The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

Since by the Spirit’s baptism the greatest trarisformations are wrought in behalf of the believer, it is to be expected that Satan, the enemy of God, will do all within his power to distract, misdirect, and confuse investigation respecting this specific ministry of the Holy Spirit. This harm Satan has been permitted to do. Not only is there need that all the false conceptions be corrected which have reached the masses of unsuspecting people, but special attention is demanded on the part of those who would be instructed lest they themselves fail to comprehend the precise truth which the doctrine embraces. No further explanation than the influence of Satan is needed for the otherwise inexplicable disarrangement and ignorance of, together with a corresponding prejudice toward, this specific doctrine. It is the strategic point at which Satan can accomplish most in obliterating the effect of the present truth. This nullifying of the truth is seen in at least three most important fields of doctrine, namely, the believer’s positions and standing in Christ, his eternal security, and the ground of the only effective motive for a God-honoring daily life.

In attempting to arrive at a right understanding of the essential character of this ministry of the Holy Spirit, four general divisions of the subject should be considered: (1) the meaning of the word βαπτίζω, (2) the determining Scriptures, (3) the thing accomplished, and (4) its distinctive character.

The Word ΒΑΠΤΛΖΩ

More than passing significance should be attached to the fact that the same word βαπτίζω is used in the New Testament both for real and ritual baptism, thus signifying a bond of relationship between these two aspects of truth. The word would hardly be employed properly had it a separate unrelated meaning in the one instance. The basic word of this particular root, βάπτω, in its primary import connotes a dipping and occurs but three times in the New Testament—Luke 16:24, John 13:26 and Revelation 19:13. In its secondary meaning, which is to dye or stain—what is usually accomplished by dipping, but not always so, the word appears but once and that in the third passage cited above, which reads, “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.” The same event and situation are presented in Isaiah 63:1–6, wherein among other details it is written: “Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winetat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment” (vss. 2–3). The garments of the returning Messiah are not dipped in a vat of blood, rather they have been sprinkled and stained with blood; yet this is still described by βάπτω in the LXX.

In like manner the word βαπτίζω has both a primary and secondary meaning. In its primary sense it indicates an intusposition, a physical envelopment in an element, which element has power to influence or change that which it envelops. In its secondary meaning, however, βαπτίζω, as in the case of the secondary meaning of βάπτω, departs somewhat from the original physical aspect and refers to one thing being brought under the transforming power or influence of another thing. None could speak with more authority respecting the precise meaning of βαπτίζω than Doctor James W. Dale because of his extensive research. He defines this word in its secondary meaning thus: “Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state, or condition does, in fact, baptize it.”[1] Such a definition is most important, since the great majority of New Testament usages of this word are wholly within its secondary meaning. In the course of his great works on the subject of baptism, Dale asserts that the word is, in his opinion, never used in the New Testament in any other than its secondary meaning.

Here it should be noted that the same distinction obtains between the Greek words βάπτω and βαπτίζω as between their English equivalents, namely, dip and immerse. A dipping is a momentary contact involving two actions, the putting in and the taking out, while immersing implies but one action—that of putting in. In the strict and proper use of the words, regardless of the all-but-universal careless way in which they are employed, ritual baptism is never an immersion, which immersion would result in death by drowning. What has commonly been termed an immersion is better described by βάπτω in the primary meaning of that word.

No physical intusposition certainly is in view when the Scriptures speak of a baptism unto repentance (Matt 3:11), a baptism unto the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), a baptism unto the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19), Christ’s own being baptized by drinking the cup of suffering (Matt 20:23; Luke 12:50), a baptism of Israel unto Moses (1 Cor 10:2), a baptism wrought by the presence and influence of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s heart, that is, the baptism of a believer into the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). These baptisms, let it be repeated, represent no physical intusposition and must be classed as belonging to the secondary use of βαπτίζω. Not one could be properly classed as a use of βάπτω, either in its primary or secondary meaning. They could not be merely a dipping into an element, for they all present the estate as permanent. When a believer is by the Spirit baptized into Christ, the thing most to be desired is that he shall never be taken out again. To be baptized unto repentance is to be brought under the influence of repentance—not for a moment, but abidingly; to be baptized unto the name of the triune God is to come under the power of God—not for a moment, but abidingly; to be baptized unto Moses as Israel was by the agency of the cloud and the sea was to be brought under the leadership of Moses, which leadership had not been accorded him before—not for a moment, but abidingly; to be baptized unto Christ’s death and resurrection is to become so identified with Him in that death and resurrection that all their values are secured—not for a moment, but eternally. Christ’s suffering of anguish was not a momentary dipping down into suffering. That baptism which results from the advent of the Spirit into the heart with His heavenly influences is not for a moment, but endures forever. To be baptized into Christ’s Body is to come under the power and headship of Christ; it is to be joined unto the Lord, to be identified with Him, to partake of what He is and what He has done—not for a moment, but unalterably.

