Old Testament Reading: Isaiah 53

“Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53, ESV)

New Testament Reading: Luke 22:35-38

“And he said to them, ‘When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘Nothing.’ He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.’ And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’” (Luke 22:35–38, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church, but without the benefit of proofreading.

Sermon

This passage that is open before us today has been interpreted and applied in some interesting ways throughout the history of the church. The difficult interpretive question is this: How are we to understand Christ’s words about obtaining swords? “He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.’” Why did Christ tell his disciples to procure a sword, even if it required them to sell their cloak to obtain it? A little later in the passage, we read, “And they [the disciples] said [to Jesus], ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’” What is the meaning of the two swords? Are they to be taken literally, or do they symbolize something? And what did Jesus mean when he said, it is enough? 

You may know that some have interpreted the swords in an allegorical way. When Christ said, “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one”, they think that Christ was speaking of a spiritual sword, namely, the word of God. And when it comes to the two short swords that the disciples pointed to, they interpret them to symbolize two aspects of the word of God. Some believe the two swords symbolize the Old and New Testaments. Others believe they symbolize the law and the gospel. Perhaps you have heard that some Roman Catholics view the swords as symbolic of the two-fold power and authority that they believe Christ has given to the church – power over things spiritual and power over things civil or political. 

I do not agree with these allegorical interpretations. It seems to me that when Christ told his disciples that they would need swords in the future, it was a warning that times of difficulty were soon to come. They would need swords for self-defense. And it seems to me that when the disciples said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords”, and Jesus replied, “it is enough”, he meant, the two short swords are enough – they will be sufficient for you as a band of disciples. In other words, Jesus was not commanding his disciples to arm themselves for physical combat or war (two short swords would not be sufficient for that). Instead, he was warning that difficulties were soon to come and that they would be wise to carry short swords for self-defence. In those days, when people would travel, they would carry a moneybag (with money in it), a knapsack (or a traveler’s bag), and a sword for self-defence. 

I do believe that this interpretation fits very well with the context, which I hope to demonstrate shortly. 

Christ Warned His Disciples Of Difficult Days Ahead

Why would Jesus need to warn his disciples of the difficult days ahead? 

The need for this instruction becomes clear when we recall that the disciples were arguing amongst themselves over who was to be regarded as the greatest in Christ’s kingdom. Clearly, at this point, they were oblivious to the difficulty that was soon to descend upon them. Clearly, they had high hopes and big dreams concerning the arrival of the Messiah’s kingdom. They must have thought that the kingdom would soon come in glory and that they would soon experience glorious and pleasant things on earth. But here Christ warns them that the glory would be delayed. First, there would be difficulty.

Look with me at verse 35: “And he said to them, ‘When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?’ They said, ‘Nothing.’” What is Jesus referring to here? He is reminding his disciples of the manner in which he previously sent them out to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom. In the past, he sent them out to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom without natural provision or protection. God and Christ provided for them and protected them in unusual or supernatural ways. No doubt, this was a time of testing and training for the disciples. They learned to depend upon God as they went about their work.  

Luke tells us about this unusual mission in chapter 9, verses 1-6, of his Gospel. There we read, “And [Jesus] called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. And he said to them, ‘Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.’ And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere” (Luke 9:1–6, ESV). In Luke 10:1-12, we are told that Jesus sent seventy of his disciples out in much the same way. To them, Jesus said, “Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.” 

Here in Luke 22:35, Jesus reminds his disciples of that mission and the manner in which he sent them out. But in verse 36, he clarifies that this will not be the norm in the future. “He said to them, ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one’” (Luke 22:36, ESV). This is very important teaching from Jesus that we would do well to consider. 

I’m afraid that some Christians will read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and even the Book of the Acts of the Apostles), and expect that everything described there will be the common experience of all Christians living in every time and place. The thought is this: If Jesus sent the twelve, and later the seventy, out with no money, staff, bag, food, or change of clothes, then this is to be the manner in which all Christians live in all times and places. We can press this further: If the twelve and the seventy cast out demons and healed the sick, so should we. If the twelve and the seventy left houses and families to follow Jesus, we must do the same. But this is not true. The text that is open before us today helps us to see that not everything we read about in the Gospels (and even the book of Acts) is to be regarded as normative for the New Covenant people of God. Some things are! But some things are not. The reason is simple and clear. The Gospels and the book of Acts tell us about a very special and unique time in the history of redemption. These books of the Bible tell us about the earthly ministry of the Messiah, the Son of God incarnate, and the work of his special emissaries—his Apostles and other eyewitnesses of his life, death, and resurrection. 

It is true, for a time, Christ sent his disciples out to preach the gospel of the kingdom and to cast out demons, and commanded them to have no concern for their provision or protection. But here he clarifies that this manner of going is not to be regarded as normative: “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one’”, Christ says (Luke 22:36, ESV).

Why have I said that this teaching from Jesus is important to consider? Because it helps to keep us from fanaticism or reckless and foolish living. Stated positively, this text helps us to see that Christians are to walk in wisdom and make use of common earthly means as they seek to obey Christ and fulfill the Great Commission.

This teaching gets really practical, really quick. 

What would you say to a professing Christian who says, I’m not going to get a job. Instead, I’m going to walk by faith just like the Apostles did when Jesus sent them out without provision. I hope you would say what the Apostle said: ”If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10, ESV).

Or what would you say to the aspiring missionary who says, I will not raise support or bother securing the backing of a local church. I will simply go just like the Apostles did when Jesus sent them out without provision. I hope you would say what the Apostle said: Brother, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” (Romans 10:14–15, ESV). Were not Paul and Barnabus sent from Antioch? Did Paul not carry a moneybag filled by the generous support of the churches he served? 

