Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Baptism


by 19 Comments

Baptism as washing of the body; baptism not as washing of the body

I have been reading Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. In “Chapter Two: Immersion and Purity” she juxtaposes John’s baptism with ritual cleansing at Qumran (e.g., 1QS). She quotes Josephus’ comments about John Antiquities 18.116-117:

(116) Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; (117) for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.[1]

There are similarities between John’s baptism and ritual cleansing in 1QS, namely that both understand baptism to be something that follows the cleansing of the soul, and cleansing of the soul happens through righteous actions: in the case of 1QS obedience to the Law as interpreted by the Teacher; in the case of John as exemplified through virtue, righteousness toward others, and piety toward God. For both John and 1QS the body could be contaminated through unrighteousness, but the soul cannot be cleansed through baptism. So one must first cleanse one’s soul through righteous action, then, and only then, the washing ritual would make one pure in body.[2]

This brought to mind 1 Peter 3:21 where the author states explicitly of baptism that saves that it is “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus”. If most ritual cleansings were for the express purpose of making the body ritually clean so that the body could “catch up” with the soul (if you will), then is 1 Peter aiming to imply a direct contrast? If so, what does this mean for Christian baptism?

[1] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).

[2] For an analogous ritual remember various placed in the Gospels where Jesus and the Pharisees argue over rituals like washing one’s hands before a meal.

About these ads


by 2 Comments

Notes on the Didache (Part 2)

Read Part 1 here.

The Eucharist is central to worship in early Christianity. Over the last month or so I have read the writings of personalities like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch, and Justin Martyr. Each one of them speak of the Eucharist as something that is indispensable. The name “Eucharist” (εὐχαριστίας) means “Thanksgiving”, and the author(s) of the Didache use this word thematically says, “Now, concerning the Thanksgiving (εὐχαριστίας), thus give thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε).” Then God the Father is given thanks (Εὐχαριστοῦμεν) for the wine. Then for the bread God the Father is given thanks (Εὐχαριστοῦμέν).

The meaning of the elements are as follows. The wine is traditionally symbolic of the blood of Jesus. It is a reminder that Jesus is part of the same “holy vine” of King David in the Didache. The bread is traditionally symbolic of the broken body of Jesus. It is a reminder that “life and knowledge” (ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως) come through Jesus in the Didache. The prayer of thanksgiving is directed toward God the Father and Jesus is called “your servant”. The author(s) emphasize that glory belongs to God the Father because of the death of Jesus (9:1-3).

The author writes, “Even as the broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.” This language may echo the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, or something similar, and it contains exile language familiar in the prophets where the diaspora people of God wait for the day when God will collect them from around the world (9:4).

The final words on the Eucharist are important: one who has not been baptized is not to partake, because Jesus said the “the dogs” should not have the “holy things” (interestingly, the Gentile women to whom this was said retorted that dogs do receive crumbs from the table providing a touché moment leading Jesus to answer her request). This statement does not mention the authority of a Bishop like some of the others that I have read recently. It does critique those who would allow the non-baptized to participate (9:5).

The Didache provides instruction for the prayer following the reception of the Eucharist (“when you are filled, give thanks this way”, 10:1). It is a prayer of thanksgiving to God the Father (once again, notably God the Father receives all the direct addresses as concerns the Eucharist) because of the “name enshrined in our hearts” as well as knowledge, faith, and immortality received. God is given thanksgiving for his creation of all things, including food and drink, and now “spiritual” (πνευματικὴν) food and drink. The prayer emphasizes God’s worthiness. Then it transitions to a petition for God to remember his Church (ἐκκλησίας). Some words echo the Lord’s Prayer: “Deliver us from evil” and “For yours is the power and glory forever”. Some of the words are unique, like the petitions to make the Church perfect in love and a restated prayer to gather the Church from around the world.

The final eschatological statement, “Let grace come, and let this world pass away” has interesting eschatological implications. Does παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος mean that the author of the Didache foresaw a day when the time-space continumm would come to an end? What does it mean to ask Jesus to return (μαρὰν ἀθά) if the cosmos are destined for destruction? Or does the author have an eschatological vision more like that of the end of the Book of Revelation where the old cosmos gives way to a new emerging cosmos (explained in Romans 8 as Creation being set free) (10:1-6).

