The Baptism of Jesus Christ
Submitted by tcblack on Mon, 07/23/2007 - 3:00am
I previously mentioned that I was doing some work on Matthew 3:13-17, "The Baptism of Jesus Christ". Over the next few days I'll post a verse by verse analysis of the passage at some depth.
First I want to lead off with a list of 10 baptism blog entries worth reading:
- The Resurgence: Baptism And The Unity Of Christians
Signifiquote:
Among the differences which divide Christians baptism looms very large. Unlike other doctrines and practices of the church our differences on baptism fall along a number of lines at once. We seem unable to agree on any of the following: (1) Mode of baptism. (2) Proper candidates for baptism. (3) Proper administrators for baptism. (4) Effects of baptism.
Most agree on only two things: baptism requires water, and baptism is appropriate at the outset (in some sense) of the Christian life. Apart from these marginal agreements the word "baptism" is a symbol without meaning—and this after 2000 years of use! Looked at in this way, "baptism" bears all the earmarks of a grand tragedy. No wonder a few groups have ignored it altogether.
Signifiquote:
By the late second century an elaborate process had developed leading into baptism including:... [Just go read it, the whole thing is significant]
Signifiquote:
The first thing scientists look for when exploring the solar system is for any evidence of water. Without water there is no life. So it is fitting that God uses something as ordinary but at the same time so rare in the universe as water as a vehicle to convey to us His invisible grace.
Signifiquote:
I think the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 defines baptism beautifully. “We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life.”
...
In your view, is there hope for unity on such an issue that has long divided the church?
We never know what it might please God to do. So we should always remain optimistic that more light will dawn on the church. Probably no one living in the 1400s imagined that a Reformation would occur in the 1500s! It is also possible that a difference of opinion will persist until Jesus comes. On the one hand, we need to love our fellow-believers who differ with us. On the other hand, we need to teach that any deviation from biblical truth has significant consequences.
Signifiquote:
The majority of people have a different objection. They are troubled in heart about what being baptized as a believer implies about their parents, earlier church affiliation, and judgment that someone is in error. In other words, they don't want to appear to be saying something critical, ungrateful, or uncharitable about their loved ones who raised them or churches they're fond of.
Signifiquote:
What I am arguing is that a good deal of water has been shipped by both Baptists and Paedopbaptists when it comes to their theology of baptism, and we need to return ad fontes (yes, the baptismal font) and rethink some of these things in the light of Scripture and earliest Christian practice, rather than in the light of much later Christian squabbles about baptism, especially those generated by the Reformation.
(Amazon link to Ben's book: Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism
Signifiquote:
The act of baptism was extremely important to the early church. They didn’t wait. They immediately baptized. It was more than just symbolism. We see that baptism represented a formal invitation or membership to the church and thus one’s identity as a Christian. This act was not taken lightly in the days of the early church because once you became a Christian; there was a good chance of persecution. Therefore, the act of baptism could also be considered the new believer’s first act of faith – personally identifying with Christ whom the world hated and killed.
Signifiquote:
Of course, I’ve come to expect Christians not to think logically about many things.
Signifiquote:
Pelagius’ denial of original sin always had one great weakness: the universal practice of infant baptism, which was too embedded in church life for him to overthrow. But why baptize babies if original sin didn’t exist? Citing the very verse that the orthodox used to insist on the necessity of baptism (“No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit,” John 3:5), Pelagius granted the point but then made a distinction between the kingdom of God (for access to which baptism is required) and what he called eternal life, which, he claimed, unbaptized infants enjoy by virtue of their having immortal souls.
...
Saint Augustine was so strident in his total opposition to Pelagianism that he insisted that all the unbaptised infants were destined for Hell. The harshness of this position virtually required the Church over time to surmise that there must be a place between Heaven and Hell to contain these little ones; hence the theological construct known as Limbo.
Signifiquote:
Two long time friends were walking in the cool of the morning discussing the mode of baptism. Both had graduated seminary at the same time, moved to the same town, and each started their ministries there: One a baptist - the other an anglican...