Or what would you say to the congregation that failed to provide an adequate living for their minister whom they have set apart for full-time ministry, saying, but shouldn’t this minister of ours (along with his wife and children) walk by faith just as the Apostles did when Jesus sent them out without provision. I hope you would say what the Apostle has said: “‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (1 Timothy 5:18, ESV). 

Another way to say this is that these disciples of Jesus were, in some respects, about to experience a major transition from the extraordinary to the ordinary. The days of the earthly ministry of the Messiah were extraordinary. But soon (after his death, burial, and resurrection), some things would return to normal.  

To illustrate this, we may compare Israel’s experience in the days of Moses with their experience after settling in the land of Canaan. When God redeemed them from bondage in Egypt through Moses, many miracles were performed through him. Once in the wilderness, God sustained them miraculously. They drank water from the rock. They ate manna from heaven. They followed the cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. After the conquest, however, things settled. Life became more ordinary for the Hebrews.     

As I say this, I do not mean to deny that God is able to work in supernatural ways during these more ordinary days, and sometimes does. And neither am I claiming that there is nothing to learn from those passages wherein Luke tells us of the sending out of the twelve and seventy without provision. No doubt, it is a valid point of application to say, we must learn to walk by faith and trust in God for provision and protection. But this passage that is open before us does help us to see that not everything experienced by the disciples of Jesus in the days of his earthly ministry is to be regarded as normative for us. “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one’”, Christ says (Luke 22:36, ESV).

I promise, I do read commentators other than J.C.Ryle when preparing my sermons. I quote him often, though, one, because I often agree with him, and two, because I like the way he puts things. Listen to what he says about this passage: 

The general drift of this verse is to teach that from the time of Christ’s ascension into heaven, the disciples must not expect such a constant miraculous interposition of God on their behalf, as would make them independent of the use of means. On the contrary they must diligently employ all lawful and reasonable means for their support and protection. They were to work with their own hands, as St Paul did at tent making. They were to have regular gatherings of money for the support of those that [lacked] as the Corinthians had. They were not to despise their rights as subjects and citizens, but to use them in their own defence, as St Paul did before Lysias, and Festus, and at Philippi. The general purport of the verse appears to be a caution against the indolent [lazy] and fanatical [extreme] notion that diligence in the use of means is ‘carnal,’ and an unlawful dependence on an arm of flesh. To my own mind the whole verse supplies an unanswerable argument against the strange notions maintained by some in the present day, who tell us that making provision for our families is wrong, — and insuring our lives is wrong, — and collecting money for religious societie: is wrong, — and studying for the work of the ministry is wrong, — and taking part in civi government is wrong, — and supporting police, standing armies, and courts of law is wrong. I respect the conscientiousness of those who maintain these opinions. But I am utterly unable to reconcile them with our Lord’s language in this place.” (Ryle, Expository Thoughts On Luke, 311) 

When Christ instructed his disciples to procure a sword, even if it required them to sell their cloak to get one, I take this to mean, just as travelers would commonly travel with moneybags, travel bags, and swords for defence, the disciples of Jesus would be wise to do the same in the future, for the uncommon and special protections afforded to them during the days of Christ’s earthly ministry were soon coming to an end. Christ would still be with them! But in the New Covenant era, disciples of Jesus will be expected to make use of common means for their provision and protection. 

When Christ mentioned the need for a sword of defense, it was also, no doubt, an ominous warning that troubles were on the horizon. The disciples of Jesus assumed that Christ’s kingdom would soon come in glory and that they would sit on thrones ruling and reigning with him. Here, Jesus essentially says, Not so fast. You will not immediately be living as rulers in a settled kingdom (that day will come, but not yet! Instead, you will live as sojourners on the earth—as travelers in need of moneybags, knapsacks, and swords. And the trouble you face will be such that you would rather have a sword for defence than a cloak to keep you warm as you sleep at night. If you know anything about the trials and tribulations that the disciples of Jesus endured after Christ’s ascension, you will agree that this is true.

Christ Warned His Disciples That He Would Experience The Difficulty First

So you can see, Christ warned his disciples that difficult days were ahead. And he also warned them that he himself would experience the difficulty first. Look with me at verse 37: “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37, ESV).

What Scripture was Christ referring to when he said, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’”?  He was referring to the famous Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53. We read it earlier. It is truly a marvelous text of Scripture. About 700 years before Jesus the Messiah was born in this world, it was revealed by the Holy Spirit through the Prophet Isaiah that the Messiah would suffer, die, and be raised to atone for the sins of his people. Every time I read this text, I’m amazed at how clearly the gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed in it. Hear it again: 

“Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt…” 

Clearly, this prophecy revealed that the Messiah, though pure and undefiled, would experience sorrows, suffering, and death. It also reveals that his death would be an atoning death — a death that removed the guilt and stain of sin. But it also reveals that the Messiah would be raised from the dead to bring salvation to many. In verse 10, we read, 

“he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:10–12, ESV)

Notice that Christ quoted a line from the very end of this prophecy, saying, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37, ESV). By quoting a line from the end of this prophecy, he was urging his disciples to consider the whole thing. 

When Christ said, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me”, he was reminding his disciples of something he had told them many times before — a little detail they seemed to always forget — the Messiah, though perfectly pure and unstained by sin, would have to suffer and die the death of a sinner to atone for sins, and then enter into glory. 