It may be said, in concluding this portion of the thesis, that to be placed in Christ by the baptizing agency of the Holy Spirit results in a new reality of relationship in which the one thus blessed comes under the power and headship of Christ, which position supplants the relationship to the first Adam and is itself a new, organic union with the Last Adam, the resurrected Christ. In this instance, as in other baptisms, the word βαπτίζω is used only in its secondary meaning, apart from a physical intusposition; for it secures the merit, the dominating influence, and headship of Christ.

II. The Determining Scriptures

Those Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is related to baptism are to be classified in two divisions. In the one group Christ is the baptizing agent, yet the Holy Spirit is the blessed influence which characterizes the baptism. In the other group of passages the Holy Spirit is the baptizing agent and Christ as the Head of His mystical body is the receiving element, and by so much that blessed influence which characterizes the baptism.

Six passages are to be identified as belonging to the first group, namely, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 11:16. Though there is repetition involved, these passages—all of which happen to present the testimony of John the Baptist respecting Christ—are now quoted in full. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matt 3:11). “I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost” (Mark 1:8). “John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Luke 3:16). “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:33). “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:5). “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16).

By the authority of Christ the Holy Spirit is given to all those who believe; and to come under the Spirit’s power and influence, as every Christian does when he believes, is to have been baptized by that influence. This universal blessing of the indwelling Spirit, however, is to be distinguished from some supposed second work of grace subsequent to salvation, which experience—as claimed by extreme Holiness groups—is accompanied by manifestations which are supernatural. It has already been demonstrated from the New Testament that the Holy Spirit is received as Christ’s gift by all who believe, and when they believe. This gift is the new birthright and, being possessed by all, indicates that all who are saved are under the power of the Holy Spirit, which fact is (according to the strict meaning of the word βαπτίζω) a baptism. It could be said on the ground of this meaning of the word that any person coming under the influence of Satan is by so much baptized by Satan. This particular baptism related so closely to the Holy Spirit is quite removed from the baptism wrought by Him when bringing believers into the Body of Christ, which reality is now to be considered.

The second classification of passages presents the Holy Spirit as baptizing agent and the Body of Christ, or Christ Himself, as the receiving element. These passages constitute a distinct testimony by themselves, which is to the effect that by the operation of the Holy Spirit the believer is organically and vitally joined to the Lord and thus has become a partaker of the standing, merit, and perfect worthiness of Christ. Since these passages bear on the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit, or real baptism as over against ritual, they should be given specific consideration. Doubtless some disagreement might arise over what passages should be included in this list; but where the results of the baptism are such as could never be accomplished by a mere ritual baptism, it is evident that reference is being made to a real or Spirit baptism: indeed, aside from those Scriptures already considered which assert that the presence of the Spirit in the believer is a special baptism wrought by Christ in bestowing the Spirit, the remaining passages must refer either to a real or a ritual baptism. As a general rule, it will be found that no Scripture refers to both real and ritual baptism. An exception will be indicated later when Ephesians 4:5 is considered. These passages are—

1 Corinthians 12:12–13. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” As nearly as any Scripture will be found to present didactic definitions, this passage defines the Spirit’s baptism.

