I'm Not Sure if I Buy the Idea of Sacraments as a Means of Grace (Part 2)
Some thoughts on Baptism and Communion (2/3)
In our last article, we talked about the sacraments of the Christian Church. We identified what they are, talked about the idea of a sacrament and the different approaches to it, and discussed how communion fits into the discussion.
In the Churches of Christ, in which much of my audience was raised, we didn’t treat communion as a sacrament by which we received grace. When it comes to baptism, though, we take a different approach. It is through, not apart from or before, baptism that grace is bestowed upon the individual.
To put it very specifically, if someone believes in Jesus, confesses that he is the Son of God, and commits to following Jesus in their life but for some reason isn’t fully immersed in water with the express purpose of appropriating the forgiveness of sins, then many within the Church of Christ would say that this individual isn’t saved—including almost unthinkable situations where the person dies or is otherwise incapacitated before they are baptized but also including situations in which someone simply differs on the purpose, method, or timing of baptism.
In this article we will be exploring the idea of baptism as a means of grace, but instead of going through some of the typical examples like the thief on the cross (which I think isn’t a great example anyway) and the household of Cornelius (which I find as a compelling example against baptismal regeneration), we will first look at the act of baptism itself: what it looks like, its purpose before Christ, what it signifies for the believer, and its application and relevance today.
What it Looks Like
So, what does baptism look like? Is it immersion or infusion (pouring)?
Julia Gatta, an Episcopal professor and priest, wrote in her book Life in Christ,
The metaphor of death and burial would have suggested itself naturally enough since all baptisms at the time took place by immersion in “living water”—a lake, river or stream (p. 6).1)
So baptism is typically, and preferably, immersion; however, the Didache, which was in circulation towards the end of the first century, describes a slightly different perspective:
1 Regarding baptism, baptize thus. After giving the foregoing instructions, ‘Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’ in running water. 2 But if you have no running water, baptize in any other; and, if you cannot in cold water, then in warm. 3 But, if the one is lacking, pour the other three times on the head ‘in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.’ 4 But, before the baptism, let the one who baptizes and the one to be baptized fast, and any others who are able to do so. And you shall require the person being baptized to fast for one or two days.2 (Didache, 7, emphasis mine—bold)
Baptism by infusion was not the preferred way to baptize someone, but within one generation removed from Jesus, it was an accepted and preserved practice within at least some portion of the church.
This is not an argument for infusion; I’m simply noting what baptism looks like from a historical perspective. It’s also not an argument against infusion.
The Purpose of Baptism Before Christ
We are all familiar with John the Baptist and his habit of baptizing in the Jordan River, but what we might not know is baptism wasn't invented by John, despite his nickname.
The covenant under Moses called for various baptisms, or washings, in relation to the clean and unclean laws:
This is a symbol of the present time, indicating that gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper but deal only with food and drink and various baptisms, regulations for the body imposed until the time comes to set things right. Hebrews 9:9–10
These washings were for the body (or the flesh), but they had no ability to cleanse the conscience.
We see these baptisms come into play in some of Jesus’s discussions with the religious leaders of his people. Mark adds this explanation during one of these critiques of Jesus:
(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) Mark 7:3–4
The phrase “they cleanse themselves” is a word you might be familiar with: baptizō. It’s the word translated baptized in Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 (and in over 60 other verses).
It refers to the action of immersing one’s hands, possibly up to the elbows, before eating holy things. Some argue that it involved pouring water over the hands, similar to what we do before eating.3 If cleansing one’s hands could be constituted as baptism, then could similarly cleansing one’s head, like the anointing of kings in the Hebrew Scriptures, be considered baptism? Personally, I prefer immersion for reasons I’ll delineate later, but this line of reasoning does pique my interest.
So, baptism was used to ritually purify someone before they ate. It was also used to prepare people for prayer (Judith 12:5-7) or participation in other holy acts, like entering the temple. Craig Keener notes that the temple had many immersion pools which would have accommodated the 3,000 converts in Acts 2: “The temple mount had many immersion pools that worshipers used to purify themselves ritually; mass baptisms could thus be conducted quickly.”4
Baptism was also used to initiate proselytes to Judaism in the time of Christ. Julia Gatta writes, “By the time of Christ, elements within Judaism seem to have evolved forms of proselyte baptism: that is, as part of their initiation into the Covenant people, Gentile coverts underwent a ritual bath, by which the filth of paganism was symbolically washed away” (p. 2).
As Craig Keener explains, it is the particular baptism that influenced John and later Jesus’s disciples,
“Like many other ancient peoples, Jewish people practiced ceremonial washings. Their only once-for-all ceremonial washing, however, was the immersion that non-Jews had to go through when they converted to Judaism. Non-Jews who were converting to Judaism would immerse themselves in water, probably under the supervision of a religious expert. John’s baptizing activity fits this model” (see comments on Mark 1:4-5).
Understanding this historical context helps us to understand why Jesus and his disciples adopted the practice and gave it a new meaning in light of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. Like communion adopted and adapted the Paschal meal, baptism adopted and adapted typical Jewish washings common to the temple, everyday practices, and in making proselytes.
