What are the most important life events regardless of culture, regardless of time period? Are they not birth, marriage and death? It is not surprising then to find baptism/immersion into Christ compared to all three in various parts of Scripture. The mere fact that baptism/immersion is compared to these life-altering events should not be lost on us when we seek to find where the "Holy Bath/Washing" fits into the conversion process. Each of these events marks a change in state/status. The next few entries will consist of a 3-part series on those topics with the related verses. Please read over them in preparation for the study:
The tomb:
Romans 6:1-11, Colossians 2:9-14
The womb:
John 3:1-8, Titus 3:3-8
The bride & groom:
Ephesians 5:25-27
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Is the book of Acts descriptive or prescriptive?
In other words, "is the book of Acts just a history of the early church and thus there is no doctrine to be gleaned from it, or is the book of Acts a book of theology having binding examples that should shape our doctrine in some way?" I bring this up because I was once told the former. During a discussion about baptism's role in conversion, a Bible teacher from a Christian school I used to work at told me: "Acts is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. No doctrine should be formed from that book."
I believe it is in our human nature to love dichotomies. We love when a situation is either black or white, good or bad, right or wrong and we can often approach the Bible in this way. More often than not, the answer to a question is not "either/or", but rather "both/and". Was Jesus God or man? Both. How are we saved, by faith (alone) or through baptism/immersion? Both. Do we have free will or does fate/destiny/God's will set the course of our lives? Both.
To answer the original question of this post, "is the book of Acts descriptive or prescriptive?", the answer is both. As a good friend of mine described it, it is a "theological history".
I would argue that one of the greatest blunders or errors in Biblical interpretation has been the belief that the book of Acts is merely descriptive and not prescriptive as well. What this does is lead people to believe that it is merely "church history", and so lots of doctrine is then formed by combining the gospels with the letters, and ignoring the book of Acts altogether or pretending it has no bearing on doctrine. This inevitably leads to false doctrine and incorrect ideas about conversion (for example , using the Thief on the Cross as a model, or taking Romans 10 out of context). Remember, each book of the Bible has a specific purpose and/or audience. Jesus spent 3 years teaching the Apostles and others how to be his disciple and how to make disciples. Many events from his life on Earth (mainly the last three years) are recorded in the gospels. In the prologue to Acts, Luke even specifies what his first book (the gospel of Luke) was about:
"O Theophilus, I indeed made the first account concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach," - Acts 1:1, MLV
He wrote about all that Jesus began "to do and to teach", his life and his doctrine, his history and his theology. Paul later writes to Timothy telling him to watch "his life and his doctrine" and to persevere in them in order to save himself and his hearers. It can be said that the book of Acts is about the church's life AND its doctrine.
The gospels end with Jesus telling his disciples to go make disciples of all nations, then after his ascension, they went out and did just that: this is what we see in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is followed by letters from the apostles (some written simultaneously while events in Acts were occurring) to those folks already converted and living as disciples: the books of Romans to Revelation. Each book or letter having a specific audience and/or specific purpose or issues being addressed.
The book of Acts records disciples of Jesus meeting non-Christians and converting them. Is there a better place in the Bible to find conversion theology and doctrine? Of course not! Think of it this way, if I wanted to find information on the start of life on earth and creation, what book should I go to? Genesis, of course! Now, there are other books that look back at the Creation and talk about it, for example, there are many Psalms that do so. John 1:1-5 gives what I like to call an "update" or further explanation of Genesis 1. When John used the words "En archē", the Greek equivalent of "In the beginning", any Jew reading his gospel would immediately think of Genesis 1. Paul also mentions creation in his speech in Athens in Acts 17, but that does not mean that the Psalms, John 1 and Acts 17 teach us MORE about creation than Genesis do, or that those texts' purpose is to give creation theology. The same can be said about the conversion process. While many of the letters discuss aspects of conversion and often look back at the conversion of the readers/listeners, it is a mistake to form a conversion doctrine based solely on the epistles. Remember, these were letters written to people who had already been converted, not telling them how to convert someone. And while we can gather lots of information about how a disciple of Jesus should live and what it means to be a disciple from the Gospels, there isn't a single conversion AFTER the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus recorded in any of the gospels. Those conversions are only found in Acts. This is important to "rightly divide or correctly handle the word of truth". We know that the New Covenant went into effect with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, according to the book of Hebrews, so anyone who was saved prior to his death on the cross was in a different situation than those who were saved after Pentecost and the pouring out of God's Spirit. During Jesus' time here on earth, he would often just say to people "your sins are forgiven", but the Apostles and disciples in Acts NEVER do that. Time and time again, people are told some variant of "Believe in Jesus, repent and be baptized" for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19; see the connection between these two verses in the previous post, found here. Acts 8:36-39, Acts 10:43, 47-48, Acts 22:16).
The fact that many denominations don't teach from or use the book of Acts for doctrine is not entirely coincidental. It is a scholastic fact that until about the mid 20th century, Bible scholars didn't do much of any study or publish articles on the book of Acts. The renewed interest only came after renewed interest in the gospel of Luke and when the question arose "should we read Luke's works as Luke-Acts or Luke & Acts?" In his book, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Darrell Bock dedicates his entire first chapter to "The Often Lost Importance of Luke-Acts" where he says the following:
"So what causes the neglect of these two volumes, especially as a unit?
First, the gospel gets absorbed in discussions about Jesus and the other gospels. Luke has always had third place among the Synoptics. In the early church, Matthew was seen as the lead gospel, having apostolic roots and being seen as the first gospel to be written. In the last two centuries, Mark has taken this central role. Now seen as most likely the first gospel to be written, this gospel now becomes a key point of focus in the study of Jesus. Its outline is the lens through which discussion of Jesus, especially the historical Jesus, is often conducted. John has always had a prime position as the "spiritual" gospel, a description that goes back to Clement of Alexandria in the second century. So Luke got lost in the shuffle.
Second, Acts got separated from Luke as the canon distinguished between gospels and the history of the early church. This severed the two volumes, and people read the works as separate pieces. This has caused readers to lose the links between the two volumes and the theological story that both volumes together tell. The gospel of Luke was related to the other gospels, while Acts was left to itself on a genre island telling the story of the early church. The continuity between Jesus and the launching of the early community was lost in the shuffle."
I myself discovered so many of those links between the two volumes (and have since begun to think of them as one story with two parts) after I read Robert Tannehill's The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, volume 1: The Gospel of Luke and volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles. Most people don't understand that Luke & Acts are really two parts of one work: Luke-Acts, and they both portray one big theme: God's going to do something with/to "All Flesh". Luke's gospel is about "All flesh will see God's salvation" (Luke 3:6, quoting Isaiah 40:3-5). The book of Acts is all about "God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 2:28). So, understanding this we see that Luke's gospel is about the Father and the Spirit sending the Son to "all flesh", that's why Luke's gospel contains stories about Jesus interacting with all types of groups and people: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, women, the poor; there are several stories that only appear in Luke and not in the other gospels. The book of Acts is about the Father and the Son sending the Spirit to "all flesh". That's why the Spirit is really the main protagonist in the book, it's really not the Apostles, but the Spirit directing the mission (there was a time when many called the book the Acts of the Spirit rather than the Acts of the Apostles. I too, see the former as a more fitting title). We see the following groups all immersed in water in the name of Jesus and receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit: Jews, converts to Judaism, Samaritans, God-fearers/Worshippers of God, pagan Gentiles and remnant disciples of John the Baptist. Luke's two-part story goes from the center of Jewish life (the temple in Jerusalem) to the center of Gentile life (Rome). No one would dare to say that the Gospel of Luke is merely history and doesn't contain theology, so it should be equally as heretical and wrong to say so about the book of Acts: the book of conversions.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
I believe it is in our human nature to love dichotomies. We love when a situation is either black or white, good or bad, right or wrong and we can often approach the Bible in this way. More often than not, the answer to a question is not "either/or", but rather "both/and". Was Jesus God or man? Both. How are we saved, by faith (alone) or through baptism/immersion? Both. Do we have free will or does fate/destiny/God's will set the course of our lives? Both.
