The Baptism of Jesus the Christ

Smith

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781498272148
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptizer is one of the theologically richest narratives in the Gospels, touching the transition from the old to the new covenant, the doctrines of water and Holy Spirit baptism, and the doctrine of the Trinity, to name only the most significant of topics. In The Baptism of Jesus the Christ, Ralph Allan Smith addresses each of these areas, aiming in particular to respond to James D. G. Dunn's view that Jesus' baptism and the gift of the Spirit are fundamentally distinct events, to revive John Calvin's view of the baptism of Jesus as central to understanding Christian baptism, and to suggest directions for re-thinking the doctrine of God's attributes in the light of the fully personal interaction of Father, Son, and Spirit reflected in the baptismal narrative.

1

Introduction

The aim of this book is to help the reader understand Christian baptism from a perspective that many evangelicals may have never considered, or at least not considered deeply. In so doing, I am not offering new insights on baptism so much as reminding my readers of a very old view that many Bible-believing Protestants have forgotten. I am referring to the view of the early Church that the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptizer is a paradigm for Christian baptism. Anglicans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox are more familiar with this view, though it is not universal among them either.

At the same time, I hope to put this old insight into a new light, for the early fathers did not view the whole Scripture as God’s covenant word. The covenant relationship among the persons of the Trinity and the place of the covenant in God’s relationship with man and the world were neither central to their theology, nor related to their view of baptism. This means that though I agree with them that the baptism of Jesus is a paradigm for Christian baptism, I am also significantly modifying the paradigm itself because I understand baptism as covenant initiation. In this work, I propose combining the ancient view of Jesus’ baptism with a covenantal view of the meaning of baptism, a marriage of insights that I believe profoundly enriches our understanding of baptism.

I intend to discuss the baptism of Jesus in four dimensions, that is, four different but overlapping and interrelated perspectives. First, I will introduce the Messianic dimension of Jesus’ baptism and show that John was consecrating Jesus as Messiah of Israel. Second, I will offer a discussion of the Adamic dimension of Jesus’ baptism, relating Israel’s Messiah to the new Adam. These first two dimensions can be described as the biblical theology of Jesus’ baptism. The last two dimensions are extensions of the biblical theological analysis, but view the baptism of Jesus more in terms of systematic theology, while maintaining exegetical roots. Thus, the third dimension is the Trinitarian dimension of the baptism of Jesus, for in the synoptic accounts, we see all three persons of the Trinity in mutual relationship. Fourth, I hope to show how all of these dimensions come together in the Christian dimension, so that we will learn to look at Jesus’ baptism to understand our own.

Two Preliminary Matters

Before I discuss the various dimensions of Jesus’ baptism, this chapter must address two preliminary matters, one historical and one exegetical. First, there was a controversy at the time of the Reformation over the understanding of the baptism of John the Baptizer. Second, one of the most highly respected New Testament scholars of our day, James D. G. Dunn, in his classic work on the baptism of the Holy Spirit,1 includes an extended exegetical argument against the view I hold. Dunn claims that the baptism of Jesus by John and the gift of the Spirit are two distinct events. Even more, he says they are “antithetical.” His exegetical arguments require consideration, for if Dunn is correct, the entire thesis of this book is in error.

Rome versus the Reformers

Controversies about baptism lie at the heart of the Reformation since they are part of the whole controversy between Rome and the Reformers about sacraments and also since they are a central issue in the concurrent debate with the Anabaptists. Within the larger debate about the sacraments, the question of John’s baptism had broad significance, as Steinmetz explains in his chapter on “Calvin and the Baptism of John”:

[T]he question of the status of John’s baptism was an issue of some importance in the sixteenth century. John the Baptist stands between the two testaments and a number of crucial issues intersect in him. How one views the role of John in the gospel narratives affects in important ways how one views the nature of the history of salvation, the character of the sacraments, and the validity of infant baptism.2

Medieval theologians discussed John’s baptism and most of them apparently agreed with the opinion of Gabriel Biel that since John’s baptism lacked the correct Trinitarian form it was not true baptism in the sense of the Christian sacrament. For medieval theologians, Steinmetz explains, John’s baptism was “sacramental (a sign that depends for its power on the piety of the recipient) rather than a sacrament (a sign that infallibly communicates grace).”3 Thus, disciples of John the Baptizer who believed in Christ had to be re-baptized with Christian baptism, but this was not “repeated baptism” since the recipient had only been baptized in the name of the Trinity one time.

