The Washing of Water by the Word--Baptism and Salvation

Baptism is essential to salvation but there are many non-believers, people who do not believe that. I want to deal with one passage today that affirms this doctrine but which is seldom used because the word baptize or baptism is not found in the passage. The phrase used is “washing of water” as found in Eph. 5:25-27.

Eph. 5:25-27 reads as follows: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (NKJV)

The phrase “washing of water” is a direct reference to baptism. “By the word” signifies the reason for the baptism--God’s word. God’s word directs one to be baptized.

Some think they can be saved outside the church. That cannot happen. Why? Because, as the text plainly tells us, that is what Christ gave himself for. Because Christians are the church, and it is Christians who will be saved.

The Bible teaches the church is the body of Christ, Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18, and “he (that is Jesus--DS) is the Savior of the body.” (Eph. 5:23 NKJV) Nowhere does the Bible teach that one can be outside the Savior (his body, the church) and be saved. If you can be outside the Savior and be saved, then you can be outside the church and be saved, but not until then. Is there anyone who thinks they can be saved outside the Savior? If you could be, the Savior would not be needed.

One must be “in Christ” to be saved. We are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27). It is “in Christ” where “all spiritual blessings” are found (Eph. 1:3 KJV). Other translations use the phrase “every spiritual blessing.” If you are not in Christ, you are outside the realm where these spiritual blessings are found.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that Jesus sanctified the body and cleansed it by the washing of water (baptism)--that is what it says; read it for yourself. Since you and I are the church, the body, that is how we are sanctified and cleansed. The word sanctify means to make holy; thus, several modern-day translations use the word holy rather than sanctify in the Ephesian passage (see the NIV, CSB, NLT, and the NRSV). For example, the NIV reads “to make her holy” in Eph. 5:26, with reference to the church.

We are told to “pursue peace with all men, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord.” (Heb. 12:14 NKJV) It is essential to be made holy, and that is done by the Lord when we obey him by being baptized based on our faith and repentance. When we do we become “a holy priesthood.” (1 Peter 2:5 NKJV) Of course, holiness must be maintained. We are not to become backsliders and fall away.

Jesus cleansed the church, you and I, by the washing of water--baptism. To argue with that is to argue with an inspired apostle--Paul. If you are thinking that possibly the phrase “washing of water” might mean something else other than baptism then take a look at 1 Cor. 12:13, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (NKJV) “By one Spirit” is the same as “by the word” in Eph. 5:26 for the word is the mind of the Spirit, the Spirit speaking to us, leading us to faith and obedience.

Paul also tells us elsewhere how we enter this body of Christ, how we enter Christ himself spiritually speaking. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27 NKJV) See also Rom. 6:3.

Eph. 5:25-27 teaches that baptism is essential for note some things that are true if we fail to be washed of water. If you are not washed by water, then you are not sanctified, not made holy. True, the Bible teaches we are sanctified by a number of things, not just the washing of water, but which one of those number of things given in the Bible by which we are sanctified will you cast aside as of no account on your own authority? Will it be the washing of water? If so it is, indeed, on your own authority.

The wise man says if God said it I believe it, and it is essential to believe and obey to the very best of one's ability. We do not have an option of picking and choosing. We cannot legislate for God. Can you be sanctified without the washing of water, be made holy? Our attitude ought to be that everything that is said concerning sanctification and how it comes is true and essential.

But let us move on for there is more in the text. If the washing of water is the way Jesus cleansed the church, meaning those who became Christians, and that is what the text says, then if I have failed to be baptized I have not yet been cleansed. Cleansed of what? What is there to be cleansed of? Sin.

But there is much more to this washing. In 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Paul lists a number of sins and says that those who do those things will not inherit the kingdom of God. He then goes on and says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. 6:11 NKJV) “By the Spirit of our God” means the Spirit was involved but we are not told how he was involved, not here. We are told in the passage that is the subject of this article--Eph. 5:25-27. It was by means of the Spirit working through the word. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). It leads a man to faith and obedience. In their washing, the Corinthians were cleansed as much so as the Ephesians.

Of Christians, the Hebrew writer says, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) If a person has not had his body washed with the water of which the Hebrew writer is speaking (baptism), then he is not qualified to draw near. He may well attempt to do it anyway and tell himself he is being successful but he is at odds with the Hebrew writer.

Peter speaks of how to deal with this evil conscience and rid oneself of it. He says, “there is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism,” which he says is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” (1Peter 3:21 NKJV) That is the man who can “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22 NKJV) having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience. That is the man who has had his body “washed with pure water.” It is the man who was led by the Spirit.

