Q & A with Dr. Warren Vanhetloo

Compiled from Dr. Warren VanHetloo’s “Cogitations,” October, 2010.

Question

Dr. Van, I have a question about the origin of Baptism. I’ve always been taught it pictured the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But according to Matthew 3, John was baptizing before Jesus died, even before he had even met Jesus. It then appears that believers (Jews?) displayed their faith in God by getting baptized. Any conjecture on why John seemed to come up with this idea at a time when it doesn’t mean what it means today?

Answer

No need for conjecture, there is enough in Scripture. There are several answers, and all are important.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight . and all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6).

First, God chose John to introduce something entirely new and different from the nation-centered dispensation of the Old Testament era. “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). John was sent to bear advance witness of a once-for-all-time revelation of the Light which lights every man who enters this world (John 1:3-9). Second, his water immersion was intended to prepare for a spiritual immersion to follow shortly (John 1:25-27): “I immerse with water, but…the same is He who immerses with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 33).

It is important to emphasize that God called and sent John to proclaim the greater work about to be revealed. His ministry had been predicted in the OT: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (Mark 1:2-3, Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3). Thus, John immersed in the wilderness and preached the immersion of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

Judaism had known ceremonial sprinklings and some forms of soaking and self-immersion, but prior to John there is no record of an immerser. Repentance was an inner thing. Immersion was an individual’s outward declaration of an inner change. Immersion gave a vague picture of drowning, of death, and as well of a coming forth to a changed life. The meaning of the symbolism was perhaps not clear until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. God chose the mode, not John. God used it as a picture which became more clear after what it portrayed became history.

Question

Dear Dr. Van, I am somewhat confused by your statement that “opposing a bully is a civil matter, not a religious.” Since when are Christians supposed to make a distinction between the two? Is not everything we do “religious,” in that our entire lifestyle should be conformed to the leadership of Christ? Perhaps I have misunderstood you; if so, I apologize. But I strongly suggest that we not compartmentalize the Christian life into “religious” and “civil” and have different standards for each.

Answer

Be subject to principalities and powers, obey magistrates, be ready to every good work (Titus 3:1).

When I typed that item, I considered putting a verse in parenthesis but did not. It is sure to get more attention this way, and so it might be that God thought it better to have greater attention drown to it. “Jesus said to them, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17).

My answer to “Since when?” is, “At least since Jesus so clearly taught the two separate areas of responsibility.” Also, it seems obvious to me that all through the OT period God taught that believers have primary responsibility to their Creator and secondary obligations to fellowmen. Jesus clearly paid taxes to the Roman government. He and others did not hesitate to call to account rulers who had disobeyed the standards of morality and conduct expected by God. Separation of church and state was not first developed in the American colonies.

Christians make a distinction between the two (religious vs. civil) because God does. The command “render” (not merely a suggestion) surely indicates that we are to fulfill our civic responsibilities toward civil authorities. These are not the same as what God instructs believers to do in relation to their leaders in a local church. The two are kept distinct, and God’s commands for us are clear for each. We all are citizens or subjects of a nation. We consider that such persons are equal in many ways and that all have privileges and responsibilities. If we are believers, we also have instructions and responsibilities in relation to other believers. We should not ignore civic obligations.

For different relationships of our civil life, God gives a believer specific instruction. Standards for wives (Eph. 5:22-24, Col. 3:18) do not apply to the unmarried. What God expects of husbands in the civil realm has been the same since before the fall (Eph. 5:25-33, Col. 3:19). God expects those in a family relationship to act differently (Eph. 6:1-4, Col. 3:20-12). Servants have a separate status (Eph. 6:5-8, Col. 3:22, Titus 2:9-10), as do masters (Eph. 6:9, Col 4:1). We do not compartmentalize different areas of life in this fashion; God did. Standards are different for different realms.

Note especially: “I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). God may answer those prayers in many ways, but I doubt that that means that we are to aid or encourage those who would deprive us of an undisturbed existence. I expect that God would want us to do (speak, vote, even take up arms) what is consistent with what we ask Him to accomplish.

