044. Chapter 39: Holy Baptism
------------ CHAPTER THIRTY-NINE ------------
Holy Baptism The Word Baptism Defined The first New Testament sacrament is holy baptism. The Greek word baptizo means “to baptize”: “... be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38). It also means to insert or to immerse into water: “... that he may dip [Note: In the Statenvertaling the word “dope” is used, which is the subjunctive of “dopen.” This verb is the equivalent of “to baptize.”] the tip of his finger in water” (Luke 16:24). Since the insertion into water occurs for purification purposes, it is also translated as “to wash.” “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not” (Mark 7:4).
Consequently, the words baptismos, baptisma mean “baptism”: “Of the doctrine of baptisms ...” (Hebrews 6:2). It also means “washing”: “... the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables” (Mark 7:4). The word “baptism” has various connotations. It first of all can refer to doctrine. “This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; ... knowing only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). The ancients referred to this as the baptism of light.
Secondly, it refers to heavy suffering, to be overwhelmed with suffering, and to be immersed in suffering as one would be immersed into water. “But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:50). This is referred to as the baptism of blood.
Thirdly, it refers to the abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit, whereby the soul is purified and is made to burn with spiritual zeal.
“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). This is referred to as the baptism of fire.
Fourthly, it refers to being showered upon, to be immersed in water, to be sprinkled with water, and thus to being washed. As such, it is used 1) in a civil sense for the cleansing of the body and of other things; 2) for ceremonial washings in the Old Testament: “... and divers washings (baptisms)” (Hebrews 9:10); and 3) in reference to the New Testament’s first sacrament which we shall now consider. “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). In our treatment of this subject matter, we shall follow the same order which we have pursued in the previous chapter. We shall consider: 1) the Author, 2) the external sign, 3) the matter signified, 4) the relationship between the sign and the matter signified, 5) the purpose, and 6) the subject -- who are to be baptized. The Author of Baptism The Author of holy baptism is God, that is, Christ, the Bridegroom of His church. This is evident in the following passages: “... but He that sent me to baptize with water” (John 1:33); “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” (Matthew 21:25). The Lord Jesus concludes from this, and convinces them by their own faith, that the baptism of John was from God. Christ gave the following command to His disciples when He was about to ascend to heaven: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). The instrumental causes, the administrators of baptism, are men commissioned by God to baptize. The first of these was John; he was therefore called the Baptist and his baptism, the baptism of John (cf. Matthew 3:1; Matthew 21:25). Afterwards Christ’s disciples baptized upon His command. “... that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples)” (John 4:1-2). After His resurrection He commanded His disciples (and thus all ministers) to baptize, giving them the promise that He would be with them until the end of the world (Matthew 28:19-20).
Question: Is there an essential difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ, or are they the same?
Answer: Socinians, Anabaptists, as well as Papists maintain -- albeit with different objectives -- that they differ essentially. We maintain that there is some difference in the circumstances: 1) John baptized as the forerunner of Christ and sealed the forgiveness of sins by Christ, who had already come and was engaged in His atoning work, but had not yet finished all things. 2) With John’s baptism there was no outpouring of extraordinary gifts. 3) It was less clear in nature. We do maintain, however, that they are of one and the same essence. This is first of all evident because all that belongs to the essence of a sacrament is equally true for the baptisms of both John and Christ. 1) They both have one and the same Author (John 1:33); 2) they have the same sign, that is, water (Matthew 3:11); 3) they signify the same matter: Christ’s blood unto the forgiveness of sins (Acts 19:4); 4) the relationship between the sign and the matter signified is the same: the washing away of filth -- in the one of the body, and in the other of the soul; 5) they have the same purpose: incorporation into the church, the sealing of the forgiveness of sins (Acts 19:4), and conversion (Matthew 3:11). All these matters are identical in the baptism of Christ, which will subsequently be demonstrated in this chapter. It is consequently one and the same baptism.
Secondly, the baptism with which Christ was, and believers are, baptized, is one and the same baptism. “... one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5); “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” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Christ was baptized with no other baptism but the baptism of John. Therefore the baptism of John and of Christ are one and the same baptism.
Thirdly, there is but one baptism in the New Testament. The baptism of John was a New Testament baptism, for he preached Christ who had already come (although He had not yet died) as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. The baptism of John and of Christ are therefore one and the same.
Objection #1: A very clear distinction is made in Matthew 3:11, for John baptized with water, and Christ with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
Answer (1) The baptism of the apostles is administered with water until this present day; by the same argument this would then also not be the baptism of Christ. The invalidity of this argument should be obvious to everyone.
(2) There is a distinction here between the external sign, which John could only administer, and the matter signified, which only Christ could give.
Objection #2: John did not baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, which the apostles, however, did upon Christ’s command. It is therefore not one and the same baptism.
Answer (1) The doctrine of the Holy Trinity did not have as many opponents as is presently the case, and it was therefore not necessary to state this expressly each time. Not everything John said is recorded; from the fact that it is not recorded, one can therefore not conclude that it did not transpire.
(2) He had been sent by a triune God, and John knew Him who had sent him. Knowing Him, he also preached Him and therefore also baptized in His Name.
(3) The Holy Trinity revealed itself in the baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:16-17). The Father spoke from heaven to the Son who was being baptized, and the Spirit of God descended.
(4) Nowhere is the baptism of John disqualified, which would have occurred if John had not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.
(5) Then Christ and all others would not have been baptized in the correct manner.
Objection #3: Those persons who were baptized by John were later rebaptized, as is to be observed in Acts 19:4-5, “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Answer: This misunderstanding is a result of separating the words of Acts 19:4 from those in Acts 19:5, and by acknowledging the words of Acts 19:4 to be the words of Paul, but deeming the words in Acts 19:5 to be those of Luke, the writer of this history -- as if he were recounting what followed upon the instruction of Paul. This, however, would have to be proven. These words integrate very well when one conjoins Acts 19:4 and Acts 19:5, and considers them to be the words of the apostle Paul. He instructed the disciples in Acts 19:4 about the manner in which John baptized and taught, and thereupon declared that all who heard it were obedient and believed John’s preaching, were baptized by him.
(2) Even if one admits that these disciples who were baptized by John were rebaptized, it therefore does not follow that John’s baptism differed from the baptism of the apostles. Neither here nor elsewhere is this baptism disqualified. From this it could only be alleged that the disciples of John were baptized twice; this, however, is denied.
Then the point of contention remains whether or not one may be baptized twice. We maintain that this generally ought not to occur. There is no need for repetition since it is the sacrament of regeneration and incorporation into the church, which indeed only occurs but once. Moreover, an example of such repetition is lacking.
If one considers grace to be inherent in baptism, causing regeneration in the baptized person by reason of this efficacious power, then it could not be repeated, for whoever is regenerated remains regenerated. Since, however, baptism is only a seal of regeneration, there is no objection as such if someone were to be sealed twice in reference to the same matter. If someone, having been baptized in his youth, does not know and cannot ascertain whether he was baptized, and is nevertheless very desirous to be baptized, what objection would there be if he were rebaptized? This concern issues forth from the Papist position concerning the efficacy of baptism; it is, however, contrary to the practice of the apostles and the church.
These disciples of John could have had a strong desire to be baptized by the apostles, for at that time it was generally accompanied by the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost. In these early times Paul, being cautious, was very lenient as far as the ceremonies were concerned, and he would also have been lenient toward the disciples of John by baptizing them again. Even if he has done so to a few at a special occasion, we nevertheless do not admit that it thus follows that the baptism of John was repeated to everyone. This was neither true upon the day of Pentecost, nor thereafter. Much less is it true that the baptism of John is essentially different from the baptism of the apostles, and that thus the baptism of the apostles was rejected. The Qualifications of Those Who are Authorized to Baptize
We have thus demonstrated that the baptism of John and Christ are essentially one and the same baptism. We shall now proceed to consider the qualifications of those who are permitted to administer baptism. They must be men who have been lawfully commissioned to preach and baptize. This is first of all evident from common practice since the time of Christ. Secondly, Christ has conjoined preaching and baptizing; the apostles -- and thus all ministers -- have been commissioned to baptize. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19). Thirdly, baptism must be administered in the name of Christ; that is, upon the command and according to the institution of Christ. “Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).
Therefore no one may baptize unless he has been commanded by Christ to do so -- and thus is a servant of Christ and a steward of the mysteries of God (1 Corinthians 4:1).
Here we differ with the Papists.
Question: In case of emergency, when an unbaptized person -- whether young or old -- is at the point of death and there is no ordained minister at hand, may not a private individual (be it a man or a woman) administer baptism to such a dying person?
