Two ritual observances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, are maintained by members of the Church of Christ irrespective of their denomination or of their personal spiritual maturity. Whether these observances are regarded as possessing only symbolic value, or whether they are sacraments which confer spiritual grace directly, they are central to the worship of all groups. In them the heart of Christian doctrine is enacted in visible form.
Baptism. This is the rite by which a professed believer was inducted into the fellowship of the New Testament church. By submitting to immersion in water, pouring, or sprinkling, he confessed publicly his need of cleansing from sin and his faith in Christ. Peter instructed his audience on the day of Pentecost to “Repent, and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and each subsequent stage of the church’s growth was marked by baptism of the believers (Acts 8:12, 38; 9:10; 10:47, 48; 16:33; 18:8).
The concept of baptism is rooted in the Old Testament law which prescribed certain washings for the cleansing of diseased persons (Lev. 14:8). Proselytes entering Judaism were expected to strip themselves of their former clothing, submit to circumcision, and bathe themselves completely, after which they were reckoned members of the Jewish community. The rite was acknowledgment of defilement and of the acceptance of the law as a purifying agent. The baptism of John must have been founded upon current usage, for his hearers were not surprised when he proclaimed it, and the Scriptures take the significance for granted (Mark 1:4, 5). John the Baptist, however, realized that his ministry of baptism was only preparatory, for he expected the advent of another who would baptize “in the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8).
Jesus’ personal acceptance of John’s baptism was a public avowal of his consecration to God and of his mission to men. By taking his stand with sinners, although he was sinless, he provided a link between the symbol of repentance and the fuller significance implied in the final commission to his followers. He enjoined them to “… make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). By this command he related baptism to the total work of the Trinity in salvation, and prescribed it as the universal practice of the church.
The key passage on baptism is connected with Paul’s argument for holiness in Romans 6:4–6 (ARV): “We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.”
Assuming that the Roman Christians were familiar with the ceremony, he explained it in terms of death and resurrection. Since the claims of retributive justice cannot be executed upon a dead person, the union of the Christian with Christ in His death frees him from condemnation, and through the Resurrection he shares in a new life. By the rite of baptism he enacts this experience symbolically and accepts its reality by faith, though his full realization of the truth may develop gradually.
Parallel with the baptism by water is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which insures this progressive experience of union, and which constitutes the Christian an active member of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The same term, “baptism,” is used both of the external rite and the internal reality, as if to indicate that they are interdependent and equally necessary. The internal experience necessitates outward confession; the external confession must be supported by inward reality.
The efficacy of baptism lies in the relation of the individual to God rather than in any property of the water. The only passage in the New Testament that connects salvation directly with baptism is 1 Peter 3:20, 21 (ARV): “… wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God.…” Although the translation seemingly conveys the idea that baptism saves men, a careful study of the context reveals that “saved through” does not mean “saved by,” but “preserved through.” The baptismal water does not provide the means of our salvation, but is rather representative of the peril through which we are brought into a new life as Noah passed through the waters of the flood to safety. Obviously water cannot save any man; salvation is by the grace of God.
The long dispute over the proper mode of baptism will probably never be settled satisfactorily to all concerned. The Greek verb baptizo, which has been transliterated rather than translated, means fundamentally to dip, plunge, immerse. After making allowance for certain occasional exceptions, such as passages where washing is implied, the etymological meaning indicates that baptism was originally by immersion. Historically this mode has been perpetuated by the Eastern Church, and it prevailed in the West until the Middle Ages. Pouring, or affusion, according to the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a second-century document, was permissible if water were scarce, and sprinkling was a later substitution developed in the Middle Ages.
Of greater importance than the mode of baptism is the question of the proper candidates. Where the New Testament speaks clearly, it emphasizes the personal belief of those concerned. Faith must precede commitment; the external act of water baptism will not transform an unbeliever into a Christian. Can infants, incapable of an individual act of faith, rightfully receive baptism? On this question the Scriptures make no direct pronouncement. The mention of the Philippian jailor’s household (Acts 16:33, 34) does not necessarily imply that infants were included, nor is there any other passage that affords an obvious answer. The varying views on baptism are the logical consequences of attempts to interpret the implications of the Scriptures.
At the moment of baptism the Christian makes an irrevocable commitment to Christ, whose death is the means of his redemption and whose life will be the continuing dynamic of his career. He takes a step in spiritual experience which he cannot retrace, and need not, if he is sincere. He enters a new relationship with God and with other members of the redeemed community who constitute the church.
