Dr. R. Scott Clark, an author, university and seminary professor, and President of Heidelberg Reformation Association, observed, "Any text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text. One way to be sure to handle the text of Scripture well and accurately is to place it in its original context. Failure to read Scripture against its original background will have unhappy consequences" [The Heidelblog, November 30, 2010]. I really appreciate what the Indian diplomat and best-selling author Amish Tripathi (b. 1974) had to say about context: "There are many realities. There are many versions of what may appear obvious. Whatever appears as the unshakeable truth, its exact opposite may also be true in another context. After all, one's reality is but perception, viewed through various prisms of context." One of my professors during my graduate studies at the university I attended, frequently informed his classes that the key to successful biblical interpretation was "context - context - context." One can "prove" just about anything if one is allowed to take a text out of its context. Sadly, and tragically, this is done quite often in our study of the Scriptures. Rather than drawing Truth from these writings, we seek to impose our own "truths" upon these writings, and such eisegesis can only result in theological confusion and ecclesiastical conflict.

Go back and read once again the above statement by Amish Tripathi, for he makes a very important point. There are times when a word or phrase may have one meaning and/or application in a specific context, but a much different meaning and/or application in a different context. Anyone who has done any study at all in biblical hermeneutics knows this to be true. Yet, at times, we allow our personal and party preferences and perceptions to affect our understanding of a particular passage, and the result can be a dogma elevated to the status of divine decree, with division among disciples soon to follow. A good example of this can be found in what the apostle Paul wrote to the brethren in the city of Corinth about their present state in contrast to their former state. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 he said, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." He then makes the stunning observation: "And such were some of you!" (vs. 11a). One cannot help but think of Paul's words to the Ephesians: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world" (Ephesians 2:1-2a). Paul even included himself in this, admitting, "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (vs. 3). Not a very pretty picture, is it?!

BUT, in both passages, Paul informs the readers that they now have a NEW reality, one in which a marvelous, and even miraculous, transformation and reformation has taken place in the lives of these men and women. They who, like Paul, were living lives of wretchedness (Romans 7:24), had now come to know the grace and mercy of God, and they were experiencing the truth that "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). Those previously dead in their trespasses and sins were now "alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), ... For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:5, 8). Yes, says Paul, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11, NASB). This is gospel; this is glorious good news. We who were dead are now alive; we who were lost are now saved; we who were repugnant are now redeemed. We are recipients of grace and mercy; we have been on the receiving end of God's love!

Now, put on your "thinking caps." I have a question for you. What did Paul mean when he said, "But you were washed"? What is the authorial intent here? What is the context? What point is Paul seeking to impress upon these believers? What would they have understood him to mean by that term? I can almost guarantee you that nine out of ten of you probably answered that Paul meant these people had been baptized in water. This is almost assuredly your interpretation of the term "washed" in this passage if you have been raised in a group that views baptism in water as a sacrament; as a saving, redemptive act without which one cannot be saved. One may even make the case that "washed" seems to clearly be connected to baptism in Acts 22:16 ("Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins"); and yes, it is the very same Greek word (NOTE: one might be a bit surprised what is actually being taught in this passage; see my article titled, "Wash Away Your Sins: A Reflective Study of Acts 22:16" - Reflections #507). BUT, going back to the point made by Amish Tripathi, must a word or phrase always mean the same thing in every passage, or is it possible for it to have an entirely different meaning and application in another setting or context? The same can be said for the word "baptize." Does every use of this word apply to immersion in water? Or is it possible that in some contexts, the term may have an entirely different meaning and application? Consider Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 12:13, for example. Does Paul have water in view in that context? I don't believe he does, as I have sought to demonstrate in my article "Immersed by One Spirit: Reflecting on 1 Corinthians 12:13" (Reflections #353). I believe this can be said of a few other well-known passages, as well, in which the insertion of "water" into our interpretation goes against both context and authorial intent: "Putting On Jesus Christ: An Examination of Romans 13:14 and Galatians 3:27" (Reflections #362).