Answer: Papists answer affirmatively, since they deem baptism to be absolutely essential unto salvation, and declare an unbaptized person to be damned. We, however, answer this question negatively. One who is not ordained may, under no circumstances, administer baptism. Salvation is not contingent upon baptism, and a believer can indeed be saved without baptism. We prove this as follows:
First, as we have shown above, it is just as necessary to be divinely commissioned to baptize as it is to preach. Private individuals, however, are without such a commission and thus they may not baptize.
Secondly, since salvation is not contingent upon baptism and baptism has no inherent power to bring about regeneration in those who are baptized -- which has been shown in the previous chapter and will be demonstrated in this chapter -- then such a case of emergency never exists. Consequently, a private individual may not baptize. Even those parties who permit this at no other time but in case of emergency, concur in this.
Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper may under no circumstances be administered by a private individual, and this is therefore also true for baptism. The sacraments are of one and the same nature. The one does not require a different person for its administration than the other.
Objection #1: To be instrumental in the salvation of souls is a work of love to which all Christians are obligated. To baptize someone in case of emergency is equivalent to saving a soul. It is thus the duty of every Christian to baptize in case of emergency.
Answer: Such a case of emergency does not exist; baptism is not the saving of souls. This argument has thus been rendered invalid.
Objection #2: In the New Testament, we read of several private individuals who have baptized. Philip baptized the eunuch (Acts 8:38); Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 22:16), and those who belonged to the household of Cornelius were baptized by private individuals (Acts 10:48).
Answer (1) This argument would prove more than is the intent of the opposing party, for private individuals would then always be able to baptize without their imaginary case of emergency; there was no such case of emergency in these examples.
(2) We deny that the individuals mentioned above were without a divine commission; let this be proven. Philip was a deacon (Acts 6:5), whom both parties consider to have been commissioned to baptize, and furthermore, he was an evangelist (Acts 21:8). Ananias was a disciple who received an express command from God (Acts 9:10-11
Objection #3: Zipporah circumcised her son (Exodus 4:25), and therefore women are also permitted to baptize.
Answer (1) They contradict themselves, for when a priest is present, they will not permit a woman to baptize. This is the case here, for Moses belonged to the tribe of Levi.
(2) This is an isolated example and was performed by a woman who did this with a violent temper and in a fit of anger; this is not to be imitated.
(3) The Levitical ministry had not yet been instituted.
(4) Papists maintain that there is an essential difference between the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments.
One, therefore, cannot draw a logical conclusion from the one to the other upon the basis of this argument.
Additional objection: God was pleased with this act, for His wrath was pacified by it.
Answer: God’s anger was pacified by this act because the child had been circumcised -- but not because Zipporah had done it, and had done so in anger. God likewise blessed the Egyptian midwives for having helped the Hebrews in saving their children, but not because of their lies (Exodus 1:20-21).
Question: Are heretics permitted to baptize? Are baptisms performed by heretics true baptisms?
Answer: First, baptism must be performed in the true church of Jesus Christ, for by baptism the baptized person is incorporated into the church in which the baptism is administered. Secondly, it must be administered by an ordained minister. If someone has therefore been baptized in an assembly which is heretical in doctrine, and whose ministers consequently are not lawfully ordained, such a baptized person, upon becoming a believer, must be baptized. This is not rebaptism, for the first baptism was not baptism. A particular church can be in error in many points; however, as long as its doctrinal foundation remains pure, it remains a true church, and the veracity of baptism is not negated by impurity in doctrine. This is also true if the minister is personally unconverted and secretly espouses heretical views, for the efficacy of baptism is not contingent upon the person who administers it. The External Sign of Baptism The second thing to be considered in reference to baptism is the external sign. In this respect we need to consider the element as well as the ceremony, that is, the manner of administration. The element is water, that is, common, clean water, without any distinction. John the Baptist and the apostles used this. “I indeed baptize you with water” (Matthew 3:11); “... He that sent me to baptize with water” (John 1:33); “... because there was much water there” (John 3:23). This is also true for the apostles: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized” (Acts 10:47); “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized ... and they went down both into the water ... and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36
First, the verb “baptize” can also be translated as “sprinkle.” “... except they wash, they eat not” (Mark 7:4). The washing of hands generally occurs by allowing water to be poured upon the hands. “... Here is Elisha ... which poured water on the hands of Elijah” (2 Kings 3:11).
Secondly, the matter signified, namely, the blood of Christ as cleansing the soul, is expressed as sprinkling. “And to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling” (Hebrews 12:24).
Thirdly, the relationship between the sign and the matter signified is expressed both by sprinkling and immersion, for one cleanses the body by both methods. Concerning sprinkling or pouring out we read, “Then shall I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Ezekiel 36:25).
Fourthly, it is obvious that the apostles also have used sprinkling in baptizing the three thousand upon the day of Pentecost, the jailor, as well as at other occasions.
It also makes no difference if one sprinkles the person to be baptized once or three times. If one sprinkles but once, the reference is to the Trinity of the divine Being; if one sprinkles three times, the reference is to the three Persons. In considering the ceremony or manner of sprinkling, one may also consider the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” as belonging to this since 1) Christ in issuing His command to baptize uses these words; 2) it is a certainty that one must be baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, for there is no other God but Hebrews 3:1-19) the person baptized is declared to be the property of a triune God; 4) the pronouncement of these words has at all times been used in the church; 5) there is a special relationship between each Person and the person being baptized: that the Father is his Father, the Son is his Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is his Comforter and Sanctifier; and 6) the Holy Trinity is expressly confessed in this manner. One must therefore preserve the pronouncement of these words.
If, however, the church acknowledges and confesses the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and if the adult to be baptized does likewise, I would neither consider such a baptism to be unlawful nor deem it to be null and void, even if the words in question were not expressly pronounced at his baptism. I neither consider the pronouncement of the words to be relevant to the essential nature of baptism, nor does it validate baptism as such. I do not know, however, if such a case has ever transpired, for the baptism of heretics is not baptism, regardless of whether they mention the Trinity or not. When the apostle exhorts the people in Acts 2:38 to let themselves be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and when it is related in Acts 8:16 that those of Samaria were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, this neither proves that baptism was administered upon the pronouncement of the words, “I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ,” nor that the names of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost were not used; rather, these expressions only indicate that baptism was administered upon the command and according to the ordinance of Christ. Baptism in the name of Christ does not exclude, but includes, the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Matter Signified in Baptism The third particular to be considered is the matter signified; that is, that which the water and the manner of administration typify: the blood of Christ as washing away the filth of the soul, that is, sin. The Relationship Between the Sign and the Matter Signified The fourth matter to be considered is the relationship between the sign and the matter signified. This consists in the fact that as water cleanses the body from filth, so the blood of Christ cleanses the soul from sin. The first is verified by experience, and the second is taught by Scripture. “... Jesus Christ, who ... washed us from our sins in His own blood” (Revelation 1:5). The water of baptism signifies and seals the washing of the soul; this is evident in the following passages: “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Ephesians 5:26); “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” (1 Peter 3:21). The filth of the soul pertains to both the guilt and the pollution of sin; the washing away of both is sealed in baptism. Concerning the removal of guilt we read, “... be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16). Concerning the removal of pollution we read, “... He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). The Purpose of Baptism The fifth matter to be considered is the purpose of baptism, which consists in the assurance and sealing of the forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and incorporation into the church. Concerning the forgiveness of sins we read, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith” (Romans 4:11). If the Old Testament sacrament functioned as a seal, this is much more true for baptism in the New Testament, which came in the place of circumcision. “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” (Colossians 2:11-12). As far as regeneration is concerned, refer to Titus 3:5. Concerning incorporation into the church we read, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13).
Concerning the purpose of baptism several questions need to be answered.
Question: Was baptism nothing more than a symbol of separation between Jews and Christians and between believers and unbelievers, this being the case only during the apostolic period?
Answer: This is the sentiment of the Socinians who deny the holy Trinity and the atonement of Christ, and thus any sealing function of the sacraments. We do indeed consider baptism to be a symbol of separation between believers, as it constitutes incorporation into the church. This, however, was not merely true at the outset of the New Testament period, but rather for the entire period. We furthermore maintain that baptism seals the forgiveness of sins in all ages until the end of the world. This has been confirmed above (cf. Romans 4:11; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Ephesians 5:26). Add to this Matthew 28:19-20, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It must be noted here that teaching is expressly distinguished from baptizing, and that the distortions of the Socinians, suggesting that in this instance baptizing is synonymous with doctrine, are contrary to the express words of the text. It must furthermore be noted that baptism was not -- as they say -- only a symbol of separation between the unconverted and the Jews who had been converted to Christianity, but that baptism had to be administered to all believing Gentiles of all manner of nations. It must also be noted that the administration of baptism had to continue until the end of the world, for the apostles had to teach all nations to observe whatsoever He had commanded them. This also included the command to baptize as expressed here. Christ also promises to be with them until the end of the world, which cannot have reference to the persons of the apostles, for they would not live that long. Rather, it pertains to the administration of baptism to their descendants by means of ministers.
