|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2001
Panel on Doctrine
Report
Baptism
THE ORIGINS OF WATER BAPTISM
Jewish antecedents
Some scholars begin their study
of Baptism with a discussion of pre-Christian rites involving water, on the
basis that water baptism as practised by the early church was the climax
ofan evolving process. Some have begun with primitive and pagan rituals.
Itwas popular for a time to seek the origins of Christian baptism in the
'baptisms'of the mystery religions which flourished in the Graeco-Roman world
duringthe last three centuries BC. In view of the growing recognition, in
recentyears ,that the essential context for the formulation of Christian
beliefand practice is to be sought within the spiritual environs of Judaism,
ithas become much more common to look to the Old Testament and to Jewish
practicefor the origins of water baptism.
- The Jewish law
Water ritual was a requirement
for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Both before and after the ceremony
he had to bathe himself in water (Lev 16.4; Ezek 44.19). In both verses the
word for bathe is the Hebrew word rachats which has the general
idea of wash. It is used in Genesis for the washing of feet (18.4; 19.2;24.32;
43.24) and the washing of the face (43.31). It is a common word in Leviticus
for ceremonial washing (1.9,13; 8.6,21; 9.14; etc.) though it is not the
only word so used. It should be noted that the ritual here is a self-bathing
rather than a baptism.
Just as the high priest had
to undertake ceremonial cleansing in order to survive the localised presence
of a holy God in the Most Holy Place so all the people of God had to undergo
ritual cleansing as they conducted their daily affairs in the knowledge that
this same holy God was with his people in a more general but no less real
sense. Sexual uncleanness (Lev 15) and the uncleanness from contact with
an infectious skin disease (Lev 13.4) required ritual cleansing through washing
and bathing. Uncleanness through contact with dead persons required ritual
cleansing through sprinkling (Num 19.13): "Because the water of cleansing
has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean." According to 19.9 the "water
of cleansing" together with ashes from a sacrifice are for "purification
fromsin".
It would be very
easy (but inept)to caricature the emphasis in the Jewish Law on outer ritual
cleansing asthough that were the only concern or even the main concern. As
with Christiansthe outward sign is symbolic of an inward reality and an appropriate
life-style.At least, such was the intention. The ritual may be divorced from
the realitybut it ought not to be. That was a major emphasis of the prophets
beginningwith Samuel, "Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as muchas in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than
sacrifice…" (1 Sam 15.22). Samuel is not here rejecting the concept
of sacrifice as prescribed by the Law and therefore by God. That would have
been anathema to him. Indeed, the very next chapter records that the prophet
offered sacrifice in obedience to the Lord's instruction (16.5). In 15.22
Samuel is confronting Saul's disobedience and rejecting sacrifice as a substitute
for obedience. As Joyce Baldwin puts it, "No ceremonial can make up for a
rebellious attitude to God and his commands…"1 & 2 Samuel
, IVP, p 115. Samuel's approach is reflected in the following Scripture
passages: Ps 40.6-8; 51.16; Pro 21.3; Is 1.11-15; Jer 7.22; Hos 6.6; Amos
5.25; Mic 6.6-8. The concern of the psalmist and the prophets, as with Jesus,
was for consistency in how one conducted one's life, e.g. Psalm 24. Flesh
and spirit and, therefore, outward ritual and inward reality, were thought
of in the Jewish psyche as "partners, not enemies "The Jewish Antecedents
of the Christian Sacraments, London 1928, p 13. Beasley
Murray comments, "The remarkable feature…is not that the Jew or later
Judaism could not distinguish between outer and inner but that he
would not separate them…Baptism in the New Testament
, Paternoster, 1972, p 7."). Outward rites and inward dispositionsmust
be in harmony.
- Old Testament
anticipations of a future radical cleansing
Chapter 36 is a crucial
chapter in Ezekiel's prophecy for the future restoration of God's people.
It is especially interesting for our purpose because it deals with both external
and internal realities. J Muilenburg observes, "Israel had made the holy
land unholy; yether holy God must maintain his holiness in the earth. Therefore
(v 21) hespared them for the sake of his holy name. Yet, if the holiness
of his greatname was to be vindicated among the nations, then his people
must be radically transformed and become a new and holy people."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Nelson 1962, p 586.
According to HL Ellison the centre of this
prophecy re the restoration of God's people (vv 24-28) "is based on and is
an expansion of the great promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31.31-34
Ezekiel:The Man and his Message, Paternoster 1967, p 127.
".The people are to receive a new heart, a new disposition and a new will.
