Baptism

Introduction

Discussions of Baptism in the New Testament

Discussions in Early Church Writings

Conclusion

 

Introduction

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you”  (Mt 28:18ff.  NSRV).  With this statement, Jesus sent his followers on a mission, a mission to spread the Good News and draw those who respond into the community of his people.   The symbol of the entrance into this new community was the rite of baptism.  We are not told why this was so, though certainly the baptism of John was a direct antecedent.  Nor were we told what this particular act actually means.  Rather, we as his modern followers are still charged with the same task as his earliest.  We are called to baptize his disciples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 

However, the question of the particulars still remain.  Who exactly qualifies for baptism?  How exactly is baptism performed?  Sadly, despite the positive nature of the command, these questions have caused great schism within the Church over the course of the last 2000 years.  It is the goal of this paper to briefly examine some of the relevant materials which would help to determine how we as a modern church can and should best understand the rite of baptism.  The method of doing so will be to examine only the earliest of primary evidence, beginning with  the New Testament.  I will then look at how baptism is understood in some of the writings of the early church, including the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian.  Upon presenting this material I will seek to develop an understanding of baptism which can allow for flexibility in certain areas, while maintaining and developing unity as a whole.  I believe that the earliest materials present and in fact demand this kind of perspective.

Discussions of Baptism in the New Testament

It is unfortunate that we do not have an extra book in the New Testament, a book which would lay out and describe Christian doctrine and practice in such a way that we could understand exactly what it is we have been called to do, not only in the area of baptism but also in so many other areas.  Alas, this book does not exist.  Instead we have been left with narratives and occasional letters, from which we must mine the theology and seek to come to terms with our own calling.  Indeed, however, one could say that this very lack of specifics is in itself a type of teaching.  There is allowed an inherent flexibility and adaptability for future generations while still maintaining the force of the commandment to continue to engage in baptizing those who believe. 

The four Gospels give to us our introduction to the idea of a general baptism.  While our Old Testament discussed the need for various types of ritual bathing as response to specific types of uncleanness, we do not read of a general baptism for the sake of a broad repentance until we encounter this strange individual who calls people to repent and be baptized.  Bathing in water was a symbolic act of cleansing after one was for whatever reason declared ceremonially unclean.  It was required that a person be “clean” before entering the Tabernacle and later Temple of God. [1]   The Baptism of John, however,  was a baptism of repentance, a broad act of “cleansing” for a person’s general unrighteousness.  This is not simply a cleansing of ceremonial uncleanness but a declaration of one’s own sinfulness before God and need for moral cleansing. [2]   While this was certainly an antecedent to Christian baptism it is clear that there was a sharp distinction made by the earliest Christian communities.

The record of these early Christian communities is narrated to us by Luke in the book of Acts.   His aim is certainly not to give us a set of commandments to follow, but rather to instruct us that we may learn from the events themselves. [3]   With this, however, we can still find certain guidelines which appear to arise in the various accounts.  There does not seem to be a distinct, regulated practice for baptism in the book of Acts.  For the most part baptism occurs upon a person’s hearing and acceptance of the Gospel message, but this does not seem to be mandated.  We do read, however, of the importance of the tripartite form of baptism, commanded in Mt. 28:19 which must characterize a truly Christian baptism, namely the baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The support from this comes from the various events which we find lead to a baptism.  Those who were baptized with John’s baptism, one of repentance towards the Father, were in need of being baptized again in the name of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. [4]   Others, however, were baptized in the name of Jesus, but were still in need of baptism of the Holy Spirit. [5]   And perhaps most interestingly there were those who were filled with the Holy Spirit who were in need of being baptized in water as well. [6]   So, while there may be a variety of styles and timing portrayed in this book, it is clear that the baptism must be one which takes into account the fullness of the Christian message with its Triune emphasis.

The letters which have been passed down to us from the earliest days were generally written in response to specific problems that individual communities were facing.  In general it seems that the concept of baptism was not one which was in need of specific instruction. [7]   We do find, however, some interesting theological developments which can help us in understanding this rite.  In general, it seems, Christian baptism entailed not only the act of repentance which John’s baptism signified, but it also entailed a new identification with Christ, and a bestowing of the Holy Spirit on the person baptized.  Being baptized into the death of Christ Jesus is a common theme, with the lowering being the death and the raising being symbolic of the resurrection. [8]   Baptism is an act of symbolic cleansing but it is also symbolic of a new birth, an act which identifies the person in a new way with the truth of Christ, and which allows and demands the person to walk in the ways of this new life.  We also find in the various letters a call towards unity. [9]   Christian baptism is not meant to be divisive.  Rather, as an act of entrance into a new community it is a symbol of unity, a unity which does not hold to the old lines of demarcation.  The unity is found in the common confession of Jesus as Lord and the common Spirit which binds people of differing backgrounds together into a single body.