Objection #1: There were several things in the original church which were but temporal, such as abstinence from eating of things which were strangled, the washing of feet, and the anointing of the sick with oil.
Answer (1) What conclusion does one wish to draw from this -- that baptism was only valid for that time? That is as illogical as concluding that the Bible was also for that time only, and that there is now no need for preaching.
(2) The reference to that which was strangled could only be for that time since it then gave offense to the Jews who were weak in the faith. The washing of feet was a civil labor of love in those countries where one travelled on bare feet. The anointing with oil was a ceremony which belonged to the gifts of healing; these having ceased, this likewise had to cease.
Objection #2: All ceremonies have come to an end; religion is now spiritual in nature, and therefore there can be no baptism.
Answer (1) The ceremonies which typified Christ have been eliminated by His coming.
(2) Religion in the Old Testament was also spiritual in nature.
(3) To be directed to spiritual matters by way of physical matters does not negate the spirituality of man’s religion, for he consists of body and soul.
(4) It has pleased God to institute the sacraments and therefore foolish man must be silent.
Objection #3: Paul himself testified that he was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), and thus there is now no baptism.
Answer (1) If Paul indeed had not been sent to baptize, does it follow that none were commissioned to baptize -- also not those who were addressed by Christ in Matthew 28:19?
(2) Did Paul then baptize those whom he did baptize without a divine commission (1 Corinthians 1:14
(3) “Not being sent to baptize” is not stated in the absolute sense of the word, but rather comparatively speaking. His primary commission was not to baptize, since baptism by immersion required much more time than preaching. Such expressions are used several times in God’s Word. A Refutation of the Error that the Water of Baptism is Efficacious unto Salvation
Question: Does the water of baptism have inherent power to remove sins and to regenerate man ex opere operato (that is, by means of the external administration of the water to the person being baptized) and thus physically bring forth these said graces in the person being baptized? Can the water of baptism also be an actual and ordinary means unto regeneration in young children, apart from the hearing of the Word?
Answer: The Papists, together with the Socinians, deny any sealing function. The Socinians do so because they deny the atonement of Christ, and the Papists do so because they attribute the efficacy of baptism to the external signs. They therefore answer the question presented in the affirmative. We, however, answer this question resolutely in the negative.
First of all, a physical object cannot interact with the soul -- which is a spirit -- in a physical or natural manner, nor can it bring forth anything in it that is spiritual. The external sign, that is, the water of baptism, is of a physical nature; therefore the first proposition can be observed in nature. The second proposition is answered by Scripture, by the experience of all senses, and is admitted by the opposing parties themselves. For they themselves maintain that the water of baptism is and remains water and is not changed into the blood of Christ. Our conclusion thus remains in force.
Evasive Argument: Although a physical object of itself cannot interact with a soul, this can nevertheless occur by reason of the power of God, who can give a physical object an ability as He pleases.
Answer (1) It is first of all certain that it needs to be proven that God has given such efficacy to water in baptism; this never will, nor can possible be proven.
(2) If such efficacy had been communicated to water, namely, that it could engender such spiritual graces in the soul, water should then have spiritual characteristics, for the operations of any cause are directly related to its qualities or characteristics. As are the qualities, so is likewise the efficacy of the operations; the efficacy of the operations agrees with the qualities. To be a physical object and yet to have spiritual qualities by which spiritual things are engendered in a spirit is contradictory in nature; a physical object would then be transformed into a nonphysical object. To be a physical object while simultaneously not being a physical object is as contradictory as “yes” and “no.” God is, however, a God of truth who works in His creatures in harmony with their nature; He does not reverse their nature.
Secondly, Scripture expressly denies that the sign has the efficacy to work grace. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but He that cometh after me ... shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11). Here the persons and their work and the efficacy of their work are placed in distinction to each other. John and Christ baptized with water, and baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire is being energized by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is denied that John, the water, and his baptism have this efficacy, but it is attributed to Christ. Therefore the baptized person receives saving graces, not due to the efficacy of the water, but from Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is also evident in 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 apostle drew a parallel with the flood. Noah was saved by virtue of the water which caused the ark to float. Peter applied this to baptism, declaring that it also saves. He added to this the manner in which it does and does not save. He denied that it is the water of baptism which saves by saying, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”; but he posits salvation as being in Christ’s resurrection after His suffering, which is received by faith and sealed in baptism. Thereby the believing soul receives freedom to come to God with a conscience having been cleansed in the blood of Christ, and to ask if she is then not justified and has peace with God, a matter of which the soul becomes conscious while asking for it and perceives the efficacy while appropriating it.
Thirdly, whatever functions as a sign and a seal does not bring about the matter itself of which it is a sign and a seal. It is common knowledge that the entire thrust of a sign is to identify and to indicate something, and the entire thrust of a seal is to confirm and to guarantee. The rainbow does not have the capability of preventing a flood, the fleece of Gideon did not conquer the enemies, and the turning back of the shadow did not render health to Hezekiah. It is thus that the water of baptism is a sign and a seal, as has been demonstrated above from Romans 4:11. Consequently, the water of baptism does not beget grace.
Fourthly, since it is faith which renders baptism spiritually efficacious, it is thus not the water which does so due to inherent efficacy. Faith is not to be found in the water, but rather in the baptized person. This efficacy proceeds from faith. This is evident because the element is not a sacrament apart from the institutional formula and the promise. When the word is joined to the element, it then becomes a sacrament, and the Word of God cannot be operative and beneficial except it be received by faith (Hebrews 4:12); furthermore, one neither may nor can receive baptism except by faith: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:37; cf. Mark 16:16). Thus, the efficacy of baptism is not related to the water, but is due to faith which unites the sign to the matter signified, and is operative in reference to the institutional formula and promise.
Fifthly, if the water of baptism -- due to inherent efficacy -- would beget grace in the persons baptized in a physical, that is, natural manner, all who are baptized would be the recipients of the grace of justification and sanctification. Whatever has the inherent efficacy to be operative and is indeed operative, will be operative toward all objects which are within its sphere of influence. Fire warms the good as well as the evil. It would not matter whether a person were a Jew, Muslim, hypocrite, or heathen, or whether he was desirous for grace and to be a partaker of this grace; if such a person were baptized, even against his will, he would be the recipient of the grace of the removal of sin and regeneration. If he were to be killed at that every moment, he would then be saved, and it would thus be easy to get many of the most abominable among men into heaven. Shameful is such a doctrine! Scripture demonstrates the contrary and affirms that one who is baptized can go lost. Peter said to the baptized Simon the sorcerer, “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:21). Paul says concerning the unqualified partakers of the sacraments that they make themselves guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27). From all this it is very evident that the water of baptism does not have the inherent efficacy to beget grace.
Objection #1: The efficacy to remove sins, to regenerate, and to save are attributed to baptism and thus it must have this efficacy. Consider the following passages:
(1) “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Matthew 3:11).
Answer: This text refutes their proposition, for water is denied such efficacy there; instead, efficacy is attributed to the Spirit of Christ which God gives His children.
(2) “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).
Answer 1) Two matters are joined here in reference to one result; which, however, are not equal as far as efficacy and necessity are concerned. Without faith no one can be saved; however, salvation is possible without being baptized. If faith is absent, baptism can be of no benefit, which is evident in the following: “... but he that believeth not [it does not say, “he that is not baptized”] shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).
2) Baptism is conjoined to faith as sealing the veracity of the promises, thereby strengthening faith.
(3) “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
Answer: There is no reference here whatsoever to the sacrament of baptism, but only to the Holy Spirit with His purifying power. He is therefore frequently compared to water and to fire due to the energy attending His operations (Matthew 3:11).
(4) “... be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); “... be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16).
Answer 1) It is not stated here that either the water of baptism or the external deed of sprinkling forgives and washes away sin. This is the point that needs to be proven.
2) The reference is here to being baptized for the remission of sins. The remission of sins is God’s pronouncement to men, acquitting them on the basis of the merits of Christ. This is applied to the heart by faith, whereby one has peace with God (Romans 5:1). This faith is strengthened by baptism which seals God’s promises concerning the remission of sins, and thus baptism is administered for the remission of sins, sealing this to believers.
3) The apostle addresses believers about baptism and the remission of sins. The entire difference pertains to the manner in which baptism washes away sin -- whether this be due to a physical or natural operation, or by reason of a moral or sealing efficacy, which is rendered efficacious by faith. The first we deny; the text presented does not speak of it with one letter, but rather, of being cleansed by the blood of Christ, which is received by faith and sealed by baptism.
