Recently I decided, against my better judgement, to watch Dr. Gavin Ortlund's, a more traditionally-oriented baptist, videos about baptism, and they really were doozies. I love plenty of his videos on the church fathers and pro-Protestant polemics, but this one really wasn't it. Rather than writing a critique of videos from so long ago, I wanted to hone in on one of his arguments that really struck a chord in me: that the scriptural image of "saving waters" includes baptism but is not fulfilled by baptism. Thus, any reference to baptismal regeneration is merely a metonymy meant to symbolize the entire system of "saving water" symbols. Besides the absurd assertions this interpretation requires, I actually want to test the claim using the passages he was referring to. Part of this is because he made the broad claim that "no one" takes all of these passages to all refer to baptism. While that is partially true, I aim to show that all of them either do reference baptism or something that is virtually inseparable from baptism. For this, I will segment it by the primary arguments that he or others make against the texts mentioned and analyze each one in turn.
Collectivity
'Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. ' Ezekiel 16:9
This passage is, in my view, a very strange one to bring up. In context, the Lord is bringing Israel an image of adoption. To summarize, Israel was born of pagan parents and left to die by exposure, but the Lord took pity on her and prophesied life to her, as Ezekiel does to dry bones elsewhere in the book. Later, when she had grown, the Lord took her married her, washed her, and adorned her. Before I address this, I think it would be a disservice to mention that this theme is carried forward in the New Testament:
'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.' Ephesians 5:25-27
It's virtually the same image, with Christ taking the Church (the new Israel) His bride and washing her. The argument against these two passages is primarily that it refers to the entire Church and that we see no reference to the entire Church ever being baptized collectively. This is, frankly an absolutely absurd argument that completely misunderstands how images work. To say that the Church is washed is not to say that all members of the Church are washed at once, this is taking the image much farther than it actually goes. Instead, all it says is that all members of the Church are washed. Simple as. Because it's an image not a historical event, we have no need to prove that all instantiations of this happen simultaneously, only that they all happen.
Another difficulty regarding the Ephesians passage is also to say that the reference to water is effectively meaningless. It's a further image, but there's no reason to use the image. If St. Paul is speaking metaphorically about the water, then he just as easily could have left it at "washing," as he does in some other less clear places, but here he is very clear that the washing which the Church receives is with water. I find it very hard to believe that neither of these passages refer to baptism.
'I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.' Ezekiel 36:25-27
In this text, the Lord is referring to the eschatological vision of Israel's redemption, and he gives this absolutely beautiful promise. The general argument of collective Israel is used here, which I obviously already addressed above. However, the other argument is that this refers to the washings required in the Levitical laws. In these washings, either just water or water mixed with the ashes of a sacrificed animal were sprinkled upon the ritually unclean person, and after the process they became clean. To this I say, why on earth cannot both be the case? In this way, we see Christ, the sacrificial victim, as present in the waters for our good. This is a common image in the fathers, as in St. Ignatius, for example, we read, "He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." (Eph. 18) In most cases, a given father says that it's by His very presence as the God-man that the waters are sanctified, but interestingly, Ignatius says that it is by His Passion that the waters are sanctified. I think this is because Christ is the sacrifice who enters the waters, just as the ashes of the sacrifices of old would wash men clean. For scriptural support of this idea, I would point to Revelation 7:14:
'I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. ' Revelation 7:14
In this text, we see an image of washing in the sacrifice of Christ, which would serve to connect the image of Christ to the washing in the water mixed with the ashes of the sacrifice.
What's more, the other parts of this passage are explicitly referenced in other places regarding baptism, with the new heart being connected to the baptismal resurrection of Romans 6 and Colossians 2, as well as, debatably, the new births of John 3 and Titus 3. You could also argue from the connection between Noah and baptism in 1 Peter 3, since in the flood the earth was destroyed by water and made anew. The giving of the Holy Spirit is also explicitly a part of the gift of baptism, as St. Peter says:
'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.' Acts 2:38
Thus, we see that baptism fulfills the image in Ezekiel 36, as a washing with pure water that gives us new hearts full of the Holy Spirit, while still maintaining the connection with the washings in the Old Testament.
Eisegesis
'Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.' Hebrews 10:19-22
This next section is a bit more of a grab-bag, but the basic consistency is that these New Testament passages don't mention baptism by name. The basic argument against this passage is that St. Paul would be saying the people need to spiritually wash themselves clean, which would make no sense if they are already made clean by baptism. This was probably the worst argument he made in the entire video, because just looking at the language used, that isn't at all what he's saying. He's saying that we approach, having our hearts already cleansed and bodies already washed. This is not only the plain meaning of the text, but it's also evident in the Greek, with both verbs being in the perfect tense, the signifier of completed action. It's also important to note that this is very similar language to the Ephesians 36 passage above, with a sprinkling that cleans the heart, which he immediately connects with a bodily washing with pure water.
'But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. ' Titus 3:4-7
The primary argument I know of against this passag referring to baptism is that it doesn't mention the rite by name. This is silly for a few reasons. For one thing, we have a million different names for the Lord's Supper (Communion, Eucharist, just the Supper, etc.), so to presume a specific title for baptism is completely unnecessary. What's more, this passage connects a washing to salvation and the giving of the Holy Spirit, both also mentioned in other passages explicitly related to baptism (Acts 2:38, also Mark 16:16). It's also important to mention, this passage also connects a washing to rebirth (literal meaning of regeneration) and the Holy Spirit, which is a strong support for the idea that John 3's births of water and the Spirit are united.
Mode
'Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”...Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”' John 4:10,13-14
'On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.' John 7:37-39
Now, I'd say that these are the only passages that seem to actually match Dr. Ortlund's thesis, since it is a theme of life-giving water that isn't united to baptism, since it is water being drank, not washed in. In the passages above, Christ is using the image of drinking water to talk about Him giving us the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, this should not entirely be separated from baptism. Remember, as we've addressed already, the promise of the Holy Spirit is explicitly been attached by Acts 2:38 and Titus 3:5. What's more, there is also an interesting patristic connection. In Hippolytus of Rome's work On the Apostolic Tradition, he described the rituals of initiation into the Christian church, starting with baptism. Immediately after, the new Christians take part in a modified communion ritual, involving three cups, the first full of water, the second full of mixed milk and honey, and the third of water mixed with wine. When explaining the cup of water, however, he explicitly connects it to the baptismal rite:
"And water is offered as a sign of the [aforementioned] washing, so that the inner person, which is made up of the soul, should receive the same as the body." 21.29
While the living water we drink is not necessarily the same as the saving bath of baptism, there is absolutely a unity between the two, since we receive the living water of the Holy Spirit through the waters of holy baptism. In conclusion, I think it would be strange to take all these passages as wholly separate from the rite of baptism. To do so would be to beg the question by assuming the rite is not salvific but is merely symbolic of a greater theme. Such a teaching is nowhere found in the scriptures nor in the early church, but is a novel idea concocted in these latter days while the Church awaits her redemption.
Comments