It is a joining of the believer to, the bringing into, the Body of Christ—in other words, the forming of that organic relation between Christ and the believer which is expressed by the words in Christ, and which is the ground of all the Christian’s positions and possessions. The context of this passage sets forth the absolute unity, or identity, which obtains between Christ and the members of His Body. The members are a unity, being in one Body; and in its larger meaning this Body, when joined to its Head, is also one unity—the Christ. This revelation, which is a vital feature in the Pauline doctrine of the one Body, is most illuminating, emphatic, and convincing. This emphasis upon unity which verse 12 deposes, however, is only to prepare the way for the revelation of how members are joined to this Body. They are said to be baptized into this Body by one Spirit. The reference to one Spirit is but the continuation of that which has been declared time and again through the preceding portion of this chapter, namely, how it is by the one and selfsame Spirit that the varied gifts are wrought. Thus also, though many are baptized into the Body of Christ, it is wrought by the one Spirit in every instance. The central truth is that the one Spirit baptizes all—every believer—into the one Body. What is thus accomplished for every believer is a part of his very salvation, else it could not include each one. The investigation into that which this baptism accomplishes is reserved for a while, to be treated later in the thesis. That believers are all made to drink into one Spirit is an added testimony to the fact of the indwelling of the Spirit, which indwelling—as has been seen—is a matter of baptism. The universality of both the baptism into the Body and the indwelling is asserted by the repeated use of the word all, which term is inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles who believe.

Galatians 3:27. “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” According to this revealing declaration, the baptism which is into Christ has resulted in the vital union that is here described by the phraseology, have put on Christ.

On this passage Dean Alford writes, including with his comment a quotation from Chrysostom: “Not ‘have been baptized,’ and ‘have put on,’ as the Authorized Version, which leaves the two actions only concomitant; the past tenses make them identical: as many as were baptized into Christ, did in that very act, put on, clothe yourselves with, Christ. The force of the argument is well given by Chrysostom: ‘Why did he not say, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ, were born of God?” for this would naturally follow from having shown that they were sons. Because he lays down a far more startling proposition. For if Christ is the Son of God, and thou hast put Him on, then having the Son in thee, and fashioned after His likeness, thou wert brought into one family with Him and one type.’“[2] It is important to note that in the preceding verse—”For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”—the fact of sonship is declared, and it is this precise numerical company that by baptism into Christ have put on Christ. The phrase, as many of you, is properly a reference to all of you who have been begotten of God. Such have been joined to Christ thus. It is clear from other Scriptures that this baptism is wrought by the Holy Spirit and that Christ’s Body, or Christ Himself, is the receiving element. It is impossible for one who is joined to Christ not to have put on Christ, with all His merit and standing. The error of such as make this effect to stem from ritual baptism is exceeded only by those who make it merely an emotional, or energizing, experience. This baptism is wrought by the Holy Spirit and is altogether positional, and therefore vital.

Romans 6:1–4. “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? 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.”

Having declared that the believer is eternally justified—for justification is as enduring as the merit of Christ, on which it stands—the Apostle enters the question of whether anyone thus saved and secure should continue in sin, thereby yielding to the sin nature, so that grace may abound. The answer of inspiration to this question will be the reply of every regenerate person, namely, “God forbid.” It is not consistent, nor is it necessary, to go on bearing fruit unto the sin nature. Respecting the point of its necessity, the truth revealed is to the effect that in the death of Christ the believer’s sin nature has been judged. “How shall we that are dead to sin [that is, who died in Christ’s death], live any longer therein?” It is true that Christ died “for our sins,” that He was buried, and that He arose from the dead in order that men might be saved (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–4); but it is equally true—and Romans 6:1–10 now under consideration has only to do with this added fact—that Christ died unto sin, meaning the nature (cf. Rom 6:10; Col 2:11–12).