(5) “That He might ... cleanse it with the washing of water” (Ephesians 5:26); “... the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).
Answer 1) Again, there is not one word here which states that water and its external administration have the efficacy to cleanse and regenerate, and that this comes about in a natural way by virtue of inherent efficacy. This would have to be proven, and it is this which we deny. We readily admit and defend the fact that baptism purifies the heart; however, it must be understood in the sense in which the apostle states it: as sealing the washing away of sins by Christ’s blood, whereby faith, being strengthened, purifies the heart the more powerfully from pollution (Acts 15:9). We also wish to safeguard the principle that the Holy Spirit renews and regenerates man. He does so by means of faith which, by the washing of water -- that is, baptism as sealing regeneration -- becomes stronger and thereby engenders comfort and sanctification. Concerning all these quoted texts it can be concluded that they speak of the sealing efficacy of baptism, and not of an inherent efficacy, whereby through the act of sprinkling, sins would be remitted unto justification and sanctification in a natural sense.
Objection #2: Small children are baptized who do not as yet have understanding and are as yet unable to be believingly exercised with their baptism in order to be sealed by it. Baptism either has no efficacy -- and is thus administered to them in vain -- or by reason of inherent efficacy must beget grace in a natural sense. Since the first concept is absurd, the second is therefore confirmed.
Answer 1) The children in the Old Testament were circumcised and their circumcision was not in vain; it nevertheless had no inherent efficacy to circumcise the heart. It is thus evident that a child’s reception of a sacrament can be of benefit, even though the sacrament has no inherent efficacy to beget grace.
2) Since baptism functions as a sign and a seal, a child can likewise be sealed. God, the congregation, and thus also the parents, view him as being sealed. The parents derive their comfort from this, and the baptized child, upon coming to the years of discretion, derives from his baptism its sealing efficacy to his comfort and sanctification.
Having rendered the arguments concerning the presumed efficacy of baptism invalid, the three propositions founded upon this presumed efficacy are automatically rendered invalid as well. We can therefore refute them with a few words.
Question: Does baptism remit all past and present sins, not only in the sense that they are not imputed to those who are baptized, but that they have been utterly eradicated as far as guilt and pollution are concerned?
Answer: The Papists answer in the affirmative and we reply in the negative, because 1) baptism has no inherent efficacy whatsoever to remove sin by way of a natural process;
2) if baptism were to remove sin in such a manner as to eradicate them fully, man would be as Adam was before the fall. Scripture says, however, “Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?” (Proverbs 20:9).
Question: Is baptism absolutely essential unto salvation?
Answer: The Papists answer in the affirmative and we reply in the negative. We believe that baptism must be used because the Lord Jesus has instituted it, and one who despises the institution is condemned. This [that is, the errors of the Papists -- Ed.] is evident for the following reasons:
First, since baptism has no inherent efficacy to remove sin physically -- as has been confirmed already -- it is also not absolutely essential unto salvation.
Secondly, the Lord Jesus denies such an absolute necessity since He, after conjoining faith and baptism, does not threaten condemnation upon those who are not baptized, but upon those who do not believe (Mark 16:16).
Thirdly, one can be a believer and be converted prior to baptism; indeed, in adults it is required prior to their baptism. Such a person has eternal life (John 3:36), and therefore the absence of baptism cannot keep him outside of heaven. Consequently, baptism is not absolutely essential unto salvation. As shown above, the quoted text, John 3:5, makes no mention of baptism.
Question: Are all unbaptized children subject to condemnation and therefore never able to get to heaven?
Answer: The Papists answer in the affirmative. We are repulsed by such a dreadful judgment, which is entirely contrary to the covenant of grace, for 1) as shown, baptism does not have the efficacy they suggest it to have; and
2) someone, without any fault of his own, could then be condemned due to the laxity or cruelty of someone else. This is contrary to Ezekiel 18:20, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” Then the issue as to whether a child would be saved or condemned would be in the hands of man, who could kill a child either prior to or after its baptism.
We have thus held before you baptism and its essential nature. It is evident that baptism is the first New Testament sacrament, a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, instituted by God, and its administration commanded by the Lord Jesus to His apostles -- and in them to all ministers. This administration consists in the act of immersion or sprinkling with clean water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, thereby signifying and sealing to believers the cleansing of the soul from the guilt and pollution of sin by the blood and the Spirit of Christ, as well as the incorporation into the congregation of Christ so that through faith, love, and holiness, they may glorify God, be an ornament to the church, convict the unconverted, and stir up believers. The Subjects of Baptism In addition to that which has been said, it is necessary that we also consider the subjects of baptism; that is, those to whom baptism must be administered. These are not clocks or similar objects which the Papists baptize, thereby dreadfully desecrating baptism. Rather, the objects must be men, and then the true believers among men. Only true believers are entitled to the use of the sacraments. However, since the church is not authorized to require assurance of the probability of regeneration as the foundation upon which the minister may administer the sacraments to someone, all who have made confession of their sins, of their faith in Christ, and of their determination to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and to lead a life which is in harmony with their confession, may rightfully and in good conscience be baptized. If the persons who are baptized are either unconverted or hypocrites, they are responsible and baptism is not a seal to them. They are neither partakers of the covenant nor are they entitled to its benefits. This is confirmed in the following passages: “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: ... Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:6-11
If someone has therefore entered into the covenant -- whether it be in truth or in an external sense -- and has been baptized, they are also obligated to surrender their children to Christ by way of the covenant and thus permit them to be baptized, as the covenant has also been made with their children. Before we prove this, we must, for a further exposition of infant baptism, make a few prefatory remarks. The Baptism of Children
First, children to be baptized must 1) not be children of Jews, Muslims, heathens, or heretics, even if a member of the covenant has adopted them as children, for such adoption does not change the fact that they were not born within the covenant; 2) not be abandoned children in a country where the true church is not found, or if the true church is present, is filled with Jews, Muslims, heathens, Socinians, and other heretics, for such children can belong to the latter as well as to members of the covenant; 3) not be children of parents who have both been excommunicated -- having been born subsequent to this excommunication -- since such parents must be considered as heathens (Matthew 18:17); and 4) not be children who as yet are unborn, or who are miscarried -- as the Papists do.
Instead, they must be 1) children of members of the covenant; that is, one or both must be members of the covenant (1 Corinthians 7:14); 2) they may also be children of members of the covenant who are born as a result of adultery; or 3) children of those who are under censure, for the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
Secondly, the place where children ought to be baptized has not been determined by Scripture and does not belong to the essence of baptism. However, where the church conducts public worship services, it is edifying that it take place during a worship service.
Thirdly, subsequent to the breaking of the covenant of works, God established a covenant of grace with man. Never, that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has He established an external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members on equal footing, such that God, upon external obedience, would have promised some external benefits -- regardless of what name may be given to this covenant, such as a national, typical, worldly, or external covenant. One may therefore not baptize children in reference to an external covenant, but only in reference to the covenant of grace.
Fourthly, one can view elect children either as they are from God’s perspective, or as they are in themselves. God knows them as being elect, as heirs of eternal life, and as being redeemed through the death of their Surety, Jesus Christ. As they are in themselves, they are identical to all other children, missing the image of God, having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration and the least gracious inclination, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation. Therefore, the basis for their baptism is neither a measure of grace which they have within themselves, nor eternal election, which is hidden for us.
Fifthly, God could either partially or fully sanctify children from infancy on. All children would have entered the world as being perfectly holy if Adam had not sinned. This was the condition in which Christ was born (being perfectly holy), and in which elect infants are, who at their death are sanctified as perfectly as an adult believer is sanctified. God generally does not do this, however. Even if He does so with certain persons by way of exception, it is neither a precedent nor clear proof of this. Therefore, we state again that the basis for the baptism of children is not some inherent quality.
Sixthly, baptism is a sign and a seal, and thus has no other function but a signifying and sealing function. It neither works grace by way of inherent efficacy, nor is it an external sign whereby, whereupon, or wherewith God works regeneration. It is not comparable to what Christ did to make the miracle very obvious, availing Himself of something tangible in the performance of His miracles; nor is it comparable to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit being communicated by the laying on of hands. Thus, the gracious operations of the Spirit are not bound to the time or the administration of baptism. Baptism also does not bring the child into an internal state other than was previously the case, and God does not love the child with the love of His delight any more than before. Rather, the entire efficacy of baptism consists in this -- that it seals the covenant of grace and all its promises to the child. This is not to suggest that the child has them already, but rather that the child is entitled to them and that God will accomplish this in this child. It is thus similar to the manner in which future benefits are sealed to adult believers.
