|
SPIRITUAL OR WATER BAPTISM? An examination of Romans 6:3-4 by Cooper Abrams All rights reserved |
There has been an unending debate over whether Romans 6:3-4 is referring to spiritual baptism (baptism of the Holy Spirit) or to water baptism in answering the question of verses 1-2, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6:1-2). It is important to arrive at a proper interpretation of this passage because the passage sets
forth profoundly the biblical doctrine of the relationship of the child of God to sin. Martin Lloyd Jones states the relevance of the passage this way: "Here, then, is the doctrine that is before us, the doctrine of our union with Christ.
Once more we must say that it is one of the most glorious aspects of the Christian
truth, one of the most profound, one of the most stimulating, one of the most
comforting--indeed I rather like to use the word exhilarating. There is nothing,
perhaps, in the whole range and realm of doctrine which, if properly grasped and
understood, gives greater assurance, greater comfort, and greater hope than this
doctrine of our union with Christ.1
Certainly there is a proper interpretation of the passage and the purpose of this paper will be to examine both sides of the issue and seek a sound hermeneutical solution. Surely God, who is the author of this passage, had a clear meaning when He inspired Paul to pen it. Further, the Apostle writing under inspiration did not write an ambiguous passage. The problem is not with what God said, but rather with man's perception and ability to properly interpret the text. It seems that the Roman believers did not have a proper understanding of the work and function of God's grace or of the relationship of sin in the believer's life. It is hard for the western believer with a Christian background to perceive of anyone being so ignorant of the work of grace as to think that it would be proper to sin in order to obtain a greater portion of grace. However the Romans had no such background, and they were seeing grace from the pagan perspective from which they had been saved. There pagan view encouraged sin rather than condemning it. In the minds of these former Gentiles, they saw God's grace as allowing one to receive grace and continue with the liberty to sin. They must have realized how marvelous God's grace was in saving them from the penalty of sin because they had believed and were saved. What they did not seem to understand is that salvation included the separation from present sins in their lives as well as past sin.2
Paul explained to them in Romans 6 that Christ's death and resurrection which they had accepted as payment for their sin also involved the believer being resurrected to a new life that is not dominated by sin. Bruce states it this way, "You now live under a regime of grace, and grace does not stimulate sin, as law does; grace liberates from sin and enables you to triumph over it. How then can you think of going on in sin, just because you live under a regime of grace and not of law?"3 Paul seems to be a little "put out" by their perversion of the doctrine of grace and in strong terms replies, "God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" His intent was to sharply and profoundly correct this gross misunderstanding. The passage is meaningful for us today because God in this passage sets forth the vital truth of our union to Christ and subsequent life of separation from sin.
Contextually, Romans, chapter 6, begins a discourse on sanctification. Sanctification refers
to being "separated and to be set apart to something."4 The word comes from the same word that "holiness" is translated. The first section of chapter 6, verses 1-14, deals with past sanctification which refers to the believer being positionally set apart to God from sin in salvation. The second section, verses 15-23, addresses the matter of present sanctification and refers to the Christian's present separation from sin in his daily life. Thus, the basic context for the passage is dealing with a believer's past sins and his present separational status from sin. The passage stresses the present need of the believer to understand how Christ's death affects his present life. In verse two, Paul states emphatically, "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live
any longer therein?" Note that the verse sets forth the truth that believer's became positionally "dead to sin" when God saved them. Being dead to sin is presented as a present reality, based on the event of one's past salvation. Newell points out that the verb "apeyanomen" (are dead) is aorist, "which denotes not a state, but a past act or fact. It never refers to an action as going on or prolonged."5
Thus Paul's answer to the question, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" is to remind the Romans that in salvation the child of God is separated from sin. He refers to the past event of salvation as having the effect of killing or putting sin to death. Something that is dead has no life, energy, or
power and cannot have any domination over anything living. Paul restates this in verse six, "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." The doctrine is that salvation destroyed sin's hold on the Christian and therefore they should live in accordance with this truth. Up to this point, in seeing this as a discourse on sanctification, there does not appear to be any debate. However, beginning in verse 3, Paul uses baptism to illustrate his statement of verse 2 and here the controversy begins. We must note that the illustration of verse three begins an explanation of the premise of verses 1-2 and continues throughout the chapter. The question is, What light does the illustration of baptism shed on the matter?