In this context the judgment of the sin nature on the cross is indicated by various phrases or statements: “dead to sin” (vs. 2), “planted [or, conjoined] together [with Him, the Savior] in the likeness of his death” (vs. 5), “our old man is [better, following R.V., to read the past tense was] crucified with him” (vs. 6), “if we be dead with Christ” (vs. 9), “he died unto sin [that is, unto the sin nature] once” (vs. 10). By all of this it is not implied that the death of Christ resulted in the destruction or termination of this nature (the word καταργέω of verse 6, translated destroyed, is better rendered annulled—cf. R.V.); it is rather that the death of Christ unto sin has wrought a judgment against the sin nature in the sight of God, to the end that the Holy Spirit who indwelis the believer may be made free to deal with the judged nature, restraining or nullifying it in response to the believer’s dependence upon the One indwelling to interpose and control that nature. This aspect of the death of Christ and the believer’s identification with it is all to the one purpose that “we should walk in newness of life.” “Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of [meaning the new power of Christ’s resurrected] life” (vs. 4), which is the new provision for a walk in and by the enabling Holy Spirit, He Himself being set free to render aid because of Christ’s judgment-death unto sin. The Christian’s union with Christ, achieved by the Spirit’s baptism unto Him, is the ground of the perfect identification with Christ in all that His death unto sin accomplished.

Coming thus into the value and under the power of Christ’s crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection is a baptism in the secondary meaning of that word. Those baptized into Christ are baptized into His death, are buried with Christ by their baptism into the Savior’s death. No ordinance is intimated by these expressions, nor is there any obligation being imposed that justifies an attempt to enact what is here set forth. This passage, with that which follows in the context, presents the central statement respecting the basis of the Christian’s victory in daily life over the sin nature. This is its objective and its meaning. To discover in it only the outward form of a ritual ordinance, as many have done, is to surrender one of the most priceless assets in the whole field of Christian doctrine, and by so much (for many) to abandon the hope of any life well-pleasing to God; for if this context means the one thing, it cannot mean the other.

Colossians 2:9–13. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”

The passing reference to baptism which this Scripture presents will not be understood apart from the entire context. As related to the rite of circumcision, the Apostle divides the human family into three classes, namely, the “uncircumcision”—the Gentiles, “the circumcision in the flesh made by hands”—the Jews, and “the circumcision made without hands”—the Christians (cf. Eph 2:11; Col 2:11). That circumcision which characterizes the Jew and which the Gentile lacks is “made by hands,” while the circumcision which the Christian has received is “made without hands” and is a spiritual reality. Four times the Bible speaks of circumcision in connection with the heart—Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:16, Ezekiel 44:7, Acts 7:51—before mention of the blessing brought to Christians, when the body of the sins of the flesh was put off and that by the circumcision of Christ. As the human body manifests the life which is in it, in like manner the sin nature manifests itself by “sins of the flesh.” Christ’s circumcision, here referred to, is not that which was made with hands when He was eight days old, but rather His death as directed against the sin nature.

There is a striking similarity to Romans 6:1–10 to be found in the passage just considered, and this similarity concerns the reference to Christ’s burial and resurrection as factors providing immeasurable value for, and influence over, the believer. Securing the results which they do, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are in their most absolute sense a baptism. The transformations which are here indicated, as they were also in Romans 6:1–10, could never be produced by any ritual baptism, and to read ritual baptism into this passage is again to ignore the limitless realities for which Christ died, was buried, and rose again. It is to substitute a human effort for one of God’s most glorious achievements. Doubtless, it is easier for those who comprehend but little of these great realities to substitute a tangible, physical undertaking such as ritual baptism for the deeper, unseen, and spiritual values of the real baptism. Regardless of human limitations, however, the significance of this passage does not descend to the level of an impotent ritual.

Ephesians 4:4–6. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” In the midst of these seven unifying agencies, and not the least of them, is “one baptism.” At once the question may arise in many minds whether reference in this instance is to real baptism by the Spirit, placing believers into the Body of Christ, or to ritual water baptism. Some contend that the latter baptism is in view and that the passage teaches there is but one right mode of such baptism. To impose such limitations on the text is deplorable. There is nothing in the passage to support a mode of baptism.

