In the first century AD, Rome was occupying Judea, so the threat of national annihilation always seemed looming. There was a sense among Judeans therefore that the 'kingdom' promised to Israel had to come and come soon.
There was little separation of religion and politics in those days. So there were various religious/political groups within Israel, each claiming to know the right way to please God, the right way to respond to the political crisis, and how best to facilitate the coming of the kingdom of God. Each of these groups were vying for the support of the Jewish public.
There were the Herodians, who thought the way to go was to make a deal with Rome, and build the emblems of kingdom.
The Pharisees felt the Herodians were compromising on standards. Only the pious could enter the kingdom of God, they felt. So they went around policing behaviours, thinking a more pious Israel could help speed-up the arrival of God's kingdom.
Many of the Zealots believed that armed-struggle was the way to go.
But it was the temple priests who seemed to be holding the sway.
They had Scribes and lawyers, each with their own opinions, to contend with though.
And some people, such as the community at Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found), felt the Temple-system had become too corrupt. They saw themselves as a true Israel within Israel, and were striving to qualify to enter Messiah's kingdom when He would come. They practised a ceremonial washing (immersion in water) which initiated a person into their community. They had regulations about how pure and how deep the water had to be. They may have been Sadducees, but that's not certain.
They weren't the only group practising 'washings' (immersing in water). Excavations show the Jerusalem Temple itself had an immersion pool. Ancient synagogues also had immersion pools. And modern synagogues still have them too: it's called Mikveh. (The Surfers Paradise Synagogue recently had a new one built.) Each first-century religious/political group within Judea claimed to have the right slant on the 'kingdom' - what it might look like; how it should come about; and who in Israel might qualify to enter it - and they 'washed' (immersed) recruits.
(The question of 'free will' versus 'sovereignty', for first century Jews, was about whether God would bring about Israel's kingdom all on His own when He's good and ready, or whether they had to do something about it - such as be more pious; and if so, in what way; and even about should they take up arms.)
The practise of washing (immersing) was considered by Jews to be what Moses meant in the Torah by 'washings'. In the Torah, 'washings' was distinct from 'sprinkling'; and distinct also from circumcision - each of which were prescribed for different people at different times and for different purposes, not for the same purpose. They weren't interchangeable or replaceable.
So John's baptism fit right into that. John (the Baptist) was one who practised 'washing' (immersing, baptising). Like many in his day, John gave his own unique slant on the issues of 'kingdom'. He demanded repentance. It was a baptism of repentance. He warned that not all ethnic Jews would qualify to enter the kingdom. John even identified the Messiah for Israel: Jesus of Nazareth. John's ministry and impact had been prophesied (by Isaiah and Malachi).
John wasn't presenting his 'washing' (baptism) as an optional alternative to circumcision. Messing with the Torah like that would not have done, for any of his Jewish audience. Circumcision was circumcision, while 'washing' (immersing) was washing (and sprinkling was sprinkling). Circumcision was for eight-day old boys - sprinkling in the Torah was for set-purposes also (and never for babies) - washings were for another purpose, and John's baptism came in the vogue of washings. It wasn't a new circumcision for babies. It was about repentance. Repentance was a conscious decision.
It was the counsel of God. It was to be submitted to. Being baptised fulfilled all righteousness.
The Epistle to the Hebrews spoke about the foundational doctrine of baptisms (washings). Christian baptism, after Jesus' death and resurrection, in the Name of Jesus - in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - was in the same style as John's (which had been a 'washing', an immersion, for conscious deciders - not a new infant-circumcision). Baptism into Christ was for both the circumcised, and the uncircumcised.
And uncircumcised believers didn't need to become circumcised - because they'd been 'circumcised' with the true circumcision without hands - by putting away their old identity and taking on their new identity in Christ. Baptism in water is involved with that.
But the provision for babies was that Paul said they were 'sanctified' by a believing parent. So was an unbelieving spouse. Without baptism. And without circumcision. So was an unbelieving spouse. So it wasn't about salvation one way or the other. It was just meaning that the relationship was okay.
Moses asked God not to wipe out his name from the book of life. A person's name is in the book, to begin with. Children's angels always behold the face of the Father.
And although there had been a number of different Jewish groups practising 'washings' (immersing) there was only one Christian baptism (washing, immersion) - irrespective of who had done the baptising, whether Peter, Paul or Apollos or whoever. The Church wasn't divided. Just as there was only one Holy Spirit, even though each member of the body had different gifts. Jesus is Lord of all.
