THE INSTITUTION OF BAPTISM
In view of the fact that Baptism has its immediate origin in the
command of Christ as found in Matthew's Gospel it seemed appropriate to
begin there: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have
commanded"(28.19,20).
An important matter reflecting on the authenticity and therefore
the authority of these words should be noted. Some scholars regard
"the direct institution of Baptism through Jesus a it is recounted
in Matthew 28, (as) historically untenable". The arguments put forward are mostly of a subjective nature. We are satisfied that
the command to baptise is authentic and has its origin in Jesus. Certainly
there is no textual evidence against the verses in question.
Because the traditional understanding of the Commission has been
questioned and various interpretations have been given, it will be
helpful to take a more careful look at the Commission in so far as it
relates to baptism.
1. Disciples
Baptism has to do with the making of disciples. Precisely what the
relationship is between baptism and the making of disciples has been much
debated. Do we make disciples through baptism? Do we baptise those
who have become disciples? This raises an even more fundamental
question.
What is a disciple?
Originally, in the Greek world, a disciple was a man who bound
himself to someone else to acquire practical and theoretical knowledge.
In the Hebrew world a disciple was a man who bound himself to the Torah
with the Jewish rabbi as his teacher of the Torah. This gave rise to a
variety of Rabbinic schools and to rival groups of disciples, each
centred upon a teacher. Within the New Testament the word 'disciples' is
used of (a) the disciples of John the Baptist (Matt 11.2), (b) the
disciples of Moses (John 9.28), (c) the disciples of the Pharisees (Mark
2.18) and (d) the disciples of Jesus. With respect to this latter group
the word is used to describe both an inner group of disciples, i.e. the
Twelve and, in a much looser sense, of a larger group which followed him
during part of his earthly ministry.
It is important to establish that there was a radical difference
between discipleship as it related to Jesus and discipleship as it
operated in either the Greek world or the world of the Rabbis:
"there is a marked difference between a life dedicated to study at
the feet of a Rabbi, in which the aim was an increasing knowledge of the
Law, which would eventually 'qualify' a student himself to become a
rabbi, and the life of the Christian disciple (often not markedly
studious by nature!) called to personal loyalty to Jesus in His
way" (WD Davies). The Sermon on the Mount,
Cambridge 1966, p 133. IH Marshall says much the same
when he observes that discipleship "involved personal allegiance
(to Jesus) expressed in following him and giving him an exclusive
loyalty… Such an attitude went well beyond the normal pupil/teacher
relationship and gave the word 'disciple' a new sense. "The
Illustrated Bible Dictionary vol 1, IVP 1980. The
disciple of Jesus not only learns from Jesus he learns about
Jesus. Whereas in the world of the Jewish rabbi prospective disciples
sought out a teacher, Jesus called his disciples. Becoming a
disciple committed a man not only to a learning process but also to a life
of unconditional sacrifice (Matt 10.37; Luke 14.26f) for the whole of
life (Matt 10.24f; John11.16).Nowhere is this more clear than in Matt
16.24f where Jesus says, "If anyone would come after me, he must
deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." It is well to
remember that Jesus warned of the need for a man or woman to sit down and
count the cost before becoming a disciple.
Too often the word 'disciple' has been defined solely in terms of
its Greek or rabbinic background. The result has been an over-simplistic
equation, i.e. disciple = learner. This has provided a basis for some to
advocate a wholly indiscriminate baptism, both of adults and children,
the only requirement being a willingness to learn and not a
whole-hearted
commitment to Jesus. There is a failure here to recognise that Jesus
poured a whole new meaning into discipleship in so far as it related to
him –as he did with everything he touched. If indiscriminate baptism is
to be a possibility, biblically, we must seek grounds other than the equation, disciple
equals learner.
Of course, there are spurious disciples as there is spurious faith
(John 2.23-25) but there can be no question as to the kind of disciples
Jesus had in mind when he gave the command to "make disciples…baptising
them…".
