Sprinkling for Cleansing as the Pattern for Christian Baptism

Chapter 19 of the Book of Numbers is about the rituals of cleansing for those who are ritually unclean, such as from touching a dead body. For obvious reasons, I won't quote the entire passage. Specifically, I want to point to what Moses calls "the water for impurity" (Num. 19:9, 13). This water was to be made by mixing the ashes from a sacrificial heifer into some water (verse 9).

When a person became unclean, someone who was clean was to dip hyssop into the water and sprinkle him (verses 18 and 19, "thrown" in verse 13). To fail to be cleansed in this way is a serious matter, because twice the person who fails to be purified is described as being excluded from the covenant people (verses 13 and 20).

This is the background of baptism in the New Testament, and suggests that the proper mode is by sprinkling, not by pouring or immersion. This is not to suggest that mode of baptism is a salvific issue. Rather, it is merely to point out that Baptists are wrong when they make immersion a salvific issue. Since I myself was immersed, I would never say that a person who hasn't been sprinkled is not a legitimate Christian.

No doubt someone is saying that this doesn't settle the issue. And I would be quick to agree. By itself, this argument is certainly not conclusive. However, added to what I have said before (here and here), I think it contributes to a solid case.

Who Is Lord? Me or God?

In the Garden of Eden, one basic temptation was given by Satan, leading to the Fall of Adam and Eve: "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). Satan convinced the first couple that eating the forbidden fruit would enable them to exercise divine autonomy, deciding for themselves what would constitute good and evil. God, the devil claimed, hid this from them, because He wanted a monopoly on moral truth. As usual, the temptation contained a mixture of truth and falsehood. That was certainly the intent of God, because He claims singular sovereignty over all things, including the choices of men. However, Satan also gave an illusory promise in claiming that eating the fruit would free men from that sovereignty.

God never gives up His deity, no matter what men or devils imagine: "I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11).

God's sovereignty is the very basis of all morality: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:2-3). This is the First Commandment, God's declaration of His exclusive deity, the foundation for the other nine. And it excludes even a man's efforts to set himself up as god of his own life, as Adam attempted in Genesis.

In our modern age, it has become a secular orthodoxy that every man or woman has the right to choose his own values, his goals, his standards of right or wrong. We assume the right to judge truth. Right and wrong are determined according to our feelings. These are all forms of autonomy, of sovereignty of each over his life. Yet, no one, even among professing Christians, hears the echo in those cultural assumptions of the words of Satan quoted above.

If a person's words are a quote of Satan, is that not a warning that he is on a destructive path? We know that Adam was.

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:12-17).

Jesus Expresses His Love to His Bride, the Church

"Behold, you are beautiful, My love,
     behold, you are beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
     behind your veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
     leaping down the slopes of Gilead.
You have captivated My heart, my sister, My bride; 
     you have captivated My heart with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
     How beautiful is your love, My sister, my bride!"
- Song of Solomon 4:1, 10 

Have you ever read the Song of Solomon? If you have, have you ever heard a sermon on it? Most people reading this probably answered "yes" to the first question. But I would be surprised if anyone answered "yes" to the second. I haven't. And it's a shame, really. The Puritans had commentaries on the book, and preached on it, and used references from it in their literature. No doubt that was because they had a beautiful understanding of it as a love poem, not between Solomon and a Shulamite woman, though it is couched in those terms, but rather as an allegory of the relationship between the divine Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, and His Bride, the church. Notice the terminology in Revelation 19:6-10 which makes that metaphor explicit

Song 4:1-15 is an especially beautiful passage, of which I quote a portion above. In it, the Bridegroom expresses His love for the Bride. We often talk about the love of Jesus for the church, and we should! It's a wonderful thing to consider our experience of the love of our divine Savior. The difference is that this passage isn't about our experience of His love, but rather of His experience of loving us. We don't talk about that. What is His subjective experience of love toward us?

In Solomon's words above, we can see that His love is no burden to Him, but rather a delight! How extraordinary it is to imagine that the Almighty God delights in loving us, His people, knowing what sinful wretches we are!

We see another description of this in Ezekiel 16:8-14: "When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of My garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made My vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became Mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and

anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord God." However, we must be humbled by the knowledge that the very next verse describes the spiritual adultery by Israel that dominated the rest of her history. In fact,the rest of the Bible, from Ezekiel 16 to Revelation 19 might be thought of as the story of Israel's rebellion and adultery and God's spiritual work of restoring her through the Gospel (see especially the Book of Hosea). In Ezekiel 16 she rejects her bridal glory, but in Revelation 19 she is restored to it.

Yes, Virginia, God Keeps His Church Without Consulting Our Free Will

Almost any professing Christian knows the story of the Prophet Elijah, especially of his altar battle with the priests of Baal (I Kings 18:20-40). However, I have noticed something about the use of his story: while plenty of attention is given to that element, others are overlooked. Conveniently? I suspect so.

One in particular is I Kings 19:18 (see also Romans 11:4), just after the exciting part. Elijah complains to god that there is no one faithful in all of Israel, except himself (verse 10): "I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away." This is a place many Christians have been, when it seems that the whole world has only abuse to heap upon us. However, God says otherwise: "I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."

