Biblical Baptism Revisited (part XV)

In Conclusion

It is not the argument here that there could not be any reference to a baptismal water ceremony in the Matthew 28 text.  There may have been, but in the light of the various arguments above, my suggestion is that at best any reference to a water ceremony was by way of allusion.  It is acknowledged that there was a baptismal water ceremony that had become well known just prior to and during the ministry of Jesus.  When his disciples heard Jesus utter the words of Matthew 28: 19, 20 in whatever language, they may have had the baptismal water ceremony brought to mind.  It is also acknowledged that there was a baptismal water ceremony that had become well known during the ministry of the early disciples post the resurrection of Jesus and it was expected that new disciples be baptised in such a ceremony.  When the early readers of Matthew’s Gospel came across the text of Matthew 28: 19, 20, the use of “baptizo” may well have brought to their minds that water ceremony.

However what has been argued above is that when Jesus says, “immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” he is primarily making a reference to something like “enveloping them in all that pertains to, submerging them under the governorship of,  the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Such an understanding tightly connects “make disciples” with “teaching them all to observe all that I have commanded” in the Matthew 28: 19, 20 text and eliminates the problems associated with understanding the text in the traditional manner.  Without denying its value, the baptismal water ceremony need not be viewed as an obligatory ceremony, commanded by Jesus to be performed by his disciples, and as such seen to be a peculiar attachment to the gospel of grace.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part XIV)

Matthew 28: 19, 20 – Understanding the Text (continued)

Returning to “baptising them in the name of …” what do we understand by the phrase, “in (or into) the name of”?  According to Ferguson, the Greek expression “into the name of” as used in antiquity commonly occurs in commercial and legal contexts and refers to “into the ownership or possession of someone, though he suggests that perhaps the phrase in Matthew has more in common with the Hebrew phrase, “into the name of” and supports the idea that the notion is, “with reference to”[1].  The reality is that it is too prescriptive to demand that the phrase should be precisely understood one way or another.  However, let us take on both these ideas but attach them to a metaphorical understanding of “baptizo”.  To immerse someone with reference to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit could imply to thoroughly engulf them, saturate them, with all that pertains to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  That is, to thoroughly teach those who are to be made disciples all that Jesus taught about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit – “teaching” being the next participle in the statement.  To immerse someone into the ownership or possession of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit would imply submerging them under the governorship of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; that is, to bring about, for those who are to be made disciples, their coming under the complete authority of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit – the authority of Jesus being implicit in the next phrase, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”.  Just as there is only one name, there is only one undivided authority. And coming under that one authority would necessitate having been taught all about those with that authority – especially all about him to whom all authority in heaven and earth had been given (v. 18)  He had been given all authority (v. 18), becoming his disciple would involve coming under his authority (v. 19a), being “enfolded” in the name entailed coming under the authority of that name (v. 19b) and being taught to observe all that Jesus had commanded could not but imply coming under the authority of Jesus (v. 20). Authority permeates vv. 18 to 20.  There is little conceptual room available for reference to ceremonial observance!

A metaphorical understanding of “immersing” (the use of that word involves a translation and not the transliteration, “baptising”), reveals a strong linkage between the imperative, “make disciples” v. 19 and the requirement of “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” of v. 20.  The idea that a water baptismal ceremony is what is solely in mind in the use of “baptizo” accepts by comparison a weaker connection between “make disciples” and “teaching them …”.  An outward indication by means of a ceremony is not in itself being taught – the essence of becoming a disciple is.

---

[1] Op. cit., pp. 135, 136

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part XIII)

Matthew 28: 19, 20 – Understanding the Text

How then can we defensibly understand Matthew 28: 19, 20?