- make disciples
We must now ask what it means to
make disciples. A number of alternative approaches have been
suggested. According to some we make disciples either by baptising and
teaching them, or by baptising them (with the teaching following). By
that is meant that baptism is the effective instrument in the making of
disciples. The person baptised is a disciple, the person not baptised is
not a disciple. Baptism becomes the crucial thing. Others have argued
that while baptism is not the effective instrument in the making of a
disciple it does have a role to play. The role it plays will depend partly
on whether baptism is primarily an expression of grace or faith.
According to Beasley-Murray "it is when a hearer believes and is
baptised that he becomes a full disciple; which is the same as saying
that a disciple is made such in baptism by faith." The emphasis
here seems to be on baptism as an expression of faith. Moreover baptism
seems to be essential for full discipleship, which
raises the question as to whether it is legitimate to make a distinction
between full and partial discipleship. This would not appear to be the
case according to Jesus' teaching on discipleship which is not at all
conditional on baptism. If on the other hand baptism is primarily an
expression of grace it is not difficult to see how baptism may have a role
to play as a means of grace. We are not made disciples through
baptism but we are assisted in our discipleship through baptism.
There is another
approach possible. Those who have embraced a strong doctrine of
the grace of God may struggle a little in coming to terms with a
commission which lays upon them the responsibility of making disciples. It
would be difficult to quibble with such people when they insist that it is
God and not man who makes disciples. We can however respond in two ways.
In the first place we can point out that we are "workers together
with God" (1 Cor 3.9; 2 Cor 6.1). There is a strong element of mystery in
so many aspects of our labouring for God, e.g. in the ministry
of preaching. So, at the very least, we can say that God uses his people
in the making of disciples. In the second place we can point out that for
the Reformers our contribution to the making of disciples was in fact
through the preaching of the Gospel. John Calvin states, "The Lord,
when he sent out the apostles, gave them the command to preach the Gospel and
to baptise those who believe unto forgiveness of sins (Matt
28.19)." Institutes of the Christian Religion
IV 6, Westminster Press 1977, Vol 2, p1058. See also JM Boice, Foundations
of the Christian Faith , IVP 1986, p 653: "Jesus not only
commands us to evangelise, he also tells us how to do it. First, we are
to make disciples of all nations. We are to preach the Gospel to
them so that through the power of the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit
they are converted from sin to Christ and there after follow him as
their Lord…"
On this basis it is
simply assumed in the Great Commission that disciples are made through
the proclamation of the Gospel which is received through faith. As
Beasley-Murray rightly observes: "the kerygma precedes the didache,
the offer of grace before the ethics of discipleship, and it is when the
gospel of grace is received that the ethics of gratitude may be learned
and applied. "Baptism in the New Testament,
Paternoster 1962, pp 89f. So, those who become disciples, through
the proclamation of the gospel, are then baptised, and after they are
baptised they devote themselves to the teaching of the apostles. That is
precisely the pattern we find on the very first occasion that the Great
Commission was put into operation, as recorded in the Book of Acts: the
preaching of the Gospel, the response of faith, baptism, devotion to the
apostles' teaching (2.14-47). Unless we adopt the position that the
apostles misunderstood Jesus and got it wrong we must conclude that the
correct exegesis of Matthew 28.19 is to be found in Acts 2. The apostles
were certainly in a better position to rightly understand Jesus' meaning
than we are two thousand years later!
What was true on the Day
of Pentecost was true throughout the New Testament era. How did the
apostles make disciples of the Gentiles (i.e. the nations)? They did so
by preaching the Gospel. The Lord told Ananias concerning Saul,
"This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the
Gentiles…and before the people of Israel"(Acts9.15).It was this
same man, Saul become Paul, who subsequently cried out, "Woe tome
if I do not preach the Gospel" and who also informs us that he hardly baptised anyone (1 Cor 1.14). That is not to detract from the
importance of baptism but to emphasise that in Paul's view it was not the
essential thing in making disciples.