Question

Dr. Van, I am currently reading through the minor prophets in my personal devotions and find I am puzzled by Bible Chronology. In Haggai, God exhorts the Jews to rebuild the temple. But the command to rebuild the temple seems to be given by Cyrus way back “earlier” in Chronicles and Ezra. A chart in one of my Bible study books shows that the events in Ezra actually happened after Haggai. Could you please give your thoughts on how Bible chronology fits together and how to factor it into one’s study? It is so ingrained in me that most books are strictly chronologically arranged (like history books, novels, etc.) that I keep making the same assumption about the Bible. Thanks.

Answer

Scripture is given by inspiration of God…that the man of God may be mature, complete in all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Biblical chronology is confusing in part because so many “authorities” speak authoritatively without telling the reader that there is another view of authorship and chronology. Books and charts often include just one set of results without telling the reader about the “other” view.

Roughly, the two sets of views are the ones by those who accept the inspiration of Scripture and the ones by others who think of the Bible as only a human product. A quick clue to differentiate the two is the date used for the Exodus from Egypt: 1446 for literalists against 1200s from the reconstructionists. Those using the later date crowd together and mix up much that should not be confused. It is best to use reliable charts and explanations. In my Zondervan NASB Study Bible, I have a clear chart at the beginning and discussion at each book head.

The ancients often connected events and completed telling of a matter (which thus happened later) and then returned to the narration. They seemed to concentrate on God’s prophecies and fulfillment of those more than on chronological sequence. It is admittedly confusing at times, but seeming conflicts are being worked out and becoming more established. Using a dependable chart and introductions to the various books will be of great help.

Building and rebuilding the temple were not six-month projects. Although much of the historic tent of the tabernacle did not survive, the service and much of the detail was continued in Jerusalem, and the “open air” meetings were called God’s house. David wanted to build a sturdy reliable structure, but God assigned that project to Solomon. The “house” that had been in a tent and then in open air finally had a stone structure. Rebuilding of the temple (which is what you’re studying) took stages. Once again, God’s house was open air with much of the ritual restored but no solid building. Rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem was the first important project, and safeguarded temple activity. During reconstruction, opposition disrupted work such that work was done for a while and then delayed for a period.

When scrolls were assembled into a definite sequence, the grouping was literary (law, history, poetry, prophecy) and also by length (shorter combined). Don’t be disappointed if you don’t keep all the chronology straight the first time through. Refer often to charts and summaries. If dates seem to conflict, let them rest. God will clear them up, perhaps in your lifetime. God’s work with people is much more important than people’s work with stone and clay.

Warren Vanhetloo Bio

Warren Vanhetloo has AB, BD, ThM., ThD, and DD degrees. He served three pastorates in Michigan, taught 20 years at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN), taught 23 years at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), and is listed as adjunct faculty at Calvary. Retired, he lives in Holland, Michigan. Since the death of his wife (and at the urging of fellow faculty and former students) he sends an email publication called “Cogitations” to those who request it.

Discussion

[Warren Vanhetloo]

Question

Dr. Van, I have a question about the origin of Baptism. I’ve always been taught it pictured the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. But according to Matthew 3, John was baptizing before Jesus died, even before he had even met Jesus. It then appears that believers (Jews?) displayed their faith in God by getting baptized. Any conjecture on why John seemed to come up with this idea at a time when it doesn’t mean what it means today?

Answer

No need for conjecture, there is enough in Scripture. There are several answers, and all are important.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight . and all flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3:4-6).

First, God choose John to introduce something entirely new and different from the nation-centered dispensation of the Old Testament era. “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). John was sent to bear advance witness of a once-for-all-time revelation of the Light which lights every man who enters this world (John 1:3-9). Second, his water immersion was intended to prepare for a spiritual immersion to follow shortly (John 1:25-27): “I immerse with water, but…the same is He who immerses with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 33).