To answer the original question of this post, "is the book of Acts descriptive or prescriptive?", the answer is both. As a good friend of mine described it, it is a "theological history".
I would argue that one of the greatest blunders or errors in Biblical interpretation has been the belief that the book of Acts is merely descriptive and not prescriptive as well. What this does is lead people to believe that it is merely "church history", and so lots of doctrine is then formed by combining the gospels with the letters, and ignoring the book of Acts altogether or pretending it has no bearing on doctrine. This inevitably leads to false doctrine and incorrect ideas about conversion (for example , using the Thief on the Cross as a model, or taking Romans 10 out of context). Remember, each book of the Bible has a specific purpose and/or audience. Jesus spent 3 years teaching the Apostles and others how to be his disciple and how to make disciples. Many events from his life on Earth (mainly the last three years) are recorded in the gospels. In the prologue to Acts, Luke even specifies what his first book (the gospel of Luke) was about:
"O Theophilus, I indeed made the first account concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach," - Acts 1:1, MLV
He wrote about all that Jesus began "to do and to teach", his life and his doctrine, his history and his theology. Paul later writes to Timothy telling him to watch "his life and his doctrine" and to persevere in them in order to save himself and his hearers. It can be said that the book of Acts is about the church's life AND its doctrine.
The gospels end with Jesus telling his disciples to go make disciples of all nations, then after his ascension, they went out and did just that: this is what we see in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is followed by letters from the apostles (some written simultaneously while events in Acts were occurring) to those folks already converted and living as disciples: the books of Romans to Revelation. Each book or letter having a specific audience and/or specific purpose or issues being addressed.
The book of Acts records disciples of Jesus meeting non-Christians and converting them. Is there a better place in the Bible to find conversion theology and doctrine? Of course not! Think of it this way, if I wanted to find information on the start of life on earth and creation, what book should I go to? Genesis, of course! Now, there are other books that look back at the Creation and talk about it, for example, there are many Psalms that do so. John 1:1-5 gives what I like to call an "update" or further explanation of Genesis 1. When John used the words "En archē", the Greek equivalent of "In the beginning", any Jew reading his gospel would immediately think of Genesis 1. Paul also mentions creation in his speech in Athens in Acts 17, but that does not mean that the Psalms, John 1 and Acts 17 teach us MORE about creation than Genesis do, or that those texts' purpose is to give creation theology. The same can be said about the conversion process. While many of the letters discuss aspects of conversion and often look back at the conversion of the readers/listeners, it is a mistake to form a conversion doctrine based solely on the epistles. Remember, these were letters written to people who had already been converted, not telling them how to convert someone. And while we can gather lots of information about how a disciple of Jesus should live and what it means to be a disciple from the Gospels, there isn't a single conversion AFTER the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus recorded in any of the gospels. Those conversions are only found in Acts. This is important to "rightly divide or correctly handle the word of truth". We know that the New Covenant went into effect with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection, according to the book of Hebrews, so anyone who was saved prior to his death on the cross was in a different situation than those who were saved after Pentecost and the pouring out of God's Spirit. During Jesus' time here on earth, he would often just say to people "your sins are forgiven", but the Apostles and disciples in Acts NEVER do that. Time and time again, people are told some variant of "Believe in Jesus, repent and be baptized" for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19; see the connection between these two verses in the previous post, found here. Acts 8:36-39, Acts 10:43, 47-48, Acts 22:16).
The fact that many denominations don't teach from or use the book of Acts for doctrine is not entirely coincidental. It is a scholastic fact that until about the mid 20th century, Bible scholars didn't do much of any study or publish articles on the book of Acts. The renewed interest only came after renewed interest in the gospel of Luke and when the question arose "should we read Luke's works as Luke-Acts or Luke & Acts?" In his book, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Darrell Bock dedicates his entire first chapter to "The Often Lost Importance of Luke-Acts" where he says the following:
"So what causes the neglect of these two volumes, especially as a unit?
First, the gospel gets absorbed in discussions about Jesus and the other gospels. Luke has always had third place among the Synoptics. In the early church, Matthew was seen as the lead gospel, having apostolic roots and being seen as the first gospel to be written. In the last two centuries, Mark has taken this central role. Now seen as most likely the first gospel to be written, this gospel now becomes a key point of focus in the study of Jesus. Its outline is the lens through which discussion of Jesus, especially the historical Jesus, is often conducted. John has always had a prime position as the "spiritual" gospel, a description that goes back to Clement of Alexandria in the second century. So Luke got lost in the shuffle.
Second, Acts got separated from Luke as the canon distinguished between gospels and the history of the early church. This severed the two volumes, and people read the works as separate pieces. This has caused readers to lose the links between the two volumes and the theological story that both volumes together tell. The gospel of Luke was related to the other gospels, while Acts was left to itself on a genre island telling the story of the early church. The continuity between Jesus and the launching of the early community was lost in the shuffle."
I myself discovered so many of those links between the two volumes (and have since begun to think of them as one story with two parts) after I read Robert Tannehill's The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, volume 1: The Gospel of Luke and volume 2: The Acts of the Apostles. Most people don't understand that Luke & Acts are really two parts of one work: Luke-Acts, and they both portray one big theme: God's going to do something with/to "All Flesh". Luke's gospel is about "All flesh will see God's salvation" (Luke 3:6, quoting Isaiah 40:3-5). The book of Acts is all about "God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 2:28). So, understanding this we see that Luke's gospel is about the Father and the Spirit sending the Son to "all flesh", that's why Luke's gospel contains stories about Jesus interacting with all types of groups and people: Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, women, the poor; there are several stories that only appear in Luke and not in the other gospels. The book of Acts is about the Father and the Son sending the Spirit to "all flesh". That's why the Spirit is really the main protagonist in the book, it's really not the Apostles, but the Spirit directing the mission (there was a time when many called the book the Acts of the Spirit rather than the Acts of the Apostles. I too, see the former as a more fitting title). We see the following groups all immersed in water in the name of Jesus and receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit: Jews, converts to Judaism, Samaritans, God-fearers/Worshippers of God, pagan Gentiles and remnant disciples of John the Baptist. Luke's two-part story goes from the center of Jewish life (the temple in Jerusalem) to the center of Gentile life (Rome). No one would dare to say that the Gospel of Luke is merely history and doesn't contain theology, so it should be equally as heretical and wrong to say so about the book of Acts: the book of conversions.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Is Acts 3:19 parallel to Acts 2:38?
"Now Peter said to them, Repent and be immersed each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ to obtain the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38, MLV
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord," - Acts 3:19
Many advocates of the position that immersion in water in the name of Jesus is not necessary for salvation often point to verses that talk about salvation or forgiveness of sins but do not specifically mention baptism. Acts 3:19 is one such text.
It is important to note that there are several Bible passages that, while they don't actually use the word baptism/immersion, clearly refer to it. They often use terms like washed/bathed, or make reference to water and cleansing.
One of the professors at Central Christian College had this to say about our text in question:
"The second argument claims that other Scripture passages, such as Acts 3:19 and Luke 24:47, make repentance, not baptism, the sole condition of forgiveness. This claim ignores two important facts: one, that the New Testament writers often condensed their historical accounts (including direct address), omitting repetitious details that either would have been understood by their readers, or were not essential to telling the story, and two, that the statements of New Testament writers and speakers sometimes implied details not specifically stated in the text."