- in the name of (eis to
onoma)
While there is
nothing explicit in Matthew's Great Commission which adds decisively to
our understanding of the essential meaning of baptism we have
discovered that baptism is inseparably bound up with costly
discipleship. It is for those who are committed, without reserve, to the lordship
of Christ. We have also considered the commission as it was understood and
implemented by the Twelve in the Book of Acts, i.e. the
pattern in Acts anticipated by this commission: the proclamation of the
Gospel, the response of faith, baptism, forgiveness, the gift of the
Spirit, and devotion to the apostles' teaching. Baptism is inseparable
from these ingredients. Moreover it is clear that the making and baptising
of disciplesis unaffected by distinctions of race or nationality, and
that the inclusion of 'all nations' is the fulfillment God's promise to
Abraham and the outworkingof his covenant purposes.
We can now go one step
further and consider the significance of baptism "in the name of".
The first thing for consideration is the use of the phrase in Rabbinic
literature. Beasley-Murray gives three illustrations taken from
Strack-Billerbeck .Baptism inthe New Testament ,
Paternoster 1972, pp 90f; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testamentaus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. 1, 1922, pp 1054f.
(1) Heathen slaves on entry into a Jewish house were compelled to receive a
baptism "in the name of slavery", i.e. to become slaves. Slaves
being set free were to be immersed "in the name of freedom",
i.e.
to become free. On this analogy baptism in the name of God "sets
the baptised in a definite relation to God; Father Son and Holy Spirit become to
the baptised what their name signifies".(2)An offering is slaughtered in
the name of six things, i.e. with respect to its intention,
e.g. for the benefit of the offerer, for the sake of God, with regard to
the altar fires, in view of the sweet savour. Hence a person is baptised
"for the sake of God, to make the baptised over to God". Hence
'in the name of' equals 'with respect to, for the benefit of, for the sake
of'.(3) A Samaritan must not circumcise an Israelite because the
Samaritans circumcise" in the name of Mount Gerizim", with the
obligation of venerating the God of the Samaritans who is worshipped there.
It is worth extrapolating
from this Rabbinic understanding that circumcision in the name
of 'Mount Gerizim' points to 'obligation' and that an offering
slaughtered in the name of signifies 'for the sake of'. According
to these parallels baptism in the name of the Trinity signifies
'obligation to' and 'for the sake of' the Trinity in whose name the
disciple is baptised. Perhaps, however, the most significant lesson is to
be learned from the freeing of a slave through circumcision in the
name of freedom. By this parallel the Trinity becomes to the person
baptised all that is signified by the name of the Trinity. Baptism then
represents the deepest, most intimate and most profound relationship
between the disciple and God. We shall return to this shortly
under the heading 'the Father, the on and the Holy Spirit'.
The second thing for
consideration has to do with the use of the preposition 'in'. This
translates the Greek word eis
which basically means "into". Luke in his Book of Acts uses this
same phrase ("in the name") four times in connection
with baptism, but uses three different prepositions (eis, into; en,
in; epi, upon) all of which are translated "in". There
is another important difference. hereas Luke seems to use his three
prepositions synonymously, Matthew seems never to confuse them.
Prepositions and Theology inthe Greek New Testament,
Paternoster's Dictionary of Dictionary of New Testament TheologyNew Testament Carson comments: "Those who become
disciples are to be baptised eis
('into', NIV margin) the name of the Trinity. Matthew, unlike some NT
writers, apparently avoids the confusion of eis (strictly 'into')
and
en (strictly 'in'…) common in Hellenistic Greek ; and if so,
the preposition 'into' strongly suggests a coming-into-relationship-with or a
coming-under-the Lordship-of (cf. Allen; Albright and Mann)…It is a sign
both of entrance nto Messiah's covenant community and of pledged
submission to his lordship."The Expositor's Bible
Commentary Vol 8 Matthew-Luke, (Ed. FEGaebelein),
Zondervan 1984, p 597. See also: WCAllen, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to St Matthew, T &
T Clark 1912;WF Albright and CS Mann, Matthew, Doubleday 1971.
This understanding of eis confirms, therefore, a parallel with
ideas present in Rabbinical literature, especially the idea of a deep and
profound relationship into which a person enters when he or she becomes a
disciple.