[As an aside, the Heb. 10:22 passage, reread it above, answers those who are always saying, because they do not want to accept baptism, that the word "water" is symbolic and is thus not a reference to water baptism. If they are correct then in Heb. 10:22 the physical body was washed with pure symbolism. When one rejects the truth they will believe about anything.]

There is more. In Acts 22:16, Ananias told Saul to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” (NKJV) What was Saul going to be baptized in? Water. What was going to happen as a result? The washing away of sins.

I have heard people who do not understand baptism say things like there is nothing in water that can wash away sins, the idea being that sin is like dirt on the body that can be washed off. Well, no sin is not like dirt on the body where a little water, soap, and a wash rag will take care of it. But, there is something in the baptismal waters that will take care of sin. What? The promise of Jesus, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” (Mark 16:16 NKJV) If a man is saved, he has had his sins remitted. The promise of Jesus is in the water.

Naaman, in the Old Testament, had a promise in the water. He found out if you want the promise of cleansing, you must get in the water. You can read about his experience in 2 Kings 5.

In America today, among those who call themselves Christians, not many believe what Jesus said. They believe, “he who believes and is not baptized will be saved” just as well as he who believes and is baptized. They say they are going to be saved by faith but have no faith in what Jesus said. I find deep irony in that.

Baptism is essential to salvation just as much so as faith and repentance and the confession of Jesus but there are non-believers who will neither believe nor obey. They are in God’s hands. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10:31 NKJV) When you will not obey what God has clearly commanded it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into his hands.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

What Is Baptism—Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion

It may be that no Bible subject has caused more confusion among people than the subject of baptism. What is baptism? What is its purpose? Who should be baptized? Why? I would like to look at all of these questions, but for the present, for the purpose of this article, I will confine myself to the question, what is baptism?

Most people assume that the words found in our New Testaments are English words translated from the original Greek. You may be surprised to learn that the word "baptize" and its derivatives are not English words at all, not at first. They are Greek words that were transliterated.

What does that mean?  Dictionary.com online defines transliterate as follows: “to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.” Thus, those men who translated our New Testaments from the Greek into English decided not to translate the Greek word "baptize" at all. They just made it a new English word. Forget translating it, forget translating the Greek word. To translate is to give the meaning of the Greek word in English. That they refused to do.

Why would they do that? That is a good question. It is a question with an easy answer. The Greek word means to immerse completely. My hardback copy of Vine's, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says of baptism, "consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence." If the reader will do a little of their own research they will quickly see that most all Greek scholars readily admit that in the first century the word was used of immersion only, that is what the Greek word meant to those people.

The Bible confirms this to be the case for Paul says, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) Baptism is a burial, a burial in water when used in a religious context. Paul says again in Col. 2:11-12 (NKJV), "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." One is not and cannot be buried by pouring or sprinkling.

The truth of the matter as to why the Greek work was transliterated and never translated is to be found in the fact that by the time the Bible came to be translated into English man had decided on his own initiative that sprinkling would do just as well as immersion. If you translate the Greek and are honest in your scholarship you will have to use the word immerse, or dip, or submerge. If you do that, what will that do to your doctrine of sprinkling? It will destroy it. That cannot be allowed to happen. What is the solution? Don't translate the Greek, transliterate it, producing a new English word that because it is new you can make it mean what you want it to mean.

The first time after the establishment of the church in Acts 2 that anyone was sprinkled or had water poured on them rather than be immersed was approximately 250 years later. In about 250 AD, a man named Novation became ill and fearing for his life wanted to be baptized. Too ill for immersion his friends poured water on him. By that point in time there was not an inspired man alive to cause problems over this substitution. Inspiration had ended. The apostles were dead.

One had to go outside the pages of the New Testament to get pouring (affusion) or sprinkling, showing little respect for what was written. What was written was not sufficient for a man (or his friends) who felt he was at the point of death, and knowing he had not been obedient to the command to be baptized (immersed), was desperate. What he needed was a change in the ordinance. He needed pouring as a substitution and if he or his friends had to add a new law or change an old one to get it in then so be it. Evidently, they had never read the passage, “There is one Lawgiver.” (James 4:12 NKJV) Either that or they were just going to ignore it.

Thus, we see the kind of attitude that brought sprinkling and pouring into what the world calls "Christianity." One ought to be able to see the evil of that kind of attitude toward God's word; if I can't find what I want in the word I will do whatever.