Itinerate teachers are discussed. The instructions given are as follows: First, one should receive a teacher. Second, if the teaching doesn’t fit the tradition received the teacher should be ignored. If the teaching does fit the tradition received then he should be received. Third, the criteria is “the precepts of the gospel concerning all Apostles and Prophets”. Fourth, the author says to accept all Apostles, which is a unique statement because most of the writers I have read from the early church discuss Bishops as if Bishops have replaced Apostles. Either this document is early enough to be speaking of Apostles who exist still, or it is written to portray itself as older than it is, or the author affirmed the continuation of the apostolic office (11:1-4).

Apostles can stay for a few days at a time, lest it appear that these Apostles are mooching from the community, proving the falsity of their Apostleship. This is quite contrary to Paul’s words to the Corinthians that he could receive pay for his work. This must be a situational response to a trend in the early church for people to drain the resources of local communities by pretending to be an Apostle. So the author(s) claim that if an Apostle asks for money, or if an Apostle stays for three days, then this person is not an Apostle at all! All the Apostle can receive is bread and lodging (11:4-6).

There is criteria for true and false Prophets as well. If a prophet speaks in the Spirit (λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι) he shouldn’t be critiqued or judged. Whatever it means to “speak in the Spirit”, this isn’t a pure qualification for being a Prophet. Someone could “speak in the Spirit” and not be a Prophet. The Prophet must accompany his/her speech with “the ways of the Lord” (τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου). This is likely the Way of Life described earlier in the document. In other words, true prophets are the most upright morally. Finally, true prophets do not eat a meal “ordered in the Spirit” (), whatever this means?! False prophets are known by their actions. False prophets do not “practice what they preach”. False prophets may eat of this meal “ordered in the Spirit”. The true Prophet does what he does, doesn’t teach how he does it, and doesn’t act for money while false prophets are the opposite (11:7-12).

In my next post on the Didache I will post noted on the rest of the document.

Read the Didache in English or Greek.


by 14 Comments

Notes on the Didache (Part 1)

These are some notes on the Didache:

holyapostles_icon

The Meeting of the Apostles

The Didache presents two “ways” or “paths” (δύο ὁδῶν) from which one can choose. The early Christian movement called itself “the Way” at the beginning, so this appears to be juxtaposing Christianity with non-Christianity. In other words, there is not a third, fourth, or fifth option for the author. The first way is “Life” and the second way is “Death” (1:1).

The Way of Life is based on Jesus’ teaching that to love God is the greatest commandment and to love neighbor is the second greatest commandment (1:3-4).

Jesus’ teachings about loving one’s enemy is the first thing the author discusses as relates to loving one’s neighbor. Christians are to engage in the positive actions of praying and fasting for enemies, turning the other cheek, going the “second miles”, giving away one’s coat, and refusing to require interest on loans (1:7-17).

The Way of Life exalts the one who gives and humbles the one who takes. This shouldn’t be interpreted as humbling the one who takes in need, but the one who seeks to amass possessions for one’s self (1:18-23).

To love one’s neighbor means to avoid things like murder, adultery, corrupting youth, fornication, stealing, magic, sorcery, abortion, infanticide, coveting, false witness, speaking evil, holding a grudge, being double-minded, being double-tongued, using empty word not supported by subsequent action, plundering, hypocrisy, having an ill-temper, being proud, planning evil things against another, and even hating a single person (οὐ μισήσεις πάντα ἄνθρώπον). One can reprove their neighbor, pray for their neighbor, and one must love their neighbor more than one loves one’s self/life (οὓς δὲ ἀγαπήσεις ὑπὲρ τὴν ψυχήν σου) (2:1-7).

The Johannine-like address “my child” appears (τέκνον μου) on several occasions. Christians (or, those on the Way of Life) must avoid every evil and everything that resembles evil including anger, murder, jealousy, wrath, lust, fornication, foul-speaking, pride, omens, idolatry, enchanting, astrology, magic, lying, theft, vainglory, murmuring, blasphemy, selfishness, or thinking evil thoughts. All of these actions are categorized under things that produce murder, adultery, idolatry, theft, and blasphemy. Christians must be meek, long-suffering, full of pity toward others, guileless, quiet, kind, cautious with words, free of self-exaltation, righteous, humble, and able to receive all things as good from God, even negative things (3:1-16).

