Baptism in the NT

7/30/2019 Baptism in the NT

1/28

Access Provided by Vanderbilt University Library at 10/17/12 9:34PM GMT


2/28

Journal o Early Christian Studies 20:3, 343369 2012 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Baptism in the New Testamentand Its Cultural Milieu:

A Response to Everett Ferguson,

Baptism in the Early Church

CARL R. HOLLADAY

This review ocuses on the rst 200 pages o Everett Fergusons Baptism inthe Early Church: Part 1, Antecedents to Christian Baptism, and Part 2,Baptism in the New Testament. One critical question raised by Fergusonstreatment is how historical and theological (doctrinal) perspectives shouldbe related to each other. While Ferguson recognizes the pivotal role o the

baptism John preached and administered, this essay urther emphasizes Johnsoriginality. Jesus baptism by John posed a problem or early Christians. Wasit a unique event, an example or Jesus disciples to emulate, or a problem thathad to be explained? The our gospels tend to portray Jesus baptism as sui

generis, although Matthew portrays it as an exemplum or early Christians toollow. Fergusons treatment o Pauline texts relating to baptism underplaysthe signicance o the mystical and corporate dimensions o his baptismaltheology, especially as it relates to en Christo\. Greater nuance is needed todierentiate Pauls understanding o the baptismal benet o death to sin as

opposed to orgiveness o sins. In Fergusons treatment o baptism in Acts,his eort to distinguish sharply between baptism in the Holy Spirit, i.e.dramatic outpourings o the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, 1011, 8.1718, and 19.6),and other believers reception o the Holy Spirit poses some diculties. Ratherthan separating the treatment o baptism in Luke and Acts, some dimensionso Lukes baptismal theology can be seen more clearly by observing howliterary thematic connections, e.g., between John the Baptist and Jesus, aredeveloped in the two-volume work.


3/28

344 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

1. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgyin the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009).

2. We learn, or example, that Herod dyed his hair (Ferguson, Baptism, 47, not-ing Josephus,Jewish War 1.24.7 490); and that only a ew (ringe) heretics o theancient church tried to dehydrate the new birth (Ferguson, Baptism, 854).

3. Some additional items might include H. G. Marsh, The Origin and Signifcanceo the New Testament Baptism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1941);Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis, Die Taue Jesu nach den Synoptikern: Literarkritische und gat-tungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Frankurter Theologische Studien 4 (Frankurtam Main: J. Knecht, 1970); Lars Hartmann, Baptism, in Anchor Bible Dictionary,ed. David Noel Freeman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:58394; Gregory D. Alleset al., Taue, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hans D. Betz, Don S.Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jngel (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),

8:5095 [= Baptism, in Religion Past and Present, ed. Hans Dieter Betz, Don S.Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jngel (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:57298];Joan E. Taylor, Baptism, in New Interpreters Dictionary o the Bible, ed. Katha-rine Doob Sakeneld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006), 1:39095; and some recentliterature cited in these encyclopedia articles.

Everett Fergusons Baptism in the Early Church1 typies what we havecome to expect rom our revered teacher, esteemed colleague, and riend:

encyclopedic range (almost a thousand pages covering ve centuries, or a

millennium i we include the pre-Christian material), scrupulous attention

to detail (over three thousand ootnotes and almost one hundred pages o

indices), comprehensive review o evidentiary material at all levels (literary

texts, inscriptions, iconography, art, and archaeology), and subtle humor.2

His rst two hundred pages include an introductory bibliographical

survey (pp. 122),3 ollowed by Part 1, Antecedents to Christian Bap-

tism (pp. 2596), with separate chapters on lustrations in Greco-Roman

paganism (pp. 2537), philological analysis o the bapt- word amily in

classical and Hellenistic Greek (pp. 3859), Jewish washings, baptismalmovements, and proselyte baptism (pp. 6082), and John the Baptizer (pp.

8396); and Part 2, Baptism in the New Testament, with two chapters

on the baptism o Jesus (pp. 99131), and separate chapters on other re-

erences in the gospels (pp. 13245), the Pauline letters (pp. 14665), Acts

(pp. 16685), and other NT writings (pp. 18698). Following the NT

section, which covers the rst century, the arrangement is chronological,

with Parts 36 devoted respectively to the next our centuries, and Part 7

devoted to baptisteries in the East and West, with a brie concluding chap-

ter. My review ocuses on Parts 1 and 2.


4/28

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 345

4. Ferguson, Baptism, 7682.5.Jewish Antiquities 18.5.2 11617.6. John 3.22, 4.12.

USING THE NT AS EVIDENCE

The logic o Parts 1 and 2 is clear: rst investigate antecedent (pre-Christian)

texts and practices that might have infuenced early Christian baptism, thenexamine the earliest Christian writings that mention or discuss baptism.

Since the comparative material rom non-Jewish (Greco-Roman pagan)

and Jewish sources extends over several centuries, Ferguson gives care-

ul attention to questions o dating. This becomes critical in deciding, or

example, whether Christian baptism is a direct outgrowth o proselyte

baptism. Ferguson thinks not. He sees undamental dierences between

the two practices and nds no convincing evidence that proselyte baptism

was early enough to infuence Christian practice.4

Since John the Baptist eatures prominently in the NT and is mentioned

by Josephus,5 he requires treatment. The question, however, is where to

include himas part o the NT material or as one o the antecedents to

Christian baptism? Most o what we know about John the Baptist is derived

rom NT sources, which, strictly speaking, would require him to be treated

in Part 2. Moreover, by including the baptism o Jesus in Part 2, Ferguson

aligns Jesus more closely with Christian baptism, thereby making it easier

to see his baptism as a prototype or post-Easter Christian practice. Given

the gospel reports, Jesus baptism technically belongs under the activity oJohn the Baptist. It is mainly rom our reading o the NT that we want to

distinguish three distinct stages: Johns baptizing activity, Jesus baptism

by John, and Christian baptism. I the Fourth Gospels reports about the

baptizing activity o Jesus and his disciples are historically accurate,6 that

would constitute a third intermediate stage between Jesus baptism and

early Christian baptism.

Deciding how to arrange the (mostly) literary sources depends on how

one wants to use the sources. I the investigation is primarily historical inthe sense that one is trying to determine historical realia, e.g., the modeo baptism (immersion, pouring, or sprinkling), its subjects (adults, chil-

dren, or inants), whether it was sel-administered or perormed by another

person, or who actually engaged in baptizing ministries or activities (John

the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples, Jesus early ollowers, or numerous

people or groups who preceded all o them, e.g., the Essenes or other Jew-

ish groups, mystery religions, etc.), then one might arrange the materials


5/28


6/28


8. Ferguson, Baptism, 83, 99, 13233.9. Ferguson, Baptism, 85, citing A. D. Nock, Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian

Sacraments, Mnemosyne 4 (1952): 177213 = Arthur Darby Nock: Essays on Reli-gion and the Ancient World, ed. Zeph Stewart, 2 vols. (Oxord: Oxord UniversityPress, 1972), 2:791820, esp. 803. For additional recent discussion o John the Baptist,see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 2: Men-tor, Message, and Miracles, Anchor Bible Reerence Library (New York: Doubleday,1994), 19233; David Catchpole, Jesus People: The Historical Jesus and the Begin-

nings o Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006); and Graham H. Tweltree,Jesus the Baptist,Journal or the Study o the Historical Jesus 7 (2009): 10325.10. Ferguson, Baptism, 86.11. Ferguson, Baptism, 6082. See Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah:

Was Jesus Indierent to Impurity? (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2002; rev. ed.Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

the biocal perspective o history and doctrine, or any given text or NT

writing one could try to ascertain how it illuminates the actual practice o

baptism and then as a separate move analyze how the text/author under-

stands the practice and what signicance is being attached to it.