Oh and just in case you've never seen the infamous "Cannonball Baptism":
Now it's your turn. Care to weigh in on the significance, practice or history of baptism? Or do you know of any killer posts I missed? Post below...
Comments
Just jumping in here but
Just jumping in here but have you written on the connections between Christian immersion with the Red Sea crossing and with the healing of Naaman's leprosy? Or with the Mikvah which had become a large part of Judaism by the time of Christ?
I have noticed that Romans 10:13 is a favorite conversion passage to call people to make a confession of faith (in prayer) and be saved. Why do you suppose the connection between the Apostle Paul's own "calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16) with his teaching in Romans 10 about others who call on the name of the Lord?
It seems strange to me that Romans 10 amounts to an argument against the place of immersion in the conversion process when we know that Paul's own "calling" occurred in the context of his immersion.
Appreciate your discussion.
Randy
No. In this series I adhere
No. In this series I adhere strictly to the baptism of Jesus Christ and the textual / interpretational issues of this specific passage.
AFAIK the connections between baptism and some of it's historical counterparts (?)in the OT are based more upon conjecture rather than solid fact. Of course I'm not including the specific New Testament references to such like Noah and the Ark (1 Peter 3:20-21). Regarding the rest, I get uneasy with conjecture as it has the nasty habit of forming convictions which may later need to be rearranged.
Paul's calling (from God) came on the dry road to Damascus. His calling (From God) came before hands were laid upon him in a dry ceremony. It was not until after his salvation that Paul was baptized. Now then, in Acts 22 the convergence of prayer (Paul calling out to God), baptism and the washing of sins is no different than that which Peter declared on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). The reason for the convergence is not that baptism is required for salvation; rather that it is an outgrowth of redemption. Never its cause.
That is the reason why Jesus could proclaim to the thief on the cross, "today you'll be with me in paradise". Jesus did not set aside a baptismal requirement for salvation for that man, to do so would be unjust and sinful. Indeed, by publicly requesting remembrance by Jesus the thief was performing the function of baptism which is identification with Christ.
Even Romans 10 indicates public declaration as a part of salvation. The church has done wrong to separate Baptism so far away from the "prayer of salvation". The early church would have found the idea reprehensible for one is naturally a reflection of the other.
I agree that the church has
I agree that the church has widely separated what had been a unified experience in confession of faith, repentance and baptism.
One thing I would like some more clarity on is what you wrote about Paul's salvation.
"It was not until after his salvation that Paul was baptized."
This would mean that Saul, having already been "saved" was told by Ananias to call on the name of the Lord in baptism for the washing away of his sins?
Help me out here Thomas.
And regarding the theif on the cross: Did Jesus have power on earth to forgive sins? Could he not speak forgiveness and it be so?
Why would Peter teach people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins in order that they might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit?
And was it not after they had believed him and been baptized that Luke says the Lord added them to the disciples?
If one is buried with Christ through baptism into death and risen though faith... how are those buried with Christ who do not accomplish this through baptism? Romans 6
And if the explanation of how we are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ is that "for all of us who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ" in Galatians 3:26, 27? How are others "clothed with Christ" and "sons of God through faith"?
And if our circumcision done by Christ is described as occurring "having been buried with Him in baptism...risen... through faith in the power of God..." Colossians 2:11-12, then how or in what event or context are others circumcised by Christ and where is this promised?
We are saved by grace through faith to be sure. This grace was received, with a couple of exceptions, by faith in the gift of God in the context of immersion in the conversions recorded in the Bible.
I do not believe that God will reject those who have approached Him in faith.
I do, however, wish we could restore baptism to its place in the conversion process. After all, Peter did mention the "baptism that now saves you...it saves you by the resurrection of Christ." 1 Peter 3:21, 22
God Bless!
I see your point regarding
I see your point regarding Paul. I've always looked at his response on the road "who are you Lord" being the beginning of his recognition of Christ as Lord. But surely Ananias' instructions were instructive. Therefore in Paul's case the baptism and salvation would be convergent as you stated.