Seventhly, all children of members of the covenant (irrespective of whether these members are converted or unconverted) who die in infancy -- be it prior to or after the administration of baptism -- must be considered as saved by virtue of God’s covenant in which they were born and in consequence of which they are children of the covenant. If the parents are unconverted and unfaithful to the covenant, this will be imputed to their account, for the son will not bear the iniquity of the father. One must also consider them to be true partakers and children of the covenant as they grow older, until they show by their deeds that they are unfaithful to the covenant and thus are no partakers of its promises. [Note: On the basis of this statement, if taken out of context, one could conclude that à Brakel espouses what would later be called the Kuyperian doctrine of presumptive regeneration. However, the reading of this chapter in its entirety will negate such a conclusion.] They then do not fall out of grace, nor is the seal nullified; rather, it is a proof that baptism was not a seal for them and that they have never truly been in the covenant. When, however, some are converted after leading a sinful life, baptism was a seal unto them, and they were thus truly included in the covenant and in very deed are partakers of its benefits, being entitled to them already since their childhood. This is true, even though between their baptism and conversion there was but an external resemblance to members of the covenant -- in reference to both their personal spiritual state and sound judgment of others. Baptism only seals the elect.
Eighthly, the form for baptism asks of parents and witnesses, “Whether you acknowledge ... that they (their children) are sanctified in Christ, and therefore, as members of His church ought to be baptized?” In order to understand this question correctly, it must be noted:
(1) This form addresses members of the covenant and speaks of their children.
(2) To be sanctified does not imply that the children at that moment are in truth possessors of the principle of faith, regeneration, and sanctification. It also does not imply that all baptized children are, and particularly, that my child is elect, will be converted, and be a partaker of salvation. Rather, it means in a general sense that children of members of the covenant, by virtue of the covenant made with them and their children, are entitled to its benefits and will become partakers of them. This is in distinction to the children of those who are not members of the covenant and for whom there are no promises in the Word. The salvation of the latter, if they die in infancy, is a matter which pertains to the sovereign and secret dealings of God, there being no foundation in regard to which something can be stated about them. And as long as children of members of the covenant manifest nothing which is either in their favor or disfavor, we may not discriminate among them, but by reason of the promise must deem them to be children of God until the contrary manifests itself. Therefore, to be sanctified in Christ means to be a partaker of Christ. [Note: In view of the first part of this paragraph it seems evident that à Brakel is here speaking of federal holiness and federal membership in the covenant of grace, rather than personal holiness and a saving relationship to this covenant. He makes an explicit statement about this on p. ###509.]
(3) To be sanctified does not mean to be included in an external covenant, for there is no external covenant. The parents have the salvation of their child in view, and not something of an external nature. The sacraments are not seals of an external covenant, but only of the covenant of grace, and signs and seals of the righteousness of faith. Also the child is acknowledged as being sanctified in Christ, which cannot be said in reference to an external covenant.
It is furthermore acknowledged that the child is sanctified prior to baptism, and therefore ought to be baptized. The child therefore does not become a member of the covenant by virtue of baptism; he was already a member prior to baptism, and prior to the child’s baptism there was also no other covenant but the covenant of grace.
(4) Some wish to change the form and say, “to be sanctified in Christ, or those who are sanctified, must be sanctified in Christ.” This is the result of ignorance and misunderstanding concerning this matter. If they wish these words to mean something different than to be in the covenant of grace (which appears to be the intent), I cannot understand on what basis they let their children or other children be baptized, since there is no other foundation for baptism but the covenant of grace, of which baptism is a seal. The Scriptural Defense for the Baptism of Children Having said this by way of introduction, we must now consider the following question:
Question: May and must children of members of the covenant be baptized?
Answer: Anabaptists, Socinians, and Brownists answer negatively, but we answer in the affirmative for the following reasons:
First, in the Old Testament children of members of the covenant had to be circumcised; therefore they must also be baptized in the New Testament. The first part of the statement is above controversy. The argument for the conclusion is as follows:
(1) Since there is one and the same covenant in both testaments, and this identical covenant also pertains to the children of the Old Testament who were obligated to receive the seal of circumcision, this is also true in the New Testament and they must therefore be baptized.
(2) Baptism has come in the place of circumcision; the external sign has changed, but the seal is the same. “In whom also ye are circumcised ... buried with Him in baptism” (Colossians 2:11-13). He who is baptized is said to be circumcised, since they are in essence one and the same sacrament.
(3) In both sacraments the same matter is signified and the purpose is identical: cleansing by the blood and the Spirit of Christ. If children had to be circumcised then, they must also be baptized today.
Secondly, children were baptized in the Old Testament. “... that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). It is irrefutable that all their children were included here (Exodus 10:24). In a manner comparable to being baptized by immersion in water, they were all in the sea, and the water in the cloud which was always above them, covered them. This baptism was a seal of their spiritual deliverance, having escaped from the hands of Pharaoh by the water of the sea. They were overshadowed by the cloud -- and thus protected against the heat of the sun and the Lord Jesus was present in this cloud (Exodus 14:24). If children were then baptized as members of the covenant, they must also presently be baptized, for they are as much members of the covenant now as they were then.
Thirdly, the children of members of the covenant are in the covenant, and they therefore are also entitled to the seals of the covenant. Their inclusion in the covenant is evident in Genesis 17:7, “And I shall establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations.” This was not only true in the Old but also in the New Testament, for believers from among the Gentiles also are Abraham’s seed and are thus included in that covenant. “... that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised” (Romans 4:11). Peter also confirms this: “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed” (Acts 3:25). Add to this 1 Corinthians 7:14, where we read, “... else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” They do not have internal holiness, as has been proven in the above; rather, they are called holy because one of the parents is a believer, thereby being in the covenant. The holiness of such children is therefore a covenantal holiness. [Note: See footnote #2 [p. ###506]. It is critical to bear this in mind when reading the remainder of this chapter.] An external covenant does not exist, for there is but one covenant between God and believers: the covenant of grace. The children of members of the covenant are therefore in the covenant. In this respect the Lord calls them His children. “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto Me ... that thou hast slain My children” (Ezekiel 16:20-21). If they are in the covenant, they must also indeed receive the seal of the covenant. This is evident in Acts 2:38-39, where we read, “... be baptized every one of you ... for the promise is unto you, and to your children.”
Fourthly, children are partakers of the benefits of the covenant, the merits of Christ, the promises, and salvation itself. “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). These were not children in the spiritual sense of the word, characterized by humility, but rather natural children who were brought to Jesus, and who were kept away from Him by others, since they were deemed to be too unimportant. The Lord Jesus declares them to be partakers of the kingdom of heaven, of which one cannot be a partaker except through Christ. Who then would dare to exclude those children from heaven who die in infancy? Consider also Acts 2:39, where we read that the promise is to your children. Those who are partakers of the promises of the covenant are also entitled to the seal of the covenant and its promises.
Objection #1: Nowhere is a command found to baptize children.
Answer (1) Scripture has been given to rational people who know that all must be understood to be members of the covenant who are in the covenant -- whether this is the husband, the wife, or the children.
(2) It also is not written: Baptize a man, or baptize a woman, nor are they mentioned by first and last name.
(3) We read in Genesis 17:12, “And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations.” In Acts 2:38-39 we read, “... be baptized every one of you ... for the promise is unto you, and to your children.”
Objection #2: Children cannot benefit from this; they do not understand it, and they frequently cry when they are baptized.
Answer (1) One must not be wiser than God who has thus commanded it.
(2) Any additional objections would also be applicable to the circumcision of children.
(3) The parents are comforted by baptism. It obligates and stimulates them to view their children as members of the covenant and to raise them as such. And when children come to the years of discretion, they may derive as much benefit from it as persons who are baptized as adults.
Objection #3: Christ was not baptized until he was thirty years old; we must therefore also wait with baptism until children come to the years of discretion.
Answer (1) We would have to conclude from this that one cannot be baptized before thirty years of age. This is refuted by their own practice.
(2) The institution of baptism was not until that time. (3) Christ had been circumcised in His youth. Objection #4: One ought first to be instructed, repent, and believe before being permitted to be baptized (cf. Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:37-38; Mark 16:16).
Answer (1) It is also written, “... if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Should we then deprive children of food? Who does not see that in both cases the reference is to adults?
(2) We may not baptize any children except those of members of the covenant. Therefore, parents must first become members of the covenant, and as far as they are concerned, instruction, repentance, and faith must precede. These texts therefore do not run counter to the baptism of children of members of the covenant.
Various Conjectures About1 Corinthians 15:29Examined and Refuted
There are also conjectures about 1 Corinthians 15:29, where we read, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” This text has been debated very much. Also here it is true, “So many heads, so many opinions.” What benefit is there in adding another opinion to this? Everyone chooses an opinion, not because he is convinced that it expresses the correct meaning, but only because he knows of no better one. Being currently engaged in expounding this letter for the congregation, we have come to this verse, and this gives us the opportunity to consider these words somewhat more carefully so that we may discern their correct meaning. We shall therefore add that which we have previously put in writing concerning this as an appendix to the doctrine of baptism before proceeding with the practical application.
