baptism? what about...?

[email]

what about 1 corinthians 1 where paul says he was glad he wasn't baptizing people. heonly baptized 3 groups of people (or famililes) why is he glad? does that mean people weren't being saved? if baptism is so important, why wasn't paul advocating it and doing it himself.
why does the author of hebrews say it is done away with...? hebrews 9:10?
what about luke 12:50? jesus says he has to go through a baptism and he is distressed about it? does that mean that he is afraid of water?

[m273p15c]

what about 1 corinthians 1 where paul says he was glad he wasn't baptizing people. heonly baptized 3 groups of people (or famililes) why is he glad? does that mean people weren't being saved? if baptism is so important, why wasn't paul advocating it and doing it himself.

This is a good question, and a very common one. When we first look at this passage in I Corinthians, it does admittedly appear as though Paul de-emphasized batisim.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. (I Corinthians 1:17)

However, if we look at the surrounding passages, we find the context clears up our dillemma:

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. (I Corinthians 1:10-17)

The problem that was destroying Corinth had little to do with baptism. Instead, the problem was that they were destroying each other through their carnally minded division (I Corinthians 3:1-7; 4:6-7), twisting every spiritual gift into a divinely unintended opportunity to elevate themselves over each other, thereby serving their selfish pride (I Corinthians 11:17-22; 12:1-31).

Now someon may say, "but the passage clearly says 'for Christ did not send me to baptize...'!" Yes, but this does not mean that he was not to baptize at all. It means that Paul's commission to baptize was not as important as was his commission to preach Christ. This is a classic grammatical "not-but" construction (elliptical), where the first element is de-emphasized in comparison to the second. Let me give you a few other examples of this same construction:

"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life ..." (John 6:27)

Now is Jesus saying that we should not work so we can eat!? Of course not - He is stating that we should not primarily work for earthly food. Instead, we should consider spiritual food and eternal life more important that earthly food and carnal life. He is not eliminating bread and establishing teaching - He is setting an order of importance between spiritual teaching and earthly food. ... Here's another:

Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. (John 12:44)

Is Christ stating that we are not to believe in Him?! Obviously not. Instead, He is establishing an order of authority. It is the Father, who sent the Son. To reject the Son is to ultimately reject the Father. The same could be said for rejecting the apostles and prophets, whom Jesus sent (Luke 10:1-3, 16). If I Corinthians 1:17 really means that Paul was sent to not baptize, then why does John 6:27 not condemn working for food, and why does John 12:44 not condemn belief in Jesus?

In truth, Paul does not diminish baptism. In fact, it designates it as the point at which we come in contact with Jesus' saving blood and begin a new life in Christ (Romans 6:1-ff). He also designates baptism, combined with faith, as being the entry point into the body of the saved (Galatians 3:26-27).

why does the author of hebrews say it is done away with...? hebrews 9:10?

Like the passage above, this verse is also taken out of context:

Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary ... the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (Hebrews 9:1-12)

The "various washings", or "baptisms" described in this passage belong to the Old Covenant, which was done away in Christ's death upon the cross (Colossians 2:11-23; Romans 7:1-7; Hebrews 8:7-13). If the logic is consistently followed as is implied, then we must ask ourselves, "Will we eliminate all things that are mentioned in the Old Testament?" They prayed in the Old Testament. Should we not pray? No, because it is re-established in the New Testament (Matthew 6:5-15). Likewise, baptism is re-established in the New Testament (Acts 2:37-38, I Peter 3:21), although the symbolism has changed significantly (Romans 6:1-ff). Just because Old Testament washings were eliminated, that offers no justification to eliminating New Testament baptism. Otherwise, why should we continue to pray, sing, marry, worship God, obey God, etc.?

what about luke 12:50? jesus says he has to go through a baptism and he is distressed about it? does that mean that he is afraid of water?

Ha, ha. Not at all. At this point, Jesus had already been baptized in water according to John's teaching, which Jesus said was necessary "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:1-17). At this point, late in Jesus' ministry, the thing that loomed before Jesus had nothing to do with water baptism. Instead, a different kind of immersion awaited Him....

Please allow me to deviate slightly - Our word English word "baptism" comes from the Greek word "baptizmos". It literally means an "immersion", or "overwhelming". (Feel free to guess why the original translators of the KJV made up a new word, instead of translating the Greek into an equivalent English word.) Although it is frequently connected with the medium of water, it does not necessarily connote any specific medium. In other words, we may always asked, "Baptized into what?" It is sometimes used metaphorically to suggest a figurative overwhelming. We might say, "I am swamped!". We mean that something is overwhelming us - not that we are literally submerged in a swamp. Similarily, baptism was used to suggest an overwhelming. In this case, the thing that was overwhelming Jesus was the impending cross and the imminent suffering in which He would soon be immersed. Similar words are found that describe His anticipated grief:

"Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. ... Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." This He said, signifying by what death He would die. (John 12:27-33)

References abound that tell of Jesus' agony that preceded the cross (Luke 22:39-46; Hebrews 5:7-9). Three years prior to this event, Jesus was baptized in water (Luke 3:21-23). Therefore, the forward-looking statement of Luke 12 could not refer to the past event of Luke 3. Consequently, we must ask ourselves, "If Luke 12:50 does not refer to the cross and its baptism of suffering, then to what looming, dreadful event does it refer?". At that late point in Christ's earthly life, what was more imminent and dreaded than the cross?
....
I realize that the majority of believers in Christ do not believe in baptism; however, they do so without the consensus of Holy Scriptures. I have seen first-hand the weight of the prejudice that must be overcome to throw off the baggage of this erroneous tradition. Although it is difficult, we must read the Scriptures with an open and honest heart (II Thessalonians 2:9-12). In truth, God intended this to be one of the simpler and more basic matters:

Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1-2)

If we are struggling to dismiss the clear words of Scripture, we must look deep within our hearts and ask ourselves, "Why?". God clearly did not intend for the verses on baptism to fall into the realm of passages that are "difficult to understand" (II Peter 3:14-19). This is a question I must always ask first of myself...

[JSM17]

Because of Luther and a few others , men have been on a rampage to remove what our Lord has plainly stated about Baptism.


He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Mk. 16:16