Having accepted baptism and having agreed to all that it means, the Christian is henceforth destined for a life of progress in holiness. He cannot logically revert to the old sins which he has abandoned, but he must rather devote himself to holiness and to conscious spiritual growth. The teaching of Paul in Colossians 2:12, 13, 20–3:2 indicates that the baptized believer is obligated to put away his former loose thinking and conduct, and to adopt the standards of the new fellowship of the regenerate into which he has been inducted. Such a life is not negative aceticism, but is rather the spontaneous response of a renewed conscience to the ethical revelation of God. Baptism, according to the New Testament, is not merely a religious ceremony, but it is also a moral and spiritual pledge of devotion to holiness.
The Lord’s Supper. The second ordinance is the memorial feast instituted by Jesus on the eve of his death. As he celebrated the passover with his disciples, he gave them bread and wine, saying, “… this is my body,” and “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many” (Mark 14:22, 24). The Pauline record (1 Cor. 11:23–26) shows that the Lord’s Supper had become the focal point of worship in the early church (c. A.D. 50), and that it was observed regularly. Justin Martyr states in his First Apology that Christians met on the first day of the week to worship and to break bread. With few exceptions the sacred meal has been perpetuated in all denominations to the present day.
The primary significance of the Lord’s Supper is its representation of Christ’s death as the seal of the New Covenant between God and man. The breaking of Christ’s body and the shedding of his blood made the sacrifice by which atonement for sin was accomplished, thereby reconciling man to God. As the bread and wine are assimilated into the physical body to contribute to its well-being, so the person of Christ enters spiritually into the life of the communicant. By this impartation the saying power of Christ is constantly appropriated, and his strength becomes the source of the believer’s life.
Although the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice offered by a priest, since the death of Christ occurred once for all, its origin implies that it is more than a social meal. The bread and wine were part of the passover feast which was itself symbolic of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and of the beginning of new life as a redeemed nation. By analogy, “… our passover … hath been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Cor. 5:7), so that the elements of which we partake imply union in a body of individually redeemed men who are bound together into the church of God.
The bread and wine cannot be fragments of the literal body and blood of Christ, for when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood,” he was reclining at the table with his disciples. They would have understood that the bread and wine were only representative of his physical being, as a picture represents the person whose likeness it reproduces. This figure of speech was discussed by Jesus in his discourse on the bread of life, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves” (John 6:53). His language created consternation among his hearers, who took it with absolute literality. Jesus provided the initial clue to its meaning by adding: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me” (6:57). The relation between the Father and himself was so close that the same relationship, expressed by the figure of “eating,” should obtain between him and his disciples. When they grumbled at the obscure expression he replied. “It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:63). The eating of the material emblems is both a reminder and a pattern of this appropriation of the spiritual essence of Christ.
Jesus also intended by the observance to keep alive his memory and the obligation of his disciples to serve him until he should return. “… ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” was his final word. Although he did not reveal the details of his purpose at that time, Jesus contemplated a program extending beyond his death and resurrection to the establishment of his kingdom. Knowing that his departure would remove him from visible companionship with his disciples, he gave them this stimulus to hope that they might not become discouraged nor forget the true objective of their calling.
The table of the Lord establishes also a new basis of fellowship. Those who partake of it cannot consistently maintain evil associations; complete severance from all defilement is required. Paul, in reproving the Corinthians for idolatry, says. “… ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:21). Furthermore, it creates a bond of union between believers, for hatreds, jealousies, and divisions are incompatible with the principle of love which was the very motive for Christ’s sacrifice. Negatively and positively, Christians are bound into one fellowship around the center of his living person.
Participation in the Lord’s Supper was therefore limited to believers who receive the elements in a spirit of thankfulness and honesty. Absolute sinlessness was not a prerequisite, else there would be none to partake; but careless indifference or willful impenitence unfits the spirit for joining others who assemble in humility and sincerity to celebrate the feast. Flagrant sin was adequate cause for exclusion from the Lord’s table—the last and most drastic step in the discipline of the Church.
By these means of grace the life of the believer was initiated and sustained. His public declaration of faith in deliverance from sin and possession of a new life is manifested in baptism; his public avowal of dependence upon Christ and association with others of like faith is maintained in communion.
Dr. G. W. Bromiley, in his work on Sacramental Teaching and Practice in the Reformation Churches (p. 106), has well summarized the value of these rites:
“To know their meaning and purpose is to be helped to their true enjoyment.… But properly to use them … is to do so with a readiness to see Christ Himself and His saying work, and therefore with prayer to the Holy Spirit that He may dispose of the means which He Himself has chosen and of which He Himself is the Lord.”
Bibliography: “Baptism,” Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, J. H. Blunt, ed.; K. Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism; A. Carson, Baptism in its Modes and Subjects; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, trans. by J. K. S. Reid; W. Flemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism; G. H. W. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit; J. G. Lawson, Did Jesus Command Immersion? (rev. ed.); J. Warns, Baptism, trans. by G. H. Lang; A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament; J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus; C. L. Wallis, The Table of the Lord.
Dean of the Graduate School
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois
