Of Water, Wind and Fire
Is water baptism just an outward sign of an inner reality? A brief reassessment of the Baptist conviction.
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
– Acts 2:38
Nicolas Poussin, “Saint John Baptizing in the River Jordan” (c.1630). Oil on canvas.
Why was Apollos baptized twice? His first baptism was administered by John the Baptist in obedience and repentance to God, to believe in the Messiah who was to come. In the same way many Protestants, particularly Baptists, affirm this view but relay it now in the past tense: Water baptism is a believer’s initial act of obedient repentance to God, to the Messiah who has already come—Jesus Christ. Water baptism is purely a faithful expression or outward sign of an inward reality because inner belief is the only necessary condition for salvation. Baptists are very well-known to be militant against the necessity of water baptism for salvation, considering it ‘works righteousness’. Be that as it may, Apollos’ baptism of repentance was not enough, according to Paul. He needed to be baptized again in the name of Jesus Christ, and not because he had sinned, either. So, why again? Let’s read:
Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
– Acts 18:24-25, 19:1-6
If water baptism was solely a sign, a symbolic exercise, or a dramatic re-enactment of a spiritual reality—not a means of grace or the reality itself—why was there an urgent need to baptize Apollos again? He already performed the sign. To be clear; a sign points in the direction of the destination but is not the destination itself. A stop sign tells you to stop but it is not the act of stopping itself. The colour green means go but the colour itself is not the act of going (and can mean other things, as well, depending on its situational context). A sign indicates the presence of something else which is of greater significance, it points to what is actual or what ought to be actualized—it is the shadow of the substance, not the substance itself. There is nothing to a sign except for what it indicates. But what does Paul say? “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” (Acts 19:4) He very succinctly reiterates John’s own words: “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matthew 3:11) John’s water baptism was done in repentance to God as a sign of belief in Jesus Christ, yet it was insufficient. Paul needed to baptize Apollos again into the name of the Lord Jesus—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—into His death and resurrection to receive the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:1-13; Colossians 2:11-14). This pattern is first exhibited in the Gospels by Christ Himself when He, though sinless, was baptized by John and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove (Matthew 3:13-17), and the apostles would later receive the Holy Spirit after His ascension at Pentecost (John 16:7; Acts 2:1-4). That is why Peter consolidates the two baptisms immediately afterward: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) If there is no power in baptism, no cleansing in baptism, no effect in baptism, but only reflects a personal repentant belief in Christ, why did Paul baptize Apollos all over again? It doesn’t add up very well, as far as I can tell.
Apollos did not know of the Holy Spirit. He believed but had not yet received. Apollos was passionate, well-spoken, and proficient in understanding Scripture (v.24), he taught the things concerning Jesus accurately—he believed that Jesus Christ was God incarnate—and had all the earmarks of what we would consider a good pastor[1]. Yet, he was found wanting twofold: (1) repentance into the name of Christ through water baptism and (2) the sealing of the Holy Spirit by the laying of hands. Apollos’ first baptism was administered in the same way that Baptists teach baptism today with one clear exception: Baptists do proclaim “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” before immersion, which cannot be overlooked. There is power in His name (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:21, 22:16; Psalm 145:18-20; Matthew 7:21-23).
Now, what really ought to simmer this over-boiled baptism debate is that the Holy Spirit often comes by the laying of hands immediately after baptism (Act 8:18, 2 Timothy 1:6; Hebrews 6:1-2), which throughout Church history was seen as a parallel to Pentecost. Baptism is a reversal of the Flood just as the laying of hands is a reversal of Babel (1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:6). It is not just the water baptism per se, which is actually more to the point: If water baptism is just a sign, why didn’t Paul simply lay his hands on Apollos and be done with it? If his baptism was valid upon his repentance alone, then there is only the sealing of the Holy Spirit left to do. Again, there is more at work, here, than mere homage.
There is a deeply mysterious and spiritual happening in baptism that seems to be neglected by many mainline Protestant denominations, though still presently happening. There is much ground to cover concerning this topic, so I need not drag this on here and now. But it stands to reason that if baptism is only a sign or a symbolic re-enactment of obedience and repentance to God or an outward expression of an inward reality or a dramatic portrayal of personal faith, then there is just no good reason to re-baptize at all. The symbol of being “born again” is complete. The image of being crucified with Christ is finished. The sign of rising from death a new creation is done. Or can you be born again again? (Hebrews 6:1-8) Can you spiritually die twice? (Revelation 21:8) It upends the whole point of the symbol, which is to abolish symbolism itself.
For this reason, also, if one were to argue that rebaptism can be administered if we lack commitment or have deeply sinned, then we put the onus of salvation on ourselves, tossing the symbol of baptism out with the bathwater. If you recall, a minister of God pulls you out of the water, you do not pull yourself out by your own strength or merit. God is at work. If I may speak plainly; baptism is not about you doing it for God, it’s about God doing it for you. You do not go get baptism, you receive baptism.
Now, of course, you are presently participating in the baptism process through faith, I am not denying that. I am just emphasizing the priority and onus of it. It is not our working but God’s. I don’t think that can be overstated. “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8) Perhaps, this analogy might be helpful: The king receives the crown only once in his life. The crown is a symbol of his authority. The crown has no authority, it is the king who possesses the authority, so that if a man who is not the king so chooses to wear the crown, it means nothing to him (though I’d imagine a feeling of authority may animate). The crown, then, points to the king alone and only means something to the beholder iff the person is truly king. In the same way, if a person is baptized through faith, then he/she is truly able to receive the gift, having the authority to receive it (John 6:44). As James says, “receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:21) Without faith, it is just the removal of the filth from the body (1 Peter 3:21; Colossians 2:11-12).
Baptism means we were buried with Christ into His death, crucified with Him into His blood (Romans 6:3-11; John 19:34). Christ has cleansed us “by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:26-27). Jesus is the Word, and He created the earth through water, and we are of the earth (John 1:1; 2 Peter 3:5; Genesis 3:19). Baptism, by the blood of Christ, washes our sins and cleanses our soul—we are a new creation in Him (Titus 3:5; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 1:7; Psalm 51:2). It’s as simple as that.
So—is water baptism symbolic? Of course, it is! But it’s so much more than that.
Matlock Bobechko | May 17, 2023 – 9:00 AM EST
[1] What ought to strike a chord is that despite lacking the necessary presence of the Spirit for salvation, Apollos was still able to accurately teach the things of Christ (v.25). He was not a false teacher; he was merely premature.
“You do not go get baptism, you receive baptism.”