|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2001
Panel on Doctrine
Report
Baptism
Page 2
THE INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM
In view of the fact that Baptism
has its immediate origin in the command of Christ as found in Matthew's Gospel
it seemed appropriate to begin there: "Therefore go and make disciples of
all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son andof
the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded"(28.19,20).
An important matter reflecting
on the authenticity and therefore the authority of these words should benoted.Some
scholars regard "the direct institution of Baptism through Jesus,asit is
recounted in Matthew 28, (as) historically untenable". The argumentsput forward
are mostly of a subjective nature. We are satisfied that thecommandto baptise
is authentic and has its origin in Jesus. Certainly thereis notextual evidence
against the verses in question.
Because the traditional understanding of the Commission has been questioned
and various interpretations have been given, it will be helpful to take a
more careful look at the Commission in so far as it relates to baptism.
1. Disciples
Baptism has to do with the making
of disciples. Precisely what the relationship is between baptism and themakingof
disciples has been much debated. Do we make disciples throughbaptism?Do
we baptise those who have become disciples? This raises an evenmore fundamentalquestion.
What is a disciple?
Originally, in the Greek world,
a disciple was a man who bound himself to someone else to acquire practical
and theoretical knowledge. In the Hebrew world a disciple was a man who bound
himself to the Torah with the Jewish rabbi as his teacher of the Torah. This
gave rise to a variety of Rabbinic schools and to rival groups of disciples,
each centred upon a teacher. Within the New Testament the word 'disciples'
is used of (a) the disciples of John the Baptist (Matt 11.2), (b) the disciples
of Moses (John 9.28), (c) the disciples of the Pharisees (Mark 2.18) and(d)the
disciples of Jesus. With respect to this latter group the word isusedto describe
both an inner group of disciples, i.e. the Twelve and, ina muchlooser sense,
of a larger group which followed him during part of hisearthlyministry.
It is important to establish that
there was a radical difference between discipleship as it related to Jesus
and discipleship as it operated in either the Greek world or the world of
the Rabbis: "there is a marked difference between a life dedicated to study
at the feet of a Rabbi, in which the aim was an increasing knowledge of the
Law, which would eventually 'qualify' a student himself to become a rabbi,
and the life of the Christian disciple (often not markedly studious by nature!)
called to personal loyalty to Jesus in His way" (WD Davies).
The Sermon on the Mount, Cambridge 1966, p 133.
IH Marshall says much the same when he observes that discipleship
"involved personal allegiance (to Jesus) expressed in following him and giving
him an exclusive loyalty… Such an attitude went well beyond the normal
pupil/teacher relationship and gave the word 'disciple' a new sense. "The
Illustrated Bible Dictionary vol 1, IVP 1980. The disciple
of Jesus not only learns from Jesus he learns about Jesus.Whereas
in the world of the Jewish rabbi prospective disciples sought outa teacher,Jesus
called his disciples. Becoming a disciple committeda man notonly
to a learning process but also to a life of unconditional sacrifice(Matt
10.37; Luke 14.26f) for the whole of life (Matt 10.24f; John11.16).Nowhere
is this more clear than in Matt 16.24f where Jesus says, "If anyonewould
come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and followme."
It is well to remember that Jesus warned of the need for a man or womanto
sit down and count the cost before becoming a disciple.
Too often the word 'disciple' has beendefined
solely in terms of its Greek or rabbinic background. The result hasbeen an
over-simplistic equation, i.e. disciple = learner. This has provideda basis
for some to advocate a wholly indiscriminate baptism, both of adultsand children,
the only requirement being a willingness to learn and not awhole-hearted
commitment to Jesus. There is a failure here to recognise thatJesus poured
a whole new meaning into discipleship in so far as it relatedto him –as
he did with everything he touched. If indiscriminate baptismis to be a possibility,
biblically, we must seek grounds other than the equation,disciple equals
learner.
Of course, there are spurious disciples
as there is spurious faith (John 2.23-25) but there can be no question as
to the kind of disciples Jesus had in mind when he gave the command to "make
disciples…baptising them…".
- make disciples
We must now ask what it means
to make disciples. A number of alternative approaches
have been suggested. According to some we make disciples either by baptising
and teaching them, or by baptising them (with the teaching following). By
that is meant that baptism is the effective instrument in the making of disciples.