- Baptism into "the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
One of the reasons why
some scholars question the authenticity of Jesus' commission in Matthew
is because it represents a developed understanding of the Trinity, an
understanding that must have been lacking so soon after the
resurrection. It is argued that "Matthew is reflecting the life of
the later church in which he lived". When, however, we speak of an
understanding that must have been lacking we must also ask,
"Lacking to whom?" Lacking to the disciples, certainly; but
lacking to Jesus? Presumably our glorified Lord fully understood what he
was saying. He said many hard (to understand) things during his earthly
ministry on the basis that after the resurrection and the outpouring of
the Spirit, and given time for reflection and further revelation to the
apostles and prophets, his redeemed and enlightened followers would
enter into the truths which earlier they had been taught. Whether or not
these words of Jesus are authentic is determined not by the
understanding of the disciples (who, for example, persistently failed to
grasp his teaching about the cross) but by the understanding of Jesus.
We may also take into account that
we have very little record of Jesus' conversation with his
disciples during the period between the resurrection and the ascension.
It is difficult to believe that they learned nothing new from the
Master. He may have had things to say to them which prepared the way for
some understanding of this great commission. Of course, that is an
argument from silence. It is equally an argument from silence to insist
that they had no understanding. We cannot know. But it is of little
consequence. What we can be sure of is that further reflection and
further
revelation enabled the early Christians to enter into something of the
truth of Jesus words.
In the light of this it
would be appropriate at this point to bring to bear on our studies those
elements of the apostolic teaching which are relevant. We do so on the
basis that the apostolic teaching as we have it in the New Testament
represents the mind of Christ. To discover at least some hints as to
what is meant by baptism in the name of the Trinity we may safely
consult the New Testament letters. Indeed, that is what Christ intended
we should do, the Christ who promised his apostles that when the Holy
Spirit was given he would lead them into all truth.
Before we look at the
significance of baptism into the name of the three persons of the
Trinity it may be helpful to start with a statement which is normally
accepted by Christians generally as well as by Christian scholars. The
statement is this. Whatever else baptism does or does not signify it
does signify the grace of God. It points to God's action in Christ and
through the Holy Spirit. Wayne Grudem, himself a Baptist, has stated,
"Even the most conscientious Baptist would not object to calling
baptism 'a testament to inner grace'. "Systematic
Theology ,IVP 1994, p 966. Not only is that
important for the definition ofa sacrament as "an outward and
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace" Book
of Common Prayer. it is also an interpretation of baptism as a
divine ordinance, even within the Gospels. It signifies the grace of God
which enables the repentance and forgiveness of sinners.
One further observation.
Several exegetes have drawn attention to the fact that the word 'name'
here is singular. Baptism as Jesus presents it is baptism into the one
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, i.e. into the
name of the Triune God. This will have some significance when we look at
the terminology as we have it in the Book of Acts. i.e. baptism in the
name of Jesus. The Son of God does not act independently of the Father
and the Spirit but on behalf of and in the closest and most intimate
co-operation and in complete harmony with the Father and the Spirit. The
Father is in Christ and Christ is in the Father (John 17.21) and both
are made real to us through the Spirit. Baptism in the name of Jesus is
baptism in the name of the Trinity. According to Calvin, "There is
good reason here for the explicit mention of Father, Son, and Spirit,
for the force of baptism cannot otherwise be appreciated unless it begin
from the free mercy of the Father who reconciles us to Himself through the
only-begotten Son. Then Christ himself advances into the midst, with the
sacrifice of His death, and at last there comes the Holy Spirit also,
through whom He cleanses and regenerates us all, and finally makes us
partakers of all His benefits. So we see that God is not truly known,
unless our faith distinctly conceives three Persons in one Essence; and
the efficacy and fruit of Baptism flow from thence: God the Father
adopts us in His Son, and through the Spirit reforms us into
righteousness, once we are cleansed from the stains of our flesh.
"A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew-Luke
Vol3, The Saint Andrew Press 1972, p 253.
