Category Archives: Baptism

Washing and renewal in Titus 3

waterOK, so I’ve goofed again. First I skipped the baptism of Jesus when talking about what the gospels say about baptism. Now I’ve forgotten one of my favorite passages on baptism: Titus 3. Let’s read what Paul says in this passage:

“At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:3–7)

I like that. Beautiful imagery, with hints of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus about being born of water and Spirit.

Some would limit the washing here to the work of the Holy Spirit, but after we’ve studied what the New Testament says about baptism, we can see that there’s really no need to do so. The Spirit is at work when we are baptized in water. We are immersed in water, yet the cleansing and regeneration come not from the water but from the Spirit. Born again of water and Spirit, both together.

The pouring out of the Spirit took place at Pentecost. Those who receive that Spirit are physically immersed in water while being spiritually immersed in God’s renewing Spirit. Justified by God’s grace, all who have been baptized into Christ are heirs, just as Paul said in Galatians 3. We have the hope of eternal life, not because we’ve done outstanding works, but because God did THE work through Jesus Christ our Savior.

This passage meshes perfectly with other New Testament teachings about the believer, baptism, and new birth.

The power of baptism isn’t in the water (1 Peter 3)

waterApologies for being a bit sporadic in posting on this series on baptism. We’ll keep making progress, as best we can. The last passage we looked at was Colossians 2. Let’s move on to 1 Peter 3. Here’s the pertinent section:

“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” (1 Peter 3:18–22)

It’s an interesting analogy, using the Old Testament in a way that most of us wouldn’t. Suffice it to say that Jewish hermeneutics allowed for more freedom in interpreting a text than most of us find comfortable. I don’t have a problem with that when it comes to New Testament writers, for I believe them to be inspired.

Note that Peter doesn’t focus on the saving ability of the ark that was built. He instead mentions the water. Then he compares that water to the water of baptism, saying that baptism also saves.

When we read commentators, this is where things get weird. The troublesome phrases tend to be: “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” Peter is saying that the saving power of the water of baptism is not it’s physical power (i.e., the water isn’t magic), but it’s spiritual power.

But some take Peter to be denying the necessity of baptism in water. (Truly amazing, since the imagery behind all of this is water!) Revisionists will say, “Aha! It’s not about the removal of dirt from the body. That means it’s not ‘water baptism’ he’s talking about. It’s spiritual baptism, our conscience appealing to God.”

Funny thing is, I’ve never met any person who practiced baptism who thought that the point was cleaning dirt off the body. Peter is merely emphasizing that the power of this physical act lies in the faith behind it, the same thing that Paul said in Colossians 2. It is the resurrection of Jesus that truly saves; our baptism in water is our connection with that resurrection, as Paul said in Romans 6.

That’s why I don’t get bent out of shape regarding what water we use. I’ve baptized in rivers and lakes. I’ve baptized in a bathtub. I’ve baptized in swimming pools. I’ve baptized in baptisteries of every shape, size, and color. The water is not the important thing.

I also don’t worry about who baptizes. The power is not in the hands of the one(s) helping the person go under the water. Nor do I worry about the minutiae. If their big toe was sticking out, I don’t feel like we have to dunk the person again. The water isn’t magic nor is the act, though they will probably appear so when viewed by outsiders. We know that the faith of the person, the heart appealing to God, is the engine behind baptism. None of it matters without God’s power and our belief in that power.

Baptism now saves us. Not because the water magically makes us clean. No, it’s because our symbolic burial and resurrection are an appeal to God for cleansing, an intentional connecting ourselves with the resurrection of Jesus and its power.

The power of baptism, from Colossians 2

waterMoving through the New Testament passages on baptism, we next come to Colossians 2. Paul connects baptism with the concept of circumcision, when he says

“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” (Colossians 2:11–15)

It’s been suggested that Paul here opens the door to infant baptism, given that circumcision was done eight days after birth. That’s taking Paul’s words a little too literally. But if you’re going to use this passage for infant baptism, you’re going to need to make that infant immersion (which some groups practice); there’s no getting around the imagery of burial in this text.

The passage also emphasizes the need for faith in God’s power. Any view of baptism that places importance on the one doing the baptizing or puts some sort of trust in the power of the water misses the mark on this one. Baptism is about God at work. Not man at work. Not water at work. God’s power.

It’s God who takes a dead person and makes them alive. It’s God who takes an unacceptable person and makes them clean. It’s God who takes a sinner and declares him just, canceling the debt of sin by sending Jesus to die on a cross.

Baptism has power because God has power. Our faith in that power makes baptism more than a symbol.