The person baptised is a disciple, the person not baptised is not a disciple.
Baptism becomes the crucial thing. Others have argued that while baptismisnot
the effective instrument in the making of a disciple it does have aroleto
play. The
role it plays will depend partly on whether baptism is primarily an expression
of grace or faith. According to Beasley-Murray "it is when a hearer believes
and is baptised
that he
becomes a full disciple; which is the same as saying that a disciple is made
such in baptism by faith." The emphasis here seems to be on baptism as an
expression of faith. Moreover baptism seems to be essential for full
discipleship, which raises the question as to whether it is legitimate
to make a distinction between full and partial discipleship. This would not
appear to be the case according to Jesus' teaching on discipleship whichis
not at all conditional on baptism. If on the other hand baptism is primarily
an expression of grace it is not difficult to see how baptism may have aroleto
play as a means of grace. We are not made disciples throughbaptismbut
we are assisted in our discipleship through baptism.
There is anotherapproach
possible. Those who have embraced a strong doctrine of the graceof God may
strugglea little in coming to terms with a commission which laysupon them
the responsibilityof making disciples. It would be difficult toquibble with
such people whenthey insist that it is God and not man who makesdisciples.
We can howeverrespond in two ways. In the first place we can pointout that
we are "workerstogether with God" (1 Cor 3.9; 2 Cor 6.1). Thereis a strong
element of mysteryin so many aspects of our labouring for God,e.g. in the
ministry of preaching.So, at the very least, we can say thatGod uses his
people in the makingof disciples. In the second place we canpoint out that
for the Reformersour contribution to the making of discipleswas in fact through
the preachingof the Gospel. John Calvin states, "TheLord, when he sent out
the apostles,gave them the command to preach the Gospeland to baptise those
who believeunto forgiveness of sins (Matt 28.19)."
Institutes of the Christian Religion IV 6, Westminster Press
1977, Vol 2, p1058. See also JM Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith
, IVP 1986, p 653: "Jesus not only commands us to evangelise, he also tells
us how to do it. First, we are to make disciples of all nations. We
are to preach the Gospel to them so that through the power of the Scriptures
and the Holy Spirit they are converted from sin to Christ and there after
follow him as their Lord…"
On this basis it is simply assumed
in the Great Commission that disciples are made through the proclamationofthe
Gospel which is received through faith. As Beasley-Murray rightly observes:
"the kerygma precedes the didache, the offer of grace before the ethics of
discipleship,
and it is when the gospel of grace is received that
the ethics of gratitude may be learned and applied. "Baptism in the
New Testament, Paternoster 1962, pp 89f. So, those who
become disciples, through the proclamation of the gospel, are then baptised,
and after they are baptised they devote themselves to the teaching of the
apostles. That is precisely the pattern we find on the very first occasion
that the Great Commission was put into operation, as recorded in the Book
of Acts: the preaching of the Gospel, the response of faith, baptism, devotion
to the apostles' teaching (2.14-47). Unless we adopt the position that the
apostles misunderstood Jesus and got it wrong we must conclude that the correct
exegesis of Matthew 28.19 is to be found in Acts 2. The apostles were certainly
in a better position to rightly understand Jesus' meaning than we are two
thousand years later!
What was true on the Day of Pentecost was
true throughout the New Testament era. How did the apostles make disciples
of the Gentiles (i.e. the nations)? They did so by preaching the Gospel.The
Lord told Ananias concerning Saul, "This man is my chosen instrumentto carry
my name before the Gentiles…and before the people of Israel"(Acts9.15).It
was this same man, Saul become Paul, who subsequently cried out, "Woe tome
if I do not preach the Gospel" and who also informs us thathe hardly baptised
anyone (1 Cor 1.14). That is not to detract from the importanceof baptism
but to emphasise that in Paul's view it was not the essential thingin making
disciples.
- in the name of (eis
to onoma)
While there is nothing
explicit in Matthew's Great Commission which adds decisively to our understanding
of the essential meaning of baptism we have
discovered that
baptism is inseparably bound up with
costly discipleship. It is for those who are committed,
without reserve, to thelordship of Christ. We have also considered the commission
as it was understoodand implemented by the Twelve in the Book of Acts, i.e.
the pattern in Actsanticipated by this commission: the proclamation of the
Gospel, the responseof faith, baptism, forgiveness, the gift of the Spirit,
and devotion to theapostles' teaching. Baptism is inseparable from theseingredients.