This transformation, however, will begin with God sprinkling clean waterupon
them"to purify them from the stain and guilt of the past"Peake'sCommentary
on the Bible, Nelson 1962, p 586. (Ezek 36.25,27):Iwill
sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from
all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart…
and I will put my Spirit in you."
It is of particular interest to us that
the inner cleansing of God's people is symbolised by the sprinkling of clean
water. There are two elements here worthy of note (and it is worth bearing
in mind as we note them that Ezekiel was both a prophet and a priest). The
first is that the imagery of ritual cleansing is related to the inner cleansing
which God will bring about. Secondly and more specifically it is the imagery
of 'sprinkling' that is used, the significance of which is well expressed
by Peter Craigie: "As, in Ezekiel's prophecy, the transformation of heart
and spirit was preceded by the symbolic sprinkling of fresh water, so inChristianity
the water of baptism symbolises the transformation of heartand spirit."
Ezekiel (Daily Study Bible), The SaintAndrewPress 1983, p258.
- Qumran
In the middle of
the second centuryBC,as a result of the intrusive and paganizing influence
of Greek culture, there came into existence a very loyal and conservative
group of Jews known as 'the pious (or loyal) ones', i.e. the Hasidim. The
Hasidim were an importantgroup which had a lasting impact on the development
of Judaism. GW Andersonhas written that "the Hasidim were the spiritual ancestors
of the Pharisees,the Essenes, and the Qumran sect, displaying unswerving
loyalty to the law".The History
and Religion of Israel, OUP 1966, p172.
Qumran was situated in the
wildernessof Judea some seven miles from the River Jordan. The men of Qumran
had withdrawn from Jewish society under their 'Teacher of Righteousness'.
They regardedthe period in which they lived as the 'epoch of wickedness'.
They had a particularabhorrence of the high priests of the day whom they
regarded as illegitimate.Their purpose was to prepare for the new age which
would bring the epoch ofwickedness to an end. With that ever before them
they practised a rigorous self-discipline and devoted themselves to the purity
of body and soul.
In their passion for purity they provided
for various ritual washings or bathings. In the Introduction to his translation
of the Dead Sea Scrolls Geza Vermes summarises the various rituals as follows:
"The Damascus Rule (XI) devotes a section to purification by water, and the
War Rule (XIV) foresees that the victorious Sons of Light will so cleanse
themselves after battle before attending the final ceremony of Thanksgiving.
The Community Rule (III, V) refers also to a purificatory rite in connection
with entry into the Covenant."The Dead Sea Scrolls in English
, Pelican 1975, p45.
It is worth noting here that the people
of Qumran saw no conflict between the outward ritual and the inner condition;
the two were intended to coincide. Beasley Murray observes, "Here we must
remind ourselves of the fact, frequently pointed out, that the members of
this sect had a clear understanding of the limitations of lustrations. They
aspired to something more than ceremonial purity and they knew that lustrations
of themselves could not bestow the moral purity they sought." The Qumran
Manualof Discipline states, "No one is to go into the water in order to attain
thepurity of holy men. For men cannot be purified except they repent their
evil."It further states that a man "cannot be cleared by mere ceremonies
of atonement, nor cleansed by any waters of ablution, nor sanctified by immersion
in lakesor rivers, nor purified by any bath. For it is only through the spiritual
apprehension of God's truth that man's ways can be properly directed. Only
thus can all his iniquities by shriven so that he can gaze upon the true
lightof life…"
Assuming, as most scholars do (cf. FF Bruce,Beasley-Murray,
Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster1972, p 12 footnote.
John Bright,A History of Israel, SCM 1972,
p 465 W Albright), that the Qumran community was essentiallyEssene
there are a number of contemporary writers we can turn to for information.
The most helpful of these is Josephus who spent a short time with the Essenes
during his teenage years. He is also useful because of his description of
Essene initiation procedure involving a three year probationary period. At
the end of the first year there was a ritual purification in water. At the
end of the second year the probationer was allowed to use the purer water
reserved for full members of the sect. At the end of the third year he was
allowed to share in the common meal, a token of full membership. It is also
clear that ritual purifications were a regular daily occurrence for all members
.As Beasley-Murray observes, "Josephus conveys the impression that the baths
of the Essenes were taken not simply once daily, as is commonly assumed,
butat least three times per day…"
Two questions arise out of this. (1) Is
there is any connection between the ritual purifications of these pre-Christian
sects and the baptism of John the Baptist and ultimately Christian baptism?
(2) Is there any sense in which these ritual purifications may be regarded
as baptisms? It will be recognised that these questions warrant much lengthier
answers than space allows in this report. The following observations arerelevant.
