A rubric sometimes used to describe baptism is “an outward sign of an inward faith.” This formulation is an attempt to preserve both the necessity of baptism as an act of obedience and the preeminence of faith as the sole consideration for salvation. In extreme interpretation, it removes all possibility of human agency in acquiring salvation in favor of a mysterious divine force called faith, reducing baptism to a mere sign of this force as a bubble is of boiling water.
But baptism was never just a symbol for biblical believers. It was an often desperate appeal of faith—faith that was neither divine nor mysterious, but that manifestly drove a person to leap into the unknown, trusting in the Lord’s power and love, with no guarantee other than God’s word. Faith was in and about God’s nature, and its presence was attested by action. Baptism was an appeal for grace[1], it was admission of dependency[2], it was a renunciation of one’s own way in anticipation of God’s way[3]. It was never a mere demonstration of a faith that others have to take on faith.
Baptism has no saving power, not because it is devoid of practical efficacy, but because, in and of itself, it cannot acquire the desired result. Just because one makes an appeal doesn’t mean that grace is granted. I can beg a police officer I know not to give me a ticket, but I am not technically safe until he tears it up. In similar fashion, baptism is an appeal, but God must still make the decision to save.
Nor is baptism required. In our little illustration, the police officer might put away his book without my asking just because he knows me. He certainly won’t demand of me to make that appeal, for an appeal done to obey a command is not really an appeal.
Nevertheless, it is still in my interest to ask, because I can hope in what I know of my friend and in that I know my friend. I do it to remind us how vital our friendship is to me, so vital that I would never presume to take it for granted. Because I actively care about what he cares about, I promise never to speed again. And I sincerely believe he will consider my appeal and all it implies in deciding whether to give me a ticket.
Perhaps we get the notion that baptism is merely symbolic from Jesus’ baptism. But the fact that Jesus did not need to make an appeal does not detract from the submission, allegiance, humility, and love in which he was acting. The fact that his appeal did not need to be made does not mean it wasn’t an appeal.
Nor does Jesus’ act mean that baptism is commanded of us. That God was pleased with his sacrifice of worship does not necessarily imply that God demanded it. The sweeter tribute is that which is not extorted. Rather, the expectation that believers be baptized may be no more than its appropriateness when they throw themselves on God’s mercy.
Baptism belongs to that class of human actions that are undertaken to directly honor God. Such rituals or observances are distinct from “good works,” which are actions that bless other people. This distinction is behind Jesus’ promotion of public good deeds[4] and private religious observances[5].
The interesting thing about religious observances is that, unlike good works, they are not propagated or spelled out in the New Testament. For example, while Moses was very specific about the dimensions and decorations of the bronze sea, none of the gospel writers saw fit to similarly regulate baptism. In fact, Christ and the apostles specifically absolved believers from Mosaic cleansing, diet, festivals, sacrifices, and circumcision.
This makes sense when one considers how, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, every believer becomes God’s home[6]. Nothing can make unclean what God makes clean[7], but that which is unclean is unclean[8]. Hence, believers are freed from regulations about eating certain foods; touching corpses, menstruating women, and people with skin diseases; and eating with sinners, but not from fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, greed, anger, wrath, malice, slander, abusive language, and all other personal and interpersonal “bad fruit”[9].
However, other worship practices, though unformulated, continued on into the New Testament. When Jesus discussed some of these practices—prayer, fasting, and almsgiving—he used the word “when.” In other words, he assumed that people who claimed to worship God would worship him in these ways. This expectation is no more of a command than is the expectation that a golfer will hit golf balls.
This expectation is again in keeping with the personal relationship every believer now has with God. One of the astonishing things about the Gospel (Paul would call it a mystery) is that we are generally instructed as friends of God and not specifically commanded as slaves[10]. So the degree to which and the way in which religious observances are kept are matters of relational conviction. For example, Jesus called some people to give all their possessions to the poor[11], but not everyone[12]. In similar fashion, when people sold their possessions to support the church, they were given full leeway over how much to give or whether to sell at all[13]. This is part of the freedom in Christ that makes regulation-bound worshippers so jealous[14].
In a sense, the indwelling of the Spirit has restored the freedom that Cain and Abel had to choose their sacrifices. The only measures of appropriateness are sincerity of worship, faithfulness in relationship, and faith with respect to the mode of expression. The latitude the Church exercises in every conceivable observance proves our acceptance of this freedom. How tragic is the irony that wars have been fought over the differences this freedom allows!
Since baptism is this kind of worshipful act, there is similar latitude in how it is undertaken and whether it is undertaken at all. There is no reason why it should retain any particular symbolism so long as the one who undertakes it has the faith to see it as an appeal to God for salvation. In this sense, the cry of the thief on the cross could count as his baptism, though he was bathed only by his own blood and sweat[15].
Finally, as an appeal, baptism can be made on behalf of another, just as Job appealed for his children[16]. But the end result of such an appeal is always subject to God’s will regarding the person appealed for, just as when one appeals for oneself. If the person appealed for lives in such a way that one’s faith can’t legitimately claim that God will save him or her, then why bother getting one’s clothes wet, much less risk drowning, even for such a great prize as the entire population of Chicago? Prayer is the more appropriate type of appeal in this case.
In summary, the Bible presents baptism more as an actual appeal than as a sign, signal, or symbol. It is symbolic only in the sense that some of its elements are symbols. The appeal itself is very real. Furthermore, like every other religious observance under the superior covenant, the practice is neither dictated nor demanded by God, who desires mercy over sacrifice[17], but he is pleased to accept any baptism made in spirit and truth[18].
Adopting the contrary view that baptism is just a sign logically leads to the traditional Baptist perspective. Performing a baptism becomes meaningless for infants, dead people, extremely literal people, and anyone else who can’t interpret symbols. Moreover, a ritual whose only significance lies in demonstration becomes extremely hard to motivate, so a command for believers to obey is posited[19]. The problem is that no such command is explicitly mentioned in the New Testament, no more than for any other direct form of worship. In other words, the challenge for this position is not its consistency, but the validity of a couple of its root assumptions.
©2001 M Richter
[1] 1 Peter 3:21.
[2] Hebrews 10:22–23.
[3] Luke 3, Romans 6:2–5.
[4] Matthew 5:16.
[5] Matthew 6:1.
[6] 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19.
[7] Matthew 15:11, Acts 10:15.
[8] Matthew 15:11, 1 Corinthians 6:18–20.
[9] Colossians 3:5–8.
[10] Galatians 3:23–4:7.
[11] Matthew 19:21.
[12] Luke 22:36.
[13] Acts 5:3–4.
[14] Galatians 2:4.
[15] Luke 23:42.
[16] Job 1:5.
[17] Hosea 6:6.
[18] John 4:23.
[19] The Great Commission springs to mind as a possible command. But then one must assume that a command to the baptizers is also a command to their prospective disciples. This assumption is not necessary to interpretation of Matthew 28:19. In fact, I rely on a countervailing assumption, that baptism is mentioned only as a normative ritual appeal by new believers, to deny the interpretation of Mark 16:16 that baptism saves.