men did for us, I do not follow them blindly, as many Reformed people do. It is almost as if, "Since Calvin said it, it must be true." 

   Thanks for asking.

   Dr. Mal Couch

Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

Dr. Couch, what is going on in Acts 2:38? Some say that passage teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Can you explain? 

 

    Anyone who has taken basic English grammar, and of course Greek grammar, can answer this question easily. No, the passage is not teaching baptism is essential for salvation. The Greek grammar explains it all! 

   First of all, remember in English grammar that you do not mix singulars and plurals in the same sentence. But to do so in Greek is okay because the grammar is more distinct in its structure and syntax. It is easy to spot when one goes from one to the other without destroying the rules of Greek grammar. 

   With that said, here is what we see grammatically when we bunch all the plurals together and the singular construction together: 

   The verse best reads 

       “Repent (all of you, plural) … for the forgiveness of your sins, and you (all,
       plural) shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit then let each of you (singular)
       be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." 

   Alford writes: “Repentance, accompanied by faith in the forgiveness of sins in Christ, would be the receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit, followed by the outward ritual of water baptism.” Water baptism is not the cause of salvation, it is only the sign of salvation and the cleansing work of the Spirit symbolized by water. 

   The BKC (Bible Knowledge Commentary) says, “The verb makes a distinction between singular and plural verbs and nouns. The verb ‘repent’ is plural and so is the pronoun ‘your’ in the clause ‘so that your sins may be forgiven,’ literally, ‘unto the remission of your sins.’ The imperative ‘be baptized’ is singular, setting it off from the rest of the sentence.” Thus personal water baptism follows after all the other issues in the verse have been accomplished by faith. The Jews never considered water as necessary for redemption. This is something that is the creation of “church theology” divorced from the background from whence it came! 

   It is easy when we study the Bible in the original grammar in which the Holy Spirit gave to us God’s Word! 

   Thanks for asking,

   Dr. Mal Couch