In one sense, the single question driving Fergusons investigation is, How

can we explain the origin o Christian baptism and its early widespread

practice?8 Formulated more sharply: although Jesus himsel was baptized,

he gave little, i any, attention to baptism in his teachings (at least in the

Synoptic Gospels); yet, it appears (rom Paul and Acts) that almost imme-

diately ater Jesus death, baptism became a normative practice among

his disciples. How can we account or this? I the question is posed this

way, then one might examine the main NT witnesses (gospels, Luke-Acts,Paul) and other NT passages rom a slightly dierent angle, asking how

each one thinks (or explains that) the practice o Christian baptism origi-

nated and what warrants the NT author/text oers or the practice. Since

these questions o arrangement have already been decided, however, here

are some observations in response to Fergusons treatment as we have it.

JOHN THE BAPTIZER

Assessing Johns baptism in relation to other orms o Jewish lustrations,Ferguson appropriates A. D. Nocks use o prophetic symbolism to

characterize its distinctiveness.9 He properly accents the twoold aspect

o Johns originality: both the practice (a unique administered rite rather

than repeated sel-immersions) and the meaning he gave the rite (orgive-

ness and repentance) as well as the eschatological context in which he put

it.10 Given the discussion o antecedent and contemporary Jewish prac-

tices,11 we might ask whether Johns pioneering role is suciently empha-

sized. We might also press the question, What triggered Johns innovation?


7/28


12. Ferguson, Baptism, 99.13. Ferguson, Baptism, 100. Discussing the Markan account o Jesus baptism,

he similarly concludes: The same two ideas in a diminished sense were central toChristian baptism, the git o the Holy Spirit and incorporation into (or adoption as)the sons o God (101).

14. Ferguson, Baptism, 100.15. At least, prior to William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien:

Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstndnis des Markusevangeliums (Gttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); published in English as The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. G.Greig (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971), esp. 1316.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS: SUI GENERIS,EXEMPLUM, OR CRUX?

Ferguson reely acknowledges the tension between seeing Jesus baptism,on the one hand, as a unique event, unrepeatable and thus inimitable,

and, on the other hand, as a paradigmatic event that provides Christians

either an example they should emulate or a useul analogy or understand-

ing their own baptismal experience. Since the baptism o Jesus was later

considered the oundation o Christian baptism, he writes, we treat it

here in the unit on the beginning o Christian baptism, although it was

properly sui generis.12 This creates a genuine dilemma or Ferguson. Heknows that the NT tends to see Jesus baptism as sui generis but he wantsto claim it as a warrant or early Christian practice:

Although the New Testament never asserts that the baptism o Jesus wasthe oundation o Christian baptism or a prototype or it, and indeed inthe nature o its importance or Christology it was a unique event, thedeclaration o Jesus Sonship and the coming o the Holy Spirit on him atthis time provide a parallel to the promises attached in a lesser sense toChristian baptism.13

Another way o reading the gospel accounts, however, is to see them as

dierent ways o explaining the problem that Jesus baptism posed or

early Christians. Recognizing that Jesus baptism was a cruxa problemthat cried out or explanationthe our evangelists, when they report the

event at all, tend to portray it as sui generis, even though we can detect

some eort to interpret it as an exemplum or early Christians to ollow.As Ferguson astutely remarks, even Mark, ater noting that the crowds

were conessing their sins (Mark 1.5), scrupulously avoids reporting the

same thing about Jesus.14 Rather than signaling theological neutrality, or

exhibiting unrefective historical realism as once thought,15 Marks brev-ity exposes the distinctive contours o his christological understanding.

Ferguson succinctly rehearses them: the dove symbolism possibly echoing


8/28


16. So Joel Marcus, Mark 18, Anchor Bible 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000),159; also noting the striking parallel in Testament o Levi 18.612 (as does Ferguson,Baptism, 101 n. 6). Adela Y. Collins, Mark, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: AugsburgFortress, 2007), 148, noting Marks unusual phrasing, adduces Joseph and Aseneth14.2 (eschisthe\ ho ouranos).

17. Ferguson, Baptism, 1012.18. This is achieved by addition o material rom Q (Luke 3.79 || Matt 3.710)

and L (Luke 3.1014).19. Luke 3.1518. Worth noting is Lukes adoption o Q, He will baptize you with

the Holy Spirit and re (Luke 3.16 || Matt 3.11), rather than Marks he will baptizeyou with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1.8). Surprisingly, Lukes later report o the risenLords recollection o this promise (Acts 1.5) conorms to the shorter Markan orm.

20. Luke 3.1920.21. Luke 3.2122.

Gen 1.2 and 8.811; the heavenly voice as a pastiche o biblically loaded

phrasing whose combined eect is to portray Jesus as the divinely begotten

Son o Ps 2.7, Abrahams beloved Isaac o Gen 22.2, Gods chosen servant

o Isa 42.1 and 44.2, and (we might add) the Lords beloved Ephraim (Jer

31.20 [Jer 38.20 LXX]). Also worth noting is the unusually graphic, even

apocalyptic, image o the heavens being ripped open (schizomenous),possibly recalling Isa 64.1 (LXX [63.19 MT]),16 maybe even anticipating

the ripping o the temple veil in Mark 15.38, or signaling the rst dramatic

scene in Marks unolding apocalyptic drama.

The overall eect o Marks careully crated theophany is to distin-

guish Jesus baptism rom what the crowds experienced when they were

baptized by John. It is a moment o private revelation that excludes evenJohn. Jesus sees the Spirit like a dove descending into him (eis auton);

that he alone hears the heavenly voice conrms the thesis o Marks gos-

pel expressed in 1.1. For Mark, this is the beginning o Jesus messianic

consciousness, which is, by denition, a unique, unrepeatable event. From

that point orward, Marks Jesus is the Spirit-directed Son o God who

takes on Satan and the demonic order.

Lukes account o John the Baptist, as Ferguson rightly reports, is strik-

ing not only because o its length (compared with Mark) but also or the

way it depicts certain details o Jesus baptism.17 Special Lukan touches

include his amplied description o Johns preaching repentance18 and his

mention o Johns possible messianic status vis--vis Jesus.19 Surely one o

the most signicant Lukan details, however, is his brie report o Johns

imprisonment by Herod, which is inserted between his description o

Johns preaching and his account o Jesus baptism.20 This crucial addition

removes John rom the scene o Jesus baptism that immediately ollows.21

Jesus baptism is portrayed as part o a larger social phenomenon, as having


9/28


22. Ferguson, Baptism, 101.23. Luke 3.3.24. Luke 3.2122 anticipates Acts in which the two baptisms (water and Spirit)

are distinguished as separate (e.g., Acts 8, 1011, 19).

occurred when all the people were baptized (Luke 3.21: egeneto de ento\ baptisthe\nai hapanta ton laon). Each o the phrases reported in the

rest o v. 21 is signicant: it was ater Jesus also had been baptized (kai

Ie\sou baptisthentos), and while he was praying (proseuchomenou) thatthe heaven was opened (aneo\chthe\nai ton ouranon). Since his prayer

occurred as a separate event ollowing his baptism, Ferguson aptly notes

that it was not the prayer o a penitent.22

Lukes way o reporting the event may refect his special interest in prayer

evident throughout Luke-Acts, but it also accomplishes something else. By

reporting that John is in prison at the time o Jesus baptism, Luke erects a

(prison) wall between Jesus baptismincluding his post-baptismal prayer

and the Holy Spirits descentand Johns baptism o repentance or theorgiveness o sins.23 Replicating Marks language o the divine voice, also

expressed in the second person singular, Luke conveys the same multiva-

lent christological signicance, although he shits this moment marking

the beginning o Jesus messianic consciousness to a post-baptismal prayer.