Discussions in Early Church Writings

            The writings of the New Testament are not, fortunately, our only documents from the early church.  Our forebears in the faith have also passed down to us various writings which sought to clarify and expand the basic commands and doctrines which were presented in the letters and narratives which would later form our New Testament.  We can also assume from these early writings at least a part of the oral tradition which was not specifically laid out in our New Testament writings but which reach back to an extremely early point in Christian tradition.  The first document which is vital for reference is called the Didache, or Teaching.  Here we read of an early manual for Christian doctrine which lays out first right and wrong, and then proceeds to develop specific regulations for church life. [10]   It gives several important guidelines which are useful for understanding baptism as a whole.  The first is the encouragement for teaching of Christian doctrine and morality which should precede the baptism, laying a foundation for the believer, and in fact stating beforehand exactly what it means to enter into this new community. [11]   There is also a renewed emphasis on the importance of the baptism being in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

            Following this the reader is given that which is missing in the New Testament, namely specific guidelines as to how the baptism is to be performed.  However, it appears that there was an inherent flexibility in these specifics.  The reader is encouraged to baptize in “living” or running water, such as a river or stream. [12]   However, if this is not available any body of water would apparently suffice.  There is an encouragement for cold water, though warm water will also be allowed.  The instructions apparently assume total immersion, but if this is not possible due to a lack of a large enough body of water, than the pouring of water onto the head of the new believer three times is allowed. [13]   As a matter of focusing, the new believer and the one in charge of the baptizing is encouraged at the end of the passage to fast and pray one or two days beforehand. [14]   Clearly, while there are preferable methods of baptism portrayed here, there is not an emphasis on specifics, but rather the emphasis is on the theology which underlies this practice.  Thus we find both a specific framework and an inherent flexibility with which to understand the form baptism should take.

            In his First Apology Justin Martyr writes a defense and explanation of the Christian faith to those who would persecute those within the Faith.  Chapter 61 of this book deals specifically with the topic of Christian baptism, and thus gives an early account of the developing tradition of baptism in the 2^nd century church.  Justin writes that the baptized include “as many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly.”  These then “are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.” [15]   Essentially, those who believed and who were willing to act on their beliefs were allowed to be baptized.  It appears that this does not entail any type of specific long term teaching or catechism, but was performed soon after conversion.

            Justin also gives a very interesting theological account of baptism in the second part of this chapter.  He writes that are first birth was without our choice, and we were raised in “bad habits and wicked training.”  In order to flee from this life so thrust upon the person, a choice has been given.  This choice is to choose to be “born again”, not from compulsion, but from a specific decision to lead a new life.   Baptism is a understood, then, as a conscious choice for cleansing and illumination from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  It is a point of change from being a child of “necessity and ignorance” to being a child of “choice and knowledge”.  This is an important theological concept, which is also pertinent to discussions about infant versus adult baptism which arise later in church history, and continue to this very day.

            These previous writings give only a brief glimpse at what Christian baptism means and entails.  The first full treatise on baptism is found to have been written late in the 2^nd or very early in the 3^rd century.  It is by the great writer Tertullian, and is aptly named, in translation, On Baptism. [16]   This document provides insight into both the theology and practice of early Christian baptism. [17]   He begins by emphasizing the simplicity of the doctrine, contrasting the ease of the act as opposed to the grandeur of the effect. [18]   There is not any sense of complex ritual or practice, but rather he is comparing it to the complexity of pagan rituals, showing the emphasis is on the underlying theology concerning Jesus as Lord and his salvation rather than on form or structure.  The water, he writes is not an inherent act of cleansing, but rather is anointed by the Spirit.  In the same way that the Spirit hovered over the waters at the time of creation, [19] so too does the Spirit hover over and bless the water at this time of new creation. [20]   The water is a symbolic cleansing and preparation for the reception of the Spirit in the believer. 