The thief on the cross: yes Jesus could and did do that but salvation does not come in different ways and means to different people. Jesus was not bending any rules in speaking that forgiveness he responded identically as he has to every expression of personal faith since that moment. I would hold that the thief's public confession played the role of baptism - public declaration of faith in Jesus.
Peter taught repentance and baptism consistent with Christ's command, public identification with Christ must accompany the internal acceptance of Christ. In reality this should play no surprise as internal acceptance will and should generate external transformation.
There are no instances of baptism in scripture which break the rules of salvation by grace through alone. The role of baptism has been sidelined to something that only "qualified converts" can perform. But the reality of the matter is that there are no self qualified converts. The baptism is a testimony that Christ has qualified and cleansed. It is, in Peter's words the washing of water of regeneration.
Moreover baptism, whatever else it may be, is an act of obedience. It is not possible to be filled/controlled by the holy spirit when living in a state of disobedience. Thus baptism is seen preceding the filling of the Holy Spirit.
I also encourage immediate baptism, but I feel the need to guard against baptismal regeneration as a doctrine. If it doesn't work in every circumstance in scripture - it doesn't work.
I once heard it said that there is a deathbed conversion in the Bible (the thief) that we might have hope, but there is only one that we might not be arrogant and count upon it. (source?) Perhaps this is where the thief on the cross comes in relation to baptism. There is a conversion in scripture demonstrating that baptism does not save but there is one (more I can't think of) that we might not forget how sacred God has made it.
That is some good thinking.
That is some good thinking. '
I wish we could restore the mode or event without diminishing the meaning of the initiative, power, and finished (and finishing) work of Christ. Baptism is beautiful when understood in its right context.
The thief's faith was exactly what God desires / requires as he had also of Abraham. Like Naaman (2 Kings 5), the people at Pentecost were told to express that saving faith by immersion in water. The connection being that Naaman had physical uncleanness removed by God in the context of his response of faith when he dipped in the Jordan seven times. The sinner has his spiritual uncleanness removed in a similar way. The Jordon didn't take away Naaman's leprosy nor does the baptismal font take away our sin. In both cases God is pleased to remove our uncleanness because we put our faith in Him.
Two peculiar divergences from this practice which Peter commanded in Acts 2:38 are:
1) When Philip went to the Samaritans. They were baptized and did not receive the Holy Spirit.
2) When Peter went to the Gentiles. They received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism.
What is interesting about these two situations? Does there appear to be a reason why God would want to shake things up a bit in these two cases?
How welcoming will the Jerusalem Church be to Samaritans being allowed into the group? Or how welcoming will they be to these uncircumcised Gentiles? Contrary to a common belief, Cornelius and his family were not the first Gentile converts. They were the first uncircumcised converts.
One explanation of the two exceptions to the way Peter had been teaching people to respond to the Gospel is that God wanted to make it clear that He had accepted these converts.
The Apostles had to go to Samaria (Acts 8) to lay hands upon them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. This becomes a seal of approval for their entrance into the church.
When the Holy Spirit filled Cornelius' household there could be no doubt that God was saying "these guys are O.K. with ME." Peter confirms this intention of God in Acts 15:8.
Notice that Peter commands them to be baptized anyway! For remission of sins? Not according to Peter in Acts 15. God had already purified their hearts by faith. Was it that they might receive the Holy Spirit? No. They had already received it. These are the very reasons Peter preached that people should be baptized, they are already true for these disciples, and yet Peter tells them to anyway!
Why? All I can surmise is that this is the way Peter has been doing it. For him baptism was an integral part of the conversion process and the remission of sins and the receiving of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. So naturally he would think that was the right thing to do.
But God is free to do as He wills. If He chooses to teach us His will though these anomalies, well, He has that right. These should not be considered normative, but rather, exceptions.
God is still free today! God may save however He wills. God can change His mind about things, or at least it will appear to us that He has. God can still fill someone with the Holy Spirit and save them apart from baptism. But if this happens to someone, I would suggest following Peter's command to get baptized anyway, even if it is just because he said so.