The debate is over how we are to understand what baptism Paul is using as an illustration? Let us look at how that baptism in this passage has been understood by several Bible commentators so that we might get a general consensus of the popular interpretations of the verse. William Newell concludes that Paul is referring to water baptism and says: "Here the apostle turns them back to their baptism, that initial step in public confession of the Lord upon whom they had believed. Did they not realize the significance of that baptism--that it set forth their identification with a crucified and buried Lord? For in their baptism, they had confessed their choice of Him, against sin and the old life. But in Christ having been "made sin on our behalf," had died unto sin; had been buried, and had been raised from the dead through the glory of the Father; and now lived unto God in a new, resurrection life. Therefore they could see in their baptism the picture of that federal death and burial with Christ which Paul sets forth so positively in the second verse: 'Such ones as we, who died."5
There is a problem, however, in concluding that the illustration is of water baptism. The passage says, "Know yet not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" This verse presents a clear connection between this baptism and the death of Christ. If the water baptism is in view here, it presents a problem . . . is the verse teaching baptismal regeneration? Newell recognized this problem and warned: "We must not confuse this water-baptism of Romans 6, which stands for the identification of believers with Christ in death, burial and resurrection; with that the Holy Spirit Baptism of I Corinthians 12.13. For our identification with Christ-made-sin, and our death in and with Him, must never be confounded with what follows our Lord's ascension and coming of the Holy Spirit, -- baptism into the one Body. These are two absolutely different things."6
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-4).
The general consensus that Paul is using baptism to illustrate that the believer is dead to sin and should live a sanctified life separated from sin. Those to whom the Epistle is addressed are reminded strongly of this point and surely they must have understood what baptism signified, that because of "being in Christ" sin should no longer reign or be a part of their lives.
Yet some, such as A.C. Headlam, see this as water baptism and make the mistake of thinking that the verse is presenting it as a sacrament. He concludes the phrase, "ebaptisyhmen eiv criston ihsoun" 'were baptized unto union with ('not merely obedience to') 'Christ.' The act of baptism was an act of incorporation into Christ.7
Nothing could be further from the truth, because the New Testament teaches conclusively that, (1) water baptism always follows conversion and, (2) salvation is totally the work of God's grace appropriated by faith (Eph. 2:8-9, Romans 4:5). If the baptism here is water baptism, Paul is absolutely not saying that the rite of baptism itself puts one into Christ or is necessary for salvation.
Baptism is a symbolic rite symbolizing the believer's identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the preceding Chapter Paul makes it plain, " . . . But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20b). The subject of chapter 6:1 concerns the appropriation of grace. By definition, grace is the bestowment of God's unmerited favor to the sinner, therefore, baptism is a work or rite. Salvation is solely received by God's grace through faith, apart from any work or merit of man, and therefore cannot be a sacrament. Even if water baptism is in view here, the passage is not teaching baptismal regeneration.
Biblically water baptism is not a sacrament but is a symbol of the "believer's union with Christ and is illustrated by the rite of baptism in the mode of immersion. The three actions therein are symbolic: into the water - death; under the water - burial; out of the water - resurrection.8
Water baptism does not actually place the believer "into" Christ, but symbolizes the truth that it is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that brings salvation to one who by faith has believed in Jesus Christ. Murray concludes:
". . .the appeal to baptism certifies that the readers of the epistle were aware of the place and importance of baptism in the Christian profession. It was the sign and seal of membership in the body of Christ and the apostle assumes that the believers at Rome did not call in question the necessity and privilege of this seal of their status as Christians. To be baptized "into Moses" (I Cor. 10:2) is to be baptized into the discipleship of Moses or into the participation of the privileges which the Mosaic economy entailed. . . . To be baptized into 'the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt. 28:19-20) is to be baptized into the fellowship of the three persons of the Godhead. Hence baptism into Christ signifies [emphases mine] simply union with him and participation of all the privileges which he as Christ Jesus embodies.9
Ironside is also convinced that this is not spiritual baptism: "Is this the Spirit's baptism? I think not. The Spirit does not baptize unto death, but into the one new Body. It is establishment into the mystical Christ. Our baptism with water is a baptism unto Christ's death.10
The reference to baptism in I Cor. 10:2, "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" is often thought of as a similar use of the word and is used to explain the meaning of being "baptized into Jesus Christ." The Hebrews who followed Moses across the parted waters of the Red Sea were participating in the miracle and by following were identifying with Moses' leadership. Dodd gives evidence that this is water baptism by explaining that Paul was using the significance of baptism to the Romans to explain its greater meaning:
"For Paul, as for all early Christian teachers, baptism was highly significant as the initiation into the Body of Christ . . . The position was simple: the Church was a society with its own forms of organized life, and it had always recognized faith by administering baptism, and thereby conferring membership of the Body. Hence Paul could appeal directly to baptism as a fact with a generally recognized significance, and draw from it conclusions regarding what entrance into the people of God involved.11
Dodd however saw water baptism as a sacrament which is the fault that many object to who hold that Paul is referring to spiritual baptism. They conclude that if this is water baptism, then because the verse is saying that water baptism places the believer "into" Jesus Christ and "into" his death, it is presenting a false teaching of baptismal regeneration.