Luke supplies urther interpretation in Acts 10.3738, when Peter also

draws a line between the baptism John preached and Gods anointing

Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. The grammar is ambigu-

ous. Readers o Luke-Acts would doubtless recall Luke 3.2122 and pos-

sibly the Nazareth Inaugural in Luke 4.1630, but Luke (through Peter)

careully avoids saying that Gods anointing o Jesus with the Holy Spirit

and power occurred when he was baptized by John; indeed, it occurred

ater the baptism John preached (10.37: meta to baptisma ho eke\ruxenIo\anne\s).24

That Luke wanted to highlight this private, prayerul epiphany as the

moment when Jesus received the Holy Spirit and heard God conrm his

divine Sonship is quite evident; that he wanted to separate John the Baptist

rom this doubly powerul messianic anointing is equally evident. Johnis in prison, ar removed rom this revelatory event. No reader o Lukes

account could possibly regard Jesus baptism as a ritual expression o his

penitence or as an act perormed to receive orgiveness o sins. These Lukan

touches anticipate the sharp critique o Johns baptism in Acts 18.2419.7.

For Luke, then, it is not so much Jesus baptism that is sui generis,

but the anointing o Gods Spirit and the beginning o his messianic sel-

consciousness that occur during his post-baptismal prayer. Here Luke


10/28


25. I remain convinced that the use o the third person by the heavenly voice

includes John as a witness and probably the crowds mentioned in Matt 3.7. Similarly(I think), Ferguson, Baptism, 102, esp. n. 12.

26. C. Gen 15.6, 18.19, 20.5, 21.23.27. Ferguson, Baptism, 102.28. Matt 5.6, 5.10, 5.20, 6.33.

agrees with Mark in reserving this messianic revelation exclusively or

Jesus. I anything, he makes it even more private than Mark.

More amiliar is Matthews solution to the problem posed by Jesus bap-

tism. By stating that Jesus traveled rom Galilee to Judea or the express

purpose o being baptized by John (Matt 3.13), Matthew supplies a stron-

ger motive or Jesus action than Mark. This heightened motive explains

Johns eisty protest in which he conesses Jesus superior status and Jesus

authoritative insistence that John comply with his request (Matt 3.1415).

Especially revealing is how Matthew reports Jesus emphatic yet enigmatic

answer. Even i later readers were never quite sure what ulll all righ-

teousness (3.15:ple\ro\sai pasan dikaiosyne\n) means, they could be con-

dent that Jesus knew. Since Jesus himsel saw the theological problemand answered it publicly,25 his later ollowers could reute their critics by

quoting Jesus own words.

Like Mark, Matthew actually depicts Jesus baptismhis arising rom

the water, seeing the descent o Gods Spirit, eeling it alight on him, and

hearing the heavenly voice assert his divine Sonship in the presence o wit-

nesses. Matthews visual, audial, and tactile imagery gives his account an

energetic liveliness that reinorces his explicit apologetic agenda. By includ-

ing Jesus dialogue with John, Matthew urther intensies the heavenly

voices christological claims: Jesus is not only submissive Isaac, whom Abra-

ham loves, but also Abraham himsel, exemplar o righteous obedience.26

What distinguishes Matthew rom Mark and Luke is the way his edito-

rial inclusion in vv. 1415 not only solves the crux but also changes Jesus

baptism rom sui generis into an exemplum. Here Ferguson is justiedwhen he claims that Matthews redaction has made Jesus an example o

obedience or others.27 By submitting to Johns baptism, Matthews Jesus

does what he teaches his ollowers to do: he aligns himsel ully with the

purpose o God and, as one who embodies righteousness, is thereorequalied to demand it o his ollowers.28

The Fourth Gospel oers another solution. Unlike the Synoptics, it

nowhere says that Jesus was baptized in water, much less that he was bap-

tized by John. Consequently, the Fourth Gospel contains no account o

Jesus baptism. It does, however, closely align Jesus with John, although


11/28


29. The Fourth Gospels ormulation is actually closer to Mark 1.8 (with theHoly Spirit) than to Q (with the Holy Spirit and re; Luke 3.16 || Matt 3.11).

30. Fergusons argument or seeing John 3 as a baptismal text (Ferguson, Baptism,14245) is convincing.

31. Even though the Fourth Gospel includes an editorial clarication that it was

not Jesus himsel but his disciples who actually did the baptizing (4.2), it neverthelessportrays Jesus authorizing a mission program that entailed baptism.

32. Ferguson, Baptism, 142, lists the numerous passages in the Fourth Gospel thatmention water or employ water symbolism, beginning with Jesus discourse with theSamaritan woman in John 4.

John claims not to have known him (1.31, 33). Already in the prologue

John is eatured as a God-appointed witness to Jesus, the light (1.69).

But in sharp contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, the Fourth Gospels John

is no preacher o repentance, nor does his baptism bestow orgiveness o

sins. The purpose o his baptism, like the rest o his testimony throughout

John 1, is to reveal [Jesus] to Israel (1.31).

What the Synoptic Gospels report variously in relation to Jesus bap-

tismthe Spirits descent on Jesus and his status as the Son o Godthe

Fourth Gospel reports as Johns testimony (1.3234). The Spirits descent

on Jesus is a revelatory moment not or Jesus but or John. It is not an

event that marks the beginning o Jesus messianic consciousness as it is

in the Synoptic Gospels. It is the moment, however, when God identiesJesus as the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1.33).29

What also distinguishes the Fourth Gospel rom the Synoptic Gospels is

its description o Jesus as someone who teaches (Nicodemus) the necessity

o baptism o water and Spirit as a requirement or entering the king-

dom o God (3.5).30 Not only does Jesus teach about baptism, but he also

baptizes others (3.22) and does so more successully than John (4.12).31

Although Jesus uses water symbolism in his subsequent dialogues,32 he

gives no urther explicit instructions about baptism. He does, however,

teach extensively about the Holy Spirit (e.g., in the Farewell Discourse,

chaps. 1416), and ater his resurrection imparts the Holy Spirit to his

disciples (20.22), probably enacting his role as the one who baptizes with

the Holy Spirit (1.33).

The Fourth Gospel thus solves the problem o Jesus baptism by (a)

omitting a description o the actual event, (b) presenting John as a wit-

ness to Jesus rather than as the one who baptized him, (c) portraying Jesus

receiving the Holy Spirit in an epiphany seen by John and detached rom

his baptism and thereby qualiying him as the sole administrator o HolySpirit baptism, and (d) describing Jesus in the double role o baptizer (at

least through his disciples) and a teacher o baptism. With the latter move,


12/28


33. Here the Fourth Gospel is making a move comparable to Matthews GreatCommission (Matt 28.1920), which authorizes (commands) his readers (and otherChristians) to engage in teaching and baptizing missions. What is dierent, o course,is that the Fourth Gospels rationale is pre-Easter, whereas Matthews is post-Easter.

34. The Johannine letters provide indirect evidence that the Johannine communitypracticed baptism and probably conceived o it in terms that resonated with Jesusteaching in the Fourth Gospel. Being born o God (1 John 3.9; 5.1, 18) probablyexpresses the Johannine understanding o baptism and may represent an extensiono the birth metaphor Jesus uses in John 3. The natural corollary would be or thosebaptized in the Johannine community to be called children o God (1 John 3.10, 5.2,5.19). Water, blood, and Spirit (1 John 5.67) also sounds like baptismal language.

35. Ferguson, Baptism, 99100, adduces the relevant supporting arguments. Alsoworth noting is A. D. Nocks observation (in opposition to Loisy and Bultmann),. . . whatever signicance we (or the early Christians) attach to [Jesus baptism],there can be little doubt that it is a historical act, that it is something which meant

very much to Jesus Himsel, and that it was treated as in some sense the beginningo the Gospel. See A. D. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Back-ground(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 59 = Stewart, Essays, 1:97 (also n.200, with the reerence to Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 18.2).

36. Ferguson, Baptism, 146.

the Fourth Gospel provides an explicit warrant or Jesus disciples in the

post-Easter period.33 By administering Christian baptism, Jesus disciples

comply with his instruction that baptism is required or entry into the

kingdom o God; they also ollow Jesus own examplenot the example

o Jesus baptism but the example o his baptizing ministry.34

To summarize, all our gospel accounts o Jesus baptism are theologi-

cally weighted interpretations o a historical event.35 Early Christians could

neither deny nor avoid an event that was so deeply embedded in multiple

memories. They had to give compelling theological explanations or it.

