Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

Introduction

An issue that branches of Christianity differ on is the meaning of baptism. At one extreme, some branches say it is a sacrament by which one enters the Kingdom of God and thus necessary for salvation, while on the other extreme, they say that it is merely a rite to mark a believer as already having entered the Kingdom.

I once heard that Mark 16:16 is supposed to teach that baptism is necessary for salvation. Someone else argued against the canonicity of Mark 16:19–20 as a reason to dismiss this teaching. What I would like to do is put aside both the question of whether baptism is necessary for salvation and the question canonicity and focus on one specific question: does Mark 16:16 actually teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?

The text

Let’s look at Mark 16:15–16:

And [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Analysis

To help us understand the content of this quote, let’s make a Carroll diagram where the columns represent those who are baptized and those who are not, and where the rows represent those who believe and those who do not, as follows:


 baptized:
 not baptized:
believe: A B
does not believe: C D

Thus A represents those who both believe and are baptized, B those who believe but are not baptized, C those who do not believe and are baptized, and D those who neither believe nor are baptized.

Now let’s examine what the text says. It makes two assertions:

  1. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved”. That means that those in cell A will be saved.
  2. “He who does not believe will be condemned”. That means everyone in the bottom row, both those in cell C and those in cell D, will be condemned.

That’s the end of the information we can derive from the text, so let’s fill in the table with what we know:


 baptized: not baptized:
believe: saved
does not believe: condemned
 condemned

Discussion

So then what does the text tell us about the necessity of baptism? To be able to say that it is necessary, it would need no-one in the “not baptized” column to be saved. However, as you may have noticed, the text we are citing does not give us enough information to complete the second column. To be sure, those who neither believe nor are baptized are condemned, but this is because they have not believed. The text gives no information as to what happens to those who believe and are not baptized.

So does the text teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? If by the question you mean can we read the text and conclude that unless you are baptized you are not saved, then the answer is no. We cannot conclude such a teaching because there is not enough information.

On the other hand, does the text teach that baptism is unnecessary for salvation? Again no, because again we don’t have enough information. The only conclusion we can draw is that this text leaves the question open. We cannot use it to conclude anything either way and can thus it is not useful in deciding the issue.

Conjectured explanation

The following is conjecture only, but perhaps a way of explaining the text is as follows. The author of this text may have come from an early era where it was typical for new believers to be baptized immediately. The author’s thinking may well have been that those who believe and [as a matter of course] are baptized will be saved, but those who do not believe [and thus have no reason to be baptized] will be condemned. The author’s point is the spread of the gospel and the significance of believing the message about Christ. The author is not sharing his belief regarding the necessity or otherwise of baptism, so that question remains open.

Conclusion

The text teaches nothing about whether baptism is necessary for salvation or not.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the Law of Moses apply today?

Introduction There seems to be confusion about the relevance of Old Testament rules to modern life. People read them and notice a mixture of rules, some that seem to make sense today (“don’t steal”) and some that don’t (“no mixed-fibre clothing”). It seems wrong to ignore all of them because of those that don’t seem relevant, because then it seems like a licence to disobey quite reasonable moral precepts. But then the question arises, which ones do we keep, which do we ignore, and why? Then people often quote Jesus’ statement, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets,” while ignoring many more statements in the New Testament that seem to state something contradictory. It seems that there has been a failure to teach basic Christian doctrine on this issue and as a result there is confusion. To address this topic, I think it’s better to work chronologically to see how divine revelation and human understanding by the Biblical writers developed over time. God’s Cov...
Read more

Did Leviticus prohibit homosexuality?

Introduction Leviticus contains a prohibition against some sort of sexual activity between males. Does this justify the claim that it prohibited homosexuality? The text The prohibition appears in two places, the second with a penalty. Quoting the NIV: “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (18 22 ) “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (20 13 ) For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that the NIV translation is more or less accurate. As a literature search will reveal, this is not guaranteed, but it is the best we have. It is instructive to compare this with the prohibition against sex with animals: “Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” (18 23 ) “If ...
Read more

Does Genesis 2 teach that same-sex marriage is against God’s plan for mankind?

Introduction  Genesis 2–3 in the Bible contains a story that depicts God’s creation of man and woman, how God sets them up for marriage, how they disobey God, and the consequences for human life. Some people have claimed that the text teaches against same-sex marriage. God’s plan for mankind is for men to marry women, and therefore same-sex marriage violates this plan. What I would like to consider here is whether this argument is justified. Does Genesis 2 teach that same-sex marriage is wrong? The text Let’s see what the text says. Here are the parts that seem relevant, but please check the entire passage in your own Bible. “ 18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’ … 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man...
Read more