To begin with, it may be helpful to remember that the actual imperative belongs to “make disciples”, with “baptising” along with “going” and “teaching” being participles.  The emphasis is on making disciples.  “Baptising” should then be understood as involved in some way with making disciples. One could argue that the sense is that one could not become a disciple unless one was baptised in a baptismal water ceremony but such a conclusion is contrary to the nature of the gospel.  Furthermore, the Ephesians who are only familiar with John’s baptism are referred to as disciples (Acts 19: 1-7), though we recognise that their discipleship must have been limited. And they were baptised again. Though this is not the understanding adopted here, it would be more plausible to suggest that what was implied in Matthew 28: 19 was that a water baptismal ceremony conducted “in the name …” was an outward indication (though only an indication) that one was being made a disciple.  Just as the “going” of the text was not necessary for every person to become a disciple, though it was necessary for people of all nations to become disciples, so it could be argued that a water baptismal ceremony was not necessary for a person to become a disciple though it would be an indication of such.

We also need to reflect on the last participle phrase, “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you.”  This seems very much like what is involved in persons being made disciples.  Becoming a disciple of Jesus would undoubtedly involve being taught what he had taught and coming under his authority and the authority of what he had taught.  And coming under his authority implied observing what he had taught.  That is, the last participle phrase seems like a fairly explicit exposition of the imperative, “make disciples”.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part XII)

Matthew 28: 19 – Problems in Understanding the Text as a reference to a Baptismal Water Ceremony (continued)

6. Another argument appealing to the “natural” understanding of Matthew 28: 19 could be along the lines of baptismal water ceremonies having become so well known that any reference to “baptizo” would readily be understood as a reference to the water ceremony unless a very obvious metaphorical usage was being employed. In response: a) There are two references to “baptizo” in the Gospels (Mark 7: 4, Luke 11: 38) which are not metaphorical but which at the same time do not relate to the water baptismal ceremony.  They do however relate to a washing procedure perhaps of a fairly formal nature. b) Before the time when Jesus uttered these words, there is no clear evidence that either John the Baptiser or the disciples of Jesus ever baptised in the name of anyone.  While it is true that the baptismal ceremony conducted by John the Baptiser is spoken of as “John’s baptism” in Acts 18: 25 and that certain Ephesian disciples referred to themselves as having been baptised into John’s baptism (Acts 19: 3), this is not necessarily the same as being baptised in or into his name.  Admittedly however, if “in his name” meant something like “coming under the authority of”, that concept could have been involved independently of the phrase being used both with the baptisms conducted by John and those conducted by the disciples of Jesus. c) What is quite novel in the Matthew text however, is its reference to that specific name – the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  There is no precedent for this and the singularity of “name” along with the three persons joined by two “ands” is striking.  The usage of “baptizo” in a simple setting, particularly if water had also been mentioned, might have suggested a water ceremony to a Greek reader of the Gospel. However, the uniqueness of “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, either when heard originally probably in Aramaic or when read later in Greek, might well have alerted the hearers at the time and subsequent Greek readers of the text, viewing the word, “baptizo”, to seeing something other than a reference to a water ceremony.

7. It is significant that Paul, in writing to those Corinthians who had been “sanctified in Christ Jesus”, did not regard literal water baptism to be of considerable importance.  In opposing the view that they belonged to different factions, defined in terms of who baptised them, he wrote, “Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1: 17).  If the Lord Jesus commanded his disciples to carry out literal water baptisms, how odd that Paul considered himself exempt from this commission!  It little helps to say that Paul’s focus was on the problem of how people saw themselves rather than on the ceremony itself.  In addressing that problem he indicates that the water ceremony itself is not the crucial ceremony understood as such by others and that furthermore he does not see carrying it out as one of his essential tasks.

8. Finally, that there should be a water ceremony that Jesus, by implication commanded that his followers had to undergo seems absolutely contrary to the gospel.  It was argued in the “Biblical Baptism” series that most references to baptism and being baptised in Paul’s epistles should be understood primarily metaphorically.  However even if they were not so understood, we do not find Paul in these epistles referring to the necessity of the baptismal water ceremony alongside of his various references to the grace of God.  If he did so, his portrayal of God’s gracious acts alongside the necessity of a human act would constitute an unfathomable clash of concepts[1].