Elijah cannot see all of his fellow countrymen. In particular, he cannot see their hearts. He bewails what appears to him to be the complete failure of God among His covenant people. "Couldn't you hold on to anyone other than me?" he cries.God quickly rebukes him. "Not only have I kept you, Elijah," He says, "but I have kept seven thousand others, too, to be faithful to Me."

Notice what He doesn't say. God doesn't express hope that there are others. He knows so. Nor does He leave it as some vague assertion, as if there were some, somewhere. No, He knows that there are seven thousand, and that is in Israel, the rebellious northern kingdom. And, most startlingly of all, He doesn't refer to anyone who has remained faithful because of some inherent superiority, but because He has retained them!

These words of God Himself say nothing of free will, but rather of His own actions to produce a definite event, the retention of a faithful church in a rebellious and paganistic culture. This is unconditional election and perseverance of the saints, not any antinomian concept of "once saved, always saved." We don't hear this verse preached because it so thoroughly casts down human pride and sufficiency and lifts up God's sovereign grace. And it is such a shame that the people of God are denied the assurance of faith that this kind of God engenders.

Unprofitable Servants: The Works of Men as Merit

I run into too many people who believe that they contribute to their own salvation with good works - Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witness, the average American Evangelical. I'm not surprised by that belief; it is merely the remnant in us of fallen Adam, who fell into sin when he decided that he wanted autonomy more than he wanted the holiness of God.

What does surprise me, however, is that such people believe that God also credits their works for part of their salvation. They'll even use extra-spiritual language, asserting that God's grace makes their works meritorious. But it doesn't. Grace is grace, and works are works (Romans 11:6); they are mutually exclusive.

What's more, Jesus rejects the idea of merit in our works: "You also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty'" (Luke 17:10).

That should be a mind-blowing statement to most professing Christians! Jesus says that, if you lived every day in perfect obedience to every command of God, then you have done only the minimum that is expected from you. You are an unprofitable servant! 

That's why our works, no matter how perfect they may be - and I am being extremely generous in allowing that! - cannot qualify before God as any part of justification. It can't be works alone; it cannot be grace plus works; it cannot be works completed by grace. It can only be grace alone: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28, emphasis mine).

God's Common Goodness Is No Common Grace

In Matthew 5:45, Jesus tells us, "[God] makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." This is a precious truth, that God is the source of all good things, and that He shares His gifts with all men. God is good to all because God is all good!

However, a problem arises when some people claim that God's common goodness is properly common grace. That is an idea that I cannot accept.

Consider the further words on Jesus in Mark 7:24-30: "He arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet He could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of Him and came and fell down at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And He said to her, 'Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she answered Him, 'Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.' And He said to her, 'For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.' And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone."

Jesus was referring to His own comment in Matthew 15:24: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." During His earthly ministry, His focus was only on ethnic Israel. Of course, that expanded to the entire world after His ascension, but that was later. When this foreign woman came to Him, He was still in the transitional state between the Old Covenant focus on Israel and the New Covenant inclusion of all nations. Yet, the woman said, even when the chosen children are enjoying the feast, there are scraps which fall to the dogs. The Book of Ruth would be an expanded image of what she means.

The application here is the parallel between the children and the dogs in this vivid story and the children of God and the rest of the world in Matthew 5:45. The wicked, when they are enjoying the good gifts of God, are not enjoying God's favor to them, but are rather receiving the overflow from His blessings on His own people, His children, the church. Why isn't this grace? Because it is not to their advantage. Grace is God's favor, the application of Christ's merits, but that isn't what the reprobate are receiving (Romans 1:21):"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Is this blessing for them? Not at all. Rather, as Paul goes on to say, this arrogant and presumptuous use of God's gifts brings these unbelievers to grief (Romans 1:28-29): "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice."

Absolution: Purchased by Christ, Declared by a Minister, not Granted by a Priest

According to the Catholic Church, "Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin." That is, a Catholic member can go to his priest, confess his sins, and receive forgiveness from that priest. Granted, the article goes on to explain, "It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority, over the person

receiving the sacrament." Notice what is not mentioned: the satisfaction for sin in Jesus Christ on the cross. Thus, the source of forgiveness is the dispensation of the church organization, not by the Person and work of the Savior.

The Catholic doctrine is explained as an application of the words of Jesus (John 20:20-23): "When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you.' And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.'" This passage is from one of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Therefore, it was after, and presupposes, His redemptive work in the crucifixion and resurrection. Therefore, He had already achieved what Paul describes in Romans 3:25: "Jesus Christ, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith."

What that means is that Jesus wasn't giving an original power to the Apostles - much less to any church hierarchy - to forgive sins. Ministers, instead, have the authority to declare to the true believer what Jesus has done on his behalf (Romans 5:6): "While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly." If the person lacks faith, then any declaration by the minister is ineffectual (Matthew 10:13). It cannot save him apart from faith, not in the minister, but in Jesus Christ.

One may claim that there is no harm done by Rome to the person who understands the truth. And I would grant that (except, why then is he looking to a priest for absolution?). However, what about the person who doesn't understand? The harm is that he has been convinced to find his salvation in a man and the organization that man represents. And there can be none there! Rather, his only hope for absolution is by faith in the God-man who purchased that absolution on the cross two-thousand years ago. His conscience has been assuaged on a false basis, leaving him still in his sins! It is as if he has a cancer and thinks he has been cured by a sugar pill.