            Tertullian understands the three part statement of God to be the pronouncement of the three witnesses to our salvation. [21]   He refers to Deuteronomy 19:15 in which three witnesses are called for in order to substantiate a charge or claim.  The salvation of the believer, then, is substantiated by the Three-in-One, who not only attests to the faith of the believer, but indeed supports and enables the new community which the new believer is being inducted into.  Thus, baptism is also a sign of the unity which comes from the faith in the Triune God.  Tertullian does not believe that the act of baptism itself results in the reception of the Holy Spirit, but rather that this is a result of the pouring of oil upon the newly risen believer, followed by the laying on of hands and prayer by the baptizer and the whole community. [22]   It is at this time, following the process of immersion, anointing by oil, laying on of hands, and prayer that the believer is fully received into the community as witnessed by the reception of the Holy Spirit. 

            After contrasting other types of baptism, including John’s baptism of repentance, Jewish, and heretical (opposing some aspect of orthodox Christian teaching), he continues his discussion of the specifics of Christian baptism.  He allows, in chapter 26, that the baptism in water is primary, but that there is also a baptism of blood, meaning martyrdom, which confers the same benefits as the water when either a believer has not received baptism or has at one point lapsed but returned.   The role of the baptizer is given primarily to the bishop of the local region. [23]   If a bishop is not available than another leader in the church is allowed to baptize.  If a leader is not present, than any Christian is given the authority to baptize, for “what is equally received can be equally given.”  Tertullian writes in chapter 19 that Easter is an especially “solemn day for baptism”, followed by Pentecost.  Though he continues by saying that any day will do, for “every day is the Lord’s; every hour, every time, is apt for baptism:  if there is a difference in the solemnity, distinction there is none in the grace.”  He does not think the act of baptism should have to wait for the proper forms, but rather is based more on the underlying theology of the cross which should be always proclaimed and never hidden. 

            He does encourage, however, in chapter 28 that those who are new believers spend some time being taught the foundations of the faith before being baptized.  He is not unaware of the exceptions which are shown in the book of Acts, especially the account of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, but regards these as exceptions clearly mandated by a sign from God.  If there are clear “premonitory tokens”, than these must be followed.  However, as a general rule, it is best to let the individual wait until that person is fully able to comprehend the magnitude and meaning of their decision.  Though by saying this Tertullian is not laying down specific rules to follow, but rather is allowing an inherent flexibility as to the timing of baptism.  He certainly prefers that baptism not be given to infants, [24] writing that baptism should be a result of conscious choice about actual sin.  The idea here is that by first undertaking instruction, the child will grow in understanding about the faith and will at some point seek after the salvation.  This seeking will result in a stronger faith, less able to be brought down by temptation and thus thrusting both the child and the sponsor “into danger”.  However, with this, Tertullian also encourages those who are young adults and still single to also wait to be baptized until after they are married or after they conquer the intensity of sexual temptation. 

Conclusion

            In looking at these very early and vital discussion concerning baptism several points of instruction for our own age and development arise which are worthy of comment.  These lessons are in two areas, with the first being in how we should think about what baptism means, and the second in how we should think about how baptism is performed.  The meaning of baptism does not seem to be simplistic even if the act itself is.  Rather than having a single meaning or reference the early discussions seem to point us in several directions.  We find that Christian baptism while more than John’s baptism of repentance is not less, there is still an aspect of baptism which entails a repentant heart and a symbolic cleansing of past unrighteousness.  The new believer is called to be cleansed of sin, able and willing to receive the newness of life which is given by God.  This cleansing results not in a removal of dirt from the body, but stains from the heart.

            In addition, baptism appears to be the identification of the believer with the passion of Christ himself. Through baptism the new believer is lowered into the water, symbolizing the death of the old person, and is raised from the water, signifying the resurrection which has been given by Christ, first in the spiritual realm and later, for the believer, in the physical realm.  Through the act of baptism the believer symbolically repeats the story of death and resurrection, taking this story as his or her own, and thus showing to the world the new faith and identity which this new story entails.  By this act the believer is participating in a physical expression of faith, taking what is internal and making it external, allowing the entire body, spiritual and physical natures, to participate in a declaration of commitment and solidarity with Christ.