Christians must honor those who speak the words of the Lord. The other saints must be honored as well. Schism and schismatics must be avoided. Righteous and equal judgment must be administrated. There must be a posture of giving rather than receiving. There must be a willingness to share one’s possessions. This willingness to give must be shown to all people. There should be no respect of persons because Christ will return not for people of a particular social standing, but for those “whom the Spirit has prepared” (ἐφ’ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν). Nevertheless, servants are to be subject to Masters as to God (as stated in the canonical epistles). There is this sense in which the Gospel transcends the social structures, yet the Church does not attack the social structures directly, aiming to address those of lower classes with dignity, directing them to do their work as to God (4:1-16).

Christians cannot ignore the Lord’s commandments, or live as hypocrites, passing along the received teachings without addition or subtraction. Christians should confess transgressions to each other, praying without evil on their conscious (4:17-19).

These things mentioned above are the Way of Life (4:20). The Way of Death includes evil, murder, adultery, lust, fornication, theft, idolatry, magic, witchcraft, plundering, false witness, hypocrisy, double heartedness, treachery, pride, malice, stubbornness, coveting, foul-speaking, jealousy, and bold and boastful attitude, self-exaltation, persecuting good people, hating truth, loving lies, not understanding the rewards of righteousness, not “cleaving” to the good, not judging righteously, and attentiveness to evil rather than good. Those who walk in this way are not gentle or forbearing, but love vain things, pursue recompense, show no pity to the poor person, avoid helping those who have hard tasks before them, ignore the Creator of humanity, murder children, corrupt “creatures of God” or “things formed by God” (φθορεῖς πλάσματος θεοῦ), advocate for the wealthy, mistreat the poor, sinful (5:1-5).

This list of do’s and don’ts can be overwhelming. The author says that if one can do these things, one will be perfect. If not, “do what you are able.” One can eat what one wishes to eat, but meat offered to idols should be avoided. Idols are “dead gods” (θεῶν νεκρῶν) (6:2-6).

Baptism begins with a recital of all the things to which the baptized is committed to doing and not doing (those things listed above). Then the one being baptized should be baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in running (“living”, ζῶν) water. The water should be cold as well. If there is no running water, other bodies of water will work, and if there is no cold water, warm water is permitted. If there is nothing like this available then water can be poured on the head of the person being baptized three times “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Candidates for baptism and the one to do the baptizing should fast prior to the event. If others can join, then others should fast as well. This should be done a day or two prior to the event (7:1-7).

Fasting (prior to baptism, but likely for other occasions as well) should not be done “like the hypocrites”. Whoever might be the “hypocrites” they are described as fasting on the second and fifth day of the week. Maybe this is a day when people expected religious folk to fast, and those who appear to be fasting are easily noticed because they look and act a certain way on a given day. Christians should fast on other days to avoid this association, namely the fourth and sixth days of the week (8:1-2).

Prayer ought to follow the pattern of the “Lord’s Prayer”: Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name, your Kingdom come, your will be done, as in heaven, so as on earth. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us of our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For your’s is the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen.” This is to be prayed three times, daily (8:3-11). This version of the Lord’s Prayer alongside the baptismal formula would seem to indicate reliance on the Gospel of Matthew.


by 6 Comments

Re-baptism for former Oneness Pentecostals?

Although I have been away from Oneness Pentecostal circles for about seven years I continue to receive emails from people on this movement on occasion. Usually they come from people who have recently departed from Oneness Pentecostalism who seek to understand their new identity outside the sect. Sometimes they remain within the movement, but they are entertaining doubts about its teachings and practices. I do not reveal the identity of people who contact me because I know for many their decision to leave will have/has had a major impact on their family relations, their friendships, and even their identity as Christians. It can be a turbulent time when you leave a group that shares such an “us-against-the-world” identity. If you leave you are part of “the world.”