I do not believe baptism in water is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians that they "were washed." I am convinced that the context suggests an entirely different meaning and application. Some of my detractors and critics will immediately declare that Al Maxey does not believe in baptism; that Al Maxey is therefore a heretic and has abandoned "sound teaching." No, I firmly believe that baptism in water has its purpose and place in NT theology and practice. I also believe we need to be more thoughtful and discerning in how we interpret the Scriptures, not letting our personal and party perceptions and preferences influence our understanding of a text. I prefer exegesis to eisegesis. Nevertheless, there are those who read the phrase, "But you were washed," and see only baptism in water. For them this is just another text in a cherished list of proof-texts for their sacramentalist view. Some will even go a step farther, insisting that each of the three statements of Paul in this passage (washed, sanctified, justified) have immersion in water in view. T. R. Applebury, who taught at Pacific Christian College, stated, "All three take place in the one act of baptism" [Studies in First Corinthians, p. 106]. The German-born, Lutheran pastor and author, Richard C. H. Lenski (1864-1936), concurred, declaring, "The Corinthians could not also be sanctified and justified by God if they had not in their own hearts desired and accepted that true cleansing of baptism (in water). The moment they accepted that in true faith, they were also at that moment sanctified and justified. ... In their case, baptism was not a mere outward, formal, or only symbolical act; they were cleansed of sin and guilt" by it [The Interpretation of St. Paul's First & Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 251]. David Lipscomb (1831-1917), one of the early leaders in the Stone-Campbell Movement, said the Corinthians "entered the water as voluntary agents," ... and in that act of being baptized in water "they actually received the remission of their sins." ... their baptism being the event "that marked their transition from the rule of self to the service of God" [A Commentary on the NT Epistles, vol. 2 - 1st Corinthians, p. 87].

Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann, whose commentary is quite popular among Lutherans, states that these believers in Corinth of whom the apostle speaks, "were washed clean in Baptism: the power of God in the Sacrament took away all their uncleanness. They were sanctified; they were separated from the world and consecrated to God, and transferred into fellowship with God, by that same sacred act" [Popular Commentary of the Bible - The NT, vol. 2, p. 115]. Yes, for some, the act of being baptized in water has clearly become a sacrament of the church, something I personally, after much study, do NOT believe the Scriptures teach. I have written extensively on this, and urge the reader to consider my 66 Reflections articles on baptism listed under this heading on my Topical Index page, and to also consider my book (347 pages) titled "Immersed by One Spirit: Rethinking the Purpose and Place of Baptism in NT Theology and Practice." With that said, one may then legitimately ask, "Okay, so what exactly does Paul mean when he says these men and women 'were washed'? If it isn't a reference to baptism in water, then what is it a reference to?" I believe the answer can be found by examining the context in which his statement is found.

The broader context, of course, is that Paul is addressing a specific group of people, in a specific location, at a specific period of time. These were disciples of Jesus Christ who were residents of the city of Corinth around the middle of the first century A.D. Although there were likely Jewish Christians present, most of those in the church at Corinth were most probably Gentiles who had converted either from paganism or who had previously been proselytes to Judaism. It is also important to note, with respect to the broader context, that Corinth itself was one of the wickedest, most morally corrupt and perverse of all the cities in the empire. As to character, the city as a whole was grossly impure; in the ancient Greek plays, when one sought to characterize a drunkard and carouser, one characterized him or her as a "Corinthian." A good number of those who had come to believe in Jesus, and who were now numbered among the redeemed in that location, had been previously numbered among these "dregs of society," as Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 6:11a ("and such were some of you"). Rather than speaking about the religious rite or faith response of baptism in water, which is nowhere even hinted at in this context, Paul is emphasizing the Good News that the Spirit, acting under the authority of ("in the name of") the Lord Jesus, had cleaned up/washed up these muck-covered, smelly men and women, so as to present them to God with clean faces, hands, hair, and dressed in white garments (figuratively speaking).

Rather than being part of the great unwashed perverse rabble of Corinth, they were now, by means of God's love and grace, and by the authority of Jesus, and by the action of the Holy Spirit, made clean, thus making them both sanctified and justified in the sight of God. Right after listing the filth of their former lifestyle, and noting that this was how some had appeared in the sight of God, he emphatically declares them (using the threefold "But..." phrasing) to be in appearance, and in fact, "greatly cleaned up," and now fit to be ambassadors of God's purity and holiness, as well as His mercy and grace. This passage had nothing to do with baptism. In fact, at the very beginning of this epistle to these same people, Paul declared, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17). Yes, Paul did baptize people. Yes, baptism had its place and purpose. But in the context of this passage in chapter six, Paul's intent in speaking of "washing" was to make manifest the Good News ("Gospel") of the remarkable transformation and reformation of these former individuals who had been covered in the filth and the mire of their sinful lifestyles, and to enforce the truth that this cleansing came from the Spirit in the name of Jesus! They who were impure were now pure. I can't help but think of what Peter said to those gathered at the Jerusalem Council. When recounting his time with Cornelius and his household, Peter said that God had chosen him to share the Good News with the Gentiles so that they might believe. "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, CLEANSING their hearts BY FAITH. ... And we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15:7-11). Here again, we see Jesus and the Spirit; we see grace and faith; and we see cleansing. What we do NOT see is the word "baptism," nor is it even hinted at.