In the early Church it was unthinkable that anyone who had come to believe in Jesus would not also get baptised in water. It was also expected that everyone would also receive the Spirit. All three experiences were considered as a package deal. However, the three were also distinguishable, and didn't always happen in the same order, or even on the same day.
The Samaritans for example, believed and were baptised by Philip first, and received the Spirit later when the Apostles laid hands on them. Cornelius' household on the other hand heard the Word and the Spirit fell on them while Peter was still speaking, before they'd even been baptised. Peter knew they'd received the Spirit, because he heard them speaking with tongues. So Peter knew there was no reason to withhold baptism from them (seeing they were obviously acceptable to God despite not being circumcised, because God only gives His Spirit to those who obey Him). Luke mentioning the Samaritans and the Gentiles receiving the Spirit, made the point that God had accepted them just as He had accepted Jewish believers in Jesus.
Since it was common practise for everyone who believed, to also get baptised, and to also receive the Spirit, when Paul was tackling other important issues of his day, he could refer to each of those experiences almost as a unit, even somewhat interchangeably - because almost everyone he was writing to had had all three experiences. Everyone he was writing to, who had had one of the experiences, had also had all three experiences. That's how it was meant to be: and it's just how it was, in the early Church. Anything else would have been unthinkable. Paul wasn't in the first instance directly addressing the question of whether or not they're interchangeable or always happen together. So he didn't need to use terms which expressed that distinction. Although if you asked him - or asked Peter - of course they would say both that they are distinct experiences and also that all three experiences ideally were meant to be received as a package.
Paul asking the disciples at Ephesus whether they received the Spirit when they believed, showed that Paul detected there was something lacking in them; and he expected it was normative for disciples to receive the Spirit. When they said they hadn't even heard about a Holy Spirit, Paul then asked what baptism they'd been baptised with. That shows that Paul expected the Holy Spirit to normally be mentioned during Christian Baptism. That shows that Paul didn't expect the name of Jesus only to be used. It also shows that mentioning the Holy Spirit at baptism was meant to include actually receiving the Spirit, if believers hadn't already received Him.
Even the term 'born of the Spirit' is like this. We are also born 'of water'. It doesn't mean we get born again twice. It just means that the initial moment of believing; and getting baptised, were considered part and parcel - and in the early Church believers always had both experiences.
Same with washing away sins. Our sins are washed away when we believe - yet Ananias also told Saul to be baptised, washing away his sins.
The word 'baptism' in Paul's letters, always would have evoked thoughts of water-baptism, in Paul's readers. Yet some of what Paul said, must also be true to some extent at least of believers who haven't been baptised in water yet (like Cornelius' household, because they'd received the Spirit before being baptised in water).
The book of Acts describes the baptism with the Holy Spirit as 'receiving' the Spirit. That's not to deny that believers who haven't received the Spirit yet, don't already have the Spirit with them in some way. Jesus breathed on the disciples after His resurrection and said "Receive the Spirit" - yet there was still a sense in which the Spirit was "not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified".
That's why Peter could say that baptism "saves us". Peter could say that, because all believers also got baptised. And baptism is part of it. But if you asked Peter whether a person who hadn't been baptised yet could be 'saved' - he probably would have answered Yes - because he'd seen God give the Spirit to Cornelius's believing but as-yet unbaptised household. But that question wasn't an issue of Peter's in his Epistle.
The New Testament can speak broadly like this, because they wren't answering the questions we have today. They were addressing different concerns. But the evidence is also there in Acts and elsewhere, that the three different components can be identified separately. The Apostles weren't immediately concerned with whether or not a believer has attained to this or that experience in the Christian life without yet having experienced one or another of the three components - because everyone just did. Yet we can still answer our question - our issue - based on information they gave (in the New Testament).
Everything we will ever need, has already been provided for us by God, through the substitutionary death, burial, and victorious resurrection (the ascension, glorification and seating - and the fact of the soon-coming) of Jesus Christ. Jesus' death and resurrection was our real Passover - Israel's real exodus from exile (from sin and death).
That's already been achieved - repenting and believing the announcement of that, makes a person just in the sight of God, a child of God, born of the Spirit, receiving the Spirit in some sense, destined for glory. Receiving the Spirit in the greater sense of being baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit is possible because of that. And getting baptised in water, either before or after being baptised with the Spirit, fulfils the righteousness that came through believing: it's all part of washing away our sins and being born of water; identifying with the true Passover and Exodus and coming into resurrection and our eternal inheritance.