O the our evangelists, Matthew is the notable exception who presents

Jesus baptism as an exemplum or Christians to ollow. For all their di-

erences, however, the our evangelists, when reporting Jesus baptismand his relationship with John the Baptist, take special care to disassoci-

ate Jesus rom repentance and orgiveness o sins. In their respective nar-

ratives, the our evangelists depict what Hebrews states explicitly: Jesus

is sinless (Heb 4.15).

PAUL

Ferguson rightly sees Paul as a central gure or the study o Christian bap-

tism and his understanding o its signicance as proound.36 He treats

the key Pauline texts: Gal 3.2629; 1 Cor 1.1217, 12.13, 15.29; Rom

6.111; Col 2.1113; Eph 4.46; Tit 3.47. O these, Rom 6 is considered


13/28


37. Ferguson, Baptism, 155.38. Ferguson, Baptism, 155.39. E.g., J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (London: A & C Black,

1993), 2024 (on Gal 3.2627); similarly Dunns Baptism in the Holy Spirit(Phila-delphia, PA: Westminster, 1970), 12731 (on 1 Cor 12.13). See Fergusons reply inThe Church o Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology or Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-mans, 1996), 19195.

40. Ferguson, Baptism, 159.41. Ferguson, Baptism, 147.42. Notably Adol Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo Jesu (Mar-

burg: N. G. Elwert, 1892); see Fritz Neugebauer, In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zumpaulinischen Glaubensverstndnis (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); or abrie review o the main interpretive positions, see Margaret E. Thrall, II Corinthians,International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1:42428;or a succinct review o the relevant linguistic evidence, see C. F. D. Moule, IdiomBook o New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 80.En Christo\ occurs seventy-three times in the thirteen-letter Pauline corpus (c. 1 Thess1.1), three times in 1 Pet, and nowhere else in the NT. Also worth noting is the dis-

cussion o Pauls ecstasy and his use o mystical vocabulary in Alan Segal, Paul theConvert: The Apostolate and Apostasy o Saul the Pharisee (New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1990), 3471.

43. On the relationship between baptizer and the one baptized, see A. D. Nock,Conversion (Oxord: Oxord University Press, 1933; repr. 1965), 147 n. 294, com-

the key, indeed distinctive, baptismal passage in Paul.37 Pauls innova-

tive insight is to connect baptism with Christs death and resurrection.38

Fergusons exegetical treatment here, as elsewhere, is context-sensitive

and nuanced. His repeated caution against spiritualizing interpretations

that tend to downplay or ignore the concrete act o a ritual initiation

involving water is in order.39 He notices some o the remarkable eatures

o Pauls baptismal theology, such as his use o circumcision imagery in

Col 2.1113.40 Even so, some o the most distinctive, i not unique, Pau-

line accents might have been highlighted even more.

Noticed41 but underemphasized is the theological signicance o en

Christo\ as perhaps the most distinctive element not only o Pauls bap-

tismal theology but also o his theology as a whole (so Deissmann andnumerous subsequent interpreters).42 Ferguson grapples with how best

to understand the Pauline ormulation being baptized into Christ (eis

Christon) in Galatians 3 and Romans 6. But reading this as a derivationo (or even in relation to) being baptized in/into the name o (the Lord

Jesus) Christ tends to divert attention rom this unusually sharp-edged

Pauline ormulation. As 1 Cor 1.1214 implies, Paul well understands the

problematic nature o being baptized in/into someones name and how

easily our identity can be shaped by our personal relationship with the one

who baptized us.43 Pauls use o in the name o [Christ] phraseology in


14/28


menting on Luciuss embrace o the priest who initiated him and who was now hisather, and adducing inscriptional evidence o a cemetery to be shared by the priest,his initiates, and their descendants.

44. Acts 2.38, 8.16, 10.48, 19.5.

45. Ten o its twelve occurrences in the NT are Pauline: Rom 6.3, 16.5; 1 Cor8.12; 2 Cor 1.21; Gal 2.16, 3.24, 3.27; Eph 5.32; Col 2.5; Phlm 6. Outside o Paulit occurs in Acts 24.24 and 1 Pet 1.11, neither time with reerence to baptism.

46. Ferguson rehearses the evidence or non-Jewish (Greco-Roman pagan) wash-ings (Baptism, 2537) and Jewish washings (Baptism, 6082).

1 Cor 6.911 is remarkable or its relative rarity. Simply put, Paul tends

not to think in these terms. Being baptized in/into the name o Christ is

more distinctively Lukan than Pauline.44 Pauls sensitivity to the possible

misconstrual o such language as refected in 1 Cor 1.1214 may explain

why he rarely uses it.

By contrast, en Christo\ and eis Christon characterize Pauls thought.No other NT writer speaks o being baptized into Christ (eis Christon).For that matter, the prepositional phrase eis Christon itsel is distinctivelyPauline.45

What is truly distinctive, i not unique, about Pauls baptismal theology

is how he relates this act o ritual initiation, which, qua initiation rite, has

parallels in the Graeco-Roman world,46 to certain aspects o his Christol-ogy. What distinguishes Paul rom Luke, or example, is the depth, scope,

and texture o his Christology. This, as much as anything else, accounts

or the theological richness o Galatians 2 and Romans 6. Pauls insistence

on Christs death as more than an exclusively historical event locatable in

time and space but rather a trans-historical event that shattered temporal,

spatial, and anthropological categoriesan event best captured by the

metaphor new creation (2 Cor 5.1421)drives his baptismal theol-

ogy. Whether one characterizes Pauls conceptual ramework as primar-

ily cosmic, apocalyptic, eschatological, mystical, or mythicalor some

combination or variation o theseis debated. What cannot be missed,

however, is the vast scope o the grand narrative with which he operates.

Integral to this narrative is the Christ-storywhat God has accomplished

through Christs death and resurrection.

Pauls highly realistic and thoroughly personalistic language, however,

reaches beyond the category o story, narrative, or even myth. For Paul, the

Christ who died and was raised is an extension o the historical Christ, and

is thereore identiably continuous with that historical gure. But in hisresurrected orm, Christ occupies a newly constituted space that cannot be

conceived or experienced apart rom the living reality that is uniquely his.

Pauls image o Christ as the Second Adam (1 Cor 15; Rom 5) captures this


15/28


47. E.g., as some version o the heavenly man; see J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 18,

Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 27678 (on Rom 5.14).48. The same applies to Pauls claim that the Israelites were baptized into Moses

(1 Cor 10.2).49. John A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, Studies in Bib-

lical Theology 5 (Chicago: Regnery, 1952).

inescapably personal dimension. Whether Paul imagines the risen Christ

as a gigantic cosmic gure that pervades the universe47 or envisions him

in less grandiose terms, what can scarcely be contested is Pauls rm belie

in a risen Christ who transcends all human categories even while enabling

(and inviting) all human beings to enter the realm that he uniquely occu-

pies and, in doing so, to participate in his being and presence.

Only within such a grandly conceived ramework can Pauls provocative

ormulations be understood. For all o their dierences, Gal 3 and Rom 6

presuppose this ramework. Common to both is Pauls assertion that we

are baptized into Christ (Gal 3.27; Rom 6.3). Ferguson rightly insiststhat such explanatory phrases as with reerence to Christ, with regard

to Christ, or in relation to Christ ail to grasp Pauls point.48 We arebetter served when we read such language realistically rather than meta-

phorically or even spiritually. By being immersed in water, Paul insists, wereenact Christs death. The ormulation we are buried with Christ sug-

gests more than ritual initiation; it signies ritual union with our central

cultic gure. Christs death is an experience (or event) that one can enter:we are baptized into his death. But death in what sense? Not a reen-

actment o his physical expiration, o course, but reliving his existential

death, understood comprehensively as death to ones sel, which takes the

orm o death to Sin (2 Cor 5.1415).