It has been suggested that the Baptist
himself may for a time have belonged to Qumran. This is purely speculative
and depends on a subjective assessment of the evidence. But even if
there is truth in it, it is also true that the differences between John and
Qumran are enormous. In 1959 HH Rowley concluded, "There is not a single
featureof John's baptism for which there is the slightest reason to go to
Qumranto look for the source." New Testament
Essays, Studies in Memory of TW Manson (ed. AJB Higgins),
Manchester 1959, pp 219-23. As recently as 1990 Alan Millard reached
the same conclusion. Discoveries from the Timeof Jesus
, Lion 1990, p 111. Similar differences exist between Qumran's 'baptism'
and that of Christians. We may note the following distinguishing features:
(a) The water rite practised at Qumran is more properly described as a bath
than a baptism; (b) it was practised often, not once-for-all;(c) the initial
purification rite was the same in form as subsequent purifications;(d) it
was a self-administered rite; (e) the Qumran people were initiated into a
community and not into their Teacher of Righteousness whereas Christians
were initiated into the Messiah and his community.
The important if loose connection between
the people of Qumran and the disciples of Jesus is that the water rite for
both marked entry into the new covenant, the true Israel. This is explained
not by a dependency of one on the other but by the fact that both groups
referback to the prophecies of Jeremiah 31.31ff and Ezekiel 36.24ff. Equally
significantis that for Qumran as for Christians while circumcision was the
sign of initiationinto the old covenant, water is the sign of initiation
into the new covenant.
- Jewish proselyte
baptisms
For some considerable time
it was taken for granted by many scholars that Christian baptism had its
originin Jewish proselyte baptism. Jeremias, one of the most ardent contenders
for this position, saw similarities between proselyte and Christian baptism
in the terminology used, resemblances in baptismal instruction and administration,
and theological similarities. Others have rejected Jeremias' arguments and
offered alternative explanations for the similarities. There is simply insufficient
evidence to show that Christian baptism in its terminology, practice andtheology
is derived from Jewish proselyte baptism. It is equally possiblethat early
Christian baptism influenced the development of proselyte baptism.So, for
example, Beasley Murray writes,
"Whether the New
Testament writerstook over the concept of dying and rising and of regeneration
from Jewishthought about the proselyte it is difficult to say. Presumption
would indicatethat those who shaped the thought of the primitive Church could
hardly havebeen ignorant of this teaching. On the other hand the New Testament
theologyof baptism revolves about two poles of thought not associated with
proselytebaptism: unity with the Messiah who is Son of Man and Second Adam
and whorose for the race; and, closely connected therewith, the belief that
the ageof resurrection and the life of the Kingdom of Godh as dawned in the
risingof the Messiah. It would seem plausible that the familiar concepts
of Jewishconversion theology were given a fresh orientation and greater depth
and powerby the Christian understanding of the redemptive action of the Messiah.
"Baptismin the New Testament
, Paternoster 1972, pp 30f.
Clearly the arguments of scholars such
asJeremias depend on a presumption that proselyte baptism preceded Christian
baptism, a presumption that cannot be taken for granted. The first clear
referencesto proselyte baptism do not appear until the second half of the
first century,e.g. in (a) the Sibylline Oracles, usually dated now
about AD 80 ,Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries
(tran. David Cairns),SCM 1960, p 24. (b)the Dissertations of
Epictetus dated cAD 90.Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries
(tran. DavidCairns), SCM 1960,p 24. The more important references,
however, arethose which appear in Rabbinic literature. These are dated by
most scholarsbetween AD 70-90.
While there are scholars who have posited
a much earlier date for the references, e.g. Jeremias, the conclusion of
BeasleyMurray is well justified: "a saying whose significance and origin
are sodubious as this has no claim to confidence as a means of determining
so complexan issue". Baptism in the New Testament,
Paternoster1972,p 23f. Widely regarded as significant is Josephus'
detailed accountof a Gentile king, Izates, becoming a Jewish proselyte. Izates
ruled fromAD 30 to 54. In his account Josephus has much to say about circumcision
andnothing at all to say about baptism.
- The baptism
administered by John
It has been seen already that
attempts to locate the origin of Christian baptism in Jewish ritual washings,
including those of Qumran, are fraught with difficulty. Clearly the use of
water is common to all but, that apart, the parallels are not clear. By contrast
parallels between Christian baptism and John's baptism are easily discerned.
John's water ritual is more properly described as a baptism than a bath or
a washing, it was administered to a candidate (not self-administered), and
it was administered to a candidate once and not often.
Attempts to locate the originof
Christian baptism in Jewish proselyte baptism are also fraught with difficulty,
though for a different reason. It is possible to argue that Christian baptism
influenced proselyte baptism rather than the other way round. In the case
of John the Baptist that is simply not possible. History and the chronological
sequence are clear. John's baptism preceded Christian baptism.