Ephesians 4 and the one baptism

waterAfter last week’s excursus, we’re ready to return to our examination of what the New Testament says about baptism. The next passage to discuss is found in Ephesians 4:

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4–6)

What’s the big deal about baptism? Why do some people talk about it so much? This passage helps us see why. When Paul wants to discuss the essentials of Christian unity, one of the seven things mentioned is baptism. In fact, we can go through the New Testament and note how many times baptism is mentioned compared with other Christian practices, like the Lord’s Supper. Baptism is mentioned much more frequently. Does that mean it’s more important than the Lord’s Supper? By no means. But baptism holds a central place in Christian doctrine.

One complication is the fact that the Bible mentions more than one baptism. There is John’s baptism. John said Jesus would baptize with the Spirit and with fire. Jesus spoke of his suffering and death as a baptism. Does that mean we can’t be sure of what Paul is saying here?

I think we can be sure. We’ve already seen that John’s baptism was superseded by baptism in the name of Jesus. And baptism in the Holy Spirit isn’t something we’re told to seek. God poured out his Spirit on all flesh, and we can now receive the Spirit in our lives by being baptized in water. Paul is talking about baptism in the name of Jesus.

It’s ironic then that baptism has often been a source of division, when it’s one of seven things that Paul points to that should be the basis of our unity. May we be drawn together through this reenactment of Jesus’ death, through this new birth into a renewed life. May the one baptism help us be one body.

Jews, slaves, women, and baptism

Bathroom-gender-signIn the comment section yesterday, Mike Cope, who directs the Pepperdine Lectures, responded to my post from Monday. He offered both clarifications and criticism. Both deserve to be heard. You can read Mike’s comments here and here.

Mike took exception to my calling Jarrod Robinson’s lecture “an agenda-driven talk.” Mike said that he chose both title and text, basing his decisions on scholarly writings, particularly those of Richard Hays. The choice was made for scholarly reasons, not in an effort to promote a certain agenda.

Mike also felt that I was saying that “if someone knew a little more about Galatians, they’d know how irrelevant it is to discussions of gender roles.” That’s not something I said nor intended, but it may have come across that way. Mike refuted that by referring to quite a number of scholars who feel that Galatians 3:28 does in fact reflect Paul’s egalitarian view of gender. Mike quoted both from Hays and from Gordon Fee in his comments.

I will note that Fee’s writings have generated quite a bit of pushback. I’m not as familiar with Hays’ writings. Either way, I recognize that many scholars hold the view Mike described. My study has led me to a different conclusion, one that I feel is biblical. As people say in Spanish, I don’t consider myself to be “the owner of the truth,” but I do feel that my beliefs line up with the larger themes we see in Scripture.

So let’s keep looking at this passage. Actually, I’d like to start by looking at two others, alongside Galatians 3:28:

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11)
“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

One thing that I learned from Dr. Tom Olbricht is the importance of noting what is repeated in Scripture. Things that are repeated often represent concepts that were consistently taught among God’s people. They are less likely to be localized teachings and more likely to be important points with a broader application. Such is the case with the unity of God’s people, a unity that overcomes divisions among people.

When dealing with similar passages, it’s also important to note differences. One thing that jumps as we compare these three statements from Paul is the inclusion of male/female in Galatians 3:28. That bears investigation. Why does Paul include that particular grouping in the letter to the Galatians and not the other two letters?

One possibility is that the Galatian church had a particular problem with gender relations. That’s a possibility, but there’s really nothing else in the letter that would support that.

A better understanding, in my view, is one proposed by Troy W. Martin in his article “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28” from the Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring 2003. Martin notes the parallels between what the Law said about circumcision and the three pairs mentioned by Paul in Galatians 3:28. Briefly, the idea is that male Jews were to be circumcised, along with any slaves that they owned. Jews. Slaves. Males. The same three groups that Paul addresses, when talking to a church that was wrestling with the issue of circumcision.

Why does Paul mention women in Galatians 3:28? Circumcision. Those who sought to impose circumcision on the Galatians were imposing it on the males, not the females. They were saying that one group came to Jesus one way, the other a different way.

Paul says no. We are all baptized into Christ. In that same way, we all become children of God, descendants of Abraham, and heirs of the promise. There is no difference. We are all one.

Note: that interpretation alone doesn’t answer the question of whether or not this verse has a broader application or whether it is meant to redefine all roles within the church. But it does make sense as to why women were mentioned in Galatians 3:28 and not in the other unity formulas written by Paul.

But we need to note a couple of things:

  • This is not a main part of Paul’s argument
  • This does not seem to have been something that Paul emphasized in other places; other unity formulas don’t include male/female
  • It’s dangerous to take a minor point in a single text and make it the basis for interpreting other texts. Many egalitarians accuse others of doing that with texts from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, then do the same thing with Galatians 3:28