As the coordinate o Christs death, Christs resurrection is also an event

or experience we can enter. Rising rom baptismal water, one rises to

new lie. This lie has a qualitatively dierent texture since it is uniquely

linked with the resurrected Christ and dened by the empowering presence

o the Holy Spirit. It is lived en Christo\. What Paul sees that no other NTwriter sees as clearly, or in quite the same way, is that baptism creates a

uniquely personal bond between the believer and the resurrected Christ

that has both individual and corporate dimensions. His use o the clothingmetaphor in Gal 3.27 signals this: the baptized believer is ully enguled by

the resurrected Christ. And yet, being en Christo\ is also the great leveler

o humanity. Through this newly constituted domain, ethnic, social, and

gender distinctions are transcendednot obliterated but transcended. As

John A. T. Robinson insists, the body o Christ is Pauls realistic rather

than metaphorical way o capturing this.49 According to Robinson, Paul


16/28


50. Ferguson, Baptism, 150, 15657.51. See Luke 1.77, 3.3, 24.47; Acts 2.38, 5.31, 10.43, 13.38, 26.18; also 1 John

1.9, 2.12. The only time he\ aphesis to\n hamartio\n occurs in the Pauline corpus is

Col 1.14. The idea o sins being orgiven is ound in Rom 4.7, but in a quotationo Ps 32.12. Sometimes Paul uses the plural sins, especially when citing earlierChristian material (1 Cor 15.3; Gal 1.4), but occasionally to express his own views(1 Cor 15.17; and in the disputed 1 Thess 2.16). See Carl R. Holladay, A CriticalIntroduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning o JesusChrist, CDROM ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 554.

52. Hamartia occurs ty-nine times in the seven undisputed Pauline letters; oncein Ephesians, once in Colossians, our times in 1 and 2 Timothy. In the six disputedletters, the plural orm is always used. In the undisputed letters, the plural orm occurseight times; o these, two occur in OT quotations (Rom 4.7 quoting Ps 31.12; Rom1.17 quoting Isa 59.2021, 27.9). Two o them occur in traditional material (1 Cor

15.3; Gal 1.4). One o them occurs in a disputed passage (1 Thess 2.16). Only threetimes does Paul use the plural orm in his own right (Rom 3.25, 5.14; 1 Cor 15.17).The vast majority o his uses ohamartia are in the singular. Most o these occur inRomans (orty-ve times, with a heavy concentration in Rom 58); also 1 Cor 15.56;2 Cor 5.21, 11.7; Gal 2.17, 3.22.

arms that baptized believers are the body o Christnot a body oChristians but the body o Christ. As the ritual act through which believ-

ers experience what the Passion Narrative depicts visually or what the

kerygma proclaims, baptism is the believers point o entry into Christ.Some slippage occurs when Ferguson connects Pauline baptism with

the orgiveness o sins.50 Such language is actually more Lukan, even

Johannine, than Pauline.51 Pauls tendency to speak o sin in the singular

rather than the plural refects his distinctive angle o vision.52 His instinc-

tive move is to speak o Sin as a personied, cosmic orce comparable to

Law and Death (1 Cor 15.56). Death to sin (Rom 6.2) is not the same

as orgiveness o sins.

Linking the lial identity o believers with baptism (Gal 3.2627) isalso a distinctively Pauline notion. Nowhere in Acts are those who are

baptized ever said to become sons/children o God. They experience many

benets, such as orgiveness o sins and reception o the Holy Spirit, but

divine childhood is not one o them. By contrast, Paul sees baptism as the

ritual act that seals the relationship in which we become children o God

through aith. Elsewhere he characterizes this relationship as adoption

(Gal 4.57; Rom 8.15) and as one in which lial obediencethe capacity

to say Abba, Fatheris the dening expectation. This Pauline concep-

tion resonates with the Johannine notion o becoming children o God,

which occurs primarily through aith in Jesus Christ (John 1.1213; 1

John 2.293.3, 3.910, 5.13). In the Nicodemus story (John 3.121),

baptismbeing born o the water and Spiritis linked more directly


17/28


53. Ferguson, Baptism, 101, is inclined to see such linkage.54. Ferguson, Baptism, 158.55. Ferguson, Baptism, 18283.56. Ferguson, Baptism, 18384.57. Ferguson, Baptism, 18485.

with seeing or entering the kingdom o God (John 3.3, 5). The linkage

between divine begetting and becoming children o God becomes clearer

in the Johannine letters.

One question worth asking is whether Pauls linkage o baptism with

divine sonship derives rom, or is somehow related to, the Synoptic tra-

ditions portrayal o Jesus baptismthe one other place in the NT in

which baptism is the moment or event in which one is pronounced Son

o God.53 Even so, baptism as the event in which one becomes Gods son/

child is a distinctive Pauline notion. His logic is clear: the believer who ritu-

ally reenacts the sacred drama othe Son o God thereby becomes Godsadopted son/child. Hence Paul characterizes believers as joint heirs with

Christ (Rom 8.17).In his discussion o Rom 6, Ferguson observes that one o Pauls special

contributions is drawing out the moral implications o baptism into the

death o Christ.54 It is worth asking whether this applies to all o the Pau-

line passages, perhaps not as explicitly as in Rom 6 but certainly broadly

understood. What typies Pauls discussion o baptism is its role in lever-

aging hisparaenesis. He is less interested in thinking about baptism as itrelates to Christs lie and teachings than in probing its meaning, given his

unique understanding o Christs death and resurrection. His baptismal

theology is eminently practical, driven by his own experience o the risen

Lord and his refections on that event.

ACTS

Here Ferguson acknowledges the prominence and requency o baptismal

language in Acts and then treats the relevant passages: Acts 12, 8.425,

8.2640, 9.119, 10.111.18, 16.1215, 16.1634, 18.8, 18.2419.7,

and 22.321. He then discusses two recurrent eatures, Baptism in(to)the Name o Jesus55 and The Holy Spirit and Baptism,56 and concludes

with a Summary on Baptism in Acts.57

Let me begin with some observations and questions:

(1) Explaining how the pouring out o Gods Spirit at Pentecost is the

ulllment o Joel 2.2832, Ferguson observes, God poured out the Spirit,

but that pouring (a gure or Gods action in sending the Spirit) was not


18/28


58. Ferguson, Baptism, 167. Ferguson also adds the ollowing remark: The bap-tism was the result o the coming (the pouring out) o the Holy Spirit, who lled thehouse (surrounding each), rested upon each, and lled each. How a medium (in thiscase the Holy Spirit) comes to be in a container (in this case the room) is distinct romwhat is done to a person in the medium (the baptism). I nd this statement puzzling.

59. Ferguson, Baptism, 171.60. Ferguson, Baptism, 173 n. 26, rightly contests Friedrich Avemarie, Die Tauer-

zhlungen der Apostelgeschichte: Theologie und Geschichte (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,2002), 26872, who concludes rom the absence o the Ethiopians reception o theHoly Spirit that Philips orm o baptism lay midway between Johns baptism and

ull Christian baptism. Ferguson also includes the reading o Codex Alexandrinus(more precisely, its corrector) in v. 39, [T]he Holy Spirit ell upon the eunuch, andthe angel o the Lord took Philip away.

61. Ferguson, Baptism, 17273.62. Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Bezan Text o Acts: A Contribution o Dis-

course Analysis to Textual Criticism, Journal or the Study o the New Testament:Supplement Series 236 (London: Sheeld Academic Press, 2002), esp. 355: . . . aconsiderable number o actors . . . emerge rom an application o the tools o dis-course analysis to a comparison o the texts o Acts . . . [and] all point to the sameconclusionnamely, that the orm o the book o Acts attested by Codex Bezae pre-dates that o the Alexandrian MSS examined. Also see Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny

Read-Heimerdinger, The Message o Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with theAlexandrian Tradition: Volume 2: Acts 6.112.25: From Judaea and Samaria to theChurch in Antioch (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 16163, objecting to the view thatv. 37 is a later addition.

63. Ferguson, Baptism, 172; see Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 3.12.8.

itsel the baptism o the Holy Spirit but made the baptism possible. 58

Why not? What is at stake in this distinction?

