Rise And Be Baptized (Acts 22:16) and the ESV Study Bible
I am teaching the book of Acts in our Sunday morning Bible class. I am preparing myself to teach Acts 22. In particular, I was examining Ananias’ command to Paul in verse 16-
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins,calling on his name. (ESV)
So I thought I would check out the study Bibles on this verse. The NLT Study Bible does not have a study note for this verse. Rather, the NLTSB refers the student to a lengthy article on baptism in Acts 2. Because of the size, I will not examine the NLTSB here. But the ESV Study Bible has a note on this verse.
ESV Study Bible:
22:16 Be baptized and wash away your sins does not imply that the physical act of baptism itself cleanses people spiritually from sin, for Ananias gives Paul two distinct commands. Thus baptism should be viewed as an outward symbol of the cleansing from sin that occurs when someone trusts in Jesus (cf. 1 Pet. 3:21). Belief leads to cleansing, but baptism pictures this. Because baptism pictures the reality, the two are often discussed as if they belong to the same act. As Heb. 10:19—22 shows, the believer’s sins are “washed away” through faith in “the blood of Jesus,” with the result that the believer is “sprinkled clean” and “washed with pure water.”
_________________________________________
I don’t know if I am the only one who is getting tired of the immediate backpedaling that occurs in study Bibles and commentaries when we come across a text that speaks about the importance and necessity of baptism. Instead of just noting what Paul is told to do and how it relates to this text, the scholars have to do their best to explain that the verse does not mean what it sounds like it means.
Obviously, baptism alone (without belief, confession in Jesus, repentance of sins, or placing one’s trust in God) does not cleanse people from sin. Do we have to point this out? Mindless water drenching does not save us. I think we know that. I don’t think anyone reads the scriptures and thinks that mindless water drenching saves. Why not just write about what the verse says, instead of arguing what it does not say?
We could say something like this:
Though Paul had been healed of the blindness that took place on the road to Damascus, there was more that was required of Paul, namely, baptism. This is seen in the imperative in Ananias’ words: “And now why do you wait?” Basically, what are you waiting for? Be baptized. This action is described as “washing away your sins” and as “calling on the name of the Lord.” While baptism alone does not save, baptism is a necessary part of the process of having our sins washed away and how we call upon the name of the Lord for forgiveness, as revealed throughout Acts (Acts 2, 5, 8, 10).
_______________________________________
Why do we feel like baptism has to be downplayed? I believe baptism has been so downplayed that no one thinks it is even relevant or important, even though the scriptures are filled with examples of baptism and commands to be baptized. What is the big deal? No one argues that we are saving ourselves by meritorious works in baptism. Baptism, like confession and repentance, is part of our faith, trusting in God to remove our sins by his gracious love, believing that we are now forgiven children of God.
Don't forget to browse Biblical Studies or The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
16 Comments so far16 Responses to “Rise And Be Baptized (Acts 22:16) and the ESV Study Bible”
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
John
October 23, 2008 at 11:20 am
It is possible the baptism downplay is because of Catholic beliefs. From what I understand, it is common in the Catholic church for a baby to be baptized and from that point on they are considered “saved” although their heart and mind were not in the decision. Again, from what I understand, many Catholics believe that from the baby baptism onward, you are a Christian and there is no need for an explicit personal decision. Obviously evangelicals feel differently.
Joe
October 23, 2008 at 11:37 am
You are not the only one. I’d rather have no note than something like that! Let’s just ignore Romans 6 too while we’re at. Hmm, how does it handle Romans 6 Brent?
Brent Kercheville
October 23, 2008 at 12:42 pm
John, that may be the reason. But in my opinion it is to the point of ad nauseum. I do not believe a Catholic will read one note and change their mind. But in the process of fighting Catholicism, baptism is being denegrated.
Joe, Romans 6 in the ESVSB does about the same thing:
6:3 Christians died to sin when they were baptized into Christ.l Paul is not arguing that baptism magically destroys the power of sin. Baptism is an outward, physical symbol of the inward, spiritual conversion of Christians.