The Reformation era debate began with Zwingli’s attack on the medieval tradition. Zwingli argued that the baptism of John and Christian baptism were basically the same. Since John taught his disciples to trust in the Coming One, who was Jesus, his baptism was, in effect, baptism in the name of Christ and therefore Trinitarian. Zwingli pointed out that Peter and others had been baptized by John the Baptizer, but there is no record of them ever being re-baptized. Of course, Zwingli denied the Catholic distinction between “sacramental” and “a sacrament” and regarded all baptism as “a sign that depends for its power on the piety of the recipient” rather than “a sign that infallibly communicates grace.” From the Catholic perspective, this denial was Zwingli’s greatest offense.

Thus, Zwingli maintained that baptism was a sign “but only a sign”:

It should never be confused with the thing signified, as the scholastics do when they claim the waters of baptism contain or convey grace. No material or external thing can justify. Grace remains in God’s power, who gives it to the faithful by an immediate and invisible act. The flesh (that is, the world of material signs and symbols) profits nothing; it is the Holy Spirit who makes one alive. To place one’s confidence in external rites and ceremonies is to lapse, willy-nilly, into idolatry.4

Luther famously and violently disagreed with Zwingli on the efficacy of baptism. Calvin’s disagreement was both less famous and less intense, but the fact is he did not follow Zwingli in his view of sacraments as mere signs. However, both Luther and he did agree that the baptism of John the Baptizer was Christian baptism. From the first to the final edition of the Institutes, Calvin argued that John’s baptism and Christian baptism were “exactly the same” because “both baptized to repentance, both to the forgiveness of sins, both into the name of Christ, from whom repentance and forgiveness of sins came.”5

Against this position, Rome was adamant. In the Canons of the Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon One on Baptism, the Church of Rome declared:

Canon I.—If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ: let him be anathema.6

What is the reason for this strong denunciation? First, as the medieval theologians make clear, it has to do with the importance of baptism in the Trinitarian name, for that was certainly not done before Pentecost and the Trinitarian name is essential to distinctly Christian baptism. True baptism must include the proper form, which includes baptizing in the name of the Trinity.

Surprisingly, however, this is not argued by the article on baptism in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which actually concludes, “All things considered, we can safely state, therefore, that Christ most probably instituted baptism before His Passion. For in the first place, as is evident from John 3 and 4, Christ certainly conferred baptism, at least by the hands of His Disciples, before His Passion.”7 The irony here is that the baptism practiced by the disciples in John 3 and 4 seems to be much closer to the baptism of John the Baptizer than to subsequent Christian baptism, since none of the essentials of Christian baptism—the Trinitarian name (Matt 28:19–20), identification with Jesus’ death and resurrection (Rom 6:1ff.), and the gift of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 12:13)—could possibly be present at this stage in Christ’s ministry. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does better by suggesting that John’s baptism is not yet Christian baptism, since the baptism of Jesus is placed between old covenant baptism and Christian baptism.8 At any rate, in spite of Trent’s anathema, the Roman Catholic church is not necessarily unified, either in its view of John the Baptizer’s baptism in general or, more particularly, of his baptism of Jesus.

Another reason for the strong language of Trent may be found in the decrees of the Council of Florence (1439), which specifically distinguished the sacraments of the old covenant from the new by saying that the sacraments of the old were figures of Christ, but were not causes of grace, whereas the sacraments of the new were said to contain and confer grace to worthy recipients.9 The Council of Trent followed this language:

Canon VI.—If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers: let him be anathema.10

Trent, in other words, endorsed the medieval view that because John’s baptism is still an old covenant sacrament, it could not possibly have the “same force” as Christian baptism. What is at stake, then, is not just what is happening in baptism, but the whole question of the relationship between the sacraments of the law of Moses and the sacraments of the new covenant. Catholicism affirmed what Leithart calls a “semi-Marcionist” sacramentology,11 because it radically distinguished the sacra...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Messianic Dimension
• Chapter 3: The Adamic Dimension
• Chapter 4: The Trinitarian Dimension
• Chapter 5: The Christian Dimension
• Appendix 1: Van Til, Shedd, and God’s Self-Consciousness
• Bibliography