In F. F. Bruce's commentary on The Book of Acts, he says this about Acts 2:38, making reference to 3:19 as well:
"It would indeed be a mistake to link the words "for the forgiveness of sins" with the command "be baptized" to the exclusion of the prior command to repent. It is against the whole genius of biblical religion to suppose that the outward rite could have any value except insofar as it was accompanied by the work of grace within. In a similar passage in the next chapter (3:19) the blotting out of people's sins is a direct consequence of their repenting and turning to God; nothing is said about baptism, although it is no doubt implied (the idea of an unbaptized believer does not seem to be entertained in the New Testament). So here the reception of the Spirit is conditional not on baptism in itself but on baptism in Jesus' name as the expression of repentance".
So, both of those authors see baptism implied in Acts 3:19. Let's look at why that is.
In today's study, we will examine how Acts 3:19, instead of being proof that baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, actually is a parallel passage to Acts 2:38 and thus confirms its necessity. We will begin by reviewing what others have written about the passage showing that I am (obviously) not the first to make the connection between the two passages. Afterwards, I will write conclusions that I have drawn based on my study of this passage and its context.
In 1867, W. K. Pendleton writing in volume 38 of the Millennial Harbinger in an article entitled "Baptism and Forgiveness" states the following about the connection between the two verses:
"The parallel between these passages is indeed very close. In Acts 2:38 we have repent; here, we have repent; there, we have to be baptized-- an act of turning, symbolical of the death of the old life and the beginning of the new, --here, we have turn or turn yourselves, for this is the true force of epistrepsate, which is also the beginning of that change of conduct which is the outward manifestation of the new life; there, again we this done with a view to the remission of sins; --and here, with a view to the blotting out of sins--which...is an 'allusion to the water of baptism'."
Another author on an internet blog entitled "Bible Truths", makes the same point about the two passages but gives further evidence from the entire sections comparing Acts 2 and Acts 3.
Let's examine this idea that the "wiping away/blotting out of sins" is an allusion to the water of baptism. So, first of all, the word that is used here "exaleiphó,"which is used in another baptismal context in Colossians 2:11-14,
" in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the stripping off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried together with him in the immersion, in which you were also raised up together with him through the faith in the working of God, who raised him up from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having wiped-away the handwriting in the decrees that were against us, which were adverse to us. He has also taken it out of the midst of us, having nailed it to the cross; " (MLV)
In this verse Paul is talking about how their baptism/immersion coupled with their faith is what raised them with Christ, taking them from death to life, in order to have their trespasses/sins forgiven and having "wiped-away" or "blotted out" the handwriting that was against them. What did that term mean to Peter's listeners and Paul's readers of that day? In his book, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Darrell L. Bock says this about the word translated as "blotted out/wiped-away":
"The expression used in Acts 3:19 is "to blot out" sin. This is another way to describe obtaining forgiveness (see also Col 2:14-15...). The term "blot out" means "wipe away, erase, obliterate." It was used of washing papyri to remove letters written in ink. In ancient times ink did not soak into the paper but remained on the surface, so removing writing was simply scraping the surface. This became the metaphor..."
There's even a term for this type of paper, "palimpsest". However, professor Bock only scratched the surface (pun intended) of the full meaning of this word. In the previously mentioned article by W. K. Pendleton, he writes:
"Besides the parallel I have already drawn, look at the special significance of the word "blotted out." Now what did this word mean to a Jew--to Peter and to Paul? For he too uses it in Col. 2:14. We shall learn by turning to its origin in Numbers 5:23. There it is said of the curses which were commanded against the adulterous woman, "The Priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall "blot them out with bitter waters" This precept of the law furnished the original meaning of this expression "blotting out." It was to wash out a writing against one with water. The custom was to write with an ink, that water would wash out. This was the quality of their writing fluid, and hence when they wished to cancel any writing they blotted it out with water. This ceremony gave rise to the expression which Peter uses in this passage, and no doubt under the suggestions which its origin furnished. It is worthy of notice that Peter uses the same Greek word, eksaleíphō which the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) version uses in the passage in Numbers quoted above, in reference to the blotting out with bitter waters."
So, when Peter told his listeners "that your sins may be blotted out", the expression itself really meant "that your sins may be blotted out/wiped away with water", which would lead any reasonable person to see the allusion to the waters of baptism. When we look at the bookends of the entire calls to repentance and the end of the narratives the parallel goes further:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord...But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand."
Both sermons are preached after something miraculous (Holy Spirit being poured out in Acts 2, lame man being healed in Acts 3), and both end with a note about how many people were converted. But the similarity doesn't end there. The Greek word for "refreshing" that Peter uses in Acts 3:19 is a case of what I believe to be supreme wit on the part of the Holy Spirit when he inspired Peter to make that word choice. Looking at the parallel between "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and "that times of refeshing may come from the presence of the Lord", we find the following:
The word is anapsuxis and it means "breathe easily again", essentially "to take a deep breath", "a recovery of breath" --> which is exactly what one does after being dipped under the water. You hold your breath, get immersed and come up and take a deep breath.
The term was used in Greek for a couple of things: it could mean to refresh by blowing cool air onto someone/something (generally a wound), or getting a refreshing breeze. When one understands that the word in Hebrew (Ruach) AND Greek(Pneuma) for Spirit is the same as wind/breeze, the metaphor is enhanced. It conjures the idea of when God blew his Spirit into Adam to give him life, and also when Jesus told the disciples to receive the Spirit and he breathed on them in John 20:21-23.
Secondly, the word was used for "ships that were dragged ashore out of the water for drying and repair" This makes total sense in a baptismal context when we understand how much the word for "baptize" was used of ships that sank. If a ship was damaged and started to sink, it could be dragged ashore to dry out and be repaired/refreshed. So, it is just like us, we are baptized/immersed like a ship and then we come out of the water to dry, the Holy Spirit repairs/has repaired us, which leads to salvation and times of refreshing indeed.
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord," - Acts 3:19
Many advocates of the position that immersion in water in the name of Jesus is not necessary for salvation often point to verses that talk about salvation or forgiveness of sins but do not specifically mention baptism. Acts 3:19 is one such text.
It is important to note that there are several Bible passages that, while they don't actually use the word baptism/immersion, clearly refer to it. They often use terms like washed/bathed, or make reference to water and cleansing.
One of the professors at Central Christian College had this to say about our text in question:
"The second argument claims that other Scripture passages, such as Acts 3:19 and Luke 24:47, make repentance, not baptism, the sole condition of forgiveness. This claim ignores two important facts: one, that the New Testament writers often condensed their historical accounts (including direct address), omitting repetitious details that either would have been understood by their readers, or were not essential to telling the story, and two, that the statements of New Testament writers and speakers sometimes implied details not specifically stated in the text."
In F. F. Bruce's commentary on The Book of Acts, he says this about Acts 2:38, making reference to 3:19 as well:
"It would indeed be a mistake to link the words "for the forgiveness of sins" with the command "be baptized" to the exclusion of the prior command to repent. It is against the whole genius of biblical religion to suppose that the outward rite could have any value except insofar as it was accompanied by the work of grace within. In a similar passage in the next chapter (3:19) the blotting out of people's sins is a direct consequence of their repenting and turning to God; nothing is said about baptism, although it is no doubt implied (the idea of an unbaptized believer does not seem to be entertained in the New Testament). So here the reception of the Spirit is conditional not on baptism in itself but on baptism in Jesus' name as the expression of repentance".
