Of the doctrine of baptisms. — The meaning of these words has been much controverted. The order of the Greek has been thought to require the rendering baptisms of doctrine (or, teaching); and it has been believed that the writer in this manner seeks to characterise Christian baptism as contrasted with the Jewish lustrations. Matthew 28:19, “baptising them... teaching them,” is often quoted in favour of this view. The whole question of baptism amongst the Jews of the Apostolic age is full of difficulty, since the first references to the rite in connection with proselytes belong to a much later date. But, waiving this, we must surely regard it as most unlikely that the baptism specifically Christian would be marked as “baptism of teaching.” Teaching would rather be the point of resemblance than the point of contrast between the Jewish and the Christian rite. We must, therefore, adhere to the ordinary view. The word doctrine, or teaching, seems to be introduced in order to avoid the ambiguity which would lie in the words, “a foundation of repentance, faith, baptism,” &c.; not a doctrine, but the repetition of a rite might seem to be intended. But what are we to understand by teaching regarding baptisms? Both the word itself and the use of the plural are remarkable. The word (which is not the ordinary term baptisma, but baptismus) occurs in Hebrews 9:10; Mark 7:4, in the plural, and in Colossians 2:12 in the singular; in the last of these passages it denotes Christian baptism, but in the others the ceremonial washings of the Jews. We must not forget the importance which of right belonged to these washings in the Levitical law, as one of the appointed modes of removing that uncleanness which excluded from every sacred place. The baptism of John attached itself to passages in the Scriptures in which this symbol was taken up by the prophets with profound spiritual application (Ezekiel 36, et al.). Both John’s baptism and that of Christ, therefore, would, from the Hebrew point of view, be “washings”; and the teaching which every new convert must receive would include instruction on the symbolical purifications of the Old Covenant and the New. (See the very interesting Notes in Vol. II. on Acts 18:24-25; Acts 19:4.)
And of laying on of hands. — This ceremony is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament, and also in the New. Besides the sacrificial use of the symbol, we find imposition of hands connected with blessing (Genesis 48:14; Matthew 19:13, et al.); with works of healing (2 Kings 5:11; Mark 8:23; Mark 16:18, et al.); with ordination (Numbers 27:18; Deuteronomy 34:9; 1 Timothy 4:14, et al.); and with the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6). In every case the figure denotes either a transfer, or the communication of a gift from (or, through the medium of) the person who lays his hands upon another. Neither transfer of guilt, nor blessing, nor miracle can be in point here; nor is it conceivable that ordination could be referred to in such a context. As the passages quoted from the Acts of the Apostles agree with this in closely connecting the rite with baptism, we can have little doubt that the meaning in all is substantially the same. The believers in Samaria had been baptised by Philip; when Peter and John came, they “prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” In the second case, which in other respects is similar (whether Paul himself baptised, or not, we are not informed), there is reference to the special gifts of the Holy Ghost which were bestowed: “they spake with tongues and prophesied.” There seems no reason for believing that there was a designed connection between the imposition of hands and the bestowal of miraculous powers; such imposition was rather the recognised symbol of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, in whatever manner the Spirit might be pleased to work in those who received His influence. The early Church naturally retained the rite, making it the complement or adjunct of baptism; whilst the one symbolised the putting away of sin, the other was the emblem of the reception of new spiritual life. Historical testimonies extend as far back as Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Then the hand is laid on, calling for and inviting the Holy Spirit.” To trace the relation between this imposition of hands and the later practice of confirmation would lead us beyond our limits.
The two points which remain do not require an extended notice. We know (Acts 23:8) that, though the Sadducees denied that there was any resurrection of the dead (and the Alexandrian philosophy seems to have held only the immortality of the soul), yet by the most influential amongst Jewish teachers this doctrine was held and enforced, as indeed it was plainly taught in their Scriptures (Daniel 12:2). On the nature and extent of the resurrection — whether it would be universal, and whether it would precede or follow the Messianic age — varying opinions prevailed. Nor were the Pharisees less clear in their teaching of a future “judgment,” the reward of which should be “eternal” bliss for the godly, punishment for the sinners in Israel and for Israel’s enemies. These doctrines, then, would place no obstacles in the way of a convert to the Christian faith. Instead of vagueness and discordant opinion he now received a clear statement of truth: the Messiah, Jesus, in whom he has placed his trust, will judge the world; and of this God has given a pledge “in that He hath raised Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). It is noteworthy that, of the four particulars which are mentioned after repentance and faith, two relate to the commencement and two to “the last things” of the Christian life.