What does it mean that our sins are washed away?

Ananias further instructed him to be baptized to wash away his sins. This has nothing to do with God's cleansing of sins by the blood of Christ, which is a vital, eternal matter for all who receive Christ as Savior. But it is rather a public washing away of those sins of which Saul had been guilty in publicly opposing the blessed name of the Lord Jesus. That is, in the eyes of men he would wash away his sins by baptism, not in the eyes of God, for this is only by the blood of Christ. In baptism he was taking a public stand contrary to his former course.

What a meeting that was! Saul, who but lately would have arrested Ananias and have carried him bound to Jerusalem, was visited by this disciple of Christ, that through him he might receive the restoration of his eyesight. Scales, as it were, fell from his eyes. The power of vision was restored. And now he willingly hearkened like a docile child to Ananias, when told to arise, and be baptised, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Without delay, he was baptised, and called upon the name of the Lord, and so washed away his sins. We need here scarcely remind the reader that the rite of baptism does not procure forgiveness of our sins before God. Nothing but the blood of Christ can do that (Eph.1:7; Col.1:14; Heb.9:22). Saul, however, by what he did, taking his place outwardly as a disciple by baptism, and calling on the name of the Lord, thus openly confessing Him, thoroughly broke with the past and condemned his whole course. Had he not called on the name of the Lord, would his sins have been washed away? That result was closely connected with his open acknowledgment of the Lord Jesus Christ in that double way.

In Acts 2 Peter abjured his hearers to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. Remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost followed, which is the reverse order from the Baptist's theory. The promise was to the Jews and their children whom he exhorted to save themselves from that untoward generation. (There was no longer salvation in Judaism, the best circle of the world.) The Jew was to dissociate himself from the world! Before the crucifixion the Jew said, "His blood be on us and on our children," the Holy Spirit said, "The promise is to such." Peter opened the door to let the repentant Jews and their children into the kingdom of heaven. Then Saul of Tarsus was told by Ananias "arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Obviously the washing away of sins could not be relevant to eternal matters). In a governmental way he was to dissociate himself from the sins and the place to which they attached. He had to clear himself of identification with his guilt as a Jew and enemy of Christ. He was to lead a new kind of life under the authority of the Lord. His was a business to be henceforth run under new management!

The connection of baptism with the remission of sins is a difficulty with many. It has been so much abused in the interests of sacramentalism, that it is no wonder if the very allowance of any connection should be abhorrent to those who, rightly refusing the mediatorship of sinful men between the soul and God, identify such a thought with any connection of the kind. But it is not faith to be afraid of Scripture; and, in some sense, Scripture does make baptism, not a prerequisite to the washing away of sins, but the actual doing of this. If Peter here bids his hearers be baptized for the remission of sins, Ananias clinches the two things together in his words to Saul of Tarsus: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord." It is not the place yet to examine this particularly, but it cannot fairly be denied that the washing away of sins of which he speaks is put as the effect of baptism. If we are to meet Romanism effectually, we must frankly own the truth that is in it. It is not possible to maintain the ground that here a remission of sins by men is not intended. Did not the Lord, in fact, say to His disciples, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them"? He certainly did. To be able to illustrate this by the example of baptism cannot surely endanger the gospel with those who know it. Nor can any limiting the power to remit sins to the apostles avail to alter the conditions of the case. We can only affirm that the question of the Jews, in the sense in which they made it, is simply unanswerable: "Who can forgive sin, but God alone?" We must answer: As before God, none! He does not give His glory to another.

But there is this difference, that "the name" at once indicates doctrine, — the faith; and there is nothing similar to that here. We have also the kindred expression used by Ananias, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name." (Acts 22:16, R.V.) Here one would think it would be too plain for doubt that baptism was represented as (in some sense,) the washing away of sins. It has, however, been objected that the person is active in washing away his sins, passive when they are remitted; but this is a distinction that vanishes when we take the original. Both verbs are in what is called in Greek the middle voice: hence we might as well translate "baptize thyself" as "wash thyself from thy sins" — this is the form. Yet we know, as to the first, he could only put himself into the hands of others.

Hence, when Paul was converted, Ananias said to him, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." He entered then into an actually administered forgiveness. "Wash away thy sins" is of course a figure. It is not putting away the filth of the flesh that does it. But I come thereby into that which is proclaimed as the first blessing of the Christianity into which I enter becoming a professed Christian. If faith is there, my conscience is perfect according to the christian system, and the other blessings follow; if there is profession without real faith, I am in the case of Simon Magus or of 1 Corinthians 10; but I have been baptized to that. In Acts 2 and Acts 22 the call is addressed to persons publicly under the power of the revelation and word of Christ; and they are then told what to do in order to obtain the blessings of Christianity actually here on earth, the path to perfect ones above. This must not be forgotten, for then they did enter, and for the first time, into the blessings attached to Christianity on earth.