---

[1] The understandably difficult but misunderstood passage in 1 Peter 3: 20 was briefly referred to in the “Biblical Baptism” blog series.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part XI)

Matthew 28: 19 – Problems in Understanding the Text as a reference to a Baptismal Water Ceremony (continued)

4.  There is something odd about the command, if it refers to the necessity of a water ceremony, in that the actual command is for those early disciples to do the baptising rather than for the new disciples to have themselves baptised.  While there are commands in the Acts of the Apostles for people to be baptised, these commands are made by the early disciples and not by the Lord Jesus himself. Of course, it could be argued that implicit in the command of Jesus for the apostles to baptise is the command that people should have themselves baptised.  However the fact remains that though John the baptiser is said to have preached a baptism of repentance (Mark 1: 4, Luke 3: 3) [and proclaimed “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3: 2)], there is no record of Jesus ever commanding people to be baptised.  True, during his ministry, his disciples baptised, though he probably did not (John 3: 22; 4: 1, 2).  What Jesus proclaims however, is, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4: 17); “The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1: 14).  There is no direct word from Jesus commanding that people should undergo a water ceremony.  This is certainly odd, if the water ceremony is indeed obligatory.

5. It might be argued that given the prevalence, as we understand it, of personal washing in the Jewish world in the 1^st century, the “natural” understanding of Matthew 28: 19 would be to see it as a command relating to a water ceremony.  The actual water ceremony of the Acts of the Apostles, however, was distinctly different to these personal washings, washings which sometimes did amount to a complete immersion.  a) Unlike, the ordinary Jewish washing procedures, and indeed Jewish proselyte “baptisms”, the water ceremony of baptism as practised in the Acts of the Apostles (and also by John the baptiser and the disciples of Jesus) was not self administered.  One was baptised by the hands of another. b) Whereas the personal washings were regarded as cleansings from defilement or possible defilement, either actual or ceremonial, the baptism of believers, as portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles was not so regarded.  They did not cleanse from bodily defilement and they did not in themselves bring about any form of cleansing.  Indeed up until the end of the 1^st century A.D. only a couple or so of the approximately 100 known usages of “baptizo” outside of the New Testament, involve the notion of cleansing.  “Baptizo” carries with it the fundamental idea of “immersion” rather than cleansing. c) As far as the Greek language is concerned, “baptizo” is the word used in the New Testament for the ceremony, but “baptizo” is rarely used of Jewish washings in the 1^st century[1] . See below where there are two examples of it being so used in the New Testament. Normally other words, such as “louo”, a word which conveys the fundamental idea of washing, are used. The word “baptizo” generally has a type of intensity or seriousness about it lacking in those other words.  In the world outside of the New Testament “baptizo” was often associated with drowning, sinking, something being immersed for some time, intoxication, or ideas such as being overwhelmed by the likes of taxes, debts or sorrow. Water ceremony baptism was of a very important nature, bespeaking of something very significant not evident in the common Jewish washings. d) Water ceremony baptism was a one off ceremony.  The washings were repeated and for some, specific types of washings occurred daily or even more often.  A “natural” understanding of “baptising” in Matthew 28: 19 in the sense argued above did not exist.

---

[1] In the 2^nd century Justin Martyr used the words “baptizo” and “baptisma” of Jewish washings and this practice seems to have developed over time.  See Ferguson, op. cit., pp. 250, 266-275

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part X)

Matthew 28: 19 – Problems in Understanding the Text as a reference to a Baptismal Water Ceremony

Let us now turn to Matthew 28: 19 and recognise the problems we have if we see the reference to baptism being a reference either solely or primarily a reference to a literal water ceremony.  Some of what I say here has already been referred to in the previous blog series. I will list 8 problems.