(2) With respect to the Samaritans conversion,59 what strikes us as incon-

sistentthe Samaritans exceptional mode o receiving the Holy Spirit vis-

-vis the Jews at Pentecost and no mention o baptismal benets or the

eunuchposed no problem or Luke, especially i his point lay elsewhere.60

(3) The discussion o the textual variant in 8.3761 suraces the interpre-

tive issues related to the complex textual history o Acts, especially as it

relates to the D-text. Recent work on the D-text proposing that it predates

the Alexandrian text now makes it more dicult to dismiss D-text read-

ings as secondary and late.62 Ferguson rightly notes the importance o Ire-

naeuss inclusion o v. 37 as important historical testimony to Christianpractice at least as early as the second century.63

(4) Concerning Sauls conversion, Fergusons summary accurately cap-

tures the Lukan perspective: The accounts o Pauls baptism include a

calling on the name o Jesus, the removal o sins, being lled with the

Holy Spirit, and reception into a local communityall characteristic o


19/28


64. Ferguson, Baptism, 175.65. To characterize Acts 9.119 and 22.321 as Lukes descriptions o Pauls call

as an apostle or an apostle to the Gentiles (Ferguson, Baptism, 17375) is tech-nically correct, since Luke twice uses apostolos to reer to Paul (Acts 14.4, 14.14).Since both usages include Barnabas, they are non-technical designations. Althoughapostolos is Pauls preerred sel-designation in his letters, especially in depicting hiscall (Galatians 12), Luke, when describing the same event, uses other language, e.g.,chosen instrument (9.15: skeuos ekloge\s) or witness (22.15 and 26.16: martys).


67. Ferguson, Baptism, 176.68. Ferguson, Baptism, 167.69. Ferguson, Baptism, 177.70. Ferguson, Baptism, 178.71. Ferguson, Baptism, 18384.

Lukes understanding o Christian conversion baptism.64 This has the

eect, however, o aligning Sauls conversion/baptism with the other non-

exceptional cases in Acts. But since it is reported three times and is espe-

cially portrayed as a prophetic callthe originating event in which God

summons Paul as a chosen instrument to appear beore Gentiles, kings, and

the people o Israel (Acts 9.15)is it not more exceptional than typical?65

(5) In the discussion o Cornelius,66 Ferguson acknowledges that the

details and sequence o the events . . . are somewhat dierent (rom

Acts 2).67 In keeping with his earlier discussion o Acts 2,68 he character-

izes both Acts 2 and 10 as events in which the pouring out o the Holy

Spirit is described as resulting in the baptism in the Holy Spirit.69

Again, what is at stake in this distinction? His nal verdict on Acts 1011is that the baptism o the Holy Spirit (in Corneliuss case) was a special

circumstance with a special purpose and not part o the usual pattern o

conversion in Acts.70

Fergusons analysis o Acts 1011 understandably prompts him to ask

whether Luke presents a consistent baptismal theology. He addresses this

question in his concluding summary The Holy Spirit and Baptism,71 in

which he argues that baptism in the Holy Spirit, by which he means

dramatic outpourings o the Holy Spirit, occurs on our special occasions:

Pentecost (Acts 2), Cornelius (Acts 1011), the Samaritans (Acts 8.1718),

and the twelve disciples o John (Acts 19.6). In each case, the outpour-

ing o the Holy Spirit was accompanied by observable phenomena, usu-

ally speaking in tongues. Each o these events was noteworthy because it

represented an important stage or signicant transition in the progress o

the gospel: All our incidents represent important stages in the spread o

the gospel o Christ: its rst proclamation to Jews, its oer to Samaritans,

its extension to Gentiles, and its replacement o the preparatory work o


20/28


72. Ferguson, Baptism, 184.73. Ferguson, Baptism, 184. This point is made earlier: I the git o the Spirit

promised to (sic) baptism in Acts 2.38 is dierent rom the baptism in (or with) theHoly Spirit in 2.15 and 10.4446, then several problems are avoided (Ferguson,Baptism, 169).

74. Ferguson, Baptism, 18081.75. See n. 65 above.

John the Baptist.72 By contrast, other believers who receive the Holy

Spirit through their baptism should be viewed dierently. Instances o this

occur in Acts 2.38, 5.32, 8.16, 9.12, 9.1718, and 19.23.73 This two-

level understanding o baptism as it relates to the Holy Spirit is one way

o nding coherence in Lukes baptismal theology, but does it adequately

account or the narrative complexity o Acts?

(6) In his discussion o Apollos and the twelve disciples at Ephesus, Fer-

guson acknowledges the truly problematic character o these stories.74 See-

ing Acts 19.6 as a parallel to Acts 8 is an understandable move, although

Paul is not an apostle in the same sense that Peter and John are.75 Rather

than using Acts 8 as the primary lens through which we read Acts 18.24

19.7, does it not make more sense to see the latter in relation to Lukesoverall depiction o Pauls Ephesian ministry in Acts 1920?

Now let me make some more general observations.

Ferguson clearly recognizes the challenge acing any interpreter wish-

ing to ascertain Lukes baptismal theology in Acts. Given the prominence

and requency o baptismal language in Acts, it constitutes a major NT

source or understanding baptism during the apostolic period. Acts reports

both mass and individual conversions in which baptism gures as a cen-

tral, recurrent element. The diculty is that some cases o conversion are

replete with details, especially concerning the benets o baptism. Pente-

cost believers who are baptized receive the orgiveness o sins and the git

o the Holy Spirit (2.38). The Ethiopian eunuch is simply baptized and

goes on his way rejoicing, with no mention o having his sins orgiven

or receiving the Holy Spirit. Saul/Paul presents a special case as the arch-

opponent who experiences a vision o the risen Lord that brings him to

his knees both literally and spiritually, who is then assisted by Ananias in

receiving his sight back, and who is nally lled with the Holy Spirit and

is baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 9.1719a and 22.16). Lydia andher household are simply baptized, with no attendant benets mentioned;

her counterpart on the other end o the social scale, the Philippian jailer,

is baptized, along with his household, and receives salvation o body and

soul. Cornelius and his household are baptized, but, unlike the Pentecost

believers, they receive the Holy Spirit beore baptism. Apollos knows only


21/28



the baptism o John, but simply receives uller instruction rom Priscilla

and Aquila. The twelve disciples (o John?) at Ephesus, by contrast, who

also know only the baptism o John, must be told about Jesus by Paul. In

addition, they must be re-baptized in the name o the Lord Jesus, ater

which Paul lays his hands on them, and then they receive a strong inu-

sion o the Holy Spirit that enables them to speak in tongues and prophesy

(19.56). The Corinthians simply hear, believe, and are baptized (18.8).

Coupled with this seeming patchwork o baptismal examples is Lukes

recurrent mention o the Holy Spirit, beginning with the risen Lords

promise that, in contrast to Johns baptism, the ollowers o Jesus would

very soon be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Two major outpourings o

the Holy Spirit ulll this promise: Acts 2 and Acts 1011, both o whichinclude baptismal events as central elements o the narrative. Other erup-

tions o the Holy Spirit occur in connection with baptisms: Simon Magus

and the Samaritans (Acts 8), Saul o Tarsus (Acts 9 and 22), and the twelve

Ephesian disciples (Acts 19.16). In some cases, or instance, the Pente-

cost believers, the Holy Spirit is a git that comes through baptism (Acts

2.38). In other cases, the Holy Spirit is mentioned as a benet believers

receive (Acts 5.32) or as a distinguishing characteristic o highly important

gures, or example, the Seven (Acts 6.3), Stephen (Acts 6.5, 6.10, 7.55),

Philip (Acts 8.39), Peter (Acts 10.19, 11.12), Barnabas (Acts 11.24), Paul

and Barnabas (Acts 13.2, 13.4), Paul and Silas (Acts 16.6), and Paul (Acts

19.21, 20.2223).