But the first grand blessing needed was remission of sins; through this was knowledge of salvation and actual reception of it where it was received. Repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in Christ's name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Peter does this when they are pricked in their hearts, and says these are the things looked for; if you repent and enter into this divinely-administered door of blessing, you will receive the promise of the Spirit. He does not say, Be baptised and you will receive the remission of sins; but be baptised with the baptism to this - become a Christian where this blessing is found. They were baptised to it, as John Baptist, to Moses, to Christ, to Christ's death. It was the truth and fact they were brought to and owned, and then they would receive the Holy Ghost. It was the profession they came into. If true faith and repentance were there, they got the actual present administered remission: if it was not they did not, as Simon Magus. It may be a hardening but not blessing to him who is a hypocrite. For remission is not the fact of non-imputation by the death of Christ that Old Testament believers had; but an actual status into which a person enters. I may have forgiven my son perfectly in my mind, but he has not forgiveness till it is pronounced upon him. Here there is no outward sign. Where there is it may be abused to self deception, as 1 Corinthians 10. I use the simile to shew the difference between non-imputation on God's part, and administered or declared forgiveness. See the case of Nathan and David. Hence also the connection of forgiveness with discipline, where non-imputation is not at all the question. Hence when Paul was converted it is said to him, "Arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins." He entered then into an actually administered forgiveness. "Wash away thy sins" is of course a figure: it is not putting away the filth of the flesh does it. But I enter by it into that which is proclaimed as the first blessing of Christianity into which I enter, becoming a professed Christian. If faith is there, my conscience is perfect according to the Christian system, and the other blessings follow. If not, and there is profession I am in the case of Simon Magus or 1 Corinthians 10; but I have been baptised to that. In Acts 2 and 22 the call is addressed to persons publicly under the power of the revelation and word of Christ, who are then told what to do to obtain the blessings of Christianity actually here on earth - the path to perfect ones above. This must not be forgotten, for then they did, and for the first time, enter into the blessings attached to Christianity on earth. Hence Peter can say the like figure saves us, taking care, as the proposition is general, to shew it was not simply the outward sign that did it. Hence when Peter addresses those pricked in heart by his word he puts the whole thing, on the inquiry what to do, according to the mission in Luke. They inquired for a good conscience and got it. They were baptised to this truth and administered fact - the remission of sins, and received then the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Let us pass to Acts 22:16, leaving any intervening passages to be considered when we come to the question of the application of the rite. We have already seen, by an allusion to this very Scripture, that Baptism is a washing. Now why do we wash? Because we are clean, or to be made clean? Surely we do not wash as a kind of public demonstration that we were clean before? Baptists have great difficulty with this verse. Some get rid of it by saying, it applied only to Saul of Tarsus because he was such an exceptional sinner. And I asked one respected and intelligent brother to explain "wash away thy sins," and his solution of the problem was, that it was by "calling on the Name of the Lord." But what correspondence is there between "washing" and "calling?" whereas there is a perfect correspondence between washing and water. The calling on the Name of the Lord was evidently an adjunct to the washing. And as to this statement having become obsolete because it applied to one particular case, and one only, I have yet to learn that Scripture anywhere teaches that Divine institutions have a special meaning to particular individuals, or that it anywhere says that Saul needed a special baptism. Is there a word to this effect in the Lord's instruction to Ananias? No. It was evidently ordinary water baptism, and it was a washing away of sins.

But it may be asked, "Were not the Apostle's sins already gone?" Yes, they were gone from before God. This was a washing away from before men and as a demonstration that he renounced his former ways and was entering upon an entirely new life. And notice particularly, it does not say, "Arise and be baptized because your sins are forgiven." This is indeed the Baptist formula, but it is not the one here.

327 In result, quickening or communicating life is expressly attributed to the word, to faith, to the Spirit. It is never attributed to baptism. On the contrary, this signifies or figures death; it may be said resurrection, as coming up into a new state. For Christ being our life, this is in the power and status before God of His resurrection. Baptism signifies in fact the quitting an old state by death, that of the first Adam, and an entrance into a new, that of the second Adam risen from the dead. It does signify washing or cleansing, but in no place giving life. We read of being born of water, but it is not said of baptism; and where the possession of a new nature is spoken of in this very passage, it is referred exclusively to the Spirit: "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." We have too the expression the washing of regeneration; but regeneration is a change of state and condition, as Matthew 19 shews, not the communication of life. Baptism is of real importance and deep signification in its true place, but it is not in pretending that water can give spiritual life. This the Spirit, direct divine agency, alone can do; and we know, when manifested in this world, it is by the word through faith. But as an entrance into a new state, as death to the old, and, figuratively, washing and cleansing from what belonged to the old by death to it, it has its full scriptural signification. Hence we read: "Arise and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord;" not, Arise and receive life. Communication of life it was not. For, in the case of adult heathen and Jews, they believed and were baptized; that is, they had life first, for he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. In a certain aspect, baptism signified more than giving life that is, the deliverance and salvation of those who had life. The centurion Cornelius had life, was devout, and we see evidently that he was renewed in heart. He was to send for Peter, and hear words whereby he would be saved.

329 I admit baptism is not a sign of what we have already, as is commonly taught; but of getting, through death, into a new position, where we have what entitles us to it. With union it has nothing to do, good or bad. It is not by receiving the Holy Ghost we are born again, nor do we receive the Holy Ghost in baptism. It is not in any way a sign of union. On this scripture is as clear as can be. Baptism is baptism into Christ's death, at the utmost rising in coming up from it, when having figuratively passed under death. Union is with a Christ exalted at God's right hand, and only so, and by the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who could not come till Christ was exalted. That is, baptism does not go beyond death, or, at the utmost, resurrection. Union is with an exalted Christ by the Spirit, where He is on high. The first proposition, I have already shewn from Romans 6 and Colossians 2. The reader has only to refer to these chapters. As many as have been baptized unto Christ have been baptized to His death. As a figure we are not baptized as a sign or seal that we are already dead and risen again; we are baptized to death, buried there wash away our sins there. As a figure it saves us, because we therein pass, by death, out of the old scene and Adam state, and so into the new or risen Christ state. But secondly, in no sense has baptism anything to do with union. We have seen, and scripture is express, that it is by one Spirit we are baptized into one body, and this is always distinguished from baptism; and the Lord's supper, not baptism, is the symbol of the unity of the body, though it may figure what implies it as a consequence.