1. Given the nature of Matthew’s Gospel it should strike us as odd that at its conclusion it refers to the necessity of a water ceremony.  With the exception of Matthew 21 where a reference is made to John’s baptism, the only other reference to the water ceremony in Matthew is at the beginning of the Gospel in chapter 3 where again it refers to John’s baptism and the baptism of Jesus at that time.  The content of the Gospel after chapter 3 does not prepare the reader to expect a command in chapter 28 that concerns a water ceremony.  It is arguable however that Matthew uses chapter 3 and chapter 28 as types of “book ends” to his Gospel using the crucial notion of “immersion”.  In the water ceremony of chapter 3 all three of the Godhead are referred to when the Father, addresses Jesus as “my Son”, and the Spirit of God descends upon him.  In chapter 28 mention is made again of all three but here “immersion” may be understood to have a metaphorical character (see above and below).   The reference to the promise that Jesus will baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire mentioned in chapter 3 and Matthew’s conclusion in 28: 20 of Jesus promising that he would be with his disciples always may be a further part of the “book end” approach.

2. Though the command refers to “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, any mention of “in the name of” in association with water baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, is only made in terms of “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2: 38; 10: 48) or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8: 16; 19: 5).  To argue that the activity of the Father and the Holy Spirit are to be recognised as associated with the water ceremony and so caught up in “the name of Jesus Christ” or “the name of the Lord Jesus” is to ignore the importance of “in the name of” in the command.  One would expect at least one reference in the Acts of the Apostles to mention “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” if the command of Matthew concerns water baptism.

3. Matthew’s Gospel is the only Gospel that refers to a commandment for a water ceremony to be performed if indeed that is what the commandment is about.  On the other hand, all the Gospels in one way or another refer to the “world wide mission” that is captured in Matthew 28: 19.  If there is a special ceremonial command, given that it would indeed be special, given the rarity if not the entire absence of such commands outside of the Gospels, one might well expect it to be mentioned in all four Gospels.

My next post will be in a week or so time.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part IX)

The Importance of the Baptismal Water Ceremony (continued)

What was meant by being baptised in the name of Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus?  (The words, “Jesus Christ” may have been more suitable for Jews or those familiar with Jewish concepts while the words, “Lord Jesus” may have been more helpful for Gentile Christians.) In principle, a person baptised in his name was making some type of confession that they came under his governorship (see later). They were now attaching their lives to him.  Their lives were now focussed on him; their lives now, it was being acknowledged, depended on him. 

Just as one would give considerable thought before deciding not to have a ring as part of a marriage ceremony where that is the custom so presumably christians would think seriously before deciding not to urge new christians to be baptised.  This would be the case especially if the ceremony being considered genuinely symbolised cleansing and death to an old life, if it was associated with repentance and the forgiveness of sins and if it focussed on the person coming under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and provided that it did not seriously mislead.

Even though sometimes the Acts of the Apostles records a close association in time between the ceremony and the gracious work of God (Acts 2: 38; 8: 14 – 17; 9: 17, 18; 10: 44-48; 19: 5, 6), a tragic mistake that was made in the early days was to believe that the ceremony itself brought about what in fact God graciously gave and could give independently of any ceremony, That mistake is still made by some in our day.

One of course could decide that having people undergo a baptismal water ceremony is in certain circumstances to be avoided.  This could be the case, for instance, where such a ceremony would almost certainly be badly misunderstood, independently of any efforts to educate otherwise, either by those undergoing the ceremony, those witnessing it or both.  Our concern for the truth of the gospel should outweigh our concern for ceremonies.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part VIII)

The Importance of the Baptismal Water Ceremony

The ceremony of baptism should not be treated lightly.  John the baptiser said that God (“the one”) had sent him to baptise with water (John 1: 33).  As mentioned earlier, it could have been understood by him as an enacted sign.  In turn, Jesus thought it important enough to have his disciples baptise.  And after Pentecost, Peter, Philip, Paul and others continued the practice though with a focus that now centred on the resurrected Jesus.