There was little separation of religion and politics in those days. So there were various religious/political groups within Israel, each claiming to know the right way to please God, the right way to respond to the political crisis, and how best to facilitate the coming of the kingdom of God. Each of these groups were vying for the support of the Jewish public.
There were the Herodians, who thought the way to go was to make a deal with Rome, and build the emblems of kingdom.
The Pharisees felt the Herodians were compromising on standards. Only the pious could enter the kingdom of God, they felt. So they went around policing behaviours, thinking a more pious Israel could help speed-up the arrival of God's kingdom.
Many of the Zealots believed that armed-struggle was the way to go.
But it was the temple priests who seemed to be holding the sway.
They had Scribes and lawyers, each with their own opinions, to contend with though.
They weren't the only group practising 'washings' (immersing in water). Excavations show the Jerusalem Temple itself had an immersion pool. Ancient synagogues also had immersion pools. And modern synagogues still have them too: it's called Mikveh. (The Surfers Paradise Synagogue recently had a new one built.) Each first-century religious/political group within Judea claimed to have the right slant on the 'kingdom' - what it might look like; how it should come about; and who in Israel might qualify to enter it - and they 'washed' (immersed) recruits.
 |
| Jewish Mikveh |
(The question of 'free will' versus 'sovereignty', for first century Jews, was about whether God would bring about Israel's kingdom all on His own when He's good and ready, or whether they had to do something about it - such as be more pious; and if so, in what way; and even about should they take up arms.)
The practise of washing (immersing) was considered by Jews to be what Moses meant in the Torah by 'washings'. In the Torah, 'washings' was distinct from 'sprinkling'; and distinct also from circumcision - each of which were prescribed for different people at different times and for different purposes, not for the same purpose. They weren't interchangeable or replaceable.
So John's baptism fit right into that. John (the Baptist) was one who practised 'washing' (immersing, baptising). Like many in his day, John gave his own unique slant on the issues of 'kingdom'. He demanded repentance. It was a baptism of repentance. He warned that not all ethnic Jews would qualify to enter the kingdom. John even identified the Messiah for Israel: Jesus of Nazareth. John's ministry and impact had been prophesied (by Isaiah and Malachi).
John wasn't presenting his 'washing' (baptism) as an optional alternative to circumcision. Messing with the Torah like that would not have done, for any of his Jewish audience. Circumcision was circumcision, while 'washing' (immersing) was washing (and sprinkling was sprinkling). Circumcision was for eight-day old boys - sprinkling in the Torah was for set-purposes also (and never for babies) - washings were for another purpose, and John's baptism came in the vogue of washings. It wasn't a new circumcision for babies. It was about repentance. Repentance was a conscious decision.
It was the counsel of God. It was to be submitted to. Being baptised fulfilled all righteousness.
The Epistle to the Hebrews spoke about the foundational doctrine of baptisms (washings). Christian baptism, after Jesus' death and resurrection, in the Name of Jesus - in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost - was in the same style as John's (which had been a 'washing', an immersion, for conscious deciders - not a new infant-circumcision). Baptism into Christ was for both the circumcised, and the uncircumcised.
And uncircumcised believers didn't need to become circumcised - because they'd been 'circumcised' with the true circumcision without hands - by putting away their old identity and taking on their new identity in Christ. Baptism in water is involved with that.
But the provision for babies was that Paul said they were 'sanctified' by a believing parent. So was an unbelieving spouse. Without baptism. And without circumcision. So was an unbelieving spouse. So it wasn't about salvation one way or the other. It was just meaning that the relationship was okay.
Moses asked God not to wipe out his name from the book of life. A person's name is in the book, to begin with. Children's angels always behold the face of the Father.
And although there had been a number of different Jewish groups practising 'washings' (immersing) there was only one Christian baptism (washing, immersion) - irrespective of who had done the baptising, whether Peter, Paul or Apollos or whoever. The Church wasn't divided. Just as there was only one Holy Spirit, even though each member of the body had different gifts. Jesus is Lord of all.
In the early Church it was unthinkable that anyone who had come to believe in Jesus would not also get baptised in water. It was also expected that everyone would also receive the Spirit. All three experiences were considered as a package deal. However, the three were also distinguishable, and didn't always happen in the same order, or even on the same day.