First, suffering, then glory. That would be the pattern. It was the pattern for Christ, and it would be the pattern for his disciples, too. First, suffering, then glory. This was not the first time Christ had spoken plainly about his suffering. In Luke 18:31, we read, “And taking the twelve, he said to them, ‘See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise’” (Luke 18:31–33, ESV). That’s clear, would you agree? And yet the disciples had no place in their minds for suffering—not for Jesus and not for them. They only thought about the glory, and so they argued about who would be the greatest. This time, Jesus took them straight to the Old Testament text that speaks most clearly about the sufferings of the Messiah—Isaiah 53—saying, “For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37, ESV).     

In verse 38, the disciples respond to Jesus by pointing to a pair of short swords in the room and saying, “And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough’” (Luke 22:38, ESV). As I said previously, I take the words of Jesus to mean, those will be sufficient. And why would the two small swords be sufficient?  Because Christ did not intend for his disciples to fight as if a small army or militia. The sword that he encouraged them to procure was a sword of self-defence, not of a soldier. By saying this, I do not mean to suggest that disciples of Jesus must never serve as soldiers under the authority of civil magistrates. Instead, I mean that disciples of Jesus are not called to bear arms and to wage warfare as disciples of Jesus. The church is not an army. The kingdom of God will not advance by the sword. It will advance by the preaching of the word and the working of the Spirit. 

This point is proven by what happened later that night as the disciples of Jesus were tempted to use the sword to defend Jesus from enduring the suffering that Isaiah 53 predicted. It was while they were in the garden of Gethsemane that “there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus said to him, ‘Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?’ And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, ‘Lord, shall we strike with the sword?’ And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched his ear and healed him” (Luke 22:47–51, ESV). The sword that Jesus urged his disciples to procure was a common sword of self-defence, not a sword for warfare, “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Corinthians 10:3–4, ESV).

Conclusion

I’ll conclude with a few brief suggestions for application. 

One, this text encourages us not to despise the common and mundane things of this life as if they are somehow lacking or unrelated to Christ and his glorious kingdom. Sometimes we may be tempted to look back on the lives of the Apostles as they walked with Jesus on earth or as they furthered his kingdom in the days after his ascension, and think, Why am I not experiencing such exciting and glorious things in my walk with Jesus? Well, those were unusual times, brothers and sisters. Be grateful for the time in which we live, and seek to honor the Lord even in the mundane things.  

Two, do not assume that living responsibly and with wisdom is opposed to walking by faith. Yes, it may be that God will sometimes call you to take a leap of faith, that is to say, to obey his revealed will even though it is difficult and to trust that he will provide. But more often than not, God will call you to trust and obey him as you live responsibly in this world, for his glory, honor, and praise. Work diligently, brothers and sisters. Give generously, save, and invest. Make wise plans, saying, Lord willing, I will do this or that thing. Get an education or certification. Make progress in your career. Maintain and manage your home. Be prepared to protect yourself and those you love. Though these are earthly cares and concerns, they are not necessarily unspiritual. Do them to the glory of God, brothers and sisters. Do them, never losing sight of our mission to further God’s eternal kingdom on earth.       

Three, please do not forget this pattern: first suffering, then glory. Do not despise the trials and tribulations of life, brothers and sisters. Do not act as if the sufferings of this life are for nothing, for we know that  “this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:17–18, ESV)

Posted in Sermons Joe Anady Luke 22:35-38
Comments Off on Sermon: First Suffering, Then Glory, Luke 22:35-38 Posted by Joe

1. What did the bickering of the disciples over the question of greatness reveal about their expectations for the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom? Were they expecting to suffer in this inaugurated kingdom or to enter glory? Discuss.
2. When Christ said, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one” (Luke 22:36, ESV), what was he revealing about life in his inaugurated kingdom? How does it compare to the disciples’ previous experience with Jesus? How does it compare with life in glory?
3. How does the command to take moneybags, knapsacks, and swords with us on our Christian journey help to guard us from fanatical and unwise living?  
4. Why is it important for disciples of Jesus to recognize this pattern: first suffering, then glory? How does this pattern relate to Jesus? How does this pattern relate to us?
5. Read Isaiah 53 and observe the “first suffering, then glory” pattern there?

Posted in Study Guides Joe Anady
Comments Off on Discussion Questions: Luke 22:35-38 Posted by Joe

Baptist Catechism 100

Q. 100. How is baptism rightly administered?

A. Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ’s institution, and the practice of the apostles, and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of man. (Matt. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38,39)

Scripture Reading: Acts 8:26-40

“Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, ‘Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’ This is a desert place. And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: ‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.’ And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.” (Acts 8:26–40, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

*****

The question before us today is, “How is baptism rightly administered?“ In other words, how is a baptism properly done?

You know, in some traditions, baptisms are administered by the pouring or sprinkling of water. And the question is, is this proper?

Our catechism is quite direct, isn’t it?  At the end, it says, “not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of man.” In our opinion, this practice of sprinkling, pouring, or dipping some part of the body into the baptismal water is not from Christ, but is the tradition of man. 

Where did this tradition come from?  Well, I have not studied that question in detail, but I wonder if it did not develop along with the tradition of applying the sign of baptism to infants and to those on their deathbeds. Sprinkling, pouring, or dipping only a part of the body in water in situations like these would certainly be more convenient. 

However the tradition developed, we are saying that it is not from Scripture, which means that it is not from God. It is the tradition of man, and it is to be rejected. 

Notice again that the question is “How is baptism rightly administered?“ In other words, what is the correct way to do it? 