So, both of those authors see baptism implied in Acts 3:19. Let's look at why that is.
In today's study, we will examine how Acts 3:19, instead of being proof that baptism is not necessary for forgiveness of sins, actually is a parallel passage to Acts 2:38 and thus confirms its necessity. We will begin by reviewing what others have written about the passage showing that I am (obviously) not the first to make the connection between the two passages. Afterwards, I will write conclusions that I have drawn based on my study of this passage and its context.
In 1867, W. K. Pendleton writing in volume 38 of the Millennial Harbinger in an article entitled "Baptism and Forgiveness" states the following about the connection between the two verses:
"The parallel between these passages is indeed very close. In Acts 2:38 we have repent; here, we have repent; there, we have to be baptized-- an act of turning, symbolical of the death of the old life and the beginning of the new, --here, we have turn or turn yourselves, for this is the true force of epistrepsate, which is also the beginning of that change of conduct which is the outward manifestation of the new life; there, again we this done with a view to the remission of sins; --and here, with a view to the blotting out of sins--which...is an 'allusion to the water of baptism'."
Another author on an internet blog entitled "Bible Truths", makes the same point about the two passages but gives further evidence from the entire sections comparing Acts 2 and Acts 3.
Let's examine this idea that the "wiping away/blotting out of sins" is an allusion to the water of baptism. So, first of all, the word that is used here "exaleiphó,"which is used in another baptismal context in Colossians 2:11-14,
" in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the stripping off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried together with him in the immersion, in which you were also raised up together with him through the faith in the working of God, who raised him up from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having wiped-away the handwriting in the decrees that were against us, which were adverse to us. He has also taken it out of the midst of us, having nailed it to the cross; " (MLV)
In this verse Paul is talking about how their baptism/immersion coupled with their faith is what raised them with Christ, taking them from death to life, in order to have their trespasses/sins forgiven and having "wiped-away" or "blotted out" the handwriting that was against them. What did that term mean to Peter's listeners and Paul's readers of that day? In his book, A Theology of Luke and Acts, Darrell L. Bock says this about the word translated as "blotted out/wiped-away":
"The expression used in Acts 3:19 is "to blot out" sin. This is another way to describe obtaining forgiveness (see also Col 2:14-15...). The term "blot out" means "wipe away, erase, obliterate." It was used of washing papyri to remove letters written in ink. In ancient times ink did not soak into the paper but remained on the surface, so removing writing was simply scraping the surface. This became the metaphor..."
There's even a term for this type of paper, "palimpsest". However, professor Bock only scratched the surface (pun intended) of the full meaning of this word. In the previously mentioned article by W. K. Pendleton, he writes:
"Besides the parallel I have already drawn, look at the special significance of the word "blotted out." Now what did this word mean to a Jew--to Peter and to Paul? For he too uses it in Col. 2:14. We shall learn by turning to its origin in Numbers 5:23. There it is said of the curses which were commanded against the adulterous woman, "The Priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall "blot them out with bitter waters" This precept of the law furnished the original meaning of this expression "blotting out." It was to wash out a writing against one with water. The custom was to write with an ink, that water would wash out. This was the quality of their writing fluid, and hence when they wished to cancel any writing they blotted it out with water. This ceremony gave rise to the expression which Peter uses in this passage, and no doubt under the suggestions which its origin furnished. It is worthy of notice that Peter uses the same Greek word, eksaleíphō which the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) version uses in the passage in Numbers quoted above, in reference to the blotting out with bitter waters."
So, when Peter told his listeners "that your sins may be blotted out", the expression itself really meant "that your sins may be blotted out/wiped away with water", which would lead any reasonable person to see the allusion to the waters of baptism. When we look at the bookends of the entire calls to repentance and the end of the narratives the parallel goes further:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord...But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand."
Both sermons are preached after something miraculous (Holy Spirit being poured out in Acts 2, lame man being healed in Acts 3), and both end with a note about how many people were converted. But the similarity doesn't end there. The Greek word for "refreshing" that Peter uses in Acts 3:19 is a case of what I believe to be supreme wit on the part of the Holy Spirit when he inspired Peter to make that word choice. Looking at the parallel between "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" and "that times of refeshing may come from the presence of the Lord", we find the following:
The word is anapsuxis and it means "breathe easily again", essentially "to take a deep breath", "a recovery of breath" --> which is exactly what one does after being dipped under the water. You hold your breath, get immersed and come up and take a deep breath.
The term was used in Greek for a couple of things: it could mean to refresh by blowing cool air onto someone/something (generally a wound), or getting a refreshing breeze. When one understands that the word in Hebrew (Ruach) AND Greek(Pneuma) for Spirit is the same as wind/breeze, the metaphor is enhanced. It conjures the idea of when God blew his Spirit into Adam to give him life, and also when Jesus told the disciples to receive the Spirit and he breathed on them in John 20:21-23.
Secondly, the word was used for "ships that were dragged ashore out of the water for drying and repair" This makes total sense in a baptismal context when we understand how much the word for "baptize" was used of ships that sank. If a ship was damaged and started to sink, it could be dragged ashore to dry out and be repaired/refreshed. So, it is just like us, we are baptized/immersed like a ship and then we come out of the water to dry, the Holy Spirit repairs/has repaired us, which leads to salvation and times of refreshing indeed.
So, while it takes a bit of in-depth study and searching, it can be reasonably concluded that Peter didn't suddenly change his gospel message and the requirements for the forgiveness of sins between the first sermon in Acts 2 and the second one in Acts 3, but rather that Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19 are indeed parallels.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
Baptism in 1 Corinthians - part II
In the previous post, we showed how the first two references to baptism in the first letter to the Corinthians are references to a birth of a water and Spirit in the name of Jesus Christ. Again, understanding that this is all one letter should let us know that when Paul uses the word we translate as "baptism/immersion" in this letter, this is what he is referring to.
Let's look at our next instance:
"Now brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud and all went through the sea; and were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all were drinking the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking from a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was Christ. Yet God was not delighted in most of them; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, that we should not be desirers of evil things, just-as they also lusted. Do not become idolaters, just-as some of them were; as it has been written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’ Neither should we fornicate, like some of them fornicated, and twenty three thousand fell in one day. Nor should we test the Christ, just-as some of them also tested him, and perished by the serpents. Nor murmur, like some of them also murmured, and perished by the destroyer. Now all these things are examples which were befalling to those Jews, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have arrived. So-then, he who thinks he stands, let him beware, lest he might fall! No temptation has taken you except common human temptations, but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able to undergo, but together with the temptation, he will also make an outlet." - 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, MLV
Understanding the full context of this letter reminds us that above all this is a corrective letter to the church in Corinth, which was full of problems. In this particular part of the letter, Paul is warning them to not use their salvation as a license to sin. He then gives some analogies from Israel's history. He uses a type-antitype OT foreshadowing construction to start off his point. He says that Israel had its own "baptism/immersion" and a sort of commumion as well. They went through the waters of the Red Sea with the cloud overhead (essentially surrounded by waters on all sides). This baptism allowed them to escape slavery and death and then put them into a relationship with Moses as their leader; afterwards they ate manna from Heaven and drank water from the rock. The same is true for us today, we go through the waters of baptism for the forgiveness of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and this puts us into a relationship with Christ as our leader. Afterwards we partake of the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ. However, just as some of the Israelites afterwards rebelled and sinned and were punished, we are warned not to use our baptism and partaking of communion (both of which are connected to forgiveness of sins) as an excuse to willingly sin. The point I'd like to make about the current study is the allusion to baptism here (Red Sea = water, Cloud = Spirit) is a birth of water and Spirit.