- Baptism as it relates to
the Father
Baptism as it relates to
the Father is: (a) an affirmation of the love which the Father had for
the world whereby he sent his one and only Son for our redemption (John
3,16); (b) an affirmation of that salvation which the Father had
determined from all eternity (Eph1.3f); (c) an affirmation that the
Father has chosen us in Christ, that he should be our God and we should
be his people. Moreover, it is not only an affirmation of the covenant
which the Father has entered into with us, it is a sign and seal of that
covenant and of its fulfilment. It is an affirmation, sign and seal not
only of the covenant which the Father has established (the objective
aspect) it is also an affirmation, sign and seal that we have been
brought personally into the covenant (the subjective aspect). It is an
affirmation that the covenant is a reality and that it is a reality for
me.
Some Definitions
Baptism as it
relates to the Father represents the initiative of the Father in our
salvation, as Paul puts it in Rom 9.16: "It does not depend on man's
desire or effort, but on God's mercy. "It represents the grace of
God the Father as well as that of the Son and the Spirit. It represents
the salvation that is by grace through faith, where even faith is a gift.
It represents the truth that from beginning to end salvation is of God
and not of man. There is not a single element in our salvation whereby
we
can say, "That was my contribution." We are co-workers with
God once weave been brought into a saving relationship with him, but
not before. Before his great salvation has been wrought in our lives we
are without God and without hope; we are enemies of God, children of his
wrath, dead in trespasses and sins and there is nothing we can do to
please him (Eph 2.1-3; Rom 5.6-11;8.8). We have no part to play in
effecting our own salvation: "Thou must save and Thou alone" (Toplady).
It is generally accepted
that baptism is an affirmation, a sign and a seal of the grace of God the
Father. In case it is thought that we have extended the meaning of
baptism to cover the Father's initiative and the Father's covenant in
addition to the Father's grace it is important to make the point that
both the initiative and the covenant are essential elements of grace. The
covenant whereby God brings men and women into a relationship with
himself, making them his people, is an activity of grace. And such an
activity of grace is dependant upon the divine initiative. God in his
grace necessarily takes the initiative. In both the divine initiative
and the divine covenant we see God the Father in his grace working out
his saving purposes. Such an initiative and such a covenant are not
extra to grace they are integral to grace, of which baptism is the sign
and seal.
It may be helpful to
point out here that in the New Testament the Father is most frequently
referred to as 'God' ,e.g. the blessing of 2 Cor 13.14 speaks of "the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of
the Holy Spirit".
- Baptism as it relates to
the Son
Baptism as it relates to the Son is:
(a) an affirmation that all the Father's gracious promises for the
purposes of redemption have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ his Son;
(b) an affirmation of the centrality of
Christ in redemption, i.e. that "there is no other name under
heaven
given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts4.12); (c) an
affirmation that the sinlessness, obedience, sacrifice and resurrection
of Jesus Christ are the means by which men and women are rescued from sin
and reconciled to God; (d) an affirmation that through the death and
resurrection of Christ the power of sin is destroyed and the believer
raised to new life in Christ.
Baptism as it relates to the Son
represents the grace of Christ in his coming for our sakes, his dying
for our sakes and his rising for our sakes, together with all other
aspects of his redeeming activity. He was not an unwilling partner in
the work of redemption. It is not as though an uncaring Father sent him
irrespective of his own will in the matter. The Father loved his Son and
suffered the pain of his Son ,the Son loved his Father and suffered the
pain of his Father. They were in total harmony as to what had to be done
in order to achieve the divine purpose for fallen man. It was the Son of
God who loved us and gave himself up for us (Gal 2.20), the Son of God who
loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph 5.25), the Son of God
who laid down his life for us thereby showing the true nature of love (1
John 3.16). Just as the Father's action was sheer grace, grace upon grace;
so the Son's action was sheer grace, grace upon grace. Baptism in the name
of Christ signifies this grace.
It will be seen
from the above that baptism is intimately bound up with the death and
resurrection of Christ. Now here is that made more clear than in Rom
6.3f where we are told by Paul that baptism is baptism into his death in
order that, as he was raised from the dead, we also might live a new
life. The real baptism is Christ's death and resurrection. Water baptism
is but the outward sign of which Christ's death and resurrection are the
reality. The metaphorical use in Mark 10.37ff 37ff where he speaks of
his own baptism, i.e. "the baptism I am baptised with", and in
Luke 12.49f when he tells the disciples, "I have a baptism to
undergo" is the primary use.
