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