The next baptismal passage is one of the most controversial and debated ones in all the Bible. In the future I will dedicate an entire post to this verse, but for now let's try to put it into context for the letter of 1st Corinthians:
"For just-as the body is one and has many members and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For also, we were all immersed into one body, in one Spirit, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondservants or free men, and all were made to drink into one Spirit."
- 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, MLV
For the sake of time and space, I won't delve deep into this verse now. Suffice it to say that many people claim that this verse is referring to the moment of conversion as a Spirit-(only) baptism, and has nothing to do with water baptism. Others say this verse is about water baptism, only using the Spirit as as metaphor. I would like to put forward that this verse is referring to the baptism that is a birth of water AND Spirit and not one or the other. Again, understanding the first three verses referring to baptism in this letter (Chapter 1 verses 10-17, Chapter 6 verses 9-11 and chapter 10 verses 1 - 13) all refer to immersion (in water) in the name of Jesus, which is a birth of water and Spirit, it only makes logical sense that this verse refers to the same moment. When the readers/hearers of this letter in the first century got to this part, they wouldn't have been thinking of two different baptism: one in water and one in Spirit, but rather would have recalled their own conversion when a disciple of Jesus immersed them in water in his name, just as it is stated in Acts 18:8, and in the first chapter of this letter, when Paul lists off the people he recalls having baptized (Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas). The point of this verse is that our baptism is a uniting factor. In this part of the letter, Paul is talking about unity through diversity: all the Corinthians may have different gifts, but it is the one Spirit who has given each of the gifts. And although we all have different functions in the body/the church, the one Spirit put us into that church when we were baptized. We were all watered with, irrigated with, or given the one Spirit to drink. John 4:10-14 and John 7:38-39 both allude to this idea that the Spirit is poured into us like a drink; and Titus 3:3-8 spells out the moment when this occurs is when we have the washing/bath of rebirth and renewal. As mentioned, we will discuss this verse more in detail in a later post, but for now let's use the logical conclusion that if the first three verses in this letter dealing with baptism have water involved, then so does this reference as well.
The final verse in this letter dealing with baptism is probably the most confusing one in the entire NT:
"Otherwise what will they do who are immersed on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not literally raised up, why then are they immersed on behalf of the dead?" - 1 Corinthians 15:29, MLV
A baptism for the dead. Complex and confusing to say the least. Some believe that the apostle is saying that in Corinth there were disciples who began allowing themselves to be immersed for people who were already dead, a sort of vicarious baptism for one who perhaps had faith, but died before they were able to be baptized. This one verse has led to an entire doctrine of "baptism for the dead" in the Mormon churches of today. That being said, there are three main ideas promoted by Bible scholars regarding this verse:
A) people were being vicariously baptized for loved ones who were already dead
B) the expressions means that one was baptized with regard to one who was dead, as in a Christian whose dying plea was that loved ones would become a Christian (by getting baptized)
C) the dead meaning one's own dead body, and the baptism was a way to assure that the dead body will be resurrected and join those who were already dead in Christ in the resurrection
None of the arguments are satisfying, however I will say that I tend to lean towards the third option, particularly after reading what Tertullian wrote about the verse around 200 AD:
"He asks 'what will thy do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise?'...Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates that some new god is the author and advocate of this practice. Rather, it was so that he could all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining 'only one baptism.' Therefore, to be 'baptized for the dead' means, in fact, to be baptized for the body. For, as we have shown, it is the body that becomes dead. What, then, will they do who are baptized for the body, if the body does not rise again?"
So, in conclusion. I would state the every single verse in 1 Corinthians that deals with baptism, is referring to a baptism in the name of Jesus, where one disciple immerses a convert in water so as to be born of water and Spirit. This is tied to the crucifixion and the unity of the body of Christ. This is where we are washed, sanctified and justified. This was foreshadowed by Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea and under the cloud. This is where the Spirit puts us into the body of Christ, and eliminates all dividing hostilities. Finally, this is what allows us to be confident that we will participate in the final resurrection because we have been united with and resurrected with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Let's look at our next instance:
"Now brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant that our fathers were all under the cloud and all went through the sea; and were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all were drinking the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking from a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was Christ. Yet God was not delighted in most of them; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, that we should not be desirers of evil things, just-as they also lusted. Do not become idolaters, just-as some of them were; as it has been written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’ Neither should we fornicate, like some of them fornicated, and twenty three thousand fell in one day. Nor should we test the Christ, just-as some of them also tested him, and perished by the serpents. Nor murmur, like some of them also murmured, and perished by the destroyer. Now all these things are examples which were befalling to those Jews, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have arrived. So-then, he who thinks he stands, let him beware, lest he might fall! No temptation has taken you except common human temptations, but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able to undergo, but together with the temptation, he will also make an outlet." - 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, MLV
Understanding the full context of this letter reminds us that above all this is a corrective letter to the church in Corinth, which was full of problems. In this particular part of the letter, Paul is warning them to not use their salvation as a license to sin. He then gives some analogies from Israel's history. He uses a type-antitype OT foreshadowing construction to start off his point. He says that Israel had its own "baptism/immersion" and a sort of commumion as well. They went through the waters of the Red Sea with the cloud overhead (essentially surrounded by waters on all sides). This baptism allowed them to escape slavery and death and then put them into a relationship with Moses as their leader; afterwards they ate manna from Heaven and drank water from the rock. The same is true for us today, we go through the waters of baptism for the forgiveness of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and this puts us into a relationship with Christ as our leader. Afterwards we partake of the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Christ. However, just as some of the Israelites afterwards rebelled and sinned and were punished, we are warned not to use our baptism and partaking of communion (both of which are connected to forgiveness of sins) as an excuse to willingly sin. The point I'd like to make about the current study is the allusion to baptism here (Red Sea = water, Cloud = Spirit) is a birth of water and Spirit.
The next baptismal passage is one of the most controversial and debated ones in all the Bible. In the future I will dedicate an entire post to this verse, but for now let's try to put it into context for the letter of 1st Corinthians:
"For just-as the body is one and has many members and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For also, we were all immersed into one body, in one Spirit, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondservants or free men, and all were made to drink into one Spirit."
- 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, MLV
For the sake of time and space, I won't delve deep into this verse now. Suffice it to say that many people claim that this verse is referring to the moment of conversion as a Spirit-(only) baptism, and has nothing to do with water baptism. Others say this verse is about water baptism, only using the Spirit as as metaphor. I would like to put forward that this verse is referring to the baptism that is a birth of water AND Spirit and not one or the other. Again, understanding the first three verses referring to baptism in this letter (Chapter 1 verses 10-17, Chapter 6 verses 9-11 and chapter 10 verses 1 - 13) all refer to immersion (in water) in the name of Jesus, which is a birth of water and Spirit, it only makes logical sense that this verse refers to the same moment. When the readers/hearers of this letter in the first century got to this part, they wouldn't have been thinking of two different baptism: one in water and one in Spirit, but rather would have recalled their own conversion when a disciple of Jesus immersed them in water in his name, just as it is stated in Acts 18:8, and in the first chapter of this letter, when Paul lists off the people he recalls having baptized (Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas). The point of this verse is that our baptism is a uniting factor. In this part of the letter, Paul is talking about unity through diversity: all the Corinthians may have different gifts, but it is the one Spirit who has given each of the gifts. And although we all have different functions in the body/the church, the one Spirit put us into that church when we were baptized. We were all watered with, irrigated with, or given the one Spirit to drink. John 4:10-14 and John 7:38-39 both allude to this idea that the Spirit is poured into us like a drink; and Titus 3:3-8 spells out the moment when this occurs is when we have the washing/bath of rebirth and renewal. As mentioned, we will discuss this verse more in detail in a later post, but for now let's use the logical conclusion that if the first three verses in this letter dealing with baptism have water involved, then so does this reference as well.