Water baptism signifies Christ's
death and resurrection and it signifies our death and
resurrection. It signifies our identification with his death and
resurrection. Through baptism we are baptised into his death, and through
his resurrection we are raised to new life. It is well to remember that
here also there is a primary and a secondary signification. Of primary
importance is that water baptism signifies the death and resurrection of
Christ. Of secondary importance is that water baptism signifies our death
and resurrection; the second is entirely dependent upon the first.
Bromiley puts this particularly well.
"It is an unfortunate reversal of the gospel message, or at least
of the gospel emphasis, if in baptism we allow our own dying and rising
again to occupy centre stage and push the dying and rising of Christ out
into the wings. We are not to think that ours is the real baptism, and
then apply the term in a transferred or figurative sense to the
reconciling work of the Son. The ruth is that the reconciling work of
the Son is the original baptism and our own dying and rising again with
Christ is the copy and reflection. The proper baptism declared in every
baptism is the vicarious dying and rising again of Christ in which
expiation is made for sin, reconciliation is effected, new life is
inaugurated, the covenant of God with man is restored, the election of the Father is fulfilled,
and the divine purpose of grace is thus realised in spite of man's sin and fall." Children of
Promise, T & T Clark 1979, p 59.
- Baptism as it relates to
the Holy Spirit
Baptism as it relates to
the Holy Spirit is: (a) an affirmation that what the Son has achieved,
supremely through his death and resurrection, the Spirit applies through
his power and presence; (b) an affirmation of the cleansing and
regeneration of those who believe in the Son by the Spirit; (c) an
affirmation of the Spirit's baptism of the believer into Christ and his
body (1 Cor 12. 13).
The work of redemption
and reconciliation which is at the heart of the covenant of grace is as
much the work of the Spirit as it is of the Son and the Father. Wherever
we cut the cake we find the same harmony, the same unity of purpose, and
the same interpersonal involvement. Father, Son and Spirit each had
their equally important role to play in creation, and each
had their equally important role to play in redemption. Jesus was
conceived by the Spirit (Matt 1.18,20);during his ministry he was
empowered by the Spirit (Luke 4.1,18; Matt 12.28);through the Spirit he
offered himself as a sacrifice without spot to God (Heb 9.14); by the
Spirit he was raised from the dead (Rom 8.11).And it is only in so far as
the preaching of the good news of Christ is empowered by the Spirit that
it is effective in the minds and hearts of the hearers ( 1 Cor2.4; 1
Thess1.5).
We have already distinguished between
the primary, objective work of Christ for the
believer and the secondary, subjective work of Christ in the believer.
This secondary, subjective work is the particular responsibility of the
Spirit. It is the Spirit who applies the work of Christ so that it
becomes real and relevant to the individual. As Bromiley says,
"Baptism is not just any baptism; it is my
baptism. It is my own entry by the word and Spirit into Christ's
victorious work. It is my own identification with him, so that I can now
say with the apostle: 'He loved me and gave himself for me.' (Gal
2.20)" Children of Promise, T & T Clark
1979, p 67. Yet even here the subjective depends on
the objective. It is only through the regenerative work of God the Holy
Spirit that we are able to enjoy the benefits of Christ's death, and it is
this regenerative work of the Spirit that is signified in water baptism.
One last thing. If it is
the Father who is the initiator of the covenant and the Son who is the
mediator of the covenant, it is the Spirit who seals God's people as his
own within the covenant (2 Cor 2.22; Eph 1.13f). All this is contained
within the Bible's understanding of baptism.
- In the name of the
Trinity (Matthew 28.19) or in the name of Jesus (Acts 2.38)
At first sight it does
seem strange that shortly before his ascension Jesus commissioned his
apostles to baptise "in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit" whereas days later Peter is found
exhorting his audience to be baptised "in the name of Jesus
Christ". Throughout Acts it is Peter's example that is followed. Cornelius
was also baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, and
the Samaritans(8.16)andthe Ephesians (19.5) in the name of the Lord
Jesus. Saul was to be baptised" calling on his name" (22.16).