It is important to emphasize that God called and sent John to proclaim the greater work about to be revealed. His ministry had been predicted in the OT: “As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (Mark 1:2-3, Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3). Thus, John immersed in the wilderness and preached the immersion of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3).

Judaism had known ceremonial sprinklings and some forms of soaking and self-immersion, but prior to John there is no record of an immerser. Repentance was an inner thing. Immersion was an individual’s outward declaration of an inner change. Immersion gave a vague picture of drowning, of death, and as well of a coming forth to a changed life. The meaning of the symbolism was perhaps not clear until after the death and resurrection of Jesus. God chose the mode, not John. God used it as a picture which became more clear after what it portrayed became history.

baptism was not new. the Israelites wilderness wanderings had two instances of “baptism”. the death, burial, and resurrection could be seen by the dead Egyptians on the shore of the first while the “baptized” sang a song of deliverance. the Israelites were looking for “The Prophet like Moses” so they could obey Him.

Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9

to clarify my previous post: the main reason why the Red Sea crossing and Jordan crossing showed death, burial, and resurrection was probably the depth of the water as an illustration. the dead Egyptians sort of showed the natural consequences.

Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9

[Alex K.] to clarify my previous post: the main reason why the Red Sea crossing and Jordan crossing showed death, burial, and resurrection was probably the depth of the water as an illustration. the dead Egyptians sort of showed the natural consequences.
The post comments on that here..
[Vanhetloo] Judaism had known ceremonial sprinklings and some forms of soaking and self-immersion, but prior to John there is no record of an immerser.
I had actually not heard this before and it’s an interesting idea. I’ve always viewed John’s baptism as having overlapping but not identical significance to Christian baptism. Some of the differences are pretty obvious. In John’s day there is no church to identify with and initially no Jesus to identify with either.

I think we neglect the cleansing idea that is pictured in baptism as well…. perhaps because we are overreacting a bit to errors that identify cleansing in the act. I’m inclined to think that John’s baptism especially would have been understood as representative of cleansing more than of anything else.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

hi Aaron,

the problem i have with the cleansing aspect is that the sacrificial system already provided cleansing.

innovation was never prescribed either in God’s call to the Jews: “return to the Lord” Dr. Van says it was something new, this baptism.

let me give you my source for this idea since he will present it better than i ever could: Rikk E. Watts in “Mark”, Commentary on the New Testament Use in the Old Testament (Beale & Carson editors)

Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9

Jack,

The remission of sins here is not tied to the baptism but to the repentance. If the baptism is providing remission in any way, you end up with baptismal regeneration.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Jack - you seem to be taking both sides of the argument. First you wrote:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

The Greek word translated “remission” means “to send off or away.” This is its fundamental meaning—to separate the sin from the sinner.
Then you wrote:
It is a mistake to assume that the “remission of sins” of which Peter spoke was in regard to “salvation” and not “fellowship” and “service.”
So is it to send away or draw near. What do you see the baptism doing here?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[Jim Peet] http://sharperiron.org/filings/10-31-10/16844] Dr. Warren Vanhetloo promoted to glory
Thanks, Jim. I hadn’t heard.

He’ll be greatly missed by many. It’s likely we’ll do something front page about him soon.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Just to be clear, when I said the cleansing idea is neglected I did mean that there is any cleansing actually going on when a baptism occurs. Not now and not in John’s day. It’s always been about symbolism.

There is no need for complex theories that give baptism some kind of efficacy that is not saving but yet somehow restoring.

Chip… thanks for debating Jack on this. Care to continue? I don’t have time right now.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
My original point was that the remission is tied to the repentance (salvation) not to the baptism. Everywhere in Scripture, remission of sins is tied to repentance (salvation). Nowhere in Scripture is the church’s ordinance of baptism tied to anything other than symbolism. This is borne out here by the word usage.

The word “for” can mean “in order to” as in the sentence: “I got a ticket for the ball game.” Here, “for” means the ticket was acquired in order to attend the ball game.