One of the most common questions I receive is “Should I be rebaptized?” There are two common reasons given: (1) Oneness Pentecostals baptize “in Jesus name” according to Acts 2.38 as a polemic against the Trinitarian baptism of Matthew 28.19. The sectarian motivation of this baptism concerns some when they begin to embrace the catholic church. (2) Some sense that they were coerced into being baptized. Maybe they were told that if they died that night without having been baptized ‘in Jesus name’ (and sometimes if they have not yet ‘spoke in tongues’)  they would go to hell, so they got their ‘fire insurance’ and submitted to baptism without fully understanding its meaning. For others this previous reason may have applied as well, but they add the nuance that they were baptized very young without a full understanding of what was happening.

For some “high-church” types this second concern may not make sense, but you have to remember that Oneness Pentecostals affirm “believer’s baptism” so technically this is the paradigm many former Oneness Pentecostals embrace. The idea of being baptized as a child and confirmed later in life is foreign to them. Since “believer’s baptism” emphasizes individual commitment and an understanding of that commitment you can see why someone who was baptized out of fear or ignorance may sense that their baptism is invalid.

When I am asked whether someone should be rebaptized you must remember that I am an evangelical answering this question. I imagine my Catholic co-blogger JohnDave Medina may have a different answer. I tell people “no” you do not need to be rebaptized, but I can see value in doing so.

I don’t affirm the dichotomy between baptism “in Jesus name” and baptism “in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit” since the “name” has to do with authority and identity and I think Acts 2.38 and Matthew 28.19 are speaking of the same source of authority: the God revealed through Christ. It is apparent from Acts and the Pauline Epistles that being baptized “into Christ” was an early and important idea. Likewise, Matthew and documents like the Didache show that baptism into “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” was important as well. Obviously the nature of doctrinal conflict in the church influenced the emphasis on “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” but I don’t think that nullifies baptism “in Jesus’ name.”

When I received an email on this subject yesterday I replied as such:

I was baptized in Jesus name as a pre-teen for many of the same reasons as you. I have had friends who share our experience who decided to get rebaptized, but I chose not to do it for a few reasons.

First, I think God is bigger than our constructs of time. He doesn’t have an order of salvation like we do. I believe someone could be baptized for all kinds of wrong reasons, come to more real and mature faith later, and God is not worried about which came first. God sees our whole life, not isolated events.

Second, faith doesn’t have to be pure and well-informed to be genuine faith. You may have had an immature ‘I don’t want to go to hell’ faith, but it was in Christ, and it was innocent even if ignorant.

Third, several years from now you will have matured even more in Christ. Will your baptism now need replacement then? Of course not.

That said, if you sense that being rebaptized now would allow you to confess some things (eg, the Trinity, the catholicity of your faith over against Oneness sectarianism) by all means do it, but do it for the present benefits, not because your first baptism was imperfect.

And that about sums up my views on the matter. I have not been rebaptized because I think that my baptism was biblical, it had orthodox meaning (even if it lacked orthodox intent), and God is not limited in time to the moment I was baptized nor to my spiritual maturity or lack thereof. Yet I do understand why being baptized with a fuller understanding could be an experience worth pursuing. I have friends who have done it and being baptized was a refreshing and enlivening event.


by 11 Comments

Michael Bird proposes Dual Baptism

After discussing both Credobaptism and Paedobaptism, Michael Bird proposes Dual Baptism:

Although I started out as a credobaptist and progressed on to becoming a paedobaptist, it is this dual-baptism view that I admittedly gravitate to because I think it allows us to hold together two competing theologies on a non-essential matter of the faith. A dual-baptism position enables us to make sure that baptism, a symbol of the gospel, becomes a means of gospel unity, rather than an occasion for division in the already all too much divided churches. (emphasis mined)

According to Bird, this Dual Baptism is a “third position is for churches to permit both views of baptism, credo and paedo, to be practiced side by side.”  Bird continues,

This policy of dual baptism is held by the Nazarene Church, American Evangelical Covenant Church, Evangelical Free Church, French Reformed Church, and Presbyterian Church (USA). John Bunyan, the Baptist Puritan and author of Pilgrim’s Progress, accepted paedobaptists into fellowship. As far as I know, most paedobaptist
churches do not force congregants to baptize their children, but only refuse to
re-baptize adults, so they are technically open to believer’s baptism.