As is usually the case, it is helpful to compare our catechism with our confession to gain a fuller understanding of the doctrine being presented. Our confession teaches in chapters 28 and 29 that those who have faith in Christ are the only proper subjects of baptism; never should those who do not profess faith be baptized, and this includes infants. Infant baptisms are invalid baptisms, therefore. Water is always to be used. And those baptized are to be baptized in the name of the Triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—by one who is qualified and called to administer the sacrament, according to the commission of Christ (2LCF 28.2). A baptism that lacks these things should be considered invalid. But our confession says in 29.4 that “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” In other words, the right way to baptize is by immersion, or the dipping of the person in water. But what about those who have been baptized as believers, with water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by one who is qualified and called to administer the sacrament, but by sprinkling, pouring, or dipping a part of the body into the water? What should we think of a baptism like this? Is it valid?

This is a question that comes up from time to time even today, but it was a very common question for the Particular Baptists living in the 17th century. They had to wrestle with the question, Should we receive the baptisms of those who were baptized as believers, but by sprinkling. Many thought yes. Though their baptisms were improperly done, they were to be considered valid.  And that is why 29.4 of our confession says that “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.” Due means proper.

Would we consider an infant baptism valid? No, never. For that one was not baptized upon profession of faith. The one who was baptized as an infant was not really baptized. They should be baptized properly as a believer now, and thus say to God and to the world, Jesus is Lord. 

Would we consider a Roman Catholic, Mormon, or a Jehovah’s Witness baptism to be valid? No, never. For those are different religions with different conceptions of sin and salvation. In the case of Mormon and JW doctrine, their view of God and Christ is fundamentally different, too. Those who were baptized in these religions were not baptized into Christ’s church, but into something else. 

Would we consider the baptism of one who was sprinkled with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit upon profession of faith, let’s say,  in a Reformed or Presbyterian church, to be valid? Yes, I think we would. Our view would be that it was improperly done, but may be regarded as valid. 

So why do we say that “[b]aptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” Why is this the right way to do it?

The answer is rather straight forwrad. One, this is what the word “baptism” means – to immerse or submerge. Two, this is what Christ taught. And three, this is what the Apostles did. In other words, baptism by immersion is what we find in scripture. 

Read the New Testament and see. Baptisms were performed in bodies of water —  rivers, lakes, and such. People “went down into the water” to be baptized, and they were brought up again. 

The passage that I read from Acts 8 regarding Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch is a good example. Philip preached the gospel to him from Isaiah the prophet. The Ethiopian believed. And after believing he said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?’ He commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.”  

If ever there was a time for baptism by sprinkling or pouring, it was here, for they were in an arid region. But baptism was made possible by the body of water. It was large enough for them to go down into it and to come up out of it again. Read the New Testament and see that this is always the case. It is always baptism by immersion that is described. 

Add to this the symbolism of baptism. Baptism signifies cleansing. It signifies our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Through immersion, the whole body is washed. Through immersion, our death in Christ, and our resurrection in Christ are signified as we go under the water and come up again. Baptism by pouring or sprinkling doesn’t quite capture this, does it?

*****

Conclusion

And this is why we say, “Baptism is rightly administered by immersion, or dipping the whole body of the party in water, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to Christ’s institution, and the practice of the apostles, and not by sprinkling or pouring of water, or dipping some part of the body, after the tradition of man. (Matt. 3:16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38,39)

Posted in Sermons
Comments Off on Catechetical Sermon: How Is Baptism Rightly Administered?, Baptist Catechism 100 Posted by Joe

1. How is a person to be baptized? What is to be done to the person? What is to be said?
2. Why is immersion the proper way to baptize?
3. What symbolism is lost when baptisms are done by sprinkling or pouring water? See Romans 6. 
4. If a person was baptized upon profession of faith by a minister of the gospel in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but by pouring or sprinkling, may we regard their baptism as valid, though improperly done? 

Posted in Study Guides
Comments Off on Discussion Questions: Baptist Catechism 100 Posted by Joe

Old Testament Reading: Proverbs 16:16-20

“How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver. The highway of the upright turns aside from evil; whoever guards his way preserves his life. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud. Whoever gives thought to the word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:16–20, ESV)

New Testament Reading: Luke 22:24-34

“A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [Verse 31] ‘Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.’ Peter said to him, ‘Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.’ Jesus said, ‘I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.’” (Luke 22:24–34, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church, but without the benefit of proofreading.

Sermon

The Christian life begins when God, by his grace, and by his Word and Spirit, humbles a sinner, convinces them of their sin and misery, opens their eyes to their great need for a Savior, and enables them to see that Jesus Christ is the Savior God has provided. In other words, true conversion always involves being humbled. It involves being brought low, such that we abandon any sense of self-sufficiency as it pertains to our right standing before God. In other words, when Christ converts a sinner, there is a kind of death and resurrection that takes place. The sinner dies to self and is raised unto life in Christ. We who have been converted do not hope in ourselves, or think of ourselves as worthy or sufficient. We hope in Christ alone and think of him as worthy and sufficient, and so we confess that he is Savior and Lord.

It should be clear to all that the heart sins of pride, self-conceit, and selfish ambition are opposed to everything that happens in conversion. When a sinner is converted, it is particularly the heart’s sins of pride, self-conceit, and selfish ambition that are defeated in the mind and heart of the sinner. If these heart sins were not defeated by God’s word and Spirit, then no one could ever truly repent, believe in Jesus, and confess him as Lord!  Pride, self-conceit, and selfish ambition are contrary to the Christian life, therefore. The two things are like oil and water – they do not mix. And whenever there is pride and selfish ambition in the heart of a Christian, it will produce “disorder and every vile practice.” (James 3:16, ESV).

We see this in the text that is open before us today. Were these men who followed after Jesus converted persons? Had they been humbled and subdued by God’s word and Spirit, such they had turned from their sins to confess Jesus as Lord? Yes, eleven of the twelve were true converts. And yet we see that they were still plagued by pride and selfish ambition. In the time of Jesus’ greatest need, when he was about to accomplish their redemption and inaugurate the kingdom they were longing to see, they were arguing with one another about which of them was the greatest. 