Are there discernible patterns within this apparent disparity o presenta-

tions? I so, what are they? Fergusons main interpretive move is to distin-

guish the our dramatic outpourings o the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 10 11, and

19 as instances o baptism in/o the Holy Spirit and to see all (or most)

o the other reerences to the Holy Spirit, e.g., Acts 2.38, as a maniesta-

tion or git o a dierent order, which comes as a natural consequence owater baptism.76 As he notes, this distinction has certain advantages. For

one thing, the inconsistent timing o the Spirits arrival or the dierent

modes o transer pose less o a problem. The Spirit can come at the outset

o one o these dramatic events (Pentecost, Cornelius) or ater the laying

on o hands (Samaritans, the twelve Ephesian disciples). Receiving the

Spirit prior to baptism is also less problematic, since these our instances

are exceptional moments that mark distinct stages in the progress o the

gospel. This way o interpreting the material also assigns tongue-speakingto exceptional rather than typical moments o Christian experience.


22/28


77. Avemarie, Die Tauerzhlungen, 41340.

But this distinction also creates problems. Since Luke specically links

Acts 2 and 1011 with the risen Lords promise in Acts 1.5, he clearly sees

Pentecost and Cornelius as narrative ulllments o that promise. But is

this also true (in Lukes mind) o the Samaritans and the twelve Ephesian

disciples? This distinction may also allow Acts 2.38 and comparable pas-

sages that link baptism with the orgiveness o sins and the git o the Holy

Spirit to be read as presenting a consistent baptismal theology. But what

about the many other instances in Acts in which the Holy Spirit appears

as the motivating impulse o certain people or events, e.g., Stephen (Acts

7.55), Philip (Acts 8.39), or Paul and his companions (Acts 13.24, 20.22

23)? The main interpretive question is whether the risen Lords promise

in 1.5 can be understood to include not only Acts 2 and 1011 (and evenActs 8 and 19) but also the many maniestations o the Spirit, in all their

bewildering complexity and variety, that are reported in Acts.

A major question is whether Luke is operating with a consistent, coher-

ent baptismal theology, which can be ascertained by pulling together the

various strands rom dierent episodes and synthesizing them into a sum-

mary description; or, is Friedrich Avemarie correct to conclude that the

kaleidoscopic picture we nd in Acts suggests considerable variety rather

than uniormity in baptismal practice in the early decades o the Chris-

tian movement?77

LUKE-ACTS

Separating the respective treatments o baptism by the Gospel o Luke

and Acts refects the standard canonical distinction, but i the testimony

o Luke-Acts is considered as a single theological perspective on baptism,

some things appear in a slightly dierent light.

Like Matthew and Mark, Luke knows about the ministry o John theBaptist. Unlike his Synoptic counterparts, however, Luke reports the Spirits

descent on Jesus and the heavenly voice in a post-baptismal theophany.

Still, the event remains or Luke a dening moment in which Jesus true

identity is armed by God. This identity is reinorced by the genealogy

(Luke 3.2338) and tested by Satan (Luke 4.113), whereupon the ull

impact o his reception o the Spirit begins to be spelled out narratively

(Luke 4.14), beginning with the Nazareth Inaugural (Luke 4.2630). From

that point orward, Luke presents Jesus as the unique bearer o the HolySpirit, the empowering orce o Jesus two-pronged ministry o preaching/


23/28


teaching and healing. Jesus neither imparts the Spirit to the disciples nor

does he share it with those who experience the benets o his teaching and

healing. He is the Spirits sole agent in bringing about Gods heavenly reign.

Lukes innovative interpretive move (compared with the other evange-

lists) is in the way he develops John the Baptists prediction that contrasted

his own baptism in water with that o his successor, Jesus, who would

baptize with the Holy Spirit and re (Luke 3.16). Luke seizes on this

as a promise that remains unullled not only in the lie and ministry o

Jesus but also in the post-Easter period. Lukes gospel concludes with this

promise still unullled. Acts, however, begins with a variation o John

the Baptists promise, reported as the very rst saying o the risen Lord in

Acts 1.45. The risen Lord lays claim to what John the Baptist had earlierpromised, now giving it his denitive interpretation: Johns water bap-

tism will soon be surpassed by a baptism with the Holy Spirit not many

days rom now (Acts 1.5). Two things have changed: John the Baptist

had predicted that Jesus himsel would baptize with the Holy Spirit; he

had also coupled it with a baptism o re. Jesus reormulation renders

the promise in the passive voice with the subject unstatednot that Jesus

himsel will be the administrator o this baptism with the Holy Spirit, but

that it would occur rom some unknown source; and the medium will be

the Holy Spirit exclusively, not the Holy Spirit and re.

Everyone acknowledges that the risen Lords promise in Acts 1.5 begins

to be ullled in the events o Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. An outpour-

ing o the Holy Spirit on those assembled, along with ery tongues and a

mighty wind, actualizes Joel 2.2832 within this inaugural gathering o

Jesus ollowers in Jerusalem. Luke constructs the narrative to convince

even the most supercial reader (or hearer) that the apostles were bap-

tized with the Holy Spirit. The surere proo was their ability to speak

in tongues (Acts 2.4).The critical interpretive question is whether, and i so how, the risen

Lords promise o Acts 1.5 continues to be ullled. Is Peters promise in

Acts 2.38 that repentance and baptism would bring orgiveness o sins

and the git o the Holy Spirit a continuation o the risen Lords promise

in Acts 1.5, or is the common reception o the Holy Spirit by baptized

believers o a dierent order?78

The most revealing literary clue occurs in connection with Corneliuss

conversion (Acts 1011). In Peters rehearsal o the Cornelius events beorehis Judean critics, he recalls that as he began speaking to Cornelius and his

78. Fergusons position (Baptism, 169).


24/28


household the Holy Spirit ell upon them (Cornelius and his household,

as Gentiles) just as it had upon us (the apostles) at the beginning (Pente-

cost), which prompted him to remember the word o the (risen) Lord

(as reported in Acts 1.5), that John baptized with water, but you will be

baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11.1516). Peter concludes rom this

experience and his recollection o the risen Lords words that these Gentiles

had received the same git that he gave us when we believed in the Lord

Jesus Christ (Acts 11.17). The clear implication rom Lukes insertion

o this explicit literary connection with Acts 1.5 is that Cornelius and his

household, as representative Gentiles, indeed the prototypical Gentiles,

like Peter and the apostles at Pentecost, had been baptized with the Holy

Spirit. Since the risen Lords promise had clearly extended to Corneliusand his household, how, Peter asks, could he reuse to baptize them?

At the literary level, then, Luke identies two eventsPentecost and Cor-

neliuss conversionas explicit instances o baptism with the Holy Spirit.

As such, they have symbolic signicance that distinguishes them rom all

other episodes in Acts. Pentecost marks the outpouring o Gods Spirit

on believing Jews, Corneliuss conversion does so or believing Gentiles.

By constructing his two-volume narrative this way, Luke establishes

continuity rom the point at which early Christian preaching beginsJohn

the Baptist (Acts 10.37)through Jesus ministry, through his death, resur-

rection, and the interim between the resurrection and ascension, but even

urther through the two dening moments o the early churchPentecost

and Corneliuss conversion. In this way Luke shows how John the Baptists

prophetic promise, uttered at the very beginning o the Jesus story (Luke

3.16), comes to ulllment in the post-Easter period in the earliest decades

o the churchs existence. Lukes distinctive perspective is his insistence that

what Jesus experienced uniquely as the bearer o Gods Spirit, and as nar-

rated in the gospel, is extended more broadly in Acts, rst to the apostles,but subsequently to a wide range o other recipients. Acts, in other words,

reports the democratization o the Holy Spirit, which is poured out most

visibly and dramatically in connection with two symbolically signicant

events: the conversion o Jews at Pentecost and o Gentiles at Caesarea.