Moreoverit is clear that the making and baptising of disciplesis unaffected
by distinctionsof race or nationality, and that the inclusionof 'all nations'
is the fulfilmentof God's promise to Abraham and the outworkingof his covenant
purposes.
We can now go one step further and consider
the significance of baptism "in the name of". The first thing forconsiderationis
the use of the phrase in Rabbinic literature. Beasley-Murraygives threeillustrations
taken from Strack-Billerbeck .Baptism inthe New Testament
, Paternoster 1972, pp 90f; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testamentaus Talmud und Midrasch,vol. 1, 1922, pp 1054f.
(1) Heathenslaveson entry into a Jewish housewere compelled to receive a
baptism "inthe name of slavery", i.e. to becomeslaves. Slaves being set free
were tobe immersed "in the name of freedom",i.e. to become free. On this
analogybaptism in the name of God "sets thebaptised in a definite relation
to God;Father Son and Holy Spirit becometo the baptised what their name signifies".(2)An
offering is slaughteredin the name of six things, i.e. with respectto its
intention, e.g. for thebenefit of the offerer, for the sake of God, with
regard to the altar fires,in view of the sweet savour. Hence a person isbaptised
"for the sake of God,to make the baptised over to God". Hence 'inthe name
of' equals 'with respectto, for the benefit of, for the sake of'.(3) A Samaritan
must not circumcisean Israelite because the Samaritans circumcise"in the
name of Mount Gerizim",with the obligation of venerating the Godof the Samaritans
who is worshippedthere.
It is worth extrapolating from this Rabbinic
understanding that circumcision in the name of 'Mount Gerizim'
points to 'obligation' and that an offering slaughtered in the name
of signifies 'for the sake of'. According to these parallels baptisminthe
name of the Trinity signifies 'obligation to' and 'for the sake of'theTrinity
in whose name the disciple is baptised. Perhaps, however, themostsignificant
lesson is to be learned from the freeing of a slave throughcircumcision in
the name of freedom. By this parallel the Trinitybecomes to the person
baptised all that is signified by the name of the Trinity.Baptism then representsthe
deepest, most intimate and most profound relationshipbetween the discipleand
God. We shall return to this shortly under the heading'the Father, theSon
and the Holy Spirit'.
The second thing for consideration hasto
do with the use of the preposition 'in'. This translates the Greek word
eis which basically means "into". Luke in his Book of
Acts usesthis same phrase ("in the name") four times in connection with baptism,
butuses three different prepositions (eis, into; en, in;
epi, upon) all of which are translated "in". There is another important
difference.Whereas Luke seems to use his three prepositions synonymously,
Matthew seemsnever to confus ethem. Prepositions and Theology inthe
Greek New Testament, Paternoster's Dictionary of NewTestament
Theology, 1978 (Ed. C Brown),p 1186. Carson comments: "Those
who become disciples are to be baptised eis ('into',
NIV margin) the name of the Trinity. Matthew, unlike some NT writers,apparently
avoids the confusion of eis (strictly 'into')and en (strictly
'in'…) common in Hellenistic Greek ; and if so,the preposition'into'
strongly suggests a coming-into-relationship-with or a coming-under-theLordship-of
(cf. Allen; Albright and Mann)…It isa sign both of entranceinto Messiah's
covenant community and of pledged submission to his lordship."The
Expositor's Bible CommentaryVol 8 Matthew-Luke, (Ed. FEGaebelein),
Zondervan 1984, p 597. See also:WCAllen, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary
on the Gospel According to St Matthew, T & T Clark 1912;WF Albright
and CS Mann, Matthew, Doubleday 1971. This
understanding of eis confirms, therefore,
a parallel with ideas presentin Rabbinical literature, especially the idea
of a deep and profound relationshipinto which a person enters when he orshe
becomes a disciple.