I believe much of the division between brothers regarding this issue is caused by trying to nail someone's salvation down to a specific point in time. If one dies in Baptism and yet lives by the Spirit of Christ and raised by His faith in the power of God, etc... Then Baptism is the scene of a new birth. However, birth is not the beginning, is it? Most of us make this argument against abortion. A baby is a baby before birth and there is life before birth.
To reflect back on the comments I had made about Paul's salvation, I wanted to highlight the role of baptism in his conversion to show its connection with his promise that those who call on the Lord will be saved. He was told to call on the name of the Lord in Baptism to have his sins washed away.
However, if one were to begin arguing about what would have happened to Paul's soul had he been killed on the way to Damascus or if he fell and broke his neck getting into the water... You must know how these kinds of hypothetical questions go. Would we then determine that He was yet unsaved?
Two things.
1) If we have to argue that he would be unsaved then we are probably struggling with legalism.
2) If we argue that because we believe he would be saved we should then scrap Biblical baptism then we have a dangerous way of determining doctrine.
Again, in our doctrine of baptism as all doctrines, let's just try to understand what the Bible expressly teaches and follow it with humility; yearning for a spirit of unity and love above all things.
God Bless Brother, I enjoy these conversations very much.
I think you're missing
I think you're missing Peter's role. Jesus did indeed give Peter the keys to the kingdom when Peter made the great confession (Matthew 16:16-19). If you simply follow Peter through the first half of Acts you see that it is he who must "unlock" the door to salvation for each new group.
First in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14-ff)
Second in Samaria (Acts 8) Peter has to go after Philip and unlock the door for them to recieve the Spirit.
Third among the Gentiles (Cornelius' house Acts 10) Peter speaks the gospel and upon their response they recieve the Spirit of God. The self-same Spirit which in Matthew 16 revealed the true identity of the Christ to Peter.
Now, look at the stunning pattern replecated in the first part of Acts, replicated from Jesus' words in Acts. From Israel to the Samaritans to the Gentiles.
Peter's role does much to explain the events of Acts.
He already has. God does not change his method of salvation. There is no other name ... by which men must be saved. Be careful that you do not back yourself into a corner opening up the option that God might be saving in some other way. No, God has always and will always save only through Jesus. The "anomalies" of scripture are indicators to the true core of salvation. The great error of Bible teachers is trying to slice and dice it to the point of ignoring what is plainly written.
As we have both noted, this has happened in the separation of baptism from the prayer of repentance and salvation.
I appreciate your exposition
I appreciate your exposition of Peter's role in the witness to the Gospel that Jesus said would go out from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, and to the utter most parts of the earth. That is a good observation. I'm not sure it changes the implications I mentioned in the previous comment about the role God was playing in the different conversion experiences. Peter specifically says in Acts 15:8 that God was showing His acceptance of these uncircumcised Gentiles when he poured out His Spirit upon them. Since God had not done this since Pentecost, as far as is recorded by Luke, it reveals God's liberty in regard to the circumstances of one's conversion. Though, you are right in highlighting the common thread throughout all conversions and that is faith in Jesus Christ.
One observation I would add to your insightful comment about how Peter's presence in each ministry is connected to Jesus' commission to him about the keys to the Kingdom, is this:
Their is a fascinating series of three individual conversions after the mass conversions of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. They are: the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul of Tarsus, and the Centurian Cornelius.
Each of these individual conversions were hand chosen by God and God worked in a special way in each of them. The Angel of the Lord told Philip to go out to the Ethiopian eunuch. Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. God told Peter that he should go to Cornelius' house.
The eunuch was an Ethiopian, Saul was a Jew, and Cornelius was a Roman.
Here's the kicker:
The sons of Noah were sent:
Ham to Cush (North Africa) = Ethiopians
Shem stayed in the Middle East = Shemites / Semites / Jews
Japheth to Europe = Rome
The "uttermost parts of the earth" has to do with bringing the children of the sons of Noah back together in Christ!
By faith, of course. Yet, all of them were baptized in connection with their confessions of faith.
Hope this blesses you.
Cool! I've never noticed
Cool! I've never noticed that. I'll definitely file that observation away somewhere for later use. Hmmm, I guess it's filed away right here. :-)