Category Archives: Baptism

Baptism, gender, and Galatians 3

66 Replies

waterA post about gender differences in the church doesn’t really have a place in a series on baptism. Just as a talk about gender and the church doesn’t really fit a Bible lectureship about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. That’s how I see it. But not everyone shares my opinion.

The recent Pepperdine lectures were built around themes from John Mark Hick’s new book on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I’ve read previous works by John Mark on these subjects, so I imagine this one should be excellent. Jarrod Robinson was invited to speak on Galatians 3:26-28 and titled his talk “Our Baptismal Vows.” He gave a talk that has garnered much attention, emphasizing his beliefs that there are no differences between what men and women can do in the church.

Personally I feel that Jarrod was set up to fail. Not that he didn’t give a very good talk. But his verse assignment pushed verse 28 to the forefront of the discussion. You either focus on the verse that discusses baptism or you expand your focus to include the whole paragraph. It’s either 3:26-27 or it’s 3:26-29. Otherwise, you’re turning what should be an exposition of Scripture into an agenda-driven talk. Which was what we got from Jarrod.

Not to say he didn’t do a good job. It was an effective talk. But it wasn’t Galatians 3.

(I should note that I raised these concerns in a group that John Mark Hicks is a part of. In response, he wrote a blog post on the subject. I think he’s reaching a bit to find a parallel between Joel and Galatians 3. It’s also hard to connect this reasoning with the topic under discussion in Galatians. But you can read his article and decide for yourself.)

The original hearers of the book of Galatians wouldn’t have heard the letter read and come away talking about 3:28. It’s a minor point in the letter. If anything, they would have discussed it in relation to their situation and the topic Paul was discussing… which was not about gender roles in the church (and was about whether or not believers had to be circumcised to be a part of the community of faith. Merely reading the verse with that in mind steers you in the proper direction)

Toward the end of his talk, Jarrod kept repeating the phrase: “We’re baptized believers. We’re better than this,” while discussing the limiting of the role of women in the church. An effective rhetorical device, but not one that leads to good examination of a text. I could say, “Let’s not just follow the whims of culture. We’re baptized believers. We’re better than this.” Good rhetorical device; less than helpful for improving understanding.

If you’d like to listen to Jarrod’s talk, you can see it on YouTube. Or search for it on iTunes.

I want to spend some time discussing this passage further before moving on to other passages on baptism (which is what we’ve been studying the last few weeks). I look forward to your comments, as always.

Clothed with Christ – Galatians 3

Leave a reply

waterAs we look at New Testament passages that teach us about baptism, it’s good to keep in mind that the main point of these passages isn’t baptism. That’s a striking contrast between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the Mosaic Law gave specific ordinances about worship and how it was to be carried out, the New Testament lacks such code. We’re not told who can baptize, where they can baptize, when they can baptize, what kind of water is to be used…

With that in mind, we turn to Galatians 3, a passage which not only isn’t about baptism, but isn’t about the role of women, despite any lectures you might have heard at Pepperdine or read in other places. The theme of Galatians 3:1-4:7 is this: “Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.” (Galatians 3:7) This passage is about who is a child of Abraham and, therefore, an heir of the promises made to Abraham. Any ideas we extract from these passages must be evaluated according to their place within that theme.

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:26–29)

What is said about baptism is a part of this discussion. By being baptized into Christ, we cloth ourselves with Christ. This faith response makes us a son of God and “Abraham’s seed,” heirs of the promises made to Abraham.

I love that imagery… clothed with Christ. We used to sing a song when I was in college that says

I am covered over with the robe of righteousness that Jesus gives to me.
I am covered over with the precious blood of Jesus and he lives in me.
What a joy it is to know my heavenly Father loves me so he gives to me my Jesus.
And when he looks at me he sees not what I used to be, but he sees Jesus.

Christ sent me not to baptize…

1 Reply

waterAs we look at passages in the New Testament that teach about baptism, we come to 1 Corinthians 1. It’s a passage that merits more than a superficial read. Many have read the passage quickly and come away with the idea that Paul here is denying the importance of baptism. Did Paul not care if people were baptized or not? Let’s read his words and find out:

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:13–17)

Paul is writing to a church that is suffering division. More than that, people were rallying around certain teachers, claiming to be true to their doctrine. Paul had described the situation in the previous verses:

“My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.”” (1 Corinthians 1:11–12)

So Paul says, “Were you baptized into my name?” Note the assumption. He assumes that the Corinthians had been baptized, baptized in the name of Christ. It’s not “those of you that were baptized”; Paul addresses them as baptized believers. He even says that directly in a later passage in Corinthians: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13)

Paul doesn’t say “I am thankful that few of you were baptized.” He says, “I’m thankful I didn’t baptize any of you except…” He’s talking about who was the person who actually lowered these people into the water. He’s glad he didn’t do that much so as not to encourage further claims of being “of Paul.”

Maybe this doesn’t happen as much in the States, where people keep tabs on who baptized them. It certainly does overseas, especially where foreign missionaries are involved. If we’re not careful, an elite caste grows up in the church: those who were baptized by foreigners.