In 1311, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Revenna officially adopted pouring (affusion) and sprinkling (aspersion) of water as valid baptism. The Greek Catholic Church would not accept this but the Roman Catholic Church did and it exercised dominance in the West where the English-speaking people resided and where English Bibles were to be produced. This was more than 100 years before the printing press was invented making mass production of Bibles possible. Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 was one of the first to use the word baptism or baptize consistently in an English Bible.

The long and short of it was that the doctrine of sprinkling was, by subterfuge, brought into the Bible by a deliberate failure to translate a Greek word and giving the transliterated word any meaning you wanted since it was a new word to the English language. That is why if you look up the word "baptize" or "baptism" in a modern-day dictionary it will give you meanings related to the way the word is used today, thus giving you options--sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

Even so I was surprised to see that my Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition, the last copyright listed being 1988, while listing 3 common meanings of the word "baptize" as used today, gives before those listings the Greek meanings and I quote here from it--"to immerse," "to dip." Honesty in scholarship is a great thing.

Most all scholars will agree on the meaning of the original Greek word baptize, immerse or dip, but you will probably never see again a major translation that will translate the Greek word baptize that way. Why? With the vast multitude of people who have now come to wholeheartedly embrace sprinkling how many Bibles do you think they would sell? You can still learn the truth on this topic through your own study but you will get no help from most Bible translations. One exception is the Literal Standard Version translation but how many people do you know who have this translation? It is not a major one.

What is sad is that some will read what I have written here, they will then go and do their own research, find out that what I have said is the truth, and yet it will not make a bit of difference in their view of the subject if they have by tradition had pouring and sprinkling handed down to them in their particular faith.

Pouring and sprinkling for baptism came to us from man, not God. It has now become a tradition of men. Jesus once said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3 NKJV) God's commandment to us is to be immersed. Everyone agrees that was the original commandment and historically was done exclusively for a couple of hundred years after the church was established. When I substitute pouring or sprinkling for immersion how can I say anything other than I have done the very same thing these scribes and Pharisees did?

I have transgressed the commandment of God because of my tradition preferring to keep my tradition (pouring and/or sprinkling) over his word (immersion). I have made the commandment of God of no effect by my tradition handed down to me by those who came before which I have accepted wholeheartedly.

Then Jesus also does a comparison and contrast in talking to the scribes and Pharisees. He says God says (Matt. 15:4), then says "but you say." (Matt. 15:5). Again, it is hard to not see a parallel. I, God, have said immersion, but you say sprinkling.

Then we also have to ask, since pouring and sprinkling came from man being 200 to 1300 years after the writing of the New Testament, depending on whether you want to start your count with Novation or the Council of Ravenna, how it can be said that God had anything to do with bringing affusion or asperion into the faith? How can it be anything other than "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men"? (Matt. 15:9 NKJV)

The only way one can get around the difficulties associated with accepting pouring and sprinkling is to say the New Testament is insufficient as a guide for man today. It must be amended. This smacks of the utmost arrogance. It is to say God was not able, not capable, of producing a guide that could stand the test of time and stand on its own two legs. It is to say that we men of dust need to help God stay updated. It is to say we still have inspired men able to amend the teachings of the New Testament.

The Catholic Church accepts both—its inspiration through the Magisterium and the Pope and the need for God's word, the New Testament, to be amended and added to from time to time. If you believe that, then it is not hard to abandon the written word or replace it with your own, your teaching and tradition. Just combine it all and claim the totality to be “God’s word.”

But the truth is this is the approach the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians take whether they are Catholics or Protestants. They are putting their trust in men rather than in what is written. The idea seems to prevail that their tradition (or practice if you will) regarding baptism, whether begun in 250 AD or in the Middle Ages, or even more recently somehow trumps the New Testament and amends it. And, yet, they think it is of God.

I don't know whether you ever thought about it this way or not. What we are saying when we add to God's word is that it alone is insufficient to save men. We now need more. Yes, there was a time when immersion alone was sufficient but not so today. Men need options God did not give. It is too hard to have to do what he said way back then. Getting all wet is too big an inconvenience. What was once sufficient is no longer so. Who said so? We did. Who could fairly question us who have made ourselves the authority?

Hear the words of Jesus, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." John 12:48 (NKJV) The word of Jesus in the New Testament is be immersed.

Today we need to make a choice. Will we believe and practice those things that came into our midst religiously hundreds of years after the establishment of the church and which, as a result, came obviously from man, not God, or will we return to the New Testament as our sole guide in our faith and practice? We need to choose. We ought to say as for me and my house I will follow the words of the Lord as recorded in the New Testament and leave the ideas, opinions, and innovations of man to those for whom the New Testament is not good enough.

[To download this article or print it out here.]