We shall first present various sentiments and give our rationale as to why they cannot be approved; subsequently we shall seek for a different exposition. From among all these sentiments we shall only bring up these particular ones and examine them; the others are too farfetched and thus necessarily negate themselves.
Conjecture #1: This conjecture originates with the Papists. We shall present this, not because it has a semblance of truth, but in order to convince them of their error. They are of the opinion that after death, souls are gathered in a place which they refer to as purgatory, to be purged there prior to arriving in heaven. They furthermore believe that souls can be assisted in this by merits, prayers, masses, etc. They use this text in defense of their sentiment, and interpret to be baptized for the dead to mean to be baptized for the benefit of the dead.
Answer: No comment can be made, however, upon something which does not exist. They themselves show by their behavior that they neither put any stock in this, nor trust their own interpretation, for they do not baptize daily for such souls, for whom they do celebrate daily masses (cf. vol. 3, chapter 51, p. 195).
Conjecture #2: Must one not understand “to be baptized for the dead” to refer to dying as a martyr for the truth? Severe and frequent suffering are typified in Scripture by water. “All Thy waves and Thy billows are gone over me” (Psalms 42:7); “We went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12); “The waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me” (Psalms 69:1-2). Furthermore, baptism signifies dying a violent death and thus, to be inundated and baptized with blood. “But I have a baptism to be baptized with” (Luke 12:50); “... be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with” (Matthew 20:23). That these words must be interpreted as referring to the baptism of blood is also evident from the following text, “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour ... I die daily” (1 Corinthians 15:30-31). The thrust of the argument is this: if there were no resurrection of the dead, why would one permit himself to be killed as a martyr? That would be useless and foolish. Since it is not useless and foolish, however, there must of necessity be a resurrection of the dead.
Answer: Much needs to be said in response to this exposition.
(1) Even though water is used to typify suffering, baptism never signifies suffering.
(2) The Lord Jesus indeed expressed His being put to death as being baptized and also applied this to the two sons of Zebedee. However, apart from this, being put to death is never expressed as being baptized. To apply this to all suffering and to the death of all martyrs is unacceptable. Since Christ here refers to His death as being baptized, Paul would also imply death when referring here to being baptized. This conclusion is incorrect. It would first have to be proven; however, this is not possible.
(3) The verses in 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 which follow speak of Paul’s suffering and therefore do not confirm this sentiment. These verses are not related to this verse; they furnish new evidence in and of themselves.
(4) It also does not agree with the expression to be baptized for the dead, which at best could mean to be baptized with death rather than for the dead.
(5) It also does not harmonize with the objective of the apostle, which is to prove the resurrection of the dead by means of these words. To die the death of a martyr does prove that the person is clearly convinced in his conscience of the truth of the gospel, and that he will not deny it, but desires to confirm it with his death. This would not prove, however, that there is a resurrection from the dead on the last day, which it was the apostle’s objective to do.
(6) Furthermore, such an explanation does not harmonize with the text. Paul is not speaking here of martyrs; there is no semblance of this being the case. Rather, he speaks of those to whom he refers as “they” and not as “we,” “you,” or “the congregation.” He speaks of those to whom he has referred in verse 12 as some among you, who maintained that there was no resurrection of the dead. It is not probable that they would die for Christianity, for such persons could not have the resurrection of the dead in view with their martyrdom, as they denied this resurrection. This sentiment is therefore without foundation.
Conjecture #3: Must one not understand the words “to be baptized for the dead” to refer to the washing of dead bodies prior to burial? Such was the practice among the Jews. One reads in Acts 9:37 that the dead body of Dorcas was washed. Roman history also bears witness to the washing of dead bodies. Such washing was an indication of purification, and the resulting perfection of soul and body in the resurrection.
Answer (1) Even though the washing of dead bodies was customary among Jews and Romans, one does not know whether this was practiced among the Greeks and Christians in Corinth. That would first have to be confirmed.
(2) It is well known that the heathen and Sadducees among the Jews denied the resurrection of the dead and that their washing of dead bodies was not indicative of the resurrection of the dead; it was merely a civil custom. The Old Testament washings performed after having touched a dead person did not signify the resurrection, but rather sanctification in this life.
(3) This was indeed a baptizing of the dead, but not a baptizing for the dead. Therefore, this sentiment is also without foundation -- yes, it does not have a semblance of validity.
Conjecture #4: Are not the words of the apostle “to be baptized for the dead” a reference to the custom of the first Christians who administered baptism upon the cemeteries of martyrs and Christians, doing so as it were before the countenance and in the presence of the dead, thereby expressing their hope in the resurrection?
Answer (1) During the time of Paul Christians had neither churches nor church burial grounds, nor separate cemeteries; how then would they be able to baptize there? Did they secretly gather the dead, half-burned bodies of martyrs, and did they bring them together to bury them secretly and then baptize at those graves? Would this have been the practice during Paul’s time? This is not probable and we do not have any early records which would indicate this. Such baptisms would have had to be performed very secretly, a practice which was not as yet performed in secret during the time of the apostles. Public baptisms upon the graves of the martyrs would have caused a great commotion among the people, and therefore such a practice was in all likelihood not in vogue.
(2) Furthermore, if such baptisms upon the graves of martyrs indeed occurred (a practice which is not believed to have been done during the time of the apostles), this would indeed give an impression of our mortality, and would also teach them to promote the Christian faith faithfully and to seal the truth with their death. This would not be a proof, however, for the resurrection of the dead, which is what Paul here endeavored to prove.
Conjecture #5: Does not the apostle refer to the baptism of dying persons when using the words “to be baptized for the dead”? Many postpone their baptism to the very last moment of their life, so that they may be kept from aggravating their sins, believing that sins committed after baptism are of a much more serious nature than those committed prior to it. There was also caution as far as the administration of baptism was concerned, since many, due to persecution, readily apostatized after baptism. They would be under probation and instruction for a long time; they were called catechumeni, that is, pupils. When such became ill and appeared to be dying, and if they were desirous to be baptized before their death, one would baptize such bedridden persons -- called clinici -- upon their deathbed. They were thus baptized prior to death, or as if they were dead. Therefore, the baptism of the dead is the baptism of the dying.
Answer: This long postponement of baptism is of a later date; it was a sinful abuse. The apostle would not have tolerated that in his time and would have earnestly opposed it. There is therefore not the least indication that the apostle would have had this in view with the words “to be baptized for the dead,” since there neither was such a practice during his time, nor was there even a remote possibility of its existence. Also, the expression “to be baptized for the dead” does not harmonize with being baptized at the end of one’s life. The one could not use the word huper and also not ton nekron, that is, for the dead. This is not the meaning of the Greek rendering. This conjecture is therefore also unsatisfactory. Since these five conjectures are unacceptable, one must seek something else -- something which is well-founded and will be satisfactory to everyone; that is, if one indeed can find such upon close examination. A Doctrinal and Contextual Exegesis of1 Corinthians 15:29
We shall thus seek to arrive at a logical conclusion. First, holy baptism, when administered by way of immersion, vividly depicts death, burial and the resurrection from the dead. “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” (Romans 6:4). Here we do not have burial in view, but rather, resurrection.
Secondly, holy baptism, moreover, seals the resurrection from the dead and, as is true for circumcision, is a sealed sign. “In whom also ye are circumcised ... buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him” (Colossians 2:11-12). I do not expect anyone to deny that holy baptism is a sign which seals the resurrection. We shall soon demonstrate this more extensively.
Objection: The apostle speaks in these texts of spiritual resurrection by regeneration, rather than physical resurrection, to which the reference is in this text. There is therefore nothing in these texts to confirm that the apostle is here speaking of bodily resurrection.
Answer: First, it is true that the apostle is referring here to spiritual resurrection. However, 1) this also implies the bodily resurrection of believers which cannot occur apart from spiritual resurrection and is a sure consequence of this resurrection. 2) The apostle also says that we are buried with Christ and risen in Him, so that baptism seals our union with Christ. Since believers are one with Christ, their experience must be identical both in death and in the bodily resurrection. The apostle shows this clearly in Romans 8:11, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” It is an irrefutable fact that the resurrection of the dead is inherent in the resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:12-13). There Paul conjoins them in such a fashion that the one either implies or denies the other. If Christ is risen, the dead will rise; if there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ has also not risen. It is thus evident that holy baptism typifies and seals the bodily resurrection for believers.