The unqualified statement that there is but one baptism becomes a very demanding problem to those who have elevated water baptism to the place where it must be a separate, independent, and diverse baptism—something, therefore, which is wholly unrelated to the Spirit’s baptism. Some contend that, since real baptism so outweighs the ritual type in importance, the ritual baptism is not to be mentioned at all in comparison with real baptism, here or elsewhere. Still others claim that the Apostle does not here contemplate ritual baptism, reckoning he only asserts that in the realm of spiritual forces which unify there is but one baptism, and this of necessity would be the baptism with the Spirit. Yet further to be considered is a class of interpreters who hold that the Spirit’s baptism occurred once-for-all and in behalf of all the Church on the day of Pentecost, and that it is not a thing wrought at the time someone is saved. This conception, which little articulates with the New Testament Scripture bearing on the theme, does not challenge the fact, though it attempts to change the time, of the Spirit’s baptism so plainly mentioned here in Ephesians. The larger portion of the Christian church, however, in so far as they consider the subject at all will assert that ritual baptism is a sign or outward symbol of the Spirit’s work, and thus the two combine to form what is called here one baptism.

Among the arguments advanced in support of the conviction that the one baptism is that of the Spirit by which believers are joined to the Lord and by which they gain all possessions and positions in Him, the one most effective observes that this reference to one baptism is given as one of seven unifying agencies. It is easily discerned that the baptism by the Holy Spirit into one Body engenders the most vital and perfect union that could be formed among men; on the other hand, if the history of the church on earth bears a testimony to the course of events at all, it is to the effect that ritual baptism has served more than any other one issue to shatter that manifestation of organic union which Christian fellowship is intended to exhibit.

On the right interpretation of Ephesians 4:5 Doctor John W. Bradbury, editor of the Watchman-Examiner, the leading Baptist journal of this day in America, writes the following as a special contribution to the present discussion of the Apostle’s teaching: “The corporate concept of the Church is as essential as the individual one. The ‘body’ of Christ is held together ‘in the bond of peace’ by keeping the ‘unity of the Spirit’ (vs. 3). The thought that the Church is a ‘body’ whose life is uniformly identified with the Holy Spirit is illustrated by what we know of an organism such as the human body, having the human spirit as a sign of life. We have, therefore, in the ecclesia a body having God’s Spirit, evidencing such through professing ‘one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God…in all.’ The emphasis on ‘one’ is in opposition to corporate diversity in the ‘body’ of Christ. As to ‘hope,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘faith,’ ‘God,’ there will be little—if any—difference among true believers. But in regard to the word ‘baptism’ there is a difference, because most people have only one viewpoint as to baptism and that is, an ordinance. But in this passage, where ordinances are not before us but rather the truth concerning the organism called ‘the body of Christ,’ we have baptism mentioned on equal terms with ‘hope,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘faith,’ ‘God.’ This signifies that the ‘baptism’ referred to is that of 1 Corinthians 12:13—’For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.’“

Likewise, on the belief that the one baptism of Ephesians 4 is not ritual baptism Doctor Merrill Frederick Unger writes: “Erroneously, Spirit baptism is made a once-for-all operation at Pentecost (Acts 2), and in Cornelius’ house (Acts 10), and then said to have ceased. During this present age, it is maintained, there is no baptism with the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13 is construed as referring back to those events. Such Scriptures as Romans 6:3–4, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21 are made to refer exclusively to water baptism. The ‘one baptism’ of Ephesians 4:5 is also strongly asserted to be water baptism, and that alone. Doctor I. M. Haldeman,[3] adopting this position, comments thus on Ephesians 4:5: ‘If it be Holy Ghost baptism, water baptism is excluded. There is no authority, no place for it. No minister has a right to perform it; no one is under obligation to submit to it. To perform it, or submit to it, would be not only without authority, but useless, utterly meaningless. If it be water baptism, Holy Ghost baptism is no longer operative. Baptism must be either the one or the other, Holy Ghost or water. It cannot be both. Two are no longer permissible.’[4]

“Others, adopting the opposite extreme position, while rightly insisting that Ephesians 4:5 refers to Spirit baptism, drastically rule out any practice of water baptism for the Church age. Although they find ritual baptism, of course, regularly practised in the early church (Acts 2:38; 8:12–13, 16, 36; 9:18; 10:47–48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:3, 5) and mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:13–17, this practice is thought of as confined to the early ‘Jewish’ church, and discontinued by the Apostle Paul when the ‘real’ New Testament church was begun, late in the book of Acts. This position must be rejected. The basic fact, which is ignored, is that the Church actually began with the baptism with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:4; 2:4, 47 with 11:16; 1 Cor 12:13), and that water baptism was regularly administered not only in the early so-called ‘Jewish’ church, but also long after in fully established ‘Gentile’ churches (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:13–17).