- Baptism into "the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
One of the reasons why some scholars
question the authenticity of Jesus' commission in Matthew is because it represents
a developed understanding of the Trinity, an understanding that must have
been lacking so soon after the resurrection. It is argued that "Matthew is
reflecting the life of the later church in which he lived". When, however,
we speak of an understanding that must have been lacking we must also ask,
"Lacking to whom?" Lacking to the disciples, certainly; but lacking to Jesus?
Presumably our glorified Lord fully understood what he was saying. He said
many hard (to understand) things during his earthly ministry on the basis
that after the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit, and given time
for reflection and further revelation to the apostles and prophets, his redeemed
and enlightened followers would enter into the truths which earlier theyhad
been taught. Whether or not these words of Jesus are authentic is determined
not by the understanding of the disciples (who, for example, persistently
failed to grasp his teaching about the cross) but by the understanding of
Jesus.
We may also take into accountthat
we have very little record of Jesus' conversation with his disciples during
the period between the resurrection and the ascension. It is difficult to
believe that they learned nothing new from the Master. He may have had things
to say to them which prepared the way for some understanding of this great
commission.Of course, that is an argument from silence. It is equally anargument
fromsilence to insist that they had no understanding. We cannotknow. But
it isof little consequence. What we can be sure of is that furtherreflection
andfurther revelation enabled the early Christians to enter intosomething
ofthe truth of Jesus words.
In
the light of this it would be appropriate
at this point to bring to bear on our studies those elements of the apostolic
teaching which are relevant. We do so on the basis that the apostolic teaching
as we have it in the New Testament represents the mind of Christ. To discover
at least some hints as to what is meant by baptism in the
name of the Trinity we may safely consult the New Testament letters. Indeed,
that is what Christ intended we should do, the Christ who promised his apostles
that when the Holy Spirit was given he would lead them into all truth.
Before we look at the significance of baptism
into the name of the three persons of the Trinity it may be helpful to start
with a statement which is normally accepted by Christians generally as well
as by Christian scholars. The statement is this. Whatever else baptism does
or does not signify it does signify the grace of God. It points to God'saction
in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Wayne Grudem, himself a Baptist,has
stated, "Even the most conscientious Baptist would not object to callingbaptism
'a testament to inner grace'. "Systematic Theology
,IVP 1994, p 966. Not only is that important for the definition ofa
sacrament as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace"
Book of Common Prayer. it is also an interpretation
of baptism as a divine ordinance, even within the Gospels. It signifies the
grace of God which enables the repentance and forgiveness of sinners.
One further observation. Several exegetes
have drawn attention to the fact that the word 'name' here is singular. Baptism
as Jesus presents it is baptism into the one name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, i.e. into the name of the Triune God. This will
have some significance when we look at the terminology as we have it in the
Book of Acts. i.e. baptism in the name of Jesus. The Son of God does notact
independently of the Father and the Spirit but on behalf of and in theclosest
and most intimate co-operation and in complete harmony with the Fatherand
the Spirit. The
Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father (John 17.21) and both are
made real to us through the Spirit. Baptism in the name of Jesus is
baptism in the name of the Trinity. According to Calvin, "There is
good reason here for the explicit mention of Father, Son, and Spirit, for
the force ofbaptism cannot otherwise be appreciated unless it begin fromthe
free mercyof the Father who
reconciles us to Himself through the only-begotten Son. Then Christ himself
advances into the midst, with the
sacrifice
of His death, and at last there comes the Holy Spirit also, through whomHe
cleanses and regenerates us all, and finally makes us partakers of allHis
benefits. So we see that God is not truly known, unless our faith distinctly
conceives three Persons in one Essence; and the efficacy and fruit of Baptism
flow from thence: God the Father adopts us in His Son, and through the Spirit
reforms us into righteousness, once we are cleansed from the stains of our
flesh. "A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew-Luke Vol3,
The Saint Andrew Press 1972, p 253.
- Baptism as it
relates to the Father
Baptism as it relates to the Father
is:(a) an affirmation of the love which the Father had for the world whereby
he sent his one and only Son for our redemption (John 3,16); (b) an affirmation
of that salvation which the Father had determined from all eternity (Eph1.3f);
(c) an affirmation that the Father has chosen us in Christ, that he should
be our God and we should be his people. Moreover, it is not only an affirmation
of the covenant which the Father has entered into with us, it is a sign and
seal of that covenant and of its fulfilment. It is an affirmation, sign and
seal not only of the covenant which the Father has established (the objective
aspect) it is also an affirmation, sign and seal that we have been brought
personally into the covenant (the subjective aspect). It is an affirmation
that the covenant is a reality and that it is a reality for me.