In view of the clear links between
John's baptism and Christian baptism it is important to undertake a more
carefulexploration of the meaning and significance of baptism as we find
it in John,to consider how his approach relates to the baptism instituted
by Jesus,and to consider any light that the one throws on the other.
- Baptism andrepentance
According to the synoptic
gospels the baptism administered by John was integrally bound up with repentance.
Mark relates how John came baptising in the desert region preaching "a baptism
of repentance" (1.4; see also Luke 3.3). Matthew has a slightly different
phrase when he records John's actual words, "I baptise you with water
for repentance" (3.11).
There is general
agreement that the concept to the fore in the New Testament understanding
of repentance is that of a radical turn around, involving a
turning from and a turning to. It involves
a moral change, from evil to righteousness. Primarily it has to do with a
change in a person's relationship with God. The change of life stems
from the change of relationship. To repent is toturn to God. "The call to
repentance on the part of man is a call for himto return to his creaturely…dependence
on God… (it is) a complete alteration of the basic motivation and
direction of one's life." The Westminster
Confession of Faith says of repentance:
"By it a sinner, out of the
sightand sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness
of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and
upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, sogrieves
for and hates his sins as to turn from them all unto God, purposingand endeavouring
to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments." (XV,II)
- A baptism 'of'
and 'for' repentance
Whereas Mark gives
us his own descriptionof John's baptism, i.e. "a baptism of repentance"
(1.4) Matthew gives us John's own words,
i.e. "I baptise you…for repentance," (Matt 3.11). While
some writers have made great playof the difference between Mark and Matthew,
arguing for example that Matthew has paraphrased Mark, this hardly seems
necessary. It is sufficient to note that there is a difference, that Mark
is making a personal comment whereas Matthew is recording the words spoken,
and that both a baptism 'of' and abaptism 'for' are appropriate. It is also
possible that there is no significant difference in meaning at all. CFD Moule
gives a cautionary warning, "it isnow becoming more and more clearly recognised
that it is a mistake to build exegetical conclusions on the notion that Classical
accuracy in the use of prepositions was maintained in the koine period"
and argues for a "fluidityof usage". An Idiom-Book of New Testament
Greek, CambridgeUP1959, p49. If there are nuances of
meaning we may consider the following.
A BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE
The simplest way of understanding Mark's
genitive ('of repentance'; metanoias) is that it describes the nature
of the baptism. It is a baptism that belongs to repentance. In which case
the idea of baptism as a sign of repentance would fit very well. The full
description which Mark (1.4) and Luke (3.3) give of John's baptism is "a
baptismof repentance for the forgiveness of sins" – not an easy phrase
to decipher precisely. Barclay's paraphrase is helpful: "a baptism
which was thesign of a repentance through which a man might find the forgiveness
of sins."The Gospelof Mark, The Saint Andrew Press
1955, p1. Leon Morris comments, "This means a baptism which follows
repentanceand is a sign of it. "Luke, IVP 1974, p 95.
A
baptism for repentance
The preposition 'for' in Matthew's
Gospel translates a word (eis) which generally means 'into' –
either literally or metaphorically. In which case it is a baptism into repentance.
The suggestion here may be that it is a baptism which takes or leads us into
repentance. Hence Barclay translates, "I baptise you with water to make you
repent. "The New Testament:Volume
1 (a new translation), Collins 1968, p 58.
Hendriksen has a better turn of phrase when he renders it, "I baptise
you…with a view to conversion (repentance). "Matthew,Banner
of Truth 1974, p 207. Other possibilities, depending on one'sexegesis
of the difficult phrase 'for repentance' (eis metanoian) are:(a) 'I
baptise you in order that you will repent' (eis plus accusativesuggesting
purpose, here in context unlikely); (b) 'I baptise you with aview to continued
repentance' (the telic sense suggested by Broadus), (c)'I baptise you because
of your repentance' (causal eis, or something closeto it, Turner).
Syntax, Vol 3 of JH Moulton,Grammarof New Testament Greek
, T & T Clark 1963, pp 266-267;referred to in DA Carson's, The Expositor's
Bible Commentary Vol 8Matthew-Luke,(Ed.FE Gaebelein), Zondervan 1984,
p 104. It is well to remember that John's purpose in speaking these
words is to contrast his baptism with that of theone who was to come after
him.