Bird then proposes six reasons why Dual Baptism “a defensible and even desirable theological stance” to take.  Among these reasons, relying on the author of Hebrews, Bird classifies baptism as “a second tier of elementary Christian beliefs.”

It is this classification that got my attention in light of:

“A dual-baptism position enables us to make sure that baptism, a symbol of the gospel, becomes a means of gospel unity, rather than an occasion for division in the already all too much divided churches.” (emphasis mine)

This Dual Baptism is quite “desirable.”

In fact, since relocating to St. Louis, I’ve found myself in the company of not a few Presbyterian brothers and sisters.

See the full discussion by Michael Bird here and here.


by 21 Comments

Rethinking the Mode of Baptism

Since relocating to Missouri, I’ve had to rethink my own denomination, and now, I’ve also had to rethink the mode of baptism.

I went by Covenant Theological Seminary, which is PCA.  I had the opportunity to visit with Prof. Robert Yarbrough, formerly of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.  He has been at Covenant Seminary for over a year now.  We had just enough time to talk about Infant Baptism.

Prof. Yarbrough was formerly ordained in the Southern Baptist Denomination.  He moved his ordination to Presbyterian Church of America (PCA).  As someone who does missionary work, Yarbrough now reflects with gratitude.  He told me that he has been able to work with not only those who subscribe to Infant Baptism but also with those who subscribe to believer’s baptism.

My Appreciation

Prof. Yarbrough gave me the classic covenant argument for Infant Baptism.  Over the years, I’ve come to appreciate this aspect of the practice. Yarbrough found himself stressing the need to understand covenant theology.  In fact, he recommended three books for me to explore the matter further.

So I went to the bookstore and found a book by Doug Wilson on the subject.  I began to browse through it.

And yes, I’ve come to see that immersion is not the only accepted mode of baptism in the New Testament.  This is clear from how the Baptism of the Spirit is portrayed in the book of Acts (2; 10-11).

My Departure

While I appreciate Prof. Yarbrough’s passionate argument, and that of other Presbyterians that I’ve encountered in St. Louis, there’s a major point of departure that I’ve found.

I get the infant inclusion in covenant through the practice of Infant Baptism (as I said above, I’ve since come to appreciate this).

But when I discovered that a person who was baptized as an infant has no need to be baptized as an adult when he or she comes to faith in Christ because the Infant Baptism counts, my appreciation ended and my departure began.

But I will not belabor the issue here.


by 5 Comments

United with Christ

Upon reading Romans 5–6, one sees that Jesus solved the problem that Adam created by reconciling us to God (Rom 5:10). Christ did this by dying for the ungodly (5:6), and it is implied that all humanity is somehow part of this group (Hurtado [Lord Jesus Christ, 133] notes that chapter 5 is the logical progression of Romans 3-4, in which we find the declaration that all of humanity is under sin [3:9-10]). When Adam sinned, sin found a doorway into the world and all have somehow partaken of sin (5:12). The result of sin is death, which all have experienced by virtue of having partaken of sin (5:14). In contrast, Jesus through his death brought life and grace to humanity (5:15-16). Moo notes that both Adam and Christ are “individuals whose actions affect all who belong to them” (“Christology of Early Pauline Letters,” in Contours of Christology, ed. Longenecker, 176).

We first participate in the new life offered in Christ by faith (5:1). Faith justifies a person, grants peace with God, and offers access to God’s grace and will result in sharing in God’s glory (5:1-2). The response of faith means the response of dying to sin and living in righteousness (6:2, 12-13). This death to sin comes from dying with Christ through baptism (6:3-5); As Hurtado points out, baptism was “widely practiced” among the early Christians (203). Living in righteousness is the result of the choice to live alive in Christ, specifically through the presentation of oneself to God (6:13).

I find it interesting that Romans speaks of unity with Christ as a reality in the present. In 6:5, the verb translated “have been united” conveys an action that has happened in the past with ongoing effects: the effect of the Romans’ unity with Christ continues on even though that unity has already taken place some time ago. When the Romans are exhorted to see themselves as “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus,” the idea is that they are to continually do this. This highlights their justification and unity with Christ that they already had and continue to have (see 1:8 where they are commended for their faith that is “proclaimed throughout the world”).