The final verse in this letter dealing with baptism is probably the most confusing one in the entire NT:
"Otherwise what will they do who are immersed on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not literally raised up, why then are they immersed on behalf of the dead?" - 1 Corinthians 15:29, MLV
A baptism for the dead. Complex and confusing to say the least. Some believe that the apostle is saying that in Corinth there were disciples who began allowing themselves to be immersed for people who were already dead, a sort of vicarious baptism for one who perhaps had faith, but died before they were able to be baptized. This one verse has led to an entire doctrine of "baptism for the dead" in the Mormon churches of today. That being said, there are three main ideas promoted by Bible scholars regarding this verse:
A) people were being vicariously baptized for loved ones who were already dead
B) the expressions means that one was baptized with regard to one who was dead, as in a Christian whose dying plea was that loved ones would become a Christian (by getting baptized)
C) the dead meaning one's own dead body, and the baptism was a way to assure that the dead body will be resurrected and join those who were already dead in Christ in the resurrection
None of the arguments are satisfying, however I will say that I tend to lean towards the third option, particularly after reading what Tertullian wrote about the verse around 200 AD:
"He asks 'what will thy do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise?'...Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates that some new god is the author and advocate of this practice. Rather, it was so that he could all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining 'only one baptism.' Therefore, to be 'baptized for the dead' means, in fact, to be baptized for the body. For, as we have shown, it is the body that becomes dead. What, then, will they do who are baptized for the body, if the body does not rise again?"
So, in conclusion. I would state the every single verse in 1 Corinthians that deals with baptism, is referring to a baptism in the name of Jesus, where one disciple immerses a convert in water so as to be born of water and Spirit. This is tied to the crucifixion and the unity of the body of Christ. This is where we are washed, sanctified and justified. This was foreshadowed by Moses leading the Israelites through the Red Sea and under the cloud. This is where the Spirit puts us into the body of Christ, and eliminates all dividing hostilities. Finally, this is what allows us to be confident that we will participate in the final resurrection because we have been united with and resurrected with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Baptism in 1st Corinthians - part I
In the previous post, we talked about how it is important to read entire books/letters of the Bible in one sitting so as to get a better understanding of the context of verses. Today, we'll attempt to discuss all the references to baptism in one letter: that of the 1 Corinthians.
Of all the New Testament letters, none speaks of baptism/immersion more than Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In today's post we are going to walk through the references there to see what we can learn about baptismal thought and language in the mind of Paul.
Let's start at the beginning:
"Now brethren, I am pleading with you through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all should speak the same thing and there should be no splits among you, but you should be framed together in the same mind and in the same viewpoint. For it has been indicated to me concerning you, my brethren, by the household of Chloe, that strifes are among you. Now I am saying this, that each of you says, I am indeed of Paul! I am indeed of Apollos! I am indeed of Cephas! I am indeed of Christ! Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified on your behalf, was he? Or were you immersed into the name of Paul? I thank God that I immersed none of you, except Crispus and Gaius; lest anyone might say that you were immersed into my name. And I also immersed the household of Stephanas; furthermore, I do not know if I immersed any other. For Christ sent me not to immerse, but to proclaim the good-news; not in wisdom of words, (that the cross of Christ might not be made void)."
- 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, MLV
This is one of the most controversial passages about baptism and as James Dunn states in his book, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, "This passage is a battlefield where both sacramentalists and their opponents claim the victory, v. 13 being the stronghold of the one, and v. 17 that of the other."
Let's examine the passage and see what we can glean from not only these verses but the letter as a whole. Paul starts off his letter by imploring the Corinthians to be united. Apparently, factions had been started based off of either who had preached to them before they got baptized, or who had baptized them. Paul's three questions in v. 13 are powerful and put baptism in some interesting company: he puts the unity Christ, the crucifixion of Christ and baptism in the name of Christ all together. This is not unlike the company baptism finds itself with in Ephesians 4:3-6, another place where Paul is referring to unity in the body of Christ. Another assumption we can make based on this text is that all the Corinthians had been baptized. This corresponds with what is said in Acts 18:7-8 where we see many Corinthians believing and being baptized, which brings us to v. 14 where we see that Paul personally baptized one Crispus and one Gaius. As a matter of fact Paul is glad that he only baptized those two so that no one could say they were baptized in his name. (See this post for a more in-depth discussion of the conversion of Crispus as recorded in Acts and 1 Corinthians) Suddenly, the Spirit prompts Paul to remember that he also baptized the household of Stephanas, and then we come to a verse of not a little controversy, v. 17 when Paul says he wasn't sent to baptize. Many have taken this to mean that baptism is not important, that it's just a secondary or afterthought. However, this doesn't make logical sense given what Paul had just previously stated regarding baptism, not to mention his references and explanations of it in many other letters. As a general rule, I'm not a fan of The Message Bible, but here I think they definitely catch the meaning of what Paul is really trying to get across in verse 17, given the context:
"God didn’t send me out to collect a following for myself, but to preach the Message of what he has done, collecting a following for him. And he didn’t send me to do it with a lot of fancy rhetoric of my own, lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words."
Given the full context of this passage, it is clear that Paul was diminishing the importance of the person who physically baptized the convert, not the importance of baptism itself. This makes sense given that both Jesus (John 4:1-3) and Peter (Acts 10:47-48) also delegated the immersing to another. Also, given the context of this passage, we can see that factions were arising based on preaching and baptizing; Paul wanted to make clear that it didn't matter if he physically put someone under the water, because it would be done as a response to the preaching of the gospel message. That is the other point of this passage, we know that baptism in the name of Jesus is in water (Acts 2:38-39, Acts 8:35-39, Acts 10:47-48) and it is what one disciple of Jesus does to a convert (Matthew 28:18-20). so, when Paul says he baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas, we know that he means in water in the name of Jesus.
The second baptismal passage in this letter can be found in chapter six:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pedophiles, nor homosexuals, nor the greedy, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And some of you were these, but you were bathed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, MLV
Several people try to say that this passage is not about baptism, or that it is only about spiritual baptism and not baptism in water. The facts speak in contrary to that idea. In this verse, Paul is using language similar to that which he heard at his own conversion. Look at the question Ananias asked him:
"And now, why are you hesitating? You yourself, stand up; be immersed and bathe away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." - Acts 22:16, MLV
However, the connection goes further, let's look at a breakdown of the text (in the NIV):
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. <-- SIN
And that is what some of you were. <-- WHAT HAPPENED/CHANGED?
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Acts 22:16, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 both refer to sins being BATHED/WASHED away and make reference to the name. In fact, the only uses of the verb that is translated washed/bathed here in the entire New Testament are the two verses in Acts 22 and 1 Corinthians 6. See here: http://biblehub.com/str/greek/628.htm
So, we know that this verse in 1 Corinthians 6 is a reference to baptism. The connection doesn't end there. "Washed/bathed...in the name of the Lord" is extremely close to "be baptized/immersed in the name of the Lord". The parallel of being washed/bathed/baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins occurs in these two verses and Acts 2:38:
“…and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” –Acts 2:38
“be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’” – Acts 22:16
“But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…” – 1 Corinthians 6:11
Not only that but the reference to the Spirit of our God in 1 Corinthians also parallels "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2. These verses are all connected.
So, we can conclude that the first two references to baptism in 1 Corinthians (coupled with the information we have from the book of Acts) both refer to immersion in water in the name of Jesus where a disciple (Paul, Ananias) baptized a convert (Crispus, Gaius, Saul, etc) as part of the conversion process.