The Message has done a good job of paraphrasing this passage; in so doing, they have, in my view, captured the intent of Paul in the words he chose to employ: "Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in His kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I'm talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you've been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us - the Spirit." This moral purification was not something that could be accomplished by any human agency; this purification from moral decay had to come from above! Dr. John Gill correctly observed that this phrase ("you were washed") "is not to be understood of external washing, of corporeal ablution, or of their being baptized in water. ... They could not wash and cleanse themselves by any ceremonial purifications, moral duties, or evangelical performances; this was a blessing of grace they enjoyed through the blood of Christ" [Exposition of the Bible, e-Sword]. This is more than just a singular act of cleansing, by the way, for "if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). The verb tenses used here refer to continual cleansing of ALL sin; it is in intimate union with Him that this cleansing occurs, and it is the Spirit who accomplishes this by the grace of the Father and the authority of the Son!

When Paul informs Christians that they are saved by grace through faith, and that this is "not of yourselves" (Ephesians 2:8), but is rather the free gift of God, this tells us something quite spiritually significant. Our cleansing, our sanctification, our justification, our salvation, our redemption, and on and on, is NOT something WE DO. It is done for us, and we accept it as a gracious gift by faith. In this passage we have looked at, "the apostle lists three transactions that occurred at the time when the Lord saved them: they were washed, that is, they were spiritually cleansed by God, an act symbolized by baptism; they were sanctified, an expression either to be interpreted as an amplification of the concept 'washed' (cf. Titus 3:5-7) or meaning that they had been set apart as God's people (cf. 1 Peter 2:9-10); and they were justified, showing God's act as judge in declaring the sinner righteous because of Christ (cf. Romans 3:21-26; 5:1). All this, Paul says, was done by God for them on the authority (in the name) of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 10, p. 223]. This commentary, in a footnote, informs us that should one seek to read baptism in water into this passage, it would apply only "as a sign of their spiritual cleansing and justification by God" [ibid]. Simply stated, baptism in water is a symbol, NOT a sacrament; it is reflective in nature, NOT redemptive in nature. "They had been made pure by the Spirit of God. They had been, indeed, baptized, and their baptism was an emblem of purifying, but the thing here particularly referred to is not baptism, but it is something that had been done by the Spirit of God, and must refer to His agency on the heart in cleansing them from these pollutions" [Dr. Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the Bible, e-Sword].

There are times when people, whether individuals or families or congregations or even nations, are in need of a moral reset. They have become so defiled and polluted by the worldliness around them, and the influence of Darkness, that they can't find their way out (and many may be so polluted that they don't want to). For those who do, however, our God has always offered to cleanse our hearts and minds of such moral defilements. This is a washing or cleansing, a reset and renewal, that must come from above upon those who genuinely long for that purity that seems to elude them. David is a good example of this. He had embraced a level of impurity in both attitude and action that left him broken, and he realized that his cleansing could only come from a Divine washing! Thus, he prayed, "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. ... Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. ... Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me" (Psalm 51:2, 7, 10). As humans, whether individually or collectively, we tend to stray from godly behavior far too often. At times, those detours take us to places from which we find it hard to return by our own efforts. At times, our pollution is so pervasive that it requires a cleansing from above to restore us to "the straight and narrow pathway." Peter informed his readers that sometimes we wander to the point where we "have forgotten our purification from our former sins," and by so doing we become easy targets for the lure of the world.

Paul sought to remind the brethren in Corinth of their purification from the immorality from which they had emerged, and which still surrounded them daily in the city of Corinth. The Lord had washed them of all such defilements, and they needed to be reminded of such, lest, like the sow, they found themselves returning to the mire to wallow in it once again. Peter wrote, "It has happened to them according to the true proverb, 'A dog returns to its own vomit,' and, 'A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire'" (2 Peter 2:22). Those cleansed from the moral decay of this world should not return to such, and warnings against such renewed immorality are found throughout Scripture. Such is the case with Paul's reminder to the Corinthian brethren of who/Whose they were, and the moral defilement from which the Lord had purified them. Such cleansing is NOT accomplished by religious rites and ceremonies, or by emblems and symbols. It comes from a direct interaction by the Lord, as Paul reminds them. "These morally corrupt classes we are here told were changed; they were 'washed,' and 'sanctified,' and 'justified,' which, stripped of figure, simply means they were changed in the very root and fountain of their character. ... The reformation was not doctrinal, ecclesiastical, or institutional, but moral. ... They had been cleansed from all moral foulness. And all this, how? 'In the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.' This is the reformative measure; nothing on this earth will effect this moral change but this" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 19, p. 196-197].