I do believe there is a powerful warning found in this text, brothers and sisters. Beware of the heart sins of pride and selfish ambition. It may be that the Lord has genuinely converted you. It may be that he truly humbled you, by his word and Spirit, and enabled you, by his grace, to abandon all hope in yourself and to place your trust in Christ. But this does not mean that heart sins of pride, self-conceit, and selfish ambition will never rise up within you again. They certainly will, for throughout the Christian life the corruptions that remain in our flesh will war against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17) and temptations are sure to come (Luke 17:1). And when these temptation do come, either from the world, the flesh, or Devil, they must be mortified, that is to say, put to death (Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5).  

We considered Luke 22:24-30 in a previous sermon. Today, we turn our attention to verses 31-34. As we consider this text, we will learn, 1) to beware of the sin of pride and selfish ambition, 2) to be sober concerning the schemes of the Evil One, 3) to find our comfort and confidence in Christ alone, 4) to draw strength from his body, the church, and 5) to not despise the discipline of the Lord. 

 Beware Of The Sins Of Pride And Selfish Ambition

First, this passage teaches us that we should always beware of the sins of pride and selfish ambition in the heart. I see this principle in words, “Simon, Simon.”

In the previous passage, Luke tells us that a dispute arose among the disciples as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. No doubt, all of the disciples were embroiled in this dispute. But, as was said in a previous sermon, the voices of Peter, James, and John were likely the loudest. These three were clearly leaders amongst the twelve, and Peter was the leader of these three.  

Notice that Jesus addresses Peter directly in our text. Did Jesus single Peter out because his voice was the loudest in the dispute about greatness?  Or did he single him out because he was the leader of the band of disciples? I’d say it was for both of these reasons that Jesus singled him out. Peter, having been puffed up with pride and selfish ambition, needed to be humbled. And Peter would need to lead his fellow disciples in the way of humility in the future.

As you may know, Peter goes by different names. He is sometimes called Cephas, which is the Aramaic equivalent of the  Greek name, Peter. Peter means “rock” (John 1:42). This is the special name that Jesus gave to him. After he confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, Christ said, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter [Cephas], and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17–19, ESV). Again, the name Peter, or Cephas, means rock, and it was given to Simon after he confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. 

It is interesting that Jesus here refers to Peter using his old name, Simon. The last time Peter was called Simon in Luke’s gospel was in Luke 7:44. He has been Peter, the rock, ever since. But here Christ calls him Simon, and it is not difficult to see why. Peter was wavering. He was, in this moment, consumed with pride and selfish ambition. He was making things about himself and forgetting that he was but a servant of Jesus, the Messiah. I cannot help but think that when Peter, and the rest of the disciples with him, heard Jesus speak to him, saying, “Simon, Simon”, they would have understood the meaning. He had been called Peter for some time now. But he was not behaving like a man worthy of the name Peter in this moment, for he had begun to slip off his rock-solid foundation, namely, his devotion to Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Being puffed up with pride and selfish ambition, Peter began to waver. 

It is also interesting that the name Simon is related to the Hebrew word that means to hear. Perhaps Jesus called Peter “Simon” to indicate that he had heard Peter disputing about his greatness, and was now urging him to hear his words of warning. Or perhaps Jesus wanted Simon to remember the Shamah and to apply it to his sinful heart: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4, ESV).

No doubt, this passage is a warning to all of us concerning the dangers of pride and selfish ambition in the heart. No one is immune to this heart sin. In fact, it is a very common disease of the heart, and something that the Lord hates. As Proverbs 6:16-19 says, “There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” (Proverbs 6:16–19, ESV). There is a connection to made between the first and the last sins on this list. Haughty eyes, that is to say, pride in the heart, will always lead to discord amongst the brethren. 

And what is the remedy to the heart-sin of pride? It is the Shamah: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4, ESV). We must be ever mindful of God and his Christ and their authority over us. “Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker! For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand” (Psalm 95:6–7, ESV).

Be Sober Concerning The Schemes Of The Evil One

Not only does this text teach us to beware of the sins of pride and selfish ambition, it also teaches us to be sober concerning the schemes of the Evil One. This warning is found in verse 31, wherein we hear Christ say, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat…”

When Christ mentioned Satan, it was to remind his disciples of the invisible, spiritual world and the battle that has raged in that realm for the souls of men ever since Satan entered the garden to bring temptation to Adam through Eve. Jesus’ disciples were fighting with one another over who was the greatest, and Jesus immediately reminded them that Satan was trying to destroy them. 

You should know that in verse 31 and in its first two occurrences in verse 32, the word translated as “you” and “your” is plural in the Greek.  “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [all], that he might sift you [all] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [all] that [the] faith of [you all] may not fail. And when you [Peter] have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31–32, ESV). 

It was not only Peter who was being tempted by the Evil One, but all of the disciples of Jesus. Satan knew that this was a crucial moment. He had entered Judas’ heart to lead him to betray Jesus. The time for Jesus to be crucified was drawing near. And so Satan brought a strong assault against the disciples of Jesus. He demanded to have them. This must mean that he, as the accuser of the brethren, came before God to do the very thing he had done in the days of Job. He brought his accusations against them and requested to have them so that he might destroy them. He wished to sift them like wheat. This means, he wished to shake them up, disturb them, divide them, and even to distroy them. 

Yes, when the disciples of Jesus were assembled in that upper room, after they had observed the last Passover, and after the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Satan attacked them. And pay careful attention to his tactic. He tempted their hearts with pride and selfish ambition and sought to divide them one from another.