            There is also a declaration of unity with the body of Christ, that is, the Church.  Through baptism the believer acknowledges a commitment to the Triune God, and thus is initiated into the community of those who share this same faith, who share the same struggles, and who share the same mission in this world.  The new believer declares solidarity with this community of people from diverse backgrounds but who share a common end and goal.  By public baptism, this declaration is a sign to the new believer, the local community, the wider Church, and to those who are outside of the Church that this person is now marked by a new identity, in unity with a single body, under the lordship of Christ.  This new identity is marked by the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the individual, and through each other individual, so that the unity is not of human origin but is united by the activity of the same Spirit in the lives of each person, giving to each various gifts and talents which are required to build the community as a whole into a true reflection of God to this world.  Because each person is not given all the gifts  interdependence is created.  Baptism signifies this new personal identity and thus this new interdependence on other people within the community and especially on the Spirit who is the source of all things in this new life.  Thus at the very foundation of understanding Christian baptism is the concept of Christian unity which must be always maintained. 

            In addition to theological considerations we are also given guidelines as to how a baptism should be performed.  However, we find here both specific details which are essential and specific guidelines which are encouraged but flexible depending on the context.  One essential aspect which is mandated throughout all of these writings is the fact that the baptism must be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Only baptisms which are done under these names can be considered truly Christian.  If there is one aspect of this Trinity missing, there must be subsequent actions taken in order to complete the rite, and allow the believer to fully participate in the life of God and the Church.  It is this Triune statement and the theology which underlies it, which essentially makes any baptism specifically Christian, and which can be understood as the vital aspect in both efficacy and symbolism.

            The other issues which have arisen concerning baptism are matters of apparent flexibility.  The first point of discussion which has been argued over the course of time, sometimes vehemently and violently, is the matter of child versus adult baptism.  This is essentially a non-issue in a missionary environment, such as the early church for the most part was, where those who are being converted are mostly adults responding to a new message. However, the question arises concerning how one is to allow those born into families already Christian into the community.  We have been given no clear early mandates about this situation, and thus would be well advised to not be overly dogmatic about this point.  For those born into the church, there can be said to never be a time in which they were apart from the community and it seems allowable and practical to announce this fact by infant baptism. Yet, Tertullian and others make a fine point about the weight of baptism, and the value of being able to make a conscious choice about joining this community.  For the sake of the individual who is allowed to feel the weight of this decision and for the sake of the church, whose members will have all made a conscious decision about their morality and lifestyle it seems to be preferable to wait until one is old enough to understand at least in part the meaning of Christian doctrine.  Though again, what is more vital is the confession as a whole, and there should by no means be division caused by the age at which one is baptized. As long as one is baptized into the one faith, and is living in such a way as reflects this faith, there should be unity and communion.

            With this also comes the question of at what point a person should be baptized who is newly converted.  Should this be an immediate act or should the person be required to wait until after proper instruction?  Again this is a matter which is best determined by context, though there are general guidelines which should be understood.  The Christian life is not easy, and while there are ultimately great rewards there are also current sacrifices which must be made.  If baptism is signifying solidarity with Christ and his body, than it should be encouraged that those who are interested should have as well built a foundation as possible in order to best understand the commitment they are making.  If a person falls away after baptism, it bestows shame on the faith and on the church, and may cause others to despise the church for the errors of those who apparently represent it.  However, if a person is properly trained and instructed, while not a sure defense against sin, will guard against false commitments and weak wills.  Thus, while baptism should certainly be allowed for any one at any time, a process of maturation should be encouraged beforehand.

            Another point of sharp disagreement concerns the method of baptism.  Again, above all in this discussion it should be reiterated that the key to baptism is not the method, according to the early writings, but the faith in Christ and the Triune God which underlies the efficacy of Christian baptism.  This faith is one of unity not division.  However, different practices have arisen which should be discussed.  The Didache seems to be our best point of reference here, encouraging a certain method, full immersion in running, cold water, but allowing for and accepting as equal any method which simply uses water.  The use of water is essential the manner which it is used is not as much.  The preferred method seems to be indeed immersion, but this preference is not strong enough to warrant any kind of divisive behavior or dogmatic assertions. 

         Baptism is the entrance into a new life, a symbolic resurrection and official entrance into a new community.  This community is founded and formed by the work and activity of the Triune God, whose life gives life and whose Spirit animates and directs those who are part of the body of Christ and united in the faith.    By being baptized, a new believer is acknowledging solidarity with the life and teaching of Christ and with the community of people who share this same renewed being.  The method and style of the baptism are not essential, though there are certain methods and styles which best relate the symbolic meaning of the rite.  What is vital is that the new believer understand the need for and meaning of salvation in Christ and is willing to live in such a way as reflects this understanding.  Thus in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit this new believer is drawn into the new life of the Church, and filled with the Spirit so as to help build the Church and continue its mission to baptize and disciple those throughout the world.