However, the word “for” can also mean “because of” as in the sentence: “I got a ticket for speeding.” Here, “for” means the ticket was received as a result of the preceding event.

In Acts 2:38, the grammar could allow either usage of the word “for”. However, only one usage is compatible with the rest Scripture. With the second meaning in mind, Peter was saying: “Repent, and [then] be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [because of] the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

The Baptism is a result of the remission, having no part in the remission.

The same grammar follows for the final phrase. The Holy Spirit is received as a result of repentance, not baptism. Everything in the verse- baptism, remission, receiving the Spirit - comes as a result of the repentance.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

I appreciate your explanation, Bro. Emmerick. Sometimes I bookmark posts like this to read to my kids during Bible class- ya’ll’d probably be surprised by how helpful this site is and how it is used. :)

though i had this quibble on John’s Baptism with Dr. Van, i have always admired his scholarship and exposition.

promotion to glory-Hallelujah

Give to the wise and they will be wiser. Instruct the righteous and they will increase their learning. Proverbs 9:9

I’ll bat for Chip a little here… he didn’t ask, so he might correct me but….
[Jack Hampton] Chip, in regard to Peter’s words at Acts 2:38 what translation of the Bible can you quote that supports you idea?
A better question would be whether he’s right about the grammatical possibilities and likelihoods. Translators can have a bunch of reasons for choosing a particular option where a preposition is ambiguous… especially if a bunch of them are, say, Anglican (the translators, that is—not the prepositions)
[JH] Here is the question again:

“Do you believe that on the day of Pentecost that those who believed what Peter preached were “born of God” the moment that they believed?”



Before a sinner could be baptized he first had to “believe,” …

The eunuch …

I believe that those who believed what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost were “born of God” the very second that they believed…
I don’t think any of this is in dispute. I’m pretty sure Chip’s answer would be yes, they first had to believe. He’s already made that pretty clear, since the view that baptism is undertaken as a result of remission of sins would pretty much require this.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

1. Any translation that uses the word “for” in Acts 2:38

2. You were the one changing the subject, leaving the verse under discussion and turning to new passages. However, the answer to your secondary question:
“Do you believe that on the day of Pentecost that those who believed what Peter preached were “born of God” the moment that they believed?”
Yes - not that it has anything to do with your assertion that baptism in some way cleanses or restores fellowship between God and man.

This has nothing to do with Acts 2:38 - the discussion we were having before you jumped elsewhere. The remission is not tied to baptism, nor is it tied to baptism anywhere else in Scripture. The remission of sin is solely tied to the repentance. Baptism is commanded as a result of the repentance.

To the main point of the discussion: the NT ordinance of baptism does nothing to wash away sin or restore fellowship between sinful man and God - it has no cleansing power whatsoever. It is purely a symbolic act of obedience.

Furthermore, baptism does not correlate to OT sacrifice. Rather, Christ, the perfect substitutionary sacrifice correlates to the OT sacrifice. The reason it was repeated in the OT was because it was insufficient to provide true “remission of sins.” All that was received was an atonement, a temporary postponement of judgement in faithful expectation of a true substitutionary sacrifice yet to come.

There are several other secondary issues in your statements I do not have time to deal with now. But this is the crux of the discussion.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

As you do so frequently, you simply disagree and disregard anything you do not like Jack.
There is no meaning given for that word which is “because” or “as a result of.” As a matter of fact, in the KJV that word is translated more than fifteen hundred times and it is never translated as “because” or “as a result of.”
By your own definition, eis can mean “for” - which is the KJV translation of eis 140 times! As I have already written, the English word “for” can mean “because of” or “in order to.” You simply repeat and support EXACTLY what I said! The translators did not need to translate eis as “because of” since they accurately conveyed that very thought by using the word “for.”

Your explanation of the passage is diametrically opposed to the normal understanding of the passage in every way. You fly in the face of grammar, context and everything Scripture says about baptism in order to try to make your convoluted reasoning stand up.

What you are proposing, baptismal washing, is so far removed from orthodox Christianity as to approach rank heresy.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?