Some have 'solved' this
seeming discrepancy by arguing that Matthew's account of the Commission
represents a later development, i.e. it represents the practice of the
church at a subsequent period in time. According to this approach there
was no reference to a Trinitarian baptism by Jesus before his ascension.
The Trinitarian 'formula' came to be used increasingly as the church
developed its theology. If, as some have argued (e.g. Lewis An Approach to
the New Testament, Epworth 1954, p 113.
), Jesus commissioned his disciples to baptise in his name and
not in the name of the Trinity, the change represents a later departure
by the church from Jesus' express instruction, a departure so radical
that it not only requires but demands a satisfactory explanation. In
fact there is no evidence either that the initial commission required
baptism in the nameof Jesus, or that the initial commission was not in
the name of the Trinity. It is simply supposition.
It is significant that
those who see a discrepancy frequently speak of 'the Trinitarian
formula' and contrast it with the 'formula 'as we have it on the lips of
Peter at Pentecost and in connection with other references to baptism in
the Book of Acts. But the word' formula' seems to be particularly
inappropriate to describe either words used by Jesus or words used by the
Apostles in those very early days of the church. It is a loaded word the
very use of which has the effect of pre-empting discussion. It
predetermines the outcome. Carson comments, "The term 'formula' is tripping us
up. There is no evidence…that the church regarded Jesus' command as a baptismal formula, a liturgical form the ignoring of
which was a breach of canon law. The problem has too often been cast in anachronistic terms. E Riggenbach (Der
Trinitarische Taufbefehl
Matt 28.19 [Gütersloh:C Bertelsmann, 1901]) points out that as late as
the Didache, baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the name of the
Trinity coexisted side by side: the church was not bound by precise
'formulas' and felt no embarrassment at a multiplicity of them…"The
Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 8 Matthew-Luke, (Ed.FE
Gaebelein),
Zondervan 1984, p 597.
Whereas Carson is
commenting on the Trinitarian 'formula' Calvin makes a similar point
commenting on the 'formula' in Acts. He asks the question, "was
Peter entitled to change the form prescribed by Christ?" In answer
he says, "In the first place we must hold that Christ did not give
the apostles magic words to be used for incantation… Then again I
maintain that Peter is not speaking in this passage of the form of
baptism but simply declaring that the whole efficacy of baptism is
contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be grasped by faith without the Father by whom He was given to us and the Spirit by
whom he renews and sanctifies us… The answer consists simply in this ,that it is
not a fixed formula that is being dealt with here, but the recalling of the
faithful to Christ, in whom alone we obtain all that baptism prefigures
to
us." The Acts of the Apostles 1-13, St Expositor's Bible
Commentary
Expositor's Bible
It is an assumption that
either Jesus or Peter or Paul were giving precise words to be used at
baptism. We cannot be sure. But it is just as likely that they were
indicating the significance of baptism. Christian baptism signifies, on
the one hand, the redemption which is the work of all three Persons of the
Trinity and, on the other hand, that Jesus Christ is the door through
which the believer passes to enter into that redemption. Father, Son and
Spirit have decreed that it is through the name of Jesus that salvation is
bestowed upon men and women.
Presumably the same can
be said of theLord's Supper. We are told, for example that Jesus
"took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink
from it all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for the forgiveness of sins '"(Matt 26.27f). Are
Jesus' words here a 'formula' which must be used prior to the
distribution of wine at the Lord's Supper? If when distributing the wine
we do not use the phrase "blood of the covenant" – a
crucial explanatory element of the meal – is there a conflict? The word
'formula' is inappropriate.
Other
Sections of the Report an be reached by clicking on the following Chapter
headings:
Origins of Water Baptism
The
Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence
The
Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence
The
Baptism of Children: Extra-Biblical Evidence
The
Proper Subjects for Baptism
The
Mode of Baptism
The
Way Forward