All this raises a fundamental question,
not without significance for our understanding of Christian baptism. Does
repentance lead to baptism, or does baptism lead to repentance? Is repentance
a pre requirement of baptism or is it a consequence of baptism? Is baptism
a sign of repentance or does it effect repentance? E Lohmeyer is in no doubt
as to the answer: "For John repentance is a divine act on a man; the means
through which this miracle is given and is experienced is through baptism,
"Johannesder Taufer, Gottingen, pp 68f. (italics
added). It is clear from Lohmeyer's writings that in his view people came
to John to be baptised in order to receive repentance and not the other way
round. Beasley-Murray helpfully comments, "It is unfortunate that an
exegeteshould so strongly contend for what is manifestly a one-sided emphasis;
itdemands decision on an 'either-or' which the New Testament writers would
not have recognised."Baptism in the New Testament,
Paternoster 1972, pp 34f. Perhaps, as is often the case and as
Beasley Murray has hinted, the truth lies somewhere in-between.
There can be no question that John required
repentance from those who came for baptism and that his baptism was a sign
of repentance. The heart of John's preaching was repentance not baptism,
asMatthew himself records (3.1): "John the Baptist came…saying, 'Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is near.'" The message is for men to turn from
sinto God. As Beasley-Murray comments, "It is not feasible that either Jesus
or John meant by that word, 'Come to baptism that God may turn you!' "Baptism
in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, pp 35.
We shouldalso note the exceedingly strong emphasis which John laid on the
need forgenuine repentance (Matt 3.7-11).
At the same time it is worth pointing out
that repentance and conversion are a continuing necessity for a person's
relationshipwith God. It may be that John was urging repentance both before
and afterbaptism, urging repentance as a way of life as well as the way into
a newlife. Repentance must be prior to baptism and it must be subsequent
to baptism.Baptism both signifies the repentance already there and the repentance
whichmust follow. Hendriksen's summary of the position is worth quoting in
full.
"But is this phrase 'with a view
to conversion' a contradiction of the idea that a man must already have been
converted before he can be baptised, a truth clearly implied in verses 6-10?
Answer: Not at all, for, by means of baptism, true conversion is powerfully
stimulated and increased. The person who in the proper manner – that
is, with a pledge to God proceeding from a clear conscience – receives
baptism, understanding the outward sign and seal, will all the more heartily
out of gratitude yield himself to God. Moreover, how could reflection onthe
adopting, pardoning and cleansing grace of God, as symbolised by thesign
and seal of baptism, have any different effect? For such a person theoutward
sign and seal applied to the body, and the inward grace applied tothe heart,
go together."Matthew
, Banner of Truth 1974, p 207.
Genuine repentance is clearly a work of
God before it is a work of man and yet the obligation to repent is laid on
men everywhere. That was as true for the ministry of John the Baptist asit
was the ministry of the Apostles. Baptism is a sign of grace and a meansof
grace. There is nothing, however, to suggest that John's act of baptismitself
effected repentance. His words to the Pharisees and Sadducees clearlycontradicted
such a possibility. Baptism alone would not save them from"the coming
wrath" (Matt 3.7), only baptism in so far as it represented agenuine turning
from evil to God.
- The contextof
John's baptism
An 'eschatological orientation'
The context is 'the coming ofthe
Lord'. Quoting Isaiah each of the synoptic Gospels tells us that Johnhas
come to "prepare the way for the Lord", to "make straight paths for him".
Luke gives us more of the quotation concluding with (v 6), "And all mankind
will see God's salvation." It is worth noting that in Isaiah the 'concluding'
verse reads (40.5), "And the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all
mankindwill see it."
Negative and positive elements
Here again we note not only the negative
but also the positive element in John's ministry. The coming of the Messiah
is near and with his coming the establishing of his kingdom. The glorious
day anticipated for centuries was about to dawn, the day when God would intervene
and save his people.
Of course, it was also understood
that this day would be a day of judgement and salvation (the negative and
positive again). It includes "the coming wrath"; the tree that does not produce
good fruit "will be thrown into the fire"; "the winnowing fork is in his
hand";and the chaff will be burned with "unquenchable fire" (Matt 3.7, 10,
12).But the warning of judgement is intended to lead to repentance. In any
casethe essential purpose of the winnowing fork is not the destruction of
chaffbut the "gathering of his wheat" (v 12).
Saint Luke, Pelican 1963, p 74.
The turning from evil and the turning to
God signified and stimulated by baptism is, according to John, essentialpreparation
for those who want to be included in the Messiah's kingdom. Johnmakes clear
that the Jewish ancestry of those who came to him would be insufficientto
gain them entry into the kingdom (v 8). There is no substitute for genuine
repentance.
T
he pointer to another baptism
There is another important aspect
of John's baptism. His "preparatory and symbolic baptism" was to give way
to a truly "effective baptism"
Matthew, IVP 1985, p 93.
, i.e. the baptism of the Coming One. He would baptise "with the Holy Spirit
and with fire" (Matt 3.11; Luke 3.16; Mark omits 'and with fire', 1.8). It
should be noted that John's baptism with water anticipates Jesus' baptism
with the Holy Spirit and not Christian baptism with water.
In spite of arguments to the contrary there
is no good reason for not taking the text as we have it in Matthew and Luke
as correct and allowing that Mark omitted the words "and fire" either because
he wasn't aware of them or because he was concerned to emphasise a particular
aspect of the promised baptism which had been fulfilled by the time he wrote.
The Message of Mark, IVP 1992, p 34-36 IH Marshall writes,
"the way for John to speak of a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire
had already been laid in Judaism, and he could have well taken the finaldecisive
step…"The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster1978,p
147. The term 'Holy Spirit' appears in the Old Testament (e.g.Psalm
51.11; Isa. 63.10ff) and the coming of the Spirit is anticipated in the Old
Testament (Isa 32.15; 44.3; Ezek 18.31; 36.25-27; 37.14; 39.29).Judgement
is associated with fire (Isa 29.6; 31.9; Ezek 38.22; Amos 7.4;Mal 3.2; 4.1).
Particularly important is the association of the Holy Spirit with fire in
Joel 2.28-30.
Granted the above there are still differences
of opinion as to what is meant by Jesus' baptism as "baptism with the
Holy Spirit and with fire". (a) Some distinguish between the Holy Spirit
and fire and also between the recipients of the Holy Spirit and fire, arguing
that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is for those who genuinely repent,
whereasthe baptism with fire is for those who cling to their sin (c.f. Luke
3.13).The Gospel of Luke, Marshall, Morgan and Scott
1977, p 140. (b) Some distinguish between the Holy Spirit and
fire but argue that those who receive the Holy Spirit and fire are
those who truly repent. The Spirit and fire represent positive and negative
aspects of God's salvationin the life of the same truly repentant person.
(c) Some make little or nodistinction, though the practical application here
is much the same as with(b). Hence, Calvin comments that it is Christ who
bestows the Spirit of regenerationand that, like fire, this Spirit
purifies us by removing our pollution.Carson says, "the one whose way (John)
is preparing will administer a Spirit-firebaptism that will purify and refine."
The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew-Luke,
(Ed. FE Gaebelein), Zondervan 1984, p 105. It may be noted that
the connection between the Holy Spirit and fire isclose ;there is no separate
preposition in the Greek text; it is "with theHoly Spirit and fire". It may
also be noted that on the day of Pentecostthe Holy Spirit and fire
came upon believers, fire symbolising thepresence of the Holy Spirit. We
can be fairly sure that Pentecost was thefulfilment of John's prophecy in
Luke's understanding, both in his Gospeland in his Acts of the Apostles.
The Gospel of Luke, Paternoster1978, p 146.
It is possible that the baptism with 'the
Holy Spirit and with fire' represents the whole work that God would achieve
through his well beloved Son in terms of rescue, renewal and restoration
plus the destruction of all that is worthless. JDG Dunn sums up this preferred
approach, reflected in (c) above, as follows.
"First, the future baptism is
a single baptism in Spirit-and-fire. Second…Spirit-and-fire baptism
is not offered as an alternative to John's water baptism, nor does one accept
John's water-baptism to escape the messianic baptism. Rather one undergoes
John's water-baptism with a view to and in preparation for the messianicSpirit-and-fire
baptism.In which case, the Coming One's baptism cannot besolely retributive
and destructive. Those who repent and are baptised by Johnmust receive a
baptism which is ultimately gracious. In short, if John spokeof a future
baptism at all there was both gospel and judgement in it.
Baptism in the Holy Spirit, SCM 1970, p 11.
A
new and novel baptism
At the turn of the century, reflecting
on Jewish initiation rites Plummer was able to state, "the history of baptism,
so far as direct evidence is concerned, begins with (John)".
Can the same be said following the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
When considering the Qumran community (under'
JewishBaptisms?') the question was raised of a connection between John and
Qumran.Our conclusion was that there is no evidence and no necessity for
a connection.The contrasts between the two are far greater than the similarities.
WL Lane(quoted previously when dealing with Qumran) puts forward one particular
difference which demands further consideration at this point.
"Those who heard John would not
have failed to recognise the familiar prophetic call to repentance. But in
response to his preaching John called for an action which was wholly novel
–baptism in the Jordan River. It has been conjectured that John's baptism
was derived from the Jewish practice of baptising proselytes, or from the
rites of initiation practised at Qumran. No clear line of dependence can
be shown in support of these theories. Baptism appears rather as a unique
activity of this prophet, a prophetic sign so striking that John became
known simply as 'the Baptizer.'
The Gospelof Mark, Marshall Morgan and Scott 1974, p 49.
RT France makes a similar point: "Johnis
introduced abruptly, distinguished by his regular title, the Baptist
, (so also Mark, Luke and Josephus), since he was apparently the first to
baptise others(proselyte baptism and the 'baptisms' at Qumran were self-administered
)"Matthew, IVP 1985, commenting on v 1 (p 90). See
also his comment on vv 5,6: "John's baptism was an innovation. The nearest
contemporary parallels are the self-baptism of a Gentile on becoming a proselyte,
and the repeated ritual washings (also self-administered) at Qumran."
(italics added).
France also notes two other important distinctions.
Referring to proselyte baptism and the 'baptisms' of Qumran he observes,
"Neither accounts adequately for John's baptism, which was apparently
a once-onlyrite, administered by John in the river; and neither carried
the noteof urgent preparation for the coming crisis which was the main point
of John'sbaptism. John's 'converts' were not seeking ceremonial purification,
but'fleeing from the wrath to come' (v 7). Their baptism was a token
ofrepentance…"Matthew, IVP 1985, p 91.
(italics added).
Beasley-Murray points out that the word
baptism a (baptism) used in connection with the baptism of John "appears
for the first time in the NT. No instance of its occurrence in pagan and
Jewish literature has yet been found. In view of the fact that its earliest
employmentis for the baptism of John, it could conceivably have been coined
by John's disciples. More plausibly, it is a Christian innovation, and was
applied by Christian writers to John's baptism in the conviction that the
latter shouldbe bracketed with Christianity rather than with Judaism. It
is often affirmedthat baptismos denotes the act of immersion and baptism
a includesthe result… Of this there is no evidence. It is more likely
that baptisma was formed on the analogy of its Heb. equivalent t
ebilah. Apart from the general preference of Jewish Christians
for Gk.terms phonetically similar to Heb. equivalents, it may well have
been adoptedby them to express their consciousness that Christian baptism
was a new thingin the world, differing from all Jewish and pagan purificatory
rites (soYsebaert,op. cit., 52)"– italics added.ho baptistes
(p 150) he says"ho baptistes is the surname given in the NT, above
all in the SynopticGospels to John the Baptiser (e.g. Matt 3.1). It draws
attention to the characteristicelement in his ministry, namely the demand
for repentance-baptism, and still more the novelty of administering baptism
to others, instead of leaving them to baptise themselves, as happened with
allOT ablutions and in Jewish proselyte baptism."
- John's baptism
and Christian baptism
RA Cole states: "John's baptism
was not Christian baptism, nor was it associated with the gift of the Spirit(see
Acts 19.2, where disciples of John are re-baptised by Paul, as being ignorant
of the very existence of the Spirit, and as not having been baptised in the
name of Jesus). But note also that there is no evidence for the re-baptism
of those disciples of the Lord who had previously been John's disciples,
and who may thus be presumed to have received his baptism already."
The Gospel According to St Mark, Tyndale 1963, p 57.
This raises a number of questions.
(1) What is the relationship between John's
baptism and Christian baptism? It is clear that the two cannot be equated
for the simple reason that John's baptism was not sufficient for those who
believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. The fact that the two are not equated,
however, does not mean that they are not connected.
(2) What is the relationship between John's
baptism of Jesus and Christian baptism? According to Bultmann it was thepractice
of the early church which provided the basis for the account
of Jesus 'baptism in the Gospels. Jesus' baptism was modelled on the practice
of the early church. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition
, 3rd ed. 1997, pp 263ff, referred to in Beasley-Murray's Baptism in the
New Testament, p 62. The more common view has been that the baptism
of Jesus had a crucial role to play in the development of Christian baptism.
WF Flemington suggests that Jesus' baptism "has exercised a more considerable
influence than has hitherto been recognised upon the origin of the Christian
rite" and further suggests that in the early church Christian baptism was
"the counterpart in the life of the believer of the baptism of Jesus himself".
The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 1948, 121. DM
Baillie writes, "It seems obvious that when the early Christians baptised
into the name of the Lord Jesus, their thoughts went back to that incident
which in the gospel tradition stood immovably at the beginning of His public
ministry – the baptism of Himself by John in the Jordan."The
Theology of the Sacraments, Faber 1957, p 77. According
to Karl Barth it was through his own baptism that Jesus instituted the sacrament
of baptism.The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism
, (trans. EA Payne), SCM 1948, pp ; see DM Baillie, p 77.
The difficulty faced here is "the all but
complete silence of the New Testament writers concerning this supposed relationship
between the two baptisms".Baptism in the New Testament
, Paternoster 1972, p 63. There is not a single New Testament writer
who makes any attempt to relate the two. Whether the omission is deliberate
or unconscious it stems, no doubt, from the uniqueness of Jesus' baptism.
His baptism was the baptism of a man who did not need baptism, at least,not
for himself. In his baptism the sinless One was identifying with sinners.
It seems inappropriate to compare his baptism with ours, and may well have
seemed inappropriate to the apostles.
While it may be going beyond the biblical
data to suggest that one baptism is dependant upon the other it is certainly
in keeping within the biblical data to say that there are parallels between
the two baptisms. As Beasley-Murray has put it, there is "a vast difference
between the two experiences, yet there is also a connection between them".
Baptism in the New Testament, Paternoster 1972, p 65.
There are parallels between Christian baptism
and John's baptism, i.e. all his baptisms including the baptism of Jesus.
Jesus' baptism had
an anticipatoryand eschatological element
to it, anticipatingthe great redemptive act of death-resurrection-ascension-parousia;our
baptismhas an anticipatory and eschatological element to it. It is the sign
of ourdeath, resurrection, ascension and glorification.
- The Spirit descended on Jesus at his
baptism.The Spirit is given to those who are baptised in the name of Jesus
for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38).
It should be remembered that these
are parallels and that the parallels are not be taken too far. So forexample
in connection with the last named parallel Beasley-Murray cautionsthat "in
Apostolic teaching the descent of the Spirit at the Messiah's baptismis eloquent
of who He is rather than what Christian baptismis (Acts 10.38;1
John 5.6ff)."Baptism in theNew
Testament, Paternoster 1972, p 66.
Nonetheless the parallels have some significance.
Although Christian baptism, and John's
baptism for that matter, may be attributed to an act of revelation (the command
of Christ in the case of Christian baptism; illumination by God in the case
of John's baptism) they do have a context. There are parallels with Jewish
rituals : the use of water, the symbolism of cleansing, the outward sign
ofan inward disposition; in the case of Qumran and proselyte baptism, the
conceptsof new birth, dying and rising; in the case of proselyte baptism,
the baptismof children along with parents (men and women). These parallels,
however,do not constitute a relationship and they are weaker than the parallels
betweenJohn's baptism of Jesus and Christian Baptism.
There is a sense in which Christian baptism
reflects in a very general sense the baptism of Jesus by John but to talk
about one baptism anticipating the other may be going too far. There is no
explicit connection made in the New Testament between John's baptism and
Christianbaptism, though there is an explicit reference to connect John's
baptismof Jesus with water and Jesus' baptism of his followers with the Holy
Spirit.As stated earlier John's symbolic baptism with water anticipated Jesus'
effectivebaptism with the Holy Spirit. If the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan
anticipatesanything it is the baptism of his people with the Spirit. We can
say thatJohn's baptism with water anticipated Jesus' baptism with the Holy
Spiritwhich is symbolised by baptism with water.
(3) Can we presume that the twelve disciples
of Jesus were given Christian baptism at some point, both those previously
baptised by John and those not baptised by John? Or is it the case that the
baptism of those previously baptised by John was accepted as Christian baptism
when they became disciples of Christ? Those who have suggested this havehad
to explain the fact that the baptism of the Ephesian 'disciples' (Acts19.1-7)
was not accepted as 'Christian'. Hence, RN Longenecker distinguishes between
(i) those whose "baptism by John was seen as pointing beyond itself to Jesus
(as with Apollos)", and (ii) those whose baptism by John "was understoodas
rivalling commitment to Jesus". In his view the baptism of the first group
was regarded as Christian baptism, whereas the baptism of the second group,
e.g. the Ephesians, was not regarded as Christian and, therefore, baptism
"into the name of the Lord Jesus" was administered. The Expositor's
Bible Commentary Vol. 9 (on Acts), Zondervan 1981, p 494.
The difficulty here is that we are dealing entirely with supposition.
We simply do not know whether any or all of the disciples received Christian
baptism. Neither do we know whether those who had been baptised by John were
regarded as having received Christian baptism. We are operating in the realm
of speculation, a realm which cannot contribute to our discussion of therelationship
between John's baptism and Christian baptism. An element ofagnosticism in
this area is appropriate.
Origin of Water Baptism
The Baptism of Children
New Testament Evidence
Extra Biblical Evidence
The Proper Subject of Baptism
The Mode of Baptism
Conclusion
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
|