What was its purpose?  What did it signify? For Jews, even if it was not a mimicking of Jewish proselyte baptism, or for anyone, it would have been humbling.  It certainly could act as an indication that you, the newly baptised, were now attached to the one who baptised them or the one in whose name they were baptised.  However there could have been other ways to achieve that end if that was all that was involved. In Paul’s own baptism it is linked with the notion of cleansing. Ananias says to him, “Be baptised and wash away your sin” (Acts 22: 16). John the baptiser may have seen himself as involved in the fulfilling of something like Ezekiel 36: 25 – “I will sprinkle clean water on you and you will be clean.”  The cleansing of the pagan leper Naaman in the river Jordan centuries before may have come to the mind of some.  However, “baptizo” is rarely directly associated with cleansing in the Classical/Hellenistic literature before or at this time. The imagery of being immersed in water bringing about one’s death should not be ignored as another contender and perhaps the main contender for what was being symbolised. You died to your previous way of life, your old allegiances, and for example, whatever earlier understandings of Jesus you had.  Baptism and repentance went hand in hand. You needed to become a new person. Coming out of the water could have been see as symbolic of coming into a new life – of having a new life and adopting a new approach on how to live having repented of the old way of life.  Paul’s reference to being baptised into Christ Jesus … being baptised into his death … buried therefore with him into his death … that as Christ was raised up from among the dead … so also we should walk in newness of life (Rom 6: 3-5) is consistent with this imagery.  This is not to suggest however that Paul was referring solely or mainly to a literal water baptism. The understanding adopted here is that Paul had a metaphorical usage in mind that carried with it something of the symbolism of a literal immersion.  See the previous blog series, “Biblical Baptism”.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part VII)

The Baptismal Water Ceremony in the New Testament (continued)

Indeed, the command uttered by Peter, “Repent and be baptised” (Acts 2: 38) can be considered to be an expression similar in form to the statement, “Marry the girl and give her a wedding ring”.  The giving of a wedding ring is a common feature of many marriage ceremonies. Water baptism was a common feature of the ministry of John the baptiser who saw himself as preparing the way of the Messiah and the ministry of the Messiah himself. And both preached the necessity of repentance. Given the well known association, either directly or indirectly, of a literal water baptism with the Messiah it would have been natural for Peter, in proclaiming the Messiah and the need to repent to say, “And be baptised”. However just as the giving of a ring does not in itself bring about the marriage neither does baptism bring about repentance, but in each situation the two go hand in hand.  One of course is essential; the other is a ceremony accompanying the essential.

What may have began as an enacted sign soon became an established ceremonial custom.  Later, beyond the New Testament period, baptism in one form or another, unfortunately became an established religious rite.

Biblical Baptism Revisited (part VI)

The Baptismal Water Ceremony in the New Testament

In order to understand the place of the baptismal ceremony in the Acts of the Apostles, we need to remember its origins and that in a short period of time it became a well established and well known practice.  John the baptiser may have been mimicking Jewish proselyte washings but clear evidence to that effect is lacking. He claims that the reason behind his coming, baptising with water, is so that “the lamb of God” “might be revealed to Israel” (John 1: 31). Sometime after John began baptising, the disciples of Jesus and perhaps, though not likely, Jesus himself, began to baptise (John 3: 22; 4: 2).  John was a prophet and perhaps baptism was understood by him as an enacted sign, somewhat along the lines of the enacted signs of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 4: 1 – 5: 4; 12: 1 – 11; 24: 15 – 27) and Hosea (Hosea 1: 2 – 9).  It is well attested that great crowds became familiar with what both John and the disciples of Jesus were doing. (See Matthew 3: 5, 6; Mark 1: 5; Luke 3: 7; John 3: 26).  Though to our ears it is an exaggeration, Mark records that, “the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him (John) (Mark 1: 5).  At one time it appeared that Jesus (in reality the disciples of Jesus), was (were) baptising even more disciples than John (John 4: 1). Even before the time of the apostolic period, water baptism associated with either John the Baptiser or Jesus of Nazareth had become a very well known practice in and around the localities in which they ministered.