Same thing: not an explanation of the text, but an immediate downgrading of baptism.
john
October 23, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Just to verify, yes it is a Catholic belief that the act of baptism itself produces the remission of sins and it is not necessary to have a “personal decision” beforehand.
See .
Laron
November 19, 2008 at 2:19 am
As much as I like the ESV translation, I will not be buying the ESVSB soon, if ever. The example I’m using for someone who doesn’t believe that baptism is important is the example of the blind man and Jesus, spitting in the dirt and putting the mud thereof on his eyes, He told the man to go wash in the waters of the pool and the man did as he was instructed. Had he not done as told he would still be blind. If we, after believing and repenting do not do are we are told then we also are blind for we will still have our old sins. The battle against infant baptism, I believe, can be won without degrading baptism in every study bible note we come across……YES I’M TIRED OF IT, TOO!!! I’m looking for a study bible that says, “Yes, you have to believe, repent and be baptized to be saved”…period. Any ideas where I can find one?
John
November 19, 2008 at 10:56 am
Interesting. You say you have to be baptized to be saved? And “baptism is a necessary part of the process of having our sins washed away”?
I feel sorry for all those people who were “saved” without ever getting the opportunity to be baptized before they died–like a soldier in a war, etc. Too bad for them. They confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believed in their heart that God raised him from the dead and they were not saved because they didn’t get dunked or sprinkled. I guess Paul was lying in Romans.
Baptism as a means of salvation is a *very* Catholic idea. I’m not saying that’s bad, but you may want to look into other Catholic doctrines as well. Maybe you’re a Catholic and don’t know it.
If we lived in a world where a study Bible was only going to be read by people who baptism is a necessary part of the process of having our sins washed away think like us or are complete non-believers, then that study Bible could reflect only one particular view. But the world we live in has so much variety even within the same denomination that a study Bible for everyone needs to reflect sound doctrine *and* counter bad doctrine.
Since apparently Catholic are not the only group of believers that make baptism a “necessary part of the process of having our sins washed away”, then I would say the ESVSB has done the right thing.
Brent Kercheville
November 19, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Well, I am definitely not a Catholic and do not agree with many Catholic doctrines. Further, my view of baptism is nothing like the Catholic doctrine. Baptism is not a sacrament. Baptism does not save you alone. This goes to the heart of my argument: everyone takes baptism to this extreme point as you did in your comment, John. Why does baptism have to be treated like this? Why can’t baptism be no more or less important than repentance?
To respond to your other argument, I guess Peter was lying in Acts:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
We cannot just run to another passage and pit one scripture against another. Romans 10 must reconcile with John 3:16 with Acts 17:30 and with Acts 2:38. I guess since Romans 10 does not speak of repentance, we do not need to repent.
We cannot treat the scriptures like this.
John
November 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I’m sure we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I do not believe that any one verse should be considered in isolation. It is the synthesis of the entire Bible that creates sound doctrine. We could each quote verse after verse that apparently counters the other. But what does the whole say?
Well, Catholicism (which I respect highly and agree with 99% of the time) says that the overwhelming doctrine from the sum of the New Testament requires baptism for salvation. However, most Protestants believe that the sum of the New Testament shows baptism is a symbol of salvation and does not play a role in the process itself.
Both views are looking at the whole, but come to different conclusions. People then get into the battle of dueling Holy Spirits (“well the Holy Spirit told me . . .”).
Since Catholicism was the only doctrine for more than 1500 years and Protestantism is barely 500 years old, it is no wonder that Catholics outnumber Protestants in the world tremendously. That’s why, to me, if you are discussing baptism in a study Bible, it is not unwise to discuss its role as not *essential* to salvation but a symbol of salvation. That view is a relatively new idea (500 years old) and most Catholics have never heard of it.
What are the odds that someone will read a study Bible and come to it believing his baptism as a child and his good works through life are saving him? About 100%. What are the odds that a very significant number of the people looking at that study Bible are Catholic or have been heavily influenced by Catholic beliefs? Very, very high.
I cannot know what any individual’s particular background has led them to experience, but I can tell you mine. I’ve lived in areas where there were no Catholics and virtually everyone was of the same denomination as me. I have also lived in areas where everyone was Catholic and I did not know one single person the same denomination as me–or even Protestant for that matter. It’s a big world.