In closing, let me issue this note of caution. Some who read this article will come away with only one conclusion (which, to be honest, they had already come to): "Al Maxey has rejected baptism; Al Maxey has left the faith; Al Maxey is an apostate." No, I seek simply to be exegetically and hermeneutically honest with the text. Not every occurrence of "wash" or "cleanse" or "purify" or even "baptize" has reference to immersion in water. This is simply a fact. To acknowledge such a fact in no way negates the purpose or place of immersion in water in NT theology and practice. It is simply an acknowledgement that at times the biblical writers sought to convey a different message. Yes, by ignoring the context, and by lifting texts here and there out of those contexts, we can indeed compile a list of proof-texts for our sectarian and party preferences, but such is not being honest with the text. We are charged in Scripture to handle accurately these writings, even when doing so may lead to insights that challenge and contradict our traditional and denominational understandings and practices. May God help us all to be more open to Truth and less bound by Tradition.

From a New Reader in Virginia:

Dear Al, Would you please send me your special thumb drive containing your Reflections: The Complete Collection with the special bonus material. I have sent you payment via your PayPal account. Also, please add me to your mailing list for these Reflections articles. These studies have been very beneficial to me, and they've helped channel my thoughts. Good work!

From a Reader in Arkansas:

Al, I just read your article titled "Pondering Doorpost Theology: A Christian Goy's View of the Mezuzah" (Reflections #886). Excellent treatise, brother! We must keep preaching grace and family. Satan, the great tempter, has always attacked the family.

From a Reader in Georgia:

As always, my friend, you smacked it out of the park with "Pondering Doorpost Theology." Knowing the history of the slanted placement of the mezuzah on the doorpost will give me a talking point with my Jewish friends that even they may not be familiar with. Love ya, brother.

From a Reader in California:

Al, we have dear friends who are members of our congregation. The matriarch, along with her late husband, converted from Orthodox Judaism to Christianity. They lived across the street from my parents when I was a baby, and my father and mother studied the Bible with them. Seeing Jesus as the Messiah was something that absolutely spoke to them, and they became enthusiastic "completed Jews." That's how they identified themselves. After putting themselves under the Lordship of Jesus, they considered their "Jewishness" to be now complete. To this day, their family has a mezuzah on their doorpost. They encourage anyone to kiss their fingers and touch the mezuzah when they come into the house (which is the Jewish custom). I consider it an honor and a privilege to do so. Al, thank you for a beautiful explanation of this remembrance and reminder of God's care that you provided in your article "Pondering Doorpost Theology." As a bit of an aside, one philosopher was talking to a monarch in Europe, and the latter asked the philosopher for proof of the existence of God. The philosopher replied, "The Jewish people!" There is no reason in the world that they should still exist except that they are under the protection of their God. They were chosen, and God doesn't "unchoose" them!

From a Reader in North Carolina:

Good Morning, brother. The comment from your reader in Texas (Mike Smith), at the end of the readers' remarks in your last issue of Reflections (Issue #886), in which he spoke of the impact of Rick Fyffe's sermon, and also what his congregation did for the Pentecostal church needing a place to worship, really struck home with me! I clicked on that link, and I watched the video of that service. His sermon was incredible. It choked me up too, because I've felt the same way - i.e., embarrassed and ashamed to sit in a church, and be part of a church, that was so legalistic, and so much like the Pharisees of the first century; so unloving and uncaring, and so unlike our Lord Jesus Christ! In fact, such people are the exact opposite of our Savior. I'm so glad Mike Smith allowed you to share this with your readers! I sent his remarks on to a few family members and friends who are still part of that legalistic cult I used to be in. I doubt it will have much of an effect, but still ...!

********************
If you would like to be added to or removed from this
mailing list, Contact Me and I'll immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, feel free to
send them on to others and encourage them to write for
a free subscription. These studies are also offered on a
special thumb drive. Check the link below for the
details, and for all past issues of these Reflections:
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm