Question #400

Isn’t baptism just a ceremonial washing?

The bible seems to show a different interpretation of water baptism than what you seem to say. It was ceremonial washing and it acknowledged that God’s way was right. What does water baptism acknowledge? That we receive the remission of sins in the name of Jesus.

John 3:25-26

25An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew[a] over the matter of ceremonial washing. 26They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

Luke 7:29-30

29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

The Answer:

It is regrettable that some, in an attempt to avoid the clear teaching of scripture on the purpose of baptism, make no attempt to justify that which they espouse based upon what the Bible says about baptism’s purpose. They invariably go to a passage that either does not mention baptism at all or to a passage that speaks of baptism without mentioning its purpose. This question, which is more of an argument (“argument” is used in a good sense here) than a question, is a classic example.

First, a translation is chosen that uses the expression “ceremonial washing.” While some translations do use that expression, the literal translation is “about purification” or “about” or “over purification.”

Second, v. 26 makes clear that the dispute arose over baptism.

Third, the context makes clear that the dispute was between a Jew and John’s disciples, the latter having started the dispute because they were jealous that “all” (hyperbole for “many” since John’s supporters in this dispute had not themselves left John to follow Jesus).

Fourth, the language used makes clear that it was not just “washing” that was at issue, but a particular type of washing, one related to purification. Specifically, it was the washing of baptism. Note that v. 25 begins with “then,” which ties it to that which preceded. That which had preceded in John’s account was a) Jesus was baptizing in the Judean countryside (v. 22); b) John was baptizing in Aenon near Salim (v. 23); c) the dispute arose about purification v. 25); the purification in dispute was baptism (v. 26).

Fifth, the only thing that can reasonable be concluded from these facts is that all of the parties agreed that baptism was related to purification.

Sixth, from these facts one cannot reasonably or on any rational basis conclude that the baptism in question merely acknowledged that God’s way was right. Other translations speak of God’s being “just” or “righteous.”

Seventh, that leaves the question, in what sense, if any, does the scripture say that the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John related to purification? The NIV, used by the inquirer, translates Luke 7:29, “All the people . . . when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John.” Other translations render it “justified God” (KJV, ASV), “they acknowledged God’s justice” (NAS), “declared God just” (ESV), “declared God righteous” (Young’s Literal Translation). All of this language is similar. Thayer, in his Greek Lexicon, defines the meaning of the Greek: “edikaioœsan ton Theon, declared God to be righteous, i.e. by receiving the baptism declared that it had been prescribed by God rightly, Luke 7:29….” Thus, the language makes it clear that God rightly, righteously, and justly prescribed submission to the baptism of Jesus and of John. Indeed, if this inquirer had only read the next verse (Luke 7:30), he would have learned that, whatever its purpose, this baptism was so necessary that to reject it was to reject the counsel of God.

Eighth, having established its importance leaves its purpose undefined. The definition of that purpose in scripture is greatly different from the purpose ascribed by this inquirer. Fortunately the scripture speaks clearly on the baptism of both John and Jesus:

Mark 1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Notice that rejecting the counsel of God is contrasted with declaring God to be righteous and that that declaration was accomplished by submission to the baptism of Jesus and John. For the inquirer to be consistent he would have to conclude even the acknowledgement for which he contends, i.e., “that we receive the remission of sins in the name of Jesus,” requires that remission of sins to come as a result of the baptism for the remission of sins. Had the remission of sins come before the baptism, the baptism could not have been “for the remission of sins.”

After all of our inquirer’s denials and machinations, the scripture still says that John’s baptism was preceded by confession of sins and the baptism was for the remission of those sins. Whom will you follow? Jesus or the inquirer?

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.