Dear brothers and sisters, do not be ignorant of the schemes of the Evil One. Study the Holy Scriptures to know how he operates. His tactics are the same as they were in the Garden of Eden. Satan will tempt you to think little of God and much of yourself. He will tempt you to forget, twist, or doubt God’s word. He will tempt you to think much of yourself and little of others. He would love it if you would forget Christ and despise him. He will attempt to divide and conquer Christ’s people. This he will do by attempting to stir up the fleshly and sinful desires within us, especially pride and selfish ambition.

The Apostle Paul warns us not to be outwitted by Satan. He insists that we forgive those who are repentant after they are disciplined, “so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (2 Corinthians 2:11, ESV). The Apostle Peter wrote his letters under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but he also wrote from experience: “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8, ESV). No doubt, the experiences Peter had on the night before Christ’s crucifixion had a profound impact upon him. He learned to be humble. He learned to be sober-minded and watchful. And so he exhorts us to do the same.  

Find Your Comfort And Confidence In The Mediation Christ

Thirdly, this passage teaches us to take comfort and confidence in Jesus Christ, our mediator and great High Priest. This encouragement is found in verse 32: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [all], that he might sift you [all] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [all] that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:31–32, ESV).

Christ has promised to uphold his people. “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:39, ESV).

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:27–30, ESV)

And how does Christ preserve his people? One of the things he does is intercede for them.

“Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Romans 8:34, ESV)

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (1 John 2:1, ESV)

Though Christ had not yet died, risen, and ascended to the Father’s right hand, he was already interceding for his disciples in prayer. “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [all], that he might sift you [all] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [all] that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:31–32, ESV). Think of how much greater his intercession is now that he is risen and ascended. The writer of the book of Hebrews reflects on this, saying, “Consequently, [Jesus] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25, ESV).

Dear friends, when I say, find your comfort and confidence in the mediation of Christ, I mean, do not find your comfort or confidence in yourself or in any other created thing. Take comfort in God and in his Christ. Make him your only confidence, for he alone can save you and sustain you. 

Draw Strength From Christ’s Body, The Church 

Fourthly, this passage teaches us to draw strength from Christ’s body, the church. How so, you ask? I see this principle in the words that Christ spoke to Peter: “And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32, ESV).

Here in verse 32, the Greek word translated as “you” is singular. Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here. “And when you [Peter] have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32, ESV).

Of course, when Christ spoke of Peter turning again, he implied that Peter had begun to wander off in the wrong direction, would need to repent, and eventually would. 

Peter understood what Jesus was implying. That is why he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death” (Luke 22:33, ESV). In fact, Peter was not ready to do this. Men who are puffed up with pride and selfish ambition are not prepared to lay down their lives in the service of others. Jesus knew this about Peter. Peter probably knew this about himself. And so he doubled down and boldly expressed his devotion to Christ. “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death” (Luke 22:33, ESV). “Jesus said, ‘I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me’” (Luke 22:34, ESV). This, as you may know, would happen. 

But our attention here is on the words, “And when you [Peter] have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32, ESV). Peter, as the leader of the band, was to use this experience to strengthen his fellow disciples once he was restored. 

The Christian life, dear friends, is not to be lived in isolation. We are to encourage and strengthen one another in the Lord.

Do Not Despise The Discipline Of The Lord  

Fifthly, this passage teaches us not to despise the discipline of the Lord. 

No doubt, it was Peter who willfully decided to deny Jesus three times on the night before his crucifixion, but we must also confess that it was the will of the Lord to permit it. And why did the Lord permit it? It is safe to say that the Lord allowed this to discipline Peter so that he might walk humbly before him in the future and teach us others to do the same.    

Consider the good effect this experience had on Peter. He must have reflected upon this humbling experience in his life when he wrote these words: “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’ Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:5–8, ESV).

Do not despise the discipline of the Lord, brothers and sisters.

“And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:4–14, ESV).

Conclusion

Posted in Sermons Joe Anady
Comments Off on Sermon: Forsake All Pride And Selfish Ambition, Luke 22:31-34 Posted by Joe

1. Why did Jesus call Peter Simon instead of Peter (or Cephus) in this instance?
2. By mentioning Satan, Christ reminded his disciples of the spiritual battle that rages for the souls of men. What are Satan’s tactics? Why is it important for us to be aware of them? See 1 Peter 5:5-8; 2 Corinthians 2:11.
3. Why does God hate pride? See Proverbs 16:16-20.
4. Why should the mediation of Christ bring comfort to us?
5. Why must we never despise the chastisement of the Lord?

Posted in Study Guides Joe Anady
Comments Off on Discussion Questions: Luke 22:31-34 Posted by Joe

Baptist Catechism 98-99

Q. 98. To whom is baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)

Q. 99. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. (Proverbs 30:6; Luke 3:7,8)

Scripture Reading: Acts 2:36–41

“‘Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.’ Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’ And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:36–41, ESV).

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

*****

As I’m sure you know, the Baptist Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (the Catechism used by many who are Reformed Presbyterians) are very, very similar. The same thing can be said of our confessions of faith. The Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession are very similar documents. The similarities are important and encouraging. They remind us that we have a lot in common with our Reformed, Presbyterian brothers and sisters. This should encourage Christian unity and love.  

Now obviously, there are differences between these standards. The primary difference is our answer to the question, to whom is baptism to be administered? 