In Part II, we'll discuss 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Of all the New Testament letters, none speaks of baptism/immersion more than Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. In today's post we are going to walk through the references there to see what we can learn about baptismal thought and language in the mind of Paul.
Let's start at the beginning:
"Now brethren, I am pleading with you through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all should speak the same thing and there should be no splits among you, but you should be framed together in the same mind and in the same viewpoint. For it has been indicated to me concerning you, my brethren, by the household of Chloe, that strifes are among you. Now I am saying this, that each of you says, I am indeed of Paul! I am indeed of Apollos! I am indeed of Cephas! I am indeed of Christ! Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified on your behalf, was he? Or were you immersed into the name of Paul? I thank God that I immersed none of you, except Crispus and Gaius; lest anyone might say that you were immersed into my name. And I also immersed the household of Stephanas; furthermore, I do not know if I immersed any other. For Christ sent me not to immerse, but to proclaim the good-news; not in wisdom of words, (that the cross of Christ might not be made void)."
- 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, MLV
This is one of the most controversial passages about baptism and as James Dunn states in his book, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, "This passage is a battlefield where both sacramentalists and their opponents claim the victory, v. 13 being the stronghold of the one, and v. 17 that of the other."
Let's examine the passage and see what we can glean from not only these verses but the letter as a whole. Paul starts off his letter by imploring the Corinthians to be united. Apparently, factions had been started based off of either who had preached to them before they got baptized, or who had baptized them. Paul's three questions in v. 13 are powerful and put baptism in some interesting company: he puts the unity Christ, the crucifixion of Christ and baptism in the name of Christ all together. This is not unlike the company baptism finds itself with in Ephesians 4:3-6, another place where Paul is referring to unity in the body of Christ. Another assumption we can make based on this text is that all the Corinthians had been baptized. This corresponds with what is said in Acts 18:7-8 where we see many Corinthians believing and being baptized, which brings us to v. 14 where we see that Paul personally baptized one Crispus and one Gaius. As a matter of fact Paul is glad that he only baptized those two so that no one could say they were baptized in his name. (See this post for a more in-depth discussion of the conversion of Crispus as recorded in Acts and 1 Corinthians) Suddenly, the Spirit prompts Paul to remember that he also baptized the household of Stephanas, and then we come to a verse of not a little controversy, v. 17 when Paul says he wasn't sent to baptize. Many have taken this to mean that baptism is not important, that it's just a secondary or afterthought. However, this doesn't make logical sense given what Paul had just previously stated regarding baptism, not to mention his references and explanations of it in many other letters. As a general rule, I'm not a fan of The Message Bible, but here I think they definitely catch the meaning of what Paul is really trying to get across in verse 17, given the context:
"God didn’t send me out to collect a following for myself, but to preach the Message of what he has done, collecting a following for him. And he didn’t send me to do it with a lot of fancy rhetoric of my own, lest the powerful action at the center—Christ on the Cross—be trivialized into mere words."
Given the full context of this passage, it is clear that Paul was diminishing the importance of the person who physically baptized the convert, not the importance of baptism itself. This makes sense given that both Jesus (John 4:1-3) and Peter (Acts 10:47-48) also delegated the immersing to another. Also, given the context of this passage, we can see that factions were arising based on preaching and baptizing; Paul wanted to make clear that it didn't matter if he physically put someone under the water, because it would be done as a response to the preaching of the gospel message. That is the other point of this passage, we know that baptism in the name of Jesus is in water (Acts 2:38-39, Acts 8:35-39, Acts 10:47-48) and it is what one disciple of Jesus does to a convert (Matthew 28:18-20). so, when Paul says he baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas, we know that he means in water in the name of Jesus.
The second baptismal passage in this letter can be found in chapter six:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor pedophiles, nor homosexuals, nor the greedy, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And some of you were these, but you were bathed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, MLV
Several people try to say that this passage is not about baptism, or that it is only about spiritual baptism and not baptism in water. The facts speak in contrary to that idea. In this verse, Paul is using language similar to that which he heard at his own conversion. Look at the question Ananias asked him:
"And now, why are you hesitating? You yourself, stand up; be immersed and bathe away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." - Acts 22:16, MLV
However, the connection goes further, let's look at a breakdown of the text (in the NIV):
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. <-- SIN
And that is what some of you were. <-- WHAT HAPPENED/CHANGED?
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Acts 22:16, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 both refer to sins being BATHED/WASHED away and make reference to the name. In fact, the only uses of the verb that is translated washed/bathed here in the entire New Testament are the two verses in Acts 22 and 1 Corinthians 6. See here: http://biblehub.com/str/greek/628.htm
So, we know that this verse in 1 Corinthians 6 is a reference to baptism. The connection doesn't end there. "Washed/bathed...in the name of the Lord" is extremely close to "be baptized/immersed in the name of the Lord". The parallel of being washed/bathed/baptized in the name of the Lord for the forgiveness of sins occurs in these two verses and Acts 2:38:
“…and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” –Acts 2:38
“be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’” – Acts 22:16
“But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…” – 1 Corinthians 6:11
So, we can conclude that the first two references to baptism in 1 Corinthians (coupled with the information we have from the book of Acts) both refer to immersion in water in the name of Jesus where a disciple (Paul, Ananias) baptized a convert (Crispus, Gaius, Saul, etc) as part of the conversion process.
In Part II, we'll discuss 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:29.
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
Thursday, May 18, 2017
One letter at a time...
"Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea." - Colossians 4:15-16
Church "service" in the first century was very different in some ways than our services today. In the early (Jewish-only) church in the first 10 chapters of Acts, the disciples would often meet on the Sabbath in the Temple or synagogue to hear Scripture being read. The Apostles would get up and preach about Jesus, and then throughout the week the disciples would often meet in their homes or in the Temple courts as well.
After the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God, meeting at the Temple/synagogues became increasingly more difficult as the uncircumcised were not allowed in certain areas, so the church began meeting more frequently in homes. Reading through Acts and Paul's letters we see more and more the idea of "house churches". The majority of the New Testament consists of letters written to specific churches and/or individuals by the apostles and prophets in the first century. These letters would then be circulated (and later copied) among the house churches of the time as we can see from the initial verse above. Paul often names the carriers of the letter towards the end of each one. Due to the large number of people who were illiterate in those days, one or two persons would often read the letter aloud to everyone (and for those who weren't Greek-speaking, there would be an interpreter into Hebrew/Aramaic). They would have a communion meal together and pray and sometimes someone would get up and preach words of encouragement or share news about the surrounding sister churches.
This is often very different from how we read the Bible today. We often read short sections or a few chapters at a time, forgetting that most books/letters of the Bible were intended to be read in one sitting.
Here's a great article by fellow blogger Radically Christian on estimated times it would take to read each book of the Bible in one sitting.
It can also really help you to read the Bible as such if you have an edition with no chapters/verses. Last year, I bought this one and I love it for numerous reasons: a more logical order/division of the books and putting similar texts in sections together. For example, in most Bibles Paul's letters are arranged in order from longest (Romans) to shortest (Philemon), while this Bible puts them in what is most commonly believed to be their chronological order. Also, most Bibles separate Samuel, Kings and Chronicles into two books, while this Bible does not. The Bible also takes the logical step of putting Luke-Acts together, since Luke (the doctor) wrote them both as a part I and part II.
I strongly suggest that you carve out time in your schedule to read each book of the Bible in one sitting (except for maybe Psalms and Proverbs, which I don't believe were intended to be read as such - those should probably be split up into sections over several days).