Secondly, holy baptism seals to the person being baptized that God is his God, for they are baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Just as the Lord Jesus proves the resurrection of the dead from the fact that God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- God not being a God of the dead but of the living (Matthew 22:31-32) -- it is thus evident that baptism, in which is sealed that God is the God of the persons being baptized, seals the resurrection of the dead.
Thirdly, it is beyond controversy that baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace and all its promises. However, to these also belong the resurrection of the dead and eternal life. “And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I shall raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).
Because of these three arguments it is an irrefutable fact that baptism seals the bodily resurrection of the dead. If we apply them to this text, the argument of the apostle is as follows: If there were no resurrection from the dead, one would be baptized in vain and baptism would not seal the resurrection of the dead. However, one is not baptized in vain; baptism does seal the resurrection of the dead, and thus, the resurrection of the dead is a certainty.
It now remains to respond to two more difficulties.
Difficulty #1: The apostle refers here to a few individual persons and their activity. Prior to this he uses the words “we” and “you”; however, here he uses the word “they,” and this causes one to wonder whether the apostle indeed refers to the sacrament of baptism, since all are partakers of baptism.
Answer: It is true that the apostle here speaks of some individuals, and this strengthens our argument and explanation. One only needs to investigate to whom the apostle refers with the word “they.” He refers to them in verse 12, where we read, “... how say some among you ...” (1 Corinthians 15:12). They were the “some” who denied the resurrection of the dead. They were baptized, still belonged to the church, either administered baptism themselves or approved of baptism by their presence when it was administered in the church, which in turn sealed the resurrection of the dead. Such indeed could not deny the resurrection of the dead, for they would refute themselves by their own action. Such persons the apostle opposes in this chapter and in this verse, using their own behavior as a proof against them. If there is no resurrection of the dead, why are they themselves baptized, this being a seal of the resurrection?
Difficulty #2: This difficulty is the greatest and is the cause for various sentiments. The problem is this: Isn”t something special and of great emphasis concealed in the words “for the dead”? If not, the apostle could merely have said, “Why are they then baptized?” However, the apostle adds the words “for the dead,” and thereby something different and special is being said. What it is cannot readily be explained. What is it?
Answer: It is true that the words “for the dead” have not been added in vain; they have special emphasis and they do not ascertain something else. On the contrary, they render the apostle’s proof for the resurrection of the dead clear and forceful as long as one adheres to the argumentation of the apostle. In my judgment, the darkness and misunderstanding is the result of conjoining the dead and huper, this being the reason that these words are governed by the genitive, since the word huper demands a genitive. I am of the opinion, however, that ton nekron is not governed by huper (=for), but by a word which is not mentioned here, and which, by way of conjecture, must be added and be deemed as being present. This manner of speech is referred to as an ellipsis: a concealed matter or an omission. This is very common in all languages. One asks, for example, “What is the price of grain?”; to which one answers, “Wheat is so much, barley so much, and rye so much.” Everyone will perceive that the word “price” is omitted each time, but must be understood to be there. One can likewise say, “The mayors of Rotterdam went to The Hague the day before yesterday, of Gouda yesterday, and of Delft today.” There is a double omission of both the word “mayors,” and of the word “went.” A common person realizes without difficulty that these additional words are implied and to be understood without this creating any problem or obscurity. This manner of speech is also frequently found in the Bible. Every language has its own peculiarities which do not flow very well in other languages and which become obscure upon translation. Our translators have therefore included that which is omitted, have placed it between brackets, and have printed them with different letters. Observe such omissions in Luke 3:1-38 where the word “son” is frequently omitted and included by the translators. Also in Ephesians 2:1 something is omitted which is expressed in verse 5, and is completed with these words, “And you hath He quickened.” Without adding this, the omission would be difficult to understand in our language; in Greek, however, one is as it were taken by the hand and guided to this. Consider also Romans 6:5, “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.” Here the words in the likeness have been omitted and have been added and placed between brackets by the translators. For scholars it is sufficient to say here that this is an ellipsis; we, however, needed to explain this more extensively for the unlearned. It is somewhat difficult to cause the unlearned to understand this technicality. As we now consider these words, we deem that ton nekron, the dead, is not governed by huper (= for), but by an omitted word which also governs by way of the genitive. This is an ellipsis, that is, an omission, or something which is concealed. We need not seek far to find the omitted word. In this chapter, and also in this verse, the apostle repeatedly speaks of the resurrection of the dead (to be resurrected and to be raised are identical in meaning), and also mentions the word “resurrection.” “How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” “But if there be no resurrection of the dead ...” (1 Corinthians 15:12-13); “For if the dead rise not ...” (vs. 16); “... if the dead rise not at all” (vs. 29). Thus the apostle as it were puts the omitted word in our mouth: resurrection. If you mentally add this, the text reads as follows: “What shall they do which are baptized for (the resurrection) of the dead?” Why are they then baptized for (the resurrection) of the dead? [Note: This sentence reads as follows in the Dutch: “Dus, de boeken der boeken; zoo opstanding, niet de dooden, maar der dooden.” à Brakel argues here that use of the Dutch genitive pronoun “der” would have resulted in a more precise rendering of the genitive construction in the Greek text. Since there is no English equivalent for the Dutch genitive pronoun “der,” we enlarged the translation a bit by inserting the omitted word “resurrection,” which harmonizes with what à Brakel has already done prior to this sentence. Our intention here is to preserve his argument that the grammatical construction in Greek supports his claim that the word “resurrection” is implied in this text.] In the Greek it would read: huper (anastaeos) ton nekron. And thus the genitive proposition huper, for, and ton nekron, of the dead, is governed by the genitive of the omitted word resurrection, anastaeos. The use of “of the” in this construction rather than “the” does not change the meaning. It is common knowledge that we use “of” or “of the” to indicate the genitive; thus we say, “the book of books.” It is therefore not for (the resurrection) the dead, but rather for (the resurrection) of the dead. In Greek there is no change; it reads “of the.” Whether I say huper ton nekron, or huper (anastaseos) ton nekron, in both cases we have a genitive. If our translators had written for (that which is) of the dead as it is expressed in Greek: huper ton nekron, everyone would have perceived that the word “resurrection” must be understood with it. If one therefore understands these words with an ellipsis, that is, an omission, everything proceeds with ease, and is in harmony with the words, the meaning, and the objective of the apostle. Then there is no diversion, and no difficulties remain. One will then observe that those words for the dead, that is, for the resurrection of the dead, give emphasis to the apostle’s argument, which is: How can they who are baptized for the resurrection of the dead maintain that there is no resurrection whatsoever? Why then are they baptized for the resurrection of the dead? Baptism seals the resurrection, which the apostle expresses more clearly when he adds to this, to be baptized for the resurrection of the dead.
Objection: Such a manner of expression referred to as ellipsis, that is, omission, is indeed used both outside of and in Scripture. How can one prove, however, that there is such an omission here, and that the word “resurrection” must be implied here, for then one would be certain.
Answer: One must deduce this omission from the verbal and doctrinal context which, without this ellipsis, would either be unintelligible, confused, or obscure; whereas with an ellipsis it is clear, intelligible, and coherent, expressing the intent of the speaker or writer well.
It is in this fashion that one must proceed here. If one does not acknowledge the presence of an ellipsis or an omission here, the meaning remains unintelligible and obscure and one will deviate toward sentiments which are without foundation and which can neither satisfy one’s self nor another. The one espouses this view and another person deems another opinion to be the better one. Because neither is convinced of the truth, but merely because they know of no better opinion, they opt for what appears to be most probable. On the contrary, if one acknowledges the presence of an ellipsis here, all is smooth and consistent in reference to the context of the words, the meaning of the text, the objective of the apostle, and the thrust of the argument. In one word, everything readily fits together and there are no obstacles. As far as the insertion of the omitted word is concerned, it is used repeatedly throughout the entire discussion found in both this chapter and this verse. The subject matter at hand, the context, and the apostle’s objective lead us to the word resurrection, and they, so to speak, spontaneously yield it to us. The apostle mentions the word more than once, and he is dealing with the resurrection. I believe that no one will either desire, be able, or be willing to think of another word here, being fully satisfied with this fitting word.
Further proof for the presence of an ellipsis (omission) cannot be demanded. I deem that which has been said to be satisfactory. I am satisfied and have endeavored to satisfy others as well. We shall now proceed with the practical application.
Exhortation to be Spiritually Exercised with Baptism
It is not sufficient that one understands the essence of baptism. It is furthermore needful that one make proper use of and be exercised with it; that is, regarding his own baptism, the administration of baptism, and his children who are to be baptized or who have been baptized.