On the one hand, I do not want to over-emphasize the importance of this question. Indeed, there are other doctrines more foundational to the faith than the doctrine of baptism. To be a Christian, one must hold to orthodox views regarding God, Scripture, the fall of man into sin, and salvation through faith in Christ, for these doctrines are foundational to the faith. They carry much greater weight, therefore, than questions about baptism. Stated differently, I do believe that it is possible for Christians to differ over the question of who should be baptized and to regard one another as true and dear brothers and sisters in Christ, their unity being rooted in Christ, and in their agreement on the foundational doctrines just mentioned. There is something to be said for the approach of majoring in the majors and minoring in the minors. 

But on the other hand, I do not think it is wise to dismiss this question as unimportant. Baptism is very important, brothers and sisters, for Christ has ordained it. He has commanded that disciples be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, baptism is connected to other things. Maybe you have heard me say that all theology hangs together. The meaning is that errors in one area will lead to errors in other areas. Errors in foundational doctrines (like the doctrines of God, Scripture, Man, Sin, and Salvation in Christ) are potentially catastrophic. And errors made in less foundational points of doctrine, though they might not disturb the foundation of the faith, will have a ripple effect on other doctrines, too. Our understanding of baptism will impact, in some way, our understanding of the church. It will impact our understanding of the nature of the New Covenant. Who are members of the New Covenant? Is the New Covenant breakable? These are a few related questions that come quickly to mind. 

Question 95 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “To whom is Baptism to be administered?” Their answer is, “Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the

visible church are to be baptized.”

Contrast this with question 98 of the Baptist Catechism: To whom is baptism to be administered? Answer: Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)

This is the clear teaching of the New Testament. 

Firstly, we should remember what the NT says that Baptism signifies. We considered the symbolism of baptism last week with the help of Baptist Catechism 97: What is Baptism? Answer. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death, burial, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him; of remissions of sins; and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.” If it is true that baptism signifies union with Christ in his death and resurrection, new birth, cleansing from sin, and a resolve to walk in a new way, then it is most reasonable to think that this sign is for those of whom these things are true! Baptism is for those who have been united to Christ by faith, cleansed by his blood, who have died to their old self, and raised to new life.  

Secondly, we should remember what we say through the waters of baptism. It is through baptism that we profess our faith. It is through baptism that we say, Jesus is Lord! Yes, we say that Jesus is Lord with our lips. But that profession is to be made through baptism. To be baptized is to say, I believe. To be baptized is to say, I have been forgiven. To be baptized is to say, I have died to my old self and raised to a newness of life. Through baptism, we make a profession and a commitment. Baptism is for those of whom this is true. 

Thirdly, we should remember what God says to us in baptism. In baptism, God’s name is placed on his people (we are to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit). In baptism, God says, through Christ you are forgiven and adopted as my own. Again I say, baptism is for those of whom this is true. 

In fact, a careful study of the New Testament Scriptures reveals that it is only those who make a credible profession of repentance and faith who are to be baptized. 

Perhaps the most important text is the one we call the Great Commission: “And Jesus came and said [to his disciples], ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV, emphasis added). 

When baptisms are described in the New Testament, we see that it is those who believe who are baptized. Sometimes those who believe in infant baptism will point to the household baptisms found in the Book of Acts and say, there must have been infants in these households! Two things can be said in response. One, it is not wise to build doctrines on the foundation of assumptions and speculations. Two, most of these passages where “households” are mentioned teach that those in these households heard the word and believed, something infants and small children cannot do (i.e.  Acts 11:13-18,  16:29-32).

I think it is very safe to say that not one text in the New Testament clearly teaches us to baptize infants. But we are not biblicists. We reject the idea that for something to be believed as true there must be a verse that says it. No, we are not biblicists. We agree that some doctrines are to be believed because they are taught by way of necessary consequence. This means that the whole of what the Bible says on a subject is to be taken into consideration when forming our doctrines. The most famous example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible in some places teaches that God is one. In other places, the Bible teaches that God is three. No one verse can be found that teaches that God is three in one, but when all is carefully considered, we are moved by the testimony of the totality of Scripture to confess that God is Triune. 

Never does the New Testament command infant baptism – only the baptism of those who profess faith and repentance.

Never does the New Testament describe infant baptism – only the baptism of those who profess faith and repentance.

But do the Scriptures require us to believe in infant baptism by way of necessary or certain consequence? In other words, does a theological reading of Scripture require us to baptize the children of believers? Stated one more way, is infant baptism taught in a similar way to how the Trinity is taught in the Scriptures – no one verse of Scripture teaches it, but when the whole Bible is considered on the subject, we are bound to believe that babies are to be baptized? 

If we are to be consistent in our interpretation of the Scriptures, we must be open to the possibility (for we are not biblicists!), but the answer is no.

Listen to Baptist Catechism 99 after that, I will explain why.  Question 99: Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized? Answer: The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such.

So why are we to baptize those who make a credible profession of repentance and faith in Christ only, and not the infants of those who make such a profession?  

1. The Scriptures nowhere command infant baptism. 
2. The Scriptures nowhere describe infant baptism. 
3. A careful, theological, covenantal, redemptive-historical study of the totality of the Scriptures – Old Testament and New – does not necessitate the practice of infant baptism. To the contrary, a careful examination of the Old Testament Scriptures agrees with the teaching of the New Testament that baptism is for those who profess faith in Christ alone. 

Those familiar with the debate between Reformed paedobaptists (paedo means child) and Reformed credobaptists (credo refers to a profession of faith) will know that the Reformed paedobaptists do not argue for their practice of infant baptism from the New Testament but from the Old. 

They argue like this:

1. The sign of circumcision was applied to infants under the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. 
2. The Old Covenant was a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace, and the New Covenant is a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace.
3. Given that the sign of admission into the Old Covenant (circumcision) was applied to the infants of covenant members, it must necessarily be that the sign of admission into the New Covenant (baptism) be applied to the infants of covenant members, namely, of those who believe. 