Let us look at the explanations of some as to why they believe the passage is using the illustration of spiritual baptism. Ian Paisley expresses it this way:
"The baptism here, I believe, is the spiritual baptism of which baptism with water is the symbol. It is the inward spiritual work of which water baptism is the outward visible sign. Baptism with water does not put anybody into Christ but the spiritual baptism, of which water baptism is the symbol, does do so. The baptism here referred to is the one spiritual baptism of Ephesians 5:5 and spoken of by the Apostle in I Corinthians 12:13.12
Martin Lloyd Jones strongly advocates that this is spiritual baptism. He says;
"Indeed I go further and suggest that to argue that the Apostle as water baptism in his mind in any shape or form here is to give a prominence to baptism that the Apostle Paul never gives to it. . . .The conclusion therefore at which I arrive is that baptism by water is not in the mind of the Apostle at all in these two verses; instead it is the baptism wrought by the Spirit. It is the plain, explicit teaching of I Corinthians 12:13, and indeed in the whole of the chapter, as it is in other places where the Apostle treats of this particular aspect of truth. And I argue further that the use of this term 'planted together', in verse 5, supports what I am saying. All are agreed that the idea of planting has nothing to do with baptism at all; it is rather the idea of grafting a shoot into a tree. 'Planted together' - in unity, identification - that is the meaning of the term. Paul is not using the figure of baptism in any shape or form there, but is still emphasizing this unity. That also is the work of the Spirit.13
Surely men on both sides of the issue have strong conclusions and state valid reasons for their position. The debate normally presents three solutions:
1. This reference is to water baptism as it symbolically represents the believer's baptism into Christ's death and thus separation from sin.
2. The reference to water baptism as stated in (1.) and teaches baptismal regeneration.
3. The passage is referring to a believer's spiritual baptism into Christ and not water baptism.
Conclusion
I would like to suggest that the reference is to both spiritual and water baptism. You cannot separate the symbol from that which it symbolizes. I believe Paul is using what water baptism signifies to strengthening his point of verse two, by reminding them of the purpose and significance of their water baptism. Water baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection with Christ where the sins of the world were conquered and put to death. In reality this is not an either/or situation, because both spiritual and water baptism are in view. Paul was saying to the Romans that "God forbid that you who died to sin should continue on in sin to appropriate more grace. Remember what your water baptism meant in that it symbolized that you received God's spiritual baptism in salvation and you were placed into Jesus Christ and to His death" (my expanded paraphrase).
In the following verse Paul continues to support his premise by reminding them that:
1. Because of their being buried with Christ in baptism they should walk in a new life (v. 4).
2. Because they have been planted in the "likeness" of Christ's death which destroyed the body of sin . . . that they should not serve sin (vv. 5-6).
3. Paul uses the example of a dead person. "He that is dead is freed from sin" (v. 7).
4. Because we are dead to sin we should live for Him because sin has no more control over the believer (vv. 8-9).
5. Because Christ died to sin once and now lives unto God the believer should consider himself dead to sin and alive unto God (vv. 10-11).