Some Definitions
- As an affirmation baptism is
asserting the fact of the covenant. It is statingthat the covenant is a reality.
It is a declaration that the covenant is true,and that it is true for the
person baptised.
- As a sign baptism is a permanent,
spiritual indicator or mark which cannot be erased and which publicly indicates
that the person so baptised is within the covenant of God.
- As a seal baptism is God'smark
of authority and authenticity whereby he declares, "This is my possession."
Baptism as it relates
to the Father represents the initiative of the Father in our salvation, as
Paul puts itin Rom 9.16: "It does not depend on man's desire or effort, but
on God's mercy."It represents the grace of God the Father as well as that
of the Son and theSpirit. It represents the salvation that is by grace through
faith, whereeven faith is a gift. It represents the truth that from beginning
to end salvation is of God and not of man. There is not a single elementin
our salvation wherebywe can say, "That was my contribution." We are co-workers
with God once wehave been brought into a saving relationship with him, but
not before. Beforehis great salvation has been wrought in our lives we are
without God and without hope; we are enemies of God, children of his wrath,
dead in trespasses and sins and there is nothing we can do to please him(Eph
2.1-3; Rom 5.6-11;8.8). We have no part to play in effecting our ownsalvation:
"Thou must save and Thou alone" (Toplady).
It is generally accepted thatbaptism
is an affirmation, a sign and a seal of the grace of God the Father.In case
it is thought that
we have extended the meaning of baptism to cover the Father's initiativeand
the Father's covenant in addition to the Father's grace it is importantto
make the point that both the initiative and the covenant are essentialelements
of grace. The covenant whereby God brings men and women into a relationship
with himself, making them his people, is an activity of grace. And such an
activity of grace is dependant upon the divine initiative. God in his grace
necessarily takes the initiative. In both the divine initiative and the divine
covenant we see God the Father in his grace working out his saving purposes.
Such an initiative and such a covenant are not extra to grace they are integral
to grace, of which baptism is the sign and seal.
It may be helpful to point out
here that in the New Testament the Father is most frequently referred toas'God'
,e.g. the blessing of 2 Cor 13.14 speaks of "the grace of the LordJesus Christ,
the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit".
-
Baptism as it relates to the Son
Baptism as it relates to the Son is: (a) an affirmation that all the Father's
gracious promises for the purposes of redemption have been fulfilled in Jesus
Christ his Son;
(b) an affirmation of thecentrality
of Christ in redemption, i.e. that "thereis no other name underheaven given
to men by which we must be saved" (Acts4.12); (c) an affirmationthat the
sinlessness, obedience, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christare the
means by which men and women are rescued from sin and reconciledto God; (d)
an affirmation that through the death and resurrectionof Christthe power
of sin is destroyed and the believer raised to new lifein Christ.
Baptism as it relates to the
Son represents the grace of Christ in his coming for our sakes, his dying
for our sakes and his rising for our sakes, together with all other aspects
of his redeeming activity. He was not an unwilling partner in the work of
redemption. It is not as though an uncaring Father sent him irrespectiveofhis
own will in the matter. The Father loved his Son and suffered the painof
his Son ,the Son loved his Father and suffered the pain of his Father.They
were in total harmony as to what had to be done in order to achievethedivine
purpose for fallen man. It was the Son of God who loved us andgavehimself
up for us (Gal 2.20), the Son of God who loved the church andgavehimself
up for her (Eph 5.25), the Son of God who laid down his lifefor usthereby
showing the true nature of love (1 John 3.16). Just as theFather'saction
was sheer grace, grace upon grace; so the Son's action wassheer grace,grace
upon grace. Baptism in the name of Christ signifies thisgrace.
It will be seen from
the above that baptism is intimately bound up with the death and resurrection
of Christ. Now here is that made more clear than in Rom 6.3f where we are
told by Paulthat
baptism is baptism into his death in order that, as he was raised from the
dead, we also might live a new life. The real baptism is Christ's death and
resurrection. Water baptism is but the outward sign of which Christ's death
and resurrection are the reality. The metaphorical use in Mark 10.37ff 37ff
where he speaks of his own baptism, i.e. "the baptism I am baptised with",
and in Luke 12.49f when he tells the disciples, "I have a baptism to undergo"
is the primary use.