“The Apostle, in speaking of the ‘one baptism’ in Ephesians 4:5, to be sure, is speaking of Spirit baptism, which is likewise the case in Romans 6:3–4, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27. But when he describes this momentous operation of the Spirit as the ‘one baptism,’ and as one of the seven essential unities to be recognized and kept in maintaining Christian oneness and concord, does he necessarily imply that water baptism is no longer to be administered? Did he not mean merely to say, ‘There is only one [spiritual] baptism’? His theme is no more water baptism in Romans 6:3–4, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27 than in Ephesians 4:5. In these passages the holy Apostle is not considering ritual baptism at all. The sublimity of the thought, the context of the argument, the exalted nature of the spiritual verities taught, are strongly in support of this position. He is speaking of something infinitely higher, not of a mere symbolic ordinance that is powerless to effect intrinsic change, but of a divine operation which places us eternally in Christ, and into His experiences of crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection. It is to be feared that man, in reading water baptism into these sublime passages, has put them into ecclesiastical ‘stocks,’ and tortured and twisted until they screamed out some confession never written in them. To be sure this tortuous, corrupting process began very early, perhaps even within the lifetime of the great Apostle. But it seems evident, if historical and philological facts are but allowed to speak, that a first-century reader—uncorrupted as to the truth—would never have thought of reading water baptism into these passages. To him they meant Spirit baptism, and that alone. Their very mold would have hindered him from associating them with any ritual use of water. His whole concept of the meaning and mode of baptism would have been utterly foreign to the Apostle’s words concerning ‘death,’ ‘burial,’ and ‘resurrection.’ It would never have occurred to him to connect these figures with water baptism.

“Baptism, referring to the Levitical ceremonies of the Old Testament (Heb 9:10), had come to have a wide meaning of ‘ceremonial cleansing, or ritual purification, and that by sprinkling or pouring,’ centuries before the Christian era. Fairchild, with full array of facts and unanswerable logic, conclusively proves this established usage of βαπτίζω from the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, Josephus, and the Greek New Testament.[5] Dale, with brilliant and exhaustive scholarship, employed with consummate skill in minute, scientific examination of every phase of this subject, thus concludes his monumental work on the study of baptism among the ancient Jews: ‘Judaic baptism is a condition of ceremonial purification effected by washing…sprinkling…pouring…dependent in no wise on any form of act, or on the covering of the object.’[6] Dale concludes his great work on the study of John the Baptist’s baptism with these words: ‘This same βάπτισμα is declared by word and exhibited in symbol by the application of pure water to the person in the ritual ordinance. This is Johannic baptism in its shadow… Dipping or immersing into water is phraseology utterly unknown to John’s baptism.’[7] Biblical, historical, and philological proofs abound, therefore, that John the Baptist ‘ceremonially purified’ (i.e., baptized) by sprinkling or pouring, that Jesus was so baptized (i.e., consecrated) unto His priesthood (Exod 29:4; Ps 110:1; Matt 3:15; Heb 7:9)[8] and that early Jewish and Christian baptisms knew no other mode.[9] With all of this great weight of established usage of the word βαπτίζω behind him, made crystal-clear as a result of his intimate knowledge of Judaism as a trained Rabbi, how unthinkable it is that the great Apostle would have so violated every principle of established usage of language and custom of centuries, as to have made βαπτίζω in such passages as Romans 6:3–4, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5 refer to any mode of water baptism, indeed to water baptism at all!”[10]

1 Peter 3:21. “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The peculiar tendency with many to assume that ritual baptism is implied whenever the word βαπτίζω occurs has led to much confusion. In the light of its relative importance it would be more reasonable to imply that real baptism is in view, until it is made certain that ritual baptism is indicated. Two points are to be noted in this passage: (1) that the baptism mentioned is saving in its effect, and (2) that it is related to the resurrection of Christ, which is vitally true of real baptism but not directly true of ritual baptism.