So you can see that the Reformed paedobaptists do not typically argue for their position by pointing to this verse or that in the New Testament. They argue from the Old Testament by reasoning that if circumcision was applied to infants under the Old Covenant, then it must necessarily be that baptism is to be given to infants under the New Covenant, even though the New Testament never says so.  

With all due respect to our Reformed paedobaptist brethren (many of whom we esteem very highly), we reject this reasoning. 

One, we do not agree that the Old Covenant was a particular external administration of the Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were mixed. They were covenants of works that could be broken (and they were). But they carried within them promises, prophesies,  types, and shadows that pointed forward to Christ, his kingdom, and the covenant that he mediates – the New Covenant. The New Covenant alone is the Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic and Mosaic anticipated and pointed forward to the Covenant of Grace, but they were not the Covenant of Grace, properly speaking, for they did not have Christ as head and mediator. We could talk about this for hours. And we have before in other studies. For now, let me say that our particular articulation of covenant theology, which differs from the typical paedobaptists’ articulation of that doctrine in important respects, leaves no room for the argument from infant circumcision to infant baptism that the paedobaptists are so fond of making. Do circumcision and baptism share something in common? Yes! They are both signs of their respective covenants, Old and New. But it does not necessarily follow that because one was applied to infants, then the other must be applied to infants also. The two covenants, though certainly interrelated, differ substantially from each other. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the signs of the covenants also differ substantially.   

Two, (and this point deserves much more time and attention than what we can give to it today) while we agree that it is appropriate to argue from necessary consequence in many matters of theology, it is not an appropriate thing to do with the positive laws which God added to the various covenants that he has entered into with man. The signs that God attached to the various covenants he made with man – trees, the rainbow, circumcision, and baptism – are arbitrary. By that I mean, they are simply based on God’s choice. We cannot necessarily reason from one to the other to figure out what they are and how they are to be applied. With positive laws, we are completely dependent on God’s express command. And this is why we look to Christ, his words, and to the New Testament to know what baptism is, what it signifies, how and to whom it is to be given. We are not biblicists. We acknowledge the validity of the interpretive principle of necessary consequence (Trinity). But we deny that it is appropriate to use this principle when it comes to positive laws and sacramental things, for it is impossible to reason from one sign to the other.

Now,  I suppose we are right to expect that signs will be attached to the Covenants God makes, for this is God’s established way. And of course, we should expect that the sign of a covenant will agree in its symbolism with the substance of the given covenant. It makes perfect sense that the sign of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in the garden would be two trees representing two choices, and two paths,  but God could have chosen a different sign. And it makes sense that the sign given to Abraham in the covenant that he made with him and all his physical descendants would be applied to the male reproductive organ, that it would involve the removal of something, thus symbolizing the threat of being cut off from the covenant (a covenant of works!) through disobedience, and that it would be bloody, signifying the crosswork of Christ who would be cut off for his people. This Christ was promised to Abraham and his children. He is the promised seed of the woman, the offspring of Abraham and David. Circumcision fit the Old Abrahamic Covenant, and it made perfect sense that it was to be applied to all of the male children of Abraham at eight days old irrespective of faith, for the Old Abrahamic covenant was made with them by virtue of the birth. For what it’s worth, it seems to me that circumcision was an excellent choice for the sign of the Old Abrahamic covenant, for it agreed with the substance of that covenant.

But the sign of circumcision does not fit the substance of the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Think of it. The New Covenant is not made with an ethnic group. It is made with God’s elect. It is made with all who are born again and believe. It is those who have the faith of Abraham, not the DNA of Abraham, who are members of the New Covenant. And there is no threat of being cut off from the New Covenant. All who are true members of it will be preserved. And Christ, the seed of Abraham and David has come. He was cut off for us on the cross. He shed his blood to atone for sin. For all of these reasons, circumcision has been fulfilled and taken away, and baptism has been given as the sign of the New Covenant instead.

And baptism agrees with the substance of the New Covenant and thus serves as a fitting sign. Baptism signifies many things – union with Christ in his death and resurrection, the washing away of our sin, death to our old self, and new birth. This sign is to be given to those of whom these things are true.

The point is this: our Reformed and paedobaptist brethren error when they look to the sign of the Old Covenant to figure out to whom the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied. These are two different covenants made with two different groups of people (though there is some overlap, thanks be to God). We cannot reason from the one to the other, therefore. To know the answer to the question, to whom is baptism to be administered? To Christ and the New Testament we must go, for there this positive law is revealed. 

*****

Conclusion

Q. 98. To whom is baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other. (Acts 2:38; Matt. 3:6; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12,36; Acts 10:47,48)

Q. 99. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized; because there is neither command nor example in the Holy Scriptures, or certain consequence from them, to baptize such. (Proverbs 30:6; Luke 3:7,8)

Posted in Sermons Joe Anady
Comments Off on Catechetical Sermon, To Whom Is Baptism To Be Administered?, Baptist Catechism 98-99 Posted by Joe

1. To whom is baptism to be given?
2. How do the  Reformed paedobaptists argue for the practice of baptizing their infant children?
3. Why do we reject their argument from Old Covenant circumcision to New Covenant baptism?
4. What does Christ and the New Testament teach us about the proper recipients of baptism?
5. Who are the members of the New Covenant? What does this have to do with the question, to whom is baptism to be given?
6. How can we, on the one hand, strongly disagree with our paedobaptist brethren on this point, and on the other hand, maintain brotherly and sisterly affection for them? 

Posted in Study Guides Joe Anady
Comments Off on Discussion Questions: Baptist Catechism 98 & 99 Posted by Joe