Water baptism signifies Christ's
death and resurrection and it signifies our death and resurrection.
It signifies our identification with his death and resurrection. Throughbaptism
we are baptised into his death, and through his resurrection we areraised
to new life. It is well to remember that here also there is a primaryand
a secondary signification. Of primary importance is that water baptismsignifies
the death and resurrection of Christ. Of secondary importance isthat waterbaptism
signifies our death and resurrection; the second is entirelydependant upon
the first. Bromiley puts this particularly well.
"It is an unfortunate reversal
of the gospel message, or at least of thegospel emphasis, if in baptism we
allow our own dying and rising again tooccupy centre stage and push the dying
and rising of Christ out into the wings.We are not to think that ours isthe
real baptism, and then apply the termin a transferred or figurative sense
to the reconciling work of the Son. Thetruth is that the reconciling work
of the Son is the original baptism and our own dying and rising again with
Christ is the copy and reflection. The proper baptism declared in every baptism
is the vicarious dying and rising again of Christ in which expiation is made
for sin, reconciliation is effected,new life is inaugurated, the covenant
of God with man is restored, the electionof the Father is fulfilled, andthe
divine purpose of grace is thus realisedin spite of man's sin and fall."
Children of Promise, T & T Clark 1979, p 59.
- Baptism as it
relates to the Holy Spirit
Baptism as it relates to the Holy
Spirit is: (a) an affirmation that what the Son has achieved, supremely through
his death and resurrection, the Spirit applies through his power and presence;
(b) an affirmation of the cleansing and regeneration of those who believe
in the Son by the Spirit; (c) an affirmation of the Spirit's baptism
of the believer into Christ and his body (1 Cor 12. 13).
The work of redemption and reconciliation
which is at the heart of the covenant of grace is as much the work of the
Spirit as it is of the Son and the Father. Wherever we cut the cake we find
the same harmony, the same unity of purpose, and the same interpersonal involvement.
Father, Son and Spirit each had their equally
important role to play in creation,
and each had their equally important role to play in redemption. Jesus was
conceived by the Spirit (Matt
1.18,20);during his ministry he was empowered by the Spirit (Luke 4.1,18;
Matt 12.28);through the Spirit he offered himself as a sacrifice withoutspot
to God (Heb 9.14); by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (Rom 8.11).And
it is onlyin so far as the preaching of the good news of Christ is empowered
by the Spirit that it is effective in the minds and hearts of the hearers
( 1 Cor2.4; 1 Thess1.5).
We have already distinguishedbetween
the primary, objective work of Christ for the believer and the secondary,
subjective work of Christ in the believer. This secondary, subjective work
is the particular responsibility of the Spirit. It is the Spirit who applies
the work of Christ so that it becomes real and relevant to the individual.
As Bromiley says, "Baptism is not just any baptism; it is my
baptism. It is my own entry by the word and Spirit into Christ's victorious
work. It is my own identification with him, so that I can now say with the
apostle: 'He loved me and gave himself for me.' (Gal 2.20)"
Children of Promise, T & T Clark 1979, p 67.
Yet even here the subjective depends on the objective. It is onlythroughthe
regenerative work of God the Holy Spirit that we are able to enjoythebenefits
of Christ's death, and it is this regenerative work of the Spiritthat is
signified in water baptism.
One last thing. If it is the Father who
is the initiator of the covenant and the Son who is the mediator of the covenant,
it is the Spirit who seals God's people as his own within the covenant (2
Cor 2.22; Eph 1.13f). All this is contained within the Bible's understanding
of baptism.
- In the name of the Trinity
(Matthew 28.19) or in the name of Jesus (Acts 2.38)
At first sight it does seem strange
that shortly before his ascension Jesus commissioned his apostles to baptise
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" whereas
days later Peter is found exhorting his audience to be baptised "in the name
of Jesus Christ". Throughout Acts it is Peter's example that is followed.Cornelius
was also baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, and the Samaritans(8.16)andthe
Ephesians (19.5) in the name of the Lord Jesus. Saul was to be baptised"calling
on his name" (22.16).