The distribution o the Holy Spirit occurs, however, in numerous other

ways, at dierent places and times, and in dierent circumstances. The

other episodes in Acts can be read as events in which the residual eects

o these two representative episodes are elt.In reporting the events o Pentecost and Cornelius, Luke establishes

water baptism as the normative initiation rite or early ChristiansJews

and Gentiles. It is consistently associated with aith in Jesus Christ and


25/28


79. See the encyclopedic treatment o baptism as it relates to initiation and puri-cation in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, andEarly Christianity, eds. David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, yvind Norderval, and ChristerHellholm, Beihete zur Zeitschrit r die neutestamentliche Wissenschat 176.13, 3vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011).

repentance as prerequisites or at least accompanying qualities. The eects

and benets o baptism are variously reported, but they typically include

the orgiveness o sins, the reception o the Holy Spirit, and salvation

understood in dierent ways. Not every report o baptism mentions these

benets. Luke is literarily sensitive enough to know that early episodes

can be understood representatively and that mindless repetition can have

a numbing eect. For those who have sinned egregiously (Pentecost Jews,

Saul o Tarsus, the Philippian jailor), baptism has a purgative eect: it

washes sins away. More exemplary citizens (the Ethiopian eunuch, Lydia,

the Corinthians) simply receive baptism as a way o being identied as

disciples o Jesus. For them, baptism is a rite o entry rather than a rite

o purication.79Problematic cases surace now and then. When the Samaritans accept

Philips preaching about the kingdom o God and the name o Jesus

Christ, they are baptized in the name o the Lord Jesus (Acts 8.12, 16),

and yet they do not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John personally

transer it through the laying on o hands (Acts 8.1517). The Samaritans

receive the Holy Spirit but no palpable eects, such as speaking in tongues,

are reported. What power Simon envies remains unspecied, possibly the

power to perorm signs and wonders. Does this episode refect the inad-

equacy o Philips preaching? Does it underscore the apostles exclusive

authority and the need or the Jerusalem church to validate conversions

in disputed Samaritan territory? Possibly some o both. But given the

way in which the Simon Magus story is interwoven with the story o the

Samaritans conversion, a more likely explanation is that Luke wants to

eature a seriously fawed baptized believer (Simon Magus) who stands

in sharp contrast to a ully exemplary onePhilips other convert, the

Ethiopian eunuch.

The twin cases o Apollos (Acts 18.2428) and the twelve Ephesiandisciples (Acts 19.16) also illustrate exceptional cases. One way o read-

ing these episodes is as a diptych introducing Pauls Ephesian ministry

intended to show how people who exhibit dierent levels o attachment

to John the Baptist need to be mainstreamed into the Pauline tradi-

tion, either by Pauls duly appointed co-workers or by Paul himsel. The

cumulative eect o both episodes is to show that disciples o John need to


26/28


80. Another possible explanation is that Luke wants to show that dramatic out-pourings o the Holy Spirit occur in the ministries o his three main preachers: Peter,in preaching to Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10), Philip in Samaria (Acts 8), andPaul in the Diaspora (Acts 19).

81. Luke 5.32, 10.13, 11.32, 13.3, 13.5, 15.7, 15.10, 16.30, 17.34, 24.47.

receive more complete and more accurate teaching relating to Jesus; they

also need to be baptized in the name o Jesus, even i that means being

baptized again; and that baptism in the name o Jesus is incomplete until

the recipient has also experienced the git o the Holy Spirit, even i this

requires a special bestowal by a duly appointed agent such as Paul; and

that such an experience can be demonstrated visibly and audibly through

such maniestations as speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Another thing that Luke achieves in these two episodes is to demonstrate

the geographical universalization o the outpouring o the Holy Spirit. He

has reported the Spirits outpouring in Jerusalem (the symbolic center o

Judaism [Acts 2]), in Caesarea (the Judean center o Roman government

[Acts 1011]), but also in Samaria (the center o the old Israelite king-dom [Acts 8]), and now in Asia (the major urban center in the Aegean

[Acts 19]).80

Lukes major contribution to NT baptismal theology is twoold: (1)

reporting baptism as the normative initiation practice among early Chris-

tians immediately ater Jesus death and resurrection; and (2) providing a

theological rationale that sees baptism not as an emulation o Jesus bap-

tism but as a ritual initiation that symbolized penitence, one o the main

requirements o Jesus preaching,81 and thereby conveyed orgiveness o

sins, but also as a way o accessing what was uniquely his: the Holy Spirit.

Jesus post-baptismal prayer marks the moment when the Spirit inuses

Jesus himsel, signals his true identity as Gods Son, and prepares him or

his inaugural address at Nazareth, when he claims the promise o Isaiah

61. So equipped, Jesus is in the position to ulll John the Baptists prom-

ise o the Coming One who would eventually baptize his disciples with

the Holy Spirit and re.

Lukes distinctive angle on the death and resurrection is that through

these events Gods Spirit, solely localized in Jesus himsel, remained alive,and that the risen Lord, still in possession o the Spirit, envisions the ul-

llment o John the Baptists earlier promise, and that ater his ascension,

the risen Lord carries out this promise by dispensing the Spirit at Pentecost.

By reporting the two archetypal baptisms in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost

and Caesarea, Luke explains how Gods Spirit becomes the churchs com-

mon possession. Individual acts o baptism become the primary means o


27/28


82. Matt 28.1820. The longer ending o Mark also reports a similar commission bythe risen Lord (16.16), but it is clearly a late addition probably motivated by Matthew.

accessing the Spirit, whether in the normal course o events or in excep-

tional cases. For such baptisms to be authentic, they must be predicated

on aith in Jesus as the Christ. For this to occur, they must be administered

in the name o the Lord Jesus Christ. This may mean that some cones-

sional ormulation appropriating the name o Jesus was uttered in con-

nection with the baptism, either by the baptizer or the one being baptized.

The cumulative eect o Lukes narrative descriptions also shows the

Holy Spirit to be an equally critical component o authentic baptism,

whether experienced in highly dramatic moments or in less conspicuous

ways. The Holy Spirit is an indispensable element in Lukes baptismal

theology because o its primacy in his Christology. Luke does not report

the baptism o disciples as the replication o Jesus baptism. But he doesinsist on the indispensability o the Holy Spirit as an element o baptism

because the believers experience o the Spirit links him or her not only

with the pre-Easter Jesus, who possessed the Spirit uniquely, and in abun-

dance, but with the post-Easter Jesus who carries orward the promise o

the Father and actually envisions the church as part o his own prophetic

vision. Believers who are baptized, whose stories are narrated through-

out Acts, are not so much replicating Jesus baptismal example as they

are connecting with the Spirit that God kept alive when he raised Jesus

rom the dead. Lukes justication or Christian baptism is that it ullls

the expectations originally articulated by John the Baptist and reiterated

by the post-Easter Jesus. In this respect, Luke adopts a strategy similar

to the Matthean Great Commission in locating the warrant or Christian

baptism in words o the risen Lord.82 What distinguishes them, however,

is that Luke links the risen Lords words with an expectation voiced at

the very beginning o Jesus ministry, whereas Matthew does not. What

remains only a uture vision in Matthewa church that actively enlists,

teaches, and baptizes disciplesbecomes an accomplished reality in Acts.

CONCLUSION

Rather than seeing these points as strong counterarguments to Fergusons

presentation, I oer them as ways o opening and urthering the discussion.

By no means do they attempt to present a comprehensive review o this

extraordinarily rich, highly provocative treatment o a topic with complex

historical roots and proound theological and liturgical implications. I


28/28


83. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity, xiii, and included as the dedication in Stew-arts edition o Nocks Essays, 1:vii.

the mark o a seminal book is the way it prompts us to re-think our own

positions and to re-read amiliar textstexts that we think we know so

wellFergusons Baptism in the Early Church certainly achieves that,as well as teaches us at so many levels. In refecting on this monumental

achievement, one is reminded o A. D. Nocks characterization o Martin

P. Nilssons Geschichte der griechischen Religion as that masterpiece opatient brilliance.83

Carl R. Holladay is Charles Howard Candler Proessor o NewTestament in the Candler School o Theology at Emory University inAtlanta, Georgia

Baptism in the NT

Documents