So, I do not believe the ESVSB was wrong in describing Baptism as they did. I do not see it as an attack or a degradation of baptism. They simply state what it is to the vast majority of Protestents.
We can just agree to disagree agreeably. :-)
Linda Scott
November 20, 2008 at 1:26 am
I am Catholic. I believe there is much misinformation out there regarding what Catholics believe. The United States Catholic Catechism defines a sacrament as “An efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us by the work of the Holy Spirit.” Baptism is defined as: “The first Sacrament of Initiation by which we are freed from all sin and are endowed with the gift of divine life, are made members of the Church, and are called to holiness and mission.” If you wish to learn more of what Catholics believe, please check out the Franciscan web site called American Catholic. Their address is: http://www.Americancatholic.org There are many articles available discussing Baptism at this site. A list of the many articles can be found at this address: http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Sacraments/Baptism.asp. Should you wish further information the Catholic Catechism is available on line at the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops web site. Their address is http://www.usccb.org.
I pray one day that there will be honest discussion between all Christians. I pray that Christians will remember our love for Christ should unite not divide us. God Bless, Linda
Jeremy Priest
December 4, 2008 at 2:05 am
Nice discussion.
This might help the discussion along in terms of Catholic belief. This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1257:
“The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5). He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them (Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5). Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament (cf. Mk. 16:16). The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”
This is key: though Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, He is not bound by it. God’s grace is not caged! Yet, baptism is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant: it is not something we can do to ourselves or for ourselves. No one can merit salvation for himself.
Regarding the necessity of faith or a “personal decision,” I quote this paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In particular, this is to the point that a baptized infant must appropriate the faith into which he has been baptized. Paragraph 1254:
“For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.”
Again, good discussion.
Also, I’m interested in the article in the ESV SB regarding Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I was fairly unimpressed with the treatment of Mt. 16:13-19, with no reference to Isaiah 22:22 in the discussion. Anyway, I’d appreciate any insights you might have. God bless you and your teaching efforts to help people better know God’s Word!
Brent Kercheville
December 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Thanks to everyone who continues to contribute to this discussion. The scriptures are full of references combining belief and baptism. Baptism cannot come first and then faith. Belief comes first, then baptism. One example is the conversion of Simon in Acts 8:13, “Then even Simon himself believed. And after he was baptized, he went around constantly with Philip….”
Infants must not be baptized because they are not able to believe, repent, or confess. All points are necessary. Baptism without belief is a bath. Baptism without repentance is just getting wet. Baptism without confession is just soaking ourselves for no reason. The difference between a bath and baptism is faith.
I think I will actually post this as new post.
Jeremy Priest
December 4, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I understand what you’re saying very deeply. One of Jesus’ deepest identities is as a teacher, which he is called most frequently, I think.
Yet, being with him, being united with him is also important, especially for those who cannot “believe, repent, or confess,” as you say.
So, is the reason why infants are excluded from baptism because they do not possess the cognitive abilities to “believe, repent, or confess”? If so, it makes me wonder then, what happens to babies/infants who die without the grace of baptism? What happens to older persons who are not cognitively able to “believe, repent, or confess”?
In the history of salvation, from the time of Abraham to Christ, God revealed to his people that he wanted their infants to be in covenant relationship with him. This was done by giving them the sign of the covenant.
The sign of the Old Covenant was circumcision. Christ changed the sign of the covenant to baptism in the New Covenant. But neither Christ nor his Apostles or disciples announced that babies were no longer welcome to be in covenant relationship with God.
On the contrary, Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven†(Mt. 19:14). Peter, calling people to embrace the New Covenant, says to them: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children ” (Acts 2:38-39).
Though we do find a pattern of belief, repentance, confession, and baptism in the New Testament (as you pointed out), the larger sweep of salvation history shows God’s desire to bring us into covenant relationship with Him as soon as we’re able to draw breath. Looking at history just after the Apostolic age, we find explicit evidence from the second century onward that testifies to the practice of infant baptism in the Christian churches. Connecting this to the Apostolic age, we find whole households of families being baptized in the early churches (cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16). Though there is nothing explicit saying that infants were baptized, there is also nothing that says they were not or could not be baptized. If it was the norm for infants to be brought into the old covenant, it would be a significant change to not allow infants into the new covenant.