Some have 'solved' this seeming
discrepancy by arguing that Matthew's account of the Commission represents
a later development, i.e. it represents the practice of the church at a subsequent
period in time. According to this approach there was no reference to a Trinitarian
baptism by Jesus before his ascension. The Trinitarian 'formula' came tobe
used increasingly as the church developed its theology. If, as some haveargued
(e.g.GP Lewis An Approachto
the NewTestament, Epworth 1954, p 113.
), Jesus commissioned his disciples to baptise in his name and not
in the name of the Trinity, the change represents a later departure by the
church from Jesus' express instruction, a departure so radical that it not
only requires but demands a satisfactory explanation. In fact there is no
evidence either that the initial commission required baptism in the nameof
Jesus, or that the initial commission was not in the name of the Trinity.
It is simply supposition.
It is significant that those who see adiscrepancy
frequently speak of 'the Trinitarian formula' and contrastitwith the
'formula 'as we have it on the lips of Peter at Pentecost andinconnection
with other references to baptism in the Book of Acts. But theword'formula'
seems to be particularly inappropriate to describe either wordsused by Jesus
or words used by the Apostles in those very early days of thechurch. It is
a loaded word the very use of which has the effect of pre-emptingdiscussion.
It predetermines the outcome. Carson comments, "The term 'formula'is
trippingus up. There is no evidence…that
the church regarded Jesus' commandas a baptismal formula, a liturgical
form the ignoring of which wasa breach of canon law. The problem has too
often been cast in anachronisticterms. E Riggenbach (Der TrinitarischeTaufbefehl
Matt 28.19 [Gütersloh:C Bertelsmann, 1901]) points out that as late
as the Didache, baptism inthename of Jesus and baptism in the name of the
Trinity coexisted side byside:the church was not bound by precise 'formulas'
and felt no embarrassmentata multiplicity of them…"The Expositor's
Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew-Luke, (Ed.FEGaebelein),
Zondervan 1984, p 597.
Whereas Carson is commenting on the Trinitarian
'formula' Calvin makes a similar point commenting on the 'formula' in Acts.
He asks the question, "was
Peter entitled to
change the form prescribed by Christ?" In answer he says, "In the first place
we must hold that Christ did not give the apostles magic words to be used
for incantation… Then again I maintain that Peter is not speakingin
this passage of the form of baptism but simply declaring that the wholeefficacy
of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be graspedby faithwithout
the Father by whom He was given to us and the Spirit by whomhe renewsand
sanctifies us… The answer consists simply in this ,thatit is nota
fixed formula that is being dealt with here, but the recallingof the faithfulto
Christ, in whom alone we obtain all that baptism prefiguresto us."
The Acts of the Apostles 1-13, St Andrew'sPress 1965, p 81.See
also Longenecker referring to Peter's exhortation, "Theexpression wasnot
at this time a liturgical formula." (RN Longenecker,The Expositor'sBible
Commentary Vol 9 John-Acts, (Ed. FE Gaebelein),Zondervan1981,pp235f.)
It is an assumption that either Jesus or
Peter or Paul were giving precise words to be used at baptism. We cannotbe
sure. But it is just as likely that they were indicating the significance
of baptism. Christian baptism signifies, on the one hand, the redemptionwhichis
the work of all three Persons of the Trinity and, on the other hand,that
Jesus Christ is the door through which the believer passes to enterinto thatredemption.
Father, Son and Spirit have decreed that it is throughthe nameof Jesus that
salvation is bestowed upon men and women.
Presumably the same can be said of theLord's
Supper. We are told, for example that Jesus "took the cup, gave thanks and
offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it all of you. This is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins '"(Matt
26.27f). Are Jesus' words here a 'formula' which must be used prior to the
distribution of wine at the Lord's Supper? If when distributing the winewedo
not use the phrase "blood of the covenant" – a crucial explanatoryelement
of the meal – is there a conflict? The word 'formula' is inappropriate.
1. Introduction
2. Institution of Baptism
3. Origins of Water Baptism
4. The Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence
5. The Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence
6. The Baptism of Children: Extra Biblical Evidence
7. The Proper Subjects of Baptism
8. The Mode of Baptism
9. The Way Forward
|