6. The believer should not let sin reign in their body and obey its lusts, nor let yourself sin (vv. 12-13).
7. Because a believer is under grace and not under law then sin should not dominate his life (v. 14).
If we see the reference to baptism as spiritual baptism and which water baptism signifies there is no confusion and the illustration Paul is using is clear and well makes its point; Christ died to destroy the penalty of sin, which baptism signifies, and that was one reason for not continuing in sin.
However, we must deal with the problem of those who see water baptism as being a part of receiving salvation. To answer the problem all we must do is to apply sound biblical hermeneutical principles. One foundational principle of interpretation is the all Scripture must be interpreted within the analogy of the faith. This means that God's word does not contradict itself and that all God says is always consistent with everything else He has said. Scriptures such as Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5, and many other passages clearly teach that salvation is not acquired through ritual or any religious work. Baptism is a religious rite (work) and therefore has no saving properties and is not necessary for salvation. Further the example in the New Testament is that water baptism always follows the exercise of saving faith and is a public act of submission that pictures and identifies the person being baptized with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and with the local congregation of believers. Finally, both water baptism symbolizes Christ's work of redemption on the cross. Our baptism is only a picture of what He did. The act of redemption could only be done by Jesus Christ, the perfect Lamb of God. The whole point of baptism is to point to and picture Christ's sacrifice and atonement for sin and it is simply illogical to try to present it as being necessary for salvation. Jesus's death, burial and resurrection paid the price something we could not pay. To use this passage to support baptism regeneration is simply dishonest and a blatant violation of the New Testament teaching of salvation. Thus, those who hold to the position that this is sacramental water baptism have no biblical grounds to do so.
It is spiritual baptism which is the sole work of God that actually places the believer into Christ and into His death. Water baptism is a proper symbol instituted by God to illustrate God's action in salvation that could not be seen. Spiritual baptism and its outward symbol proclaims the same truth and cannot be separated. I like the way Robinson states this: "If we ask how this critical union was effected, Paul's answer is that it is through baptism (Rom. 6:4) or, more fully, in baptism . . . through faith" (Col. 2:12)." In verse 3, the baptism is of water that symbolizes the spiritual baptism that Christ accomplished for the believer in His death, burial, and resurrection.
END NOTES:
2 The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, An Introduction and Commentary, F. F. Bruce, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1963, p137.
33 Ibid.
4 Unger's New Talking Bible Dictionary, Electronic Edition, Parsons Technology, Inc, 1998.
5 Romans, Verse by Verse, William R. Newell, Moody Press, Chicago, 1948, p201.
6 Newell, p 204
7 Newell, p 205
8 The International Critical Commentary. A Critical and exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, rev. w. Sanday & Rev. A. C. Headlam, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1895, p156.
9 Romans, A Digest of Reformed Comment, Geoffrey B. Wilson, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1969, p99.
10 The International Commentary on the New Testament, John Murray, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1965, p214.
11 Lectures on Romans, H. A. Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, Inc, Neptune, NJ, 1973, p76.
12 The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, C.H. Dobb, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1942, pg86-87.
13 An Exposition of the Epistle of Romans, Ian R. K. Paisley, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London, 1968, p87.
14 Martin-Lloyd Jones, p34.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker B. House, 1959.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.
Dobb, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London. Hodder and Stoughton, 1942.
Ironside, H. A. Lectures on Romans. Neptune, N.J. Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1973.
Jones, D. M. Lloyd. Romans, An Exposition of Chapter 6.The New Man. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1972.
Laurin, Dr. Roy. L. Romans Where Life Begins. Dunham Publishing Company, 1955.
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan's Publishing House, 1954.
Murray, John. The International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.
Newell, William R. Romans, Verse by Verse. Chicago. Moody Press, 1948.
Paisley, Ian R. K. An Exposition of the Epistle of Romans. London. Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1968.
Robinson, John A. T. Wrestling with Romans. Philadelphia, Pa. The Westminister Press, 1979.
Sanday, Rev. W. & Rev. A. C. Headlam. The International Critical Commentary. A Critical and exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans. New York. Charles Scribners Sons, 1895.
Merrill F. Unger. Unger's New Talking Bible Dictionary. Electronic Edition. Parsons Technology. Chicago, Illinois. Moody Press Inc., 1998.
Wilson, Geoffrey B. Romans, A Digest of Reformed Comment. London. The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969.
8-23-1999