The Samaritans for example, believed and were baptised by Philip first, and received the Spirit later when the Apostles laid hands on them. Cornelius' household on the other hand heard the Word and the Spirit fell on them while Peter was still speaking, before they'd even been baptised. Peter knew they'd received the Spirit, because he heard them speaking with tongues. So Peter knew there was no reason to withhold baptism from them (seeing they were obviously acceptable to God despite not being circumcised, because God only gives His Spirit to those who obey Him). Luke mentioning the Samaritans and the Gentiles receiving the Spirit, made the point that God had accepted them just as He had accepted Jewish believers in Jesus.
Since it was common practise for everyone who believed, to also get baptised, and to also receive the Spirit, when Paul was tackling other important issues of his day, he could refer to each of those experiences almost as a unit, even somewhat interchangeably - because almost everyone he was writing to had had all three experiences. Everyone he was writing to, who had had one of the experiences, had also had all three experiences. That's how it was meant to be: and it's just how it was, in the early Church. Anything else would have been unthinkable. Paul wasn't in the first instance directly addressing the question of whether or not they're interchangeable or always happen together. So he didn't need to use terms which expressed that distinction. Although if you asked him - or asked Peter - of course they would say both that they are distinct experiences and also that all three experiences ideally were meant to be received as a package.
Paul asking the disciples at Ephesus whether they received the Spirit when they believed, showed that Paul detected there was something lacking in them; and he expected it was normative for disciples to receive the Spirit. When they said they hadn't even heard about a Holy Spirit, Paul then asked what baptism they'd been baptised with. That shows that Paul expected the Holy Spirit to normally be mentioned during Christian Baptism. That shows that Paul didn't expect the name of Jesus only to be used. It also shows that mentioning the Holy Spirit at baptism was meant to include actually receiving the Spirit, if believers hadn't already received Him.
Even the term 'born of the Spirit' is like this. We are also born 'of water'. It doesn't mean we get born again twice. It just means that the initial moment of believing; and getting baptised, were considered part and parcel - and in the early Church believers always had both experiences.
Same with washing away sins. Our sins are washed away when we believe - yet Ananias also told Saul to be baptised, washing away his sins.
The word 'baptism' in Paul's letters, always would have evoked thoughts of water-baptism, in Paul's readers. Yet some of what Paul said, must also be true to some extent at least of believers who haven't been baptised in water yet (like Cornelius' household, because they'd received the Spirit before being baptised in water).
The book of Acts describes the baptism with the Holy Spirit as 'receiving' the Spirit. That's not to deny that believers who haven't received the Spirit yet, don't already have the Spirit with them in some way. Jesus breathed on the disciples after His resurrection and said "Receive the Spirit" - yet there was still a sense in which the Spirit was "not yet given for Jesus was not yet glorified".
That's why Peter could say that baptism "saves us". Peter could say that, because all believers also got baptised. And baptism is part of it. But if you asked Peter whether a person who hadn't been baptised yet could be 'saved' - he probably would have answered Yes - because he'd seen God give the Spirit to Cornelius's believing but as-yet unbaptised household. But that question wasn't an issue of Peter's in his Epistle.
The New Testament can speak broadly like this, because they wren't answering the questions we have today. They were addressing different concerns. But the evidence is also there in Acts and elsewhere, that the three different components can be identified separately. The Apostles weren't immediately concerned with whether or not a believer has attained to this or that experience in the Christian life without yet having experienced one or another of the three components - because everyone just did. Yet we can still answer our question - our issue - based on information they gave (in the New Testament).
Everything we will ever need, has already been provided for us by God, through the substitutionary death, burial, and victorious resurrection (the ascension, glorification and seating - and the fact of the soon-coming) of Jesus Christ. Jesus' death and resurrection was our real Passover - Israel's real exodus from exile (from sin and death).
That's already been achieved - repenting and believing the announcement of that, makes a person just in the sight of God, a child of God, born of the Spirit, receiving the Spirit in some sense, destined for glory. Receiving the Spirit in the greater sense of being baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit is possible because of that. And getting baptised in water, either before or after being baptised with the Spirit, fulfils the righteousness that came through believing: it's all part of washing away our sins and being born of water; identifying with the true Passover and Exodus and coming into resurrection and our eternal inheritance.
No comments:
Post a Comment