First, one needs to be exercised with his own baptism. If someone is not baptized, he must endeavor to be baptized. If he is of non-Christian or heretical parentage, he needs to know that what is written in Ephesians 2:12 is applicable to him: “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Therefore repent with your whole heart, believe in the Lord Jesus, and desire to be baptized, in order that thereby the washing of sins may be sealed, and you may be incorporated into the congregation of the living God and into the kingdom of Christ -- for it is a command, “Be baptized every one of you” (Acts 2:38). If you despise baptism and refuse it, you shall bring the wrath of God upon yourself. “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of Him” (Luke 7:30).
If you are baptized, consider how you experience the reality of your baptism. If you live an ungodly, natural, careless, and worldly life, you must with terror reflect upon your baptism, for your parents brought you to the congregation of God, and have there surrendered you publicly to the Lord Jesus. There, as a member of the covenant, you received the seal, were baptized in God’s Name -- that is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost -- and as a fellow-member of the covenant you were incorporated into the congregation of God. All of this obligates you to live a holy life as a true member of the covenant, and to walk as Christ has walked. Behold, however, you are an apostate, a reprobate, and one who has run to the enemy. You have departed from God, despised Christ, and contemptuously rejected your baptism. You were esteemed to be a true child of the covenant as long as you did not manifest the contrary. Now you manifest the contrary, however, and thus I must say: You have neither part nor lot in Christ, nor in all the promises of the covenant of grace. It will be more dreadful for you in the day of judgment and in hell, than if you had never been baptized. By your life, you cause the congregation of God and the truth to be slandered, and Christ to be dishonored, for it is as if Christ and the congregation had such ungodly members. Is it not sufficient for you to live an ungodly life unto yourself and to bear your own punishment? Must you besides cause the congregation to be slandered and Christ to be held in contempt? Choose one of the two: either live a godly life and walk worthy of the gospel, or if not, come again before the pulpit and publicly recant your baptism before the congregation, declaring that you are displeased with the fact that your parents have had you baptized. Then depart and live as ungodly as you will, for then you will no longer be a disgrace to the church. However, what will then be your end? Your end will be what is recorded in Hebrews 10:29, “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” “But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you” (Luke 10:14). A Special Exhortation Addressed to True Believers
If you are a believer, and if the principle of spiritual life is to be found within you, it is especially your duty to make good use of your baptism.
First, be reminded of your baptism as often as you hear your name mentioned, use it, or write it yourself. Meditate upon the following: “By that name the Lord has appropriated me to Himself, and in the public gathering of the congregation my name was pronounced loudly for the first time as being a fellow-member of the covenant. The name of my earthly father was not mentioned, but instead the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost was pronounced over me. By that name I am recorded in the church’s baptismal registry.” Approve of this deed of your parents, confirm it with your entire heart, rejoice in it, and may your baptism continually be as a binding relationship between you and the Lord.
Secondly, make use of your baptism to your comfort. God’s children are indeed very negligent in this, and in a very special sense are guilty here. For many it is as if baptism were but an external ceremony, as if there is no benefit in it, and as if it had been administered in vain to them. Many, when they think on occasion about their baptism, do so but for a moment, and then in a very aloof, superficial manner, without penetrating to the efficacy of their baptism. No longer proceed this way, nor deprive yourself of that which is declared in your baptism. The apostle Peter says of baptism, “(... the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Therefore, in reference to your baptism, continually ask: “Has Christ died for me? Has not His blood been shed for the washing away of my sins and unto my reconciliation with Thee? Art not Thou my Father and I Thy child? Is not baptism a seal to me? Can this seal be broken? Of course not; thus the forgiveness of my sins, reconciliation with Thee, and all the benefits of the covenant of grace are my portion. I shall hold fast to this and thus will go my way with joy and courage.” Strive to be exercised in this and it will greatly strengthen you that, without your knowledge, you have already been sealed in your infancy. Yield not to unbelief by being tossed to and fro continually, asking yourself: “Am I regenerated, am I already a believer, and is baptism indeed a seal to me?” How this will injure you and rob you of the efficacy of baptism! You are indeed conscious that sins -- even the sins of your heart -- are a bitter grief and a heavy burden to you. You know indeed that your heart yearns for and desires reconciliation with God, for the blood of Christ unto reconciliation, and to be continually in the presence of God and to live in His fear. You know that for this reason you make Christ your choice time and again, receive Him, and surrender yourself to Him, so that He may work all things in you by His Spirit. It is also your objective not to sin, but rather, to live a life pleasing unto the Lord. You know that it is truthfully so; this is now an evidence of grace, and thus also that baptism is to you a seal of the covenant. Therefore apply this to yourself and rejoice.
Thirdly, make use of your baptism unto sanctification. Baptism is the seal of regeneration (Titus 3:5) and of repentance (Matthew 3:11). How forcefully the apostle exhorts to sanctification by way of baptism in Romans 6:1-7! He does so particularly in verse 4:? “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.” Therefore reason continually with yourself in the following manner: “Shall I who have been buried with Christ in baptism; who have been planted together with Him in the likeness of His death; who have been washed in His blood; who have been ingrafted into Christ and into His congregation -- shall I yet continue in sin? Far be it from me! I desire therefore to arise from my sin, and I wish to manifest myself as being alive and as having been washed. I wish to be an ornament of the church and to bring honor unto Christ.” When you perceive your sin and your helplessness against sin, make renewed use of your baptism in order to be strengthened and stirred up, and esteem it to be the seal of the covenant in which the Lord has promised to remove the stony heart and to give a heart of flesh in its place, and cause you to walk in His ways (Ezekiel 36:26). Take these and similar promises, together with the seal of baptism, and come thus to the Lord, saying, “Lord, behold, here are Thy promises, and here is the seal of the promise, that Thou wouldest fulfil them in me. I now prayerfully expect this, namely, that I, being cleansed, may walk in all purity and holiness. I believe Thy truth, I expect the fulfillment of the promises, and rely upon it.”
You must in the second place be exercised with the administration of baptism. When baptism is administered, you must neither leave the sanctuary, speak with others, nor think about or do something else, as if baptism did not pertain to you at all. Rather, you must attentively take note of the entire proceedings.
(1) Here you must observe the wondrous goodness of God that the Lord of heaven establishes a covenant with poor man and with us and our children, while passing others by -- and that He now seals that covenant.
(2) Consider the magnitude of this matter. What precious and great truths are sealed, in which a member of the covenant will most certainly participate. When a child is baptized, he is exalted by God to a much higher level than an earthly king, so that more than a king is inaugurated.
(3) During the administration of baptism everyone must meditate and reflect upon his own baptism and consider: “In such a solemn manner, I also was once brought before the Lord and surrendered to Him, and the covenant was also sealed to me.”
(4) You must also think of your baptized children who, as is true for you, bear the seal of the Lord, and whom you have promised to raise in such and such a manner; this will bring conviction and stir you up.
(5) One must pray in the meantime that the Lord would make these children partakers of that which is sealed.
(6) And let your heart go out in love to the baptized children who are now members of the Lord Jesus, the congregation, and partakers of that same covenant. In the third place there is also a special task for parents as far as their children are concerned -- those who are to be baptized and those who have been baptized. They must not present their children for baptism out of custom or for a popish reason, as if baptism conveys salvation to the child. They should rather do so in consequence of their knowledge of this mystery, out of obedience to God’s command, and with a longing for the privilege that the covenant might also be sealed to that child. They should in sincerity of heart surrender that child to the Lord as being its sole proprietor. They should pray much for that child, asking that the Lord receive him, making that child a partaker of the matter signified. The child should not be presented for baptism by just anyone; that is, by anyone who is able or willing to say “yes.” Rather, the witnesses should be of such a disposition to instruct the child, while growing up, concerning the mystery of baptism, and exhort him to godliness in light of his baptism and the promises made to him. One must not make a show of the child as if he were being sacrificed to the world and the devil, but his appearance should rather be sober and modest. The child should be given a good name. The child should not receive a name of Christ or of one of the angels, such as, Immanuel, Michael, Gabriel, etc. Rather, they should be family names (thereby holding them in esteem), scriptural names, or names which have a special meaning whereby one expresses a wish by means of the name. One thus hopes that the child may indeed become a partaker of the meaning of that name, or one wishes to obligate the child to something by means of that name. The child, having now been baptized, must be received again as from the Lord to whom one has surrendered him. One must consider him to be a child of God, [Note: See footnotes 2 [p. ###506] & 3; [p. ###507] that is, a child of God in a federal sense. God Himself refers to the small children in Israel as “My children” (Ezekiel 16:21; cf. Form for the Administration of Baptism).] and as a nurse, raise him as such, doing so according to the rules which the heavenly Father has prescribed. “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). One must teach the child the significance of baptism, to what he is sealed, and to what he is bound and obligated. Blessed is such a man. Blessed are such families. There the Lord shall command His blessing, even life forevermore. They will experience the blessing of Psalms 128:1-6, which is generally sung at wedding ceremonies or at wedding receptions. Amen.