Baptism as Subversive Eschatological Theatre
Participation in Resurrection
So what does baptism mean for the believer, specifically the first believers on Pentecost and beyond?
If we understand the kingdom of Heaven to be a heavenly, nonviolent kingdom inaugurated by Jesus through his ministry, death, and resurrection, then we might view baptism as induction into that kingdom. By proclaiming that Jesus is Lord and submitting to baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, baptism was a way to publicly embrace the Way of Christ while simultaneously renouncing ways of injustice.
In my tradition, we typically confess that Jesus is the Son of God prior to our baptism. This is based out of a passage in Acts 8 that is not typically included in more modern translations due to evidence that it was introduced by editors in later manuscripts (see marginal notes on Acts 8:37). But in other traditions, there are lots of things one might say before baptism.
The Episcopal service, taken from the Book of Common Prayer, involves several renunciations and affirmations. The script is as follows:
Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
I renounce them.
Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
I renounce them.
Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
I renounce them.
Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
I do.
Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
I do.
Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
I do.
These renunciations and affirmations, though not found in the Bible, are biblical and suggest that baptism is meant to be what I’ve called subversive eschatological theatre. That is, those who submit to baptism renounce the powers of darkness and then participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Julia Gatta writes, “This is the goal of baptism: the restoration of a human nature that has been distorted by sin and doomed to death. Only in Christ, ‘the last Adam’ (1 Corinthians 15:45), is our humanity fully restored and transfigured” (p. 14).
In reenacting the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, one joins in the resurrection and renounces death and Hades.
In the words of Paul,
Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:3–4
And in following Christ, the first Christians could “consider [themselves] dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11).
Full Inclusion in the Messianic Temple
There are other eschatological elements present within baptism, such as the forgiveness of sins as it relates to the New Covenant, but I want to focus on the connection between baptism and the Messianic Temple.
The Gospel according to John frames Jesus’s entire life around a temple/ tabernacle narrative. The Logos tabernacles among his people (John 1:14). Jesus is greater than the temple and can rebuild it through resurrection (John 2:13-22). This is why John relocates the cleansing of the temple to the beginning of Jesus’s ministry. And in talking to the Samaritan woman, Jesus boldly declares that God is no longer to be worshipped on a particular mountain (Gerizim or Zion); instead, one approaches the Father through the Spirit and the Son (cf. John 4:24 and John 14:6, 17:17, 1:1).
This is a big deal in the ministry of Jesus because he often includes people who otherwise would not be allowed into the temple, but as a walking tabernacle, Jesus invites people into God’s presence despite the restrictions.
Deuteronomy 23:1, for example, says that no eunuch could enter the assembly of the Lord. Does this new temple Jesus presents to Samaritans, Gentiles, prostitutes, and lepers admit people with physical deformities, either by nature or by man?
In Matthew 9:12 Jesus announces that eunuchs have just as much right to the kingdom of heaven as anyone else.
But Jesus didn’t come up with this.
In Isaiah 56, the prophet foresaw a time when Eunuchs and foreigners would be given a place within God’s house, despite not being able to procreate.
For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Isaiah 56:4–5
In fact, the eunuchs who would keep the sabbaths would be given priestly responsibilities in the kingdom of God. This would include the necessary washings to become ceremonial clean so one could handle the offerings:
And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath and do not profane it and hold fast my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. Isaiah 56:6–7
So in Acts 8, when Phillip is told to join a Eunuch in his chariot on his way back from keeping the sabbaths in Jerusalem, it’s not surprising that the Eunuch is reading from this very context. Specifically, he is reading from Isaiah 53. He wants to know who this servant is because he has one question on his mind: “When will this servant show up so that God’s promise that I can have a place within them temple be fulfilled?”
Philip’s answer is simple. Jesus is that servant.
The Eunuch then makes his request: “If all of this is true, then what is keeping me from being baptized?”
In other words, “If Jesus is the servant, then shouldn’t I have a place in God’s house? Why do I need to wait any longer? Let me get baptized so I can begin my ministry in the temple of God!”
Baptism, then, was a culturally appropriate symbol recognized by all as an initiation into something new. Instead of making his many trips to Jerusalem to observe the sabbaths only to stand to the side as he watched people be baptized as they entered the temple in Jerusalem, he now was able to be be baptized in the name of Jesus and enter a different kind of temple, one that allows anyone in, even eunuchs.
Baptism’s Application and Relevance Today
Since we’re already at 2,400 words or so, I’ll continue this section next week in a part 3. We’ll discuss the relevance of baptism today, the one baptism of Ephesians 4, and the household of Cornelius.
Gatta, Julia. Life in Christ: Practicing Christian Spirituality. New York: Church Publishing, 2018. Print.
Glimm, Francis X. “The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” The Apostolic Fathers. Trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947. 177. Print. The Fathers of the Church.
See Dr. Adela Collins’ lengthy discussion in the comments on Mark 7 in her Hermeneia commentary. Collins, Adela Yarbro, and Harold W. Attridge. Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Print.