From this long trajectory showing God’s desire for babies to be in covenant communion with Him since the time of Abraham, it seems that the burden of proof would be to show that in the New Covenant they are excluded. I can’t see sufficient New Testament evidence to assert that babies are now excluded from the covenant.
If they are excluded, is it because they lack sufficient cognitive abilities?
Brent Kercheville
December 5, 2008 at 8:33 am
I appreciate your thoughts, Jeremy. But to answer your question: yes, they lack sufficient cognitive abilities. Children do not comprehend faith. They do not understand sin. They do not even know who God or Jesus is. They do not know what belief is, how to believe, or what to believe in. There are zero commands or examples that reveal baptism without belief has any effect. To teach that baptism without belief, repentance, or confession is possible is to stand on ground without scriptural authority.
Fundamentally, these things suggest that I have the power to save my child. I can baptize them, regardless of their will, for salvation. Again, this stands against all scriptural evidence.
I believe Matthew 19:14 is an excellent passage. But Jesus did not say that the kingdom belonged to the little children who were baptized. Little children, in all cases and conditions, are saved by the grace of God because of their lack of comprehension and inability to respond. Once we grow to the point to be able to respond in faith, then we are accountable to God to respond.
I am sure you disagree with these arguments, Jeremy. But thanks for your thoughts and explaining your point of view on this matter.
Linda Scott
December 6, 2008 at 12:01 am
Jeremy I understand & agree with you. Infant baptism is a wonderful event to witness and participate in as a church community. We, as a community welcome these new little ones and their family. We are there as they start their faith journey. We also have an obligation to provide programs that will support and educate these smallest of new members in the christian faith. This is a commitment we, the parents and sponsors make. The parents even start this when they attend the pre-baptism instructions and continue onto Confirmation classes.
Jeremy, I believe you can clarify this further for me, but isn’t baptism just one of the initiation sacraments made? Baptism is the first sacrament. Reconciliation (also known as confession) and Eucharist happens around the age of 8. Confirmation happens usually in the high school years. Faith formation classes are offered during this whole process for both parent and child. Perhaps you will explain the Catholic Church teaching on this.
Another question. Baby dedication ceremonies are common in the evangelical churches. Could both Jeremy and Brent explain how these dedication and baptism practices are similar/different from your faith traditions? Is not the goal of of these ceremonies to aid our church’s families in raising their children to be Christ believers which will ultimately lead to our children’s salvation?
Hopefully as we discuss this further all will have a better understanding of each other’s beliefs. Linda
Richard Vandagriff
December 25, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Infant baptism is a futile and godless response of mankind, Catholic or otherwise, seeking in futility to add to the scriptures where they are altogether silent (Eccl. 3:14).
What is in us to openly disregard the plain statement of the Word of God and to navigate so swiftly around it in an attempt to rationalize and defend the indefensible?
Could it be that we are trying vainly to circumvent what God has done and to “save” those that cannot otherwise be saved, or to save those who must be saved only through their own adult response and obedience?
Richard Vandagriff
December 30, 2008 at 11:18 am
It is our business to do what we have been commanded to do. God has said in both testaments, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy.” But to lean on the old saw or its equivilent: “the tree limb fell on his head and killed him as he walked down into the water to be baptized” is not particularly useful. “Was he saved?” I sincerely doubt it; but why obfuscate what I am doing by pointing to a “what if” that is of no value? Why not do as we have been told and leave the saving part up to God? And Bible notes have nothing at all to do with salvation no matter whose version. The Douay Bible is not distinguishable from the KJV until you read the notes, as they have become sacrosanct in Catholic circles. These notes in newer versions bode the same. Reader beware. Are we in danger of becoming so smart that we spend all of our “chair time” examining and postulating and no time in doing?
Someone said, “we should not whittle on God’s end of the stick” — yet we are so smart we seem to endlessly try.