It will change so much of your understanding of the Bible and help you to see connections you have never noticed before. The first century church read the letters of the NT in one sitting, and even then some folks missed or distorted the meaning of things (see the closing verse of this entry). How much more susceptible are we to error like that by reading only snippets of the Bible on a regular basis?
Many people like to form an entire conversion doctrine around Ephesians 2:8-9, forgetting that in that same letter Ephesians 4:4-6 and Ephesians 5:25-27 must be taken into account.
The "faith/belief alone = salvation" proponents will often cite Romans 4 and Romans 10:9-13 while ignoring the surrounding context and the fact that Romans 6:1-11 lies between the two in the same letter. In our next entry, we'll look at the first letter to the Corinthians and how baptism/immersion is referenced there and should be understood throughout the ENTIRE letter.
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:15-16
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
P.S. I apologize about the delay in publishing an article this week. I actually was afforded the opportunity to preach the Sunday sermon at my home church this past week, and was out of town the first three days of the week. Starting this coming weekend, I will resume my regular schedule of publishing articles on Sundays and Wednesdays.
Church "service" in the first century was very different in some ways than our services today. In the early (Jewish-only) church in the first 10 chapters of Acts, the disciples would often meet on the Sabbath in the Temple or synagogue to hear Scripture being read. The Apostles would get up and preach about Jesus, and then throughout the week the disciples would often meet in their homes or in the Temple courts as well.
After the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God, meeting at the Temple/synagogues became increasingly more difficult as the uncircumcised were not allowed in certain areas, so the church began meeting more frequently in homes. Reading through Acts and Paul's letters we see more and more the idea of "house churches". The majority of the New Testament consists of letters written to specific churches and/or individuals by the apostles and prophets in the first century. These letters would then be circulated (and later copied) among the house churches of the time as we can see from the initial verse above. Paul often names the carriers of the letter towards the end of each one. Due to the large number of people who were illiterate in those days, one or two persons would often read the letter aloud to everyone (and for those who weren't Greek-speaking, there would be an interpreter into Hebrew/Aramaic). They would have a communion meal together and pray and sometimes someone would get up and preach words of encouragement or share news about the surrounding sister churches.
This is often very different from how we read the Bible today. We often read short sections or a few chapters at a time, forgetting that most books/letters of the Bible were intended to be read in one sitting.
Here's a great article by fellow blogger Radically Christian on estimated times it would take to read each book of the Bible in one sitting.
It can also really help you to read the Bible as such if you have an edition with no chapters/verses. Last year, I bought this one and I love it for numerous reasons: a more logical order/division of the books and putting similar texts in sections together. For example, in most Bibles Paul's letters are arranged in order from longest (Romans) to shortest (Philemon), while this Bible puts them in what is most commonly believed to be their chronological order. Also, most Bibles separate Samuel, Kings and Chronicles into two books, while this Bible does not. The Bible also takes the logical step of putting Luke-Acts together, since Luke (the doctor) wrote them both as a part I and part II.
I strongly suggest that you carve out time in your schedule to read each book of the Bible in one sitting (except for maybe Psalms and Proverbs, which I don't believe were intended to be read as such - those should probably be split up into sections over several days).
It will change so much of your understanding of the Bible and help you to see connections you have never noticed before. The first century church read the letters of the NT in one sitting, and even then some folks missed or distorted the meaning of things (see the closing verse of this entry). How much more susceptible are we to error like that by reading only snippets of the Bible on a regular basis?
Many people like to form an entire conversion doctrine around Ephesians 2:8-9, forgetting that in that same letter Ephesians 4:4-6 and Ephesians 5:25-27 must be taken into account.
The "faith/belief alone = salvation" proponents will often cite Romans 4 and Romans 10:9-13 while ignoring the surrounding context and the fact that Romans 6:1-11 lies between the two in the same letter. In our next entry, we'll look at the first letter to the Corinthians and how baptism/immersion is referenced there and should be understood throughout the ENTIRE letter.
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:15-16
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
P.S. I apologize about the delay in publishing an article this week. I actually was afforded the opportunity to preach the Sunday sermon at my home church this past week, and was out of town the first three days of the week. Starting this coming weekend, I will resume my regular schedule of publishing articles on Sundays and Wednesdays.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Counting conversions?
As pointed out in a previous post "discipleship and baptism", immersion was/is a part of making a disciple. It is the turning point, where one goes from darkness to light. Let's look at some further evidence for the idea that the NT church knew of or marked the turning point:
"You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people." - 1 Corinthians 16:15a, NIV, emphasis mine.
The word being translated here as "convert(s)" actually literally means "first-fruits" from the Greek word aparché. The idea comes from the first part of a harvest that was offered in a sacrifice or a gift to a deity.
The early church (in this case, Paul in particular) knew who the first converts were in particular areas and if someone was a recent convert or not. Look at one of the qualifications given for someone to become an elder/shepherd in the church:
The word being translated "recent convert" here comes from the same word that the English term "neophyte" is derived. It can mean novice or beginner, but it literally means "newly sprouted". An idea that is not foreign to the Biblical concept of conversion (see John 12:23-25, 1 Corinthians 3:5-9, and 1 Corinthians 15).
Finally, we see reference to a certain Cypriot named Mnason who had been a disciple "of old/of long standing":
"Some of the disciples from Caesarea accompanied us and brought us to the home of Mnason, where we were to stay. He was a man from Cyprus and one of the early disciples." -Acts 21:16, NIV, emphasis mine.
So, the early church was cognizant of or understood the idea of "how long" someone had been a disciple.
So, the early church was cognizant of or understood the idea of "how long" someone had been a disciple.
WHEN then does this change occur?
2 Corinthians 5:17 refers to this as being "in Christ", being "a new creation". The way that a person gets into Christ is through faith and baptism:
" Or are you ignorant that as many as were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed* into his death? Therefore we were buried together with him through the immersion* into death; that just-like Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we might also walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:3-4, MLV
2 Corinthians 5:17 refers to this as being "in Christ", being "a new creation". The way that a person gets into Christ is through faith and baptism:
" Or are you ignorant that as many as were immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed* into his death? Therefore we were buried together with him through the immersion* into death; that just-like Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we might also walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:3-4, MLV
The only way the Bible refers to a person becoming or getting "into Christ" is immersed/baptized into Christ. The Bible never uses the terms "believed/repented/confessed/prayed into Christ".
This idea corresponds with what we see in Acts, the only book of the Bible with conversions recorded in it:
Acts 2:41-42 - 3,000 baptized and then they devoted themselves...(like Matthew 28:18-20, baptize them then teach them to obey everything...). See also Acts 4:4, Acts 21:20 for a "tracking" of the number of converts to five thousand (men) and thousands respectively.
Now, in no way am I advocating that church should be run like a business with spreadsheets and stats about growth and conversions; I do think it is interesting that to at least a degree the early (Jerusalem) church did somewhat monitor their numbers. This isn't totally surprising coming from the Jewish brethren given Israel's history of keeping records and counts.
Now, in no way am I advocating that church should be run like a business with spreadsheets and stats about growth and conversions; I do think it is interesting that to at least a degree the early (Jerusalem) church did somewhat monitor their numbers. This isn't totally surprising coming from the Jewish brethren given Israel's history of keeping records and counts.
I think the lesson here is that it is always exciting and a good thing to want to see lots of people become followers of Christ, but we have to remember it is the Lord adding to the number daily through the power of his Spirit and not necessarily our efforts or "church planning".
Be strong in the grace,
Fenton
NOTE: for verses dealing with baptism I tend to use the MLV because I prefer the more accurate translation of "immersion/immersed", but for the ease and familiarity of the reader, other verse citations will be in the NIV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)