Mark 16:16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Again baptism is mentioned as though it had saving power. The reference evidently is to real baptism. On this passage Doctor G. Campbell Morgan writes: “He that believeth (that is the human condition) and is baptized (that is the divine miracle) shall be saved. When the negative side is stated, baptism is omitted as being unnecessary; for he that disbelieveth cannot be baptized. If it is water baptism, he can; but if it is the baptism of the Spirit, he cannot.”[11]

As a summarization of these seven passages bearing on the Spirit’s baptism, it may be observed that 1 Corinthians 12:13—which is not only the first of them chronologically, but also the central testimony regarding the Spirit’s baptism—declares directly what that baptism accomplishes. In the second, Galatians 3:27, the Spirit’s baptism is said to result in the putting on of Christ. In the third, Romans 6:1–10, identification with Christ in His crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection as a judgment of the sin nature is in view, and to the end that the believer may walk in resurrection power in spite of the sin nature. In the fourth passage, Colossians 2:9–13, the same influence of Christ’s death (contemplated now as a spiritual circumcision), burial, and resurrection is again said to be a baptism. In the fifth passage, Ephesians 4:4–6, the Spirit’s baptism is set forth as one of the unifying elements in the Body of Christ. In the sixth and seventh passages—1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16—this baptism is related to salvation as a most vital feature of it. Since by the baptism with the Spirit the believer is joined to Christ, more than a hundred passages which include the phrases in Christ or in him (that is, Christ) should be added to this list for exhaustiveness.

It may prove advantageous to call attention again at this point to the secondary meaning of βαπτίζω, the meaning which so largely obtains in the New Testament—which signifies that, apart from a physical intusposition, one thing baptizes another thing when its power and influence are exerted over that other thing. Christ gives the Holy Spirit unto all believers to indwell them, to comfort them, and to enable them; thus the believer comes under the power and influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a gift is not a baptism into anything physical, but is that form of baptism which a dominating power and influence secures. To be joined to Christ by the Spirit’s baptism is not a physical envelopment in Christ, or in His Body; it is nevertheless a true baptism in that the one thus joined to the Lord has not only been wrought upon by the Spirit who baptizes, but in that he comes under the immeasurable values of all Christ is and all He has done, himself being in Christ. The importance of a due recognition of all that enters into the secondary meaning of βαπτίζω can hardly be overestimated. The larger portion of theologians have more or less definitely related ritual baptism to the work of the Holy Spirit, as a shadow or symbol is related to substance and reality. Other theologians, it would seem, have all but lost the secondary meaning of this great word in a sectarian effort to defend a mode of ritual baptism.[12]

Notes

1. James W. Dale, Classic Baptism, 2nd edition, p. 354.
2. Dean Alford, New Testament for English Readers, new ed., at Gal 3:27.
3. Author’s note: Doctor Haldeman was one of the clearest thinkers and logicians of his generation. It is, therefore, strange that he did not recognize the necessary confusion to which his interpretation would lead at last. Logic or no, here Haldeman is admitting the perplexity which arises when it is assumed that there are two unrelated and independent baptisms in the Church—the one with water, related to the death of Christ, and the other related to the Holy Spirit. Apparently Haldeman held with others of this school of exegesis that the Spirit’s baptism was wrought for all and once-for-all at Pentecost, that it anticipated the elect company who would be saved, and that—being undertaken at the beginning of the history of the Church—it does not come into conflict with ritual baptism. But surely the mere question of time, to determine when the Spirit’s baptism is wrought, does not change the fact of that particular baptism. It is doubtless still in force and so may well be, even if wrought at Pentecost, the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5.
4. I. M. Haldeman, Holy Ghost or Water? p. 4.
5. Edmund B. Fairchild, Letters on Baptism, pp. 32-122.
6. James W. Dale, Judaic Baptism, p. 400.
7. James W. Dale, Johannic Baptism, p. 417.
8. E. E. Hawes, Baptism Mode Studies, pp. 81-109.
9. James W. Dale, Christic and Patristic Baptism, pp. 162-240.
10. M. F. Unger, Bibliotheca Sacra, CI, 244–47.
11. G. Campbell Morgan, The Spirit of God, pp. 181-82.
12. For further detail consult the author’s Systematic Theology.