That’s why I avoid baptizing people when traveling. I want to see them baptized. I teach them to be baptized. I rejoice when they are baptized. But I prefer that it be done by locals, not by me, the visiting evangelist.

Which is what Paul is saying. He doesn’t want to brag about how many people have been baptized by his hand. That’s not what he was sent to do. He was sent to preach the gospel so that people would be baptized. He wasn’t sent to put people under the water himself.

Paul affirms the importance of baptism, while devaluing the identity of the person who does the actual baptizing. As he will say later, what matters is that God’s Spirit is at work, baptizing us into Christ’s body. Which hands help us into the water is of little importance.

Baptism as new birth in Romans 6

Leave a reply

waterLeaving the book of Acts, we next come to Romans as we look at New Testament texts about baptism. In Romans, Paul expounds at lengths about what salvation by faith looks like. As he discusses the implications of salvation by the grace of God, rather than man’s efforts, he addresses a possible objection:

“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Romans 6:1–4)

It’s important to remember that Romans 6 is not about baptism. It’s about repentance. It’s about the new life the Christian lives after his baptism. Yet we learn several important things from this mention of baptism:

  • Baptism is a connection with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. I’m definitely not a “that’s the definition of the gospel” guy, for the gospel means much more than that. That fact, however, doesn’t take away from the significance of this connection.
  • Baptism is a burial. Paul’s use of this imagery reminds us of how baptism was done.
  • Baptism occurs at the beginning of the new life. In that sense, it is a new birth. It is a new beginning. We take our old self and bury it, and a new creation comes out of the water.
  • That’s why baptism makes sense at the time of conversion. And it doesn’t make sense at other times. If there’s not going to be a change, there’s no sense in baptizing. If the change occurred before, then just who are we burying? What old self is being left behind?

I’ll say it again: it’s modernistic, Western thinking to want to separate out faith and its response, to want to build a timeline of salvation that says, “Here you’re lost; and at this exact moment you’re saved.” The belief, the repentance, the baptism… they are all wrapped up into one package. If you don’t believe, baptism makes no sense. If you haven’t repented, baptism makes no sense. But when those things are all present, there is a wondrous spiritual event where God takes his creation and makes it into something new.

Be careful little eyes what source you use

2 Replies

waterI got to have lunch with Mark Edge the other day. Mark and I were roommates in college and coworkers in Argentina. As he and I talked, I mentioned how one scholarly friend had shown incredible bias in a comment on Facebook. Mark shrugged and said, “I’ve learned that nobody is exempt from that.” (No, not a direct quote; but that’s the gist)

When studying the issue of baptism, it helps to spot the biases in the discussion, both ours and those of others. This can be an emotionally charged issue, especially for those of us in the churches of Christ. We’ve held a minority view on the subject of baptism for years. (Ironically, as much of the evangelical world moves to give more respect to baptism, an equal proportion within churches of Christ are moving the other way)

Undoubtedly, many were overly zealous in the past in discussions about baptism, elevating this act of faith to the status of a saving work. This led many to react and overreact, including some scholars. One that I feel must have had dealings with aggressive members of our fellowship was the Greek scholar A.T. Robertson.

One of the first investments in Bible study resources that I made as a student was the purchase of Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament. (You can consult this set online online on many sites, including Bible Study Tools) That’s an excellent resource to give insights into the original Greek text. The reader needs to be aware, however, of Robertson’s anti-baptism bias.

Here are some examples:

The omission of baptized with “disbelieveth” would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, not on baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark. (Mark 16:16)
One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received. (Acts 2:38)
And Simon also himself believed (Ho de Simwn kai auto episteusen). Note the same verb in the aorist tense episteusen. What did he believe? Evidently that Jesus was this “power of God” not himself (Simon). He saw that the miracles wrought by Philip in the name of Christ were genuine while he knew that his own were frauds. He wanted this power that Philip had to add to his own pretensions. “He was probably half victim of self-delusion, half conscious impostor” (Furneaux). He was determined to get this new “power,” but had no sense of personal need of Jesus as Saviour for his sins. So he submitted to baptism (baptisqei, first aorist passive participle of baptizw), clear proof that baptism does not convey salvation. (Acts 8:13)
It is possible, as in Acts 2:38 , to take these words as teaching baptismal remission or salvation by means of baptism, but to do so is in my opinion a complete subversion of Paul’s vivid and picturesque language. (Acts 22:16)
In the symbol of baptism the resurrection to new life in Christ is pictured with an allusion to Christ’s own resurrection and to our final resurrection. Paul does not mean to say that the new life in Christ is caused or created by the act of baptism. That is grossly to misunderstand him. The Gnostics and the Judaizers were sacramentalists, but not so Paul the champion of spiritual Christianity. (Colossians 2:12)

Time and again, Robertson argues not from the evidence of the text or grammatical constructions, but from his own previously held beliefs (as he states clearly in the discussion of Acts 2:38). As long as we recognize that fact, we can include Robertson’s views in any discussion. He is one man stating his opinion, standing on the same ground as any other. But if we try to present him as a scholar on this subject, we’re on dangerous ground.