The most important theological work of the 20th century in a new edition! Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics is one of
605 72 71MB
English Pages 212 Year 2009
Table of contents :
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life / 1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit / 2. Baptism with Water
I, A CHURCH DOGMATICS
VOLUME IV
THE DOCTRI OF RECONCILIATIO FRAGMENT FOUNDAION OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE BAPTISM
EDITED BY
G. W. I ROMILEY . TORRANCE
Translated by G. W. Iromiley Published by &T Clark A Continuum Imprint The Tower Building, ii York Road, London SE' 7NX 8o Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com
Copyright © T&T Clark, 2009 Authorised translation of Karl Barth, Die Kirchliche Dogniatik TV: Die Lehre von der Versohnung 4 Copyright 0 Theologischer Verlag Zurich, 1967 All revisions to the original English translation and all translations of Greek, Latin and French © Princeton heological Seminary, 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Interactive Sciences Ltd, Gloucester Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britai by MPG Books Group
ISBN 10: 0567536955 ISBN 13: 9780567536952
CONTENTS §75
§ 75. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE 1 . Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
2. Baptism with Water
§ 75
[002]
THE FOUNDATION OF T E CHRISTIAN LIFE A man's turning to faithfulness to God, and consequently to calling upon Him, is the work of this faithful God which, perfectly accomplished in the history of Jesus Christ, in virtue of the awakening, quickening and illuminating power of this history, becomes a new beginning of life as his baptism with the Holy Spirit The first step of this life of faithfulness to God, the Christian life, is a man's baptism with water, which by his own decision is requested of the community and which is administered by the community, as the binding confession of his obedience, conversion and hope, made in prayer for God's grace, wherein he honours the freedom of this grace.
I.
APTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT
We ask concerning the origin, beginning and initiation of the faithfulness of man which replies and corresponds to the faithfulness of God. We assume that, even if in great poverty, weakness and contradiction, constantly threatened and in need of renewal, there is such a thing as genuine human faithfulness in relation to God's own faithfulness. To that extent we assume that there is such a thing as the event of the Christian life. Problematic though this event may be, critically though it has to be regarded even at best, the mystery and miracle of this event are always great enough to raise the astonished question how it comes into being, how it is possible, in short, where, whence and how it may begin. Assuming that something does happen, what happens is no more and no less than that a grain of wheat in the sowing of God's kingdom, instead of remaining in the hand of the sower, is cast forth, and, instead of failing by the way, among thorns, or on stony ground, finds good ground, germinates, and brings forth fruit. How does the new and different and strange thing, the kingdom of God, come with such actuality into the sphere of a man's being, life, thought, will and action? How does this man come to accept this alien thing, the kingdom of God, with such actuality? How does he provide a lodging for it? However we put the question, from above downwards or vice versa, difficulties arise. In the first instance one can only reply that in pure fact-the nature and measure of the "experience are irrelevant here-there necessarily happens to this man something which cannot be co-ordinated, something incommensurable whereby everything he was before or is apart from this, though not expunged, is totally relativised, bracketed, and overshadowed. Hit 1
[003]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life is really true that a man, however timidly and uncertainly, may be a Christian, and that even with the greatest qualifications he may be seriously addressed as such, this means that even as the man he was, is, and will be, he cannot be the same man but has become a very different man. He now lives with a new character in which he is strange to himself and his fellows. For all his identity with himself, he is also different from himself. He has become the bearer of a new name. The compass of what it means for a man to become faithful to the faithful God is not merely underestimated but completely missed if one does not ultimately stand before this fact with helpless astonishment. "The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God," Ps. 142, cf. 532. Will He find such? "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?," Is. 531. "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith (n)) 7ricri-tv) on the earth?," Lk. 188. Is not 2 Thess. 32 putting it very mildly when it says that not all have 77-taTtg'? Not all? Who, then, can and will have [004] faith and be faithful to God? According to Mk. lo24 Jesus says very generally that it is hard (8.oaKoAov) to enter the kingdom of God. So great is the difficulty that of the rich, though obviously not of them alone, but of all men, it may be said (v. 25) that a camel will go more easily through a needle's eye than they into the kingdom of God. The disciples of Jesus undoubtedly took the saying thus (v. 26), and they were "astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?" The answer of Jesus is again very general (v. 27): 'With men ()Topa etv0pc6Trotc) it is impossible, but not with God (Trapa 0€(2): for with God all things are possible."
We do not know what we are talking about if in this matter of the awakening and origin of a human faithfulness corresponding to God's faithfulness, in this matter of the foundation of Christian life, we count upon some other possibility than that which is with God alone because it is subject only to His control. So great is the mystery and dignity of this event! But what kind of a divine possibility is this? We have to be clear that the faithfulness to God here at issue must be understood as a human act, the Christian life as the life of a man. The question is how this man himself becomes the subject of this event, of faith in God, love for Him, of hope in Him, a man who wills and acts in this positive relation to Him, a friend instead of an enemy, one who is alive for Him instead of dead for Him. To be an adequate answer to this question, a description of that divine possibility cannot evade the fact that man himself is at issue. It is not enough, then, to describe this possibility as one whose actualisation, while it affects man supremely by setting him in the light of a new, gracious, and consequently positive divine judgment, does not do more than affect him, simply touching him from without, or strictly speaking not touching him at all, since he is as it were sealed off against it, and is not touched and altered by it in his inner being. On this view, how can one claim man seriously-and this is our theme-as one who for his part is a faithful partner in the covenant of grace? Again, it is not enough to refer simply to the divinely effected actualisation of certain moral impulses in man. There are such. As God's creature man has by EN1
faith
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit nature and creation his own determination which is not destroyed or even damaged by his conflict with God, his fellow-man and himself. When he is faithful to God, he is certainly set on the path to fulfilment of this determination. Nevertheless, this is not what makes a man a Christian. Our question, however, is how a man becomes a Christian, how it comes about that a man is faithful to God, what is the divine possibility in which this takes place. Finally, the view is inadequate that God's possibility here consists in what can only be called the magical infusion of supernatural powers by whose proper use man can do what he cannot do in his own strength, namely, be faithful again to the faithful God. We are not asking concerning natural or supernatural powers which, assuming that man has or receives them, and that he begins the Christian life by using them, might be helpful and serviceable to this end. We are [0051 asking how man, for whom it is impossible to begin the Christian life by human judgment, is nevertheless enabled by divine judgment, on the basis of a divine possibility, to will, commence and do this. The mystery and miracle of the event of which we speak consists in the fact that man himself is the free subject of this event on the basis of a possibility which is present only with God. tut what kind of a divine possibility is this? At this point we may set aside three views which have become classical in the history of Christian theology, since we cannot regard as satisfactory their answers to this question. The first equates the divine possibility with God's power to make a man faithful to Himself, to make him a Christian, by blessing him in the form of an infusion of supernatural powers. Exercising the caution demanded by modern investigation we might call this the popular Roman Catholic view. The second view locates the possibility in God's power to be gracious to man by summoning and spurring him on to the fulfilment of his natural religious and moral impulses. A revival of ancient Pelagianism, this is undoubtedly the understanding of Neo-Protestantism, which emerged at the end of the 17th century, which then attained to virtual dominance (not without parallels in the Roman Catholic world), which has declined somewhat to-day, but which is still powerful and can still bring forth belated fruits-I refer to theological existentialism in all its varied forms. The third view, in contrast to popular Roman Catholicism, restricts the possibility to God's power to introduce a man who has been judged afresh and with grace, but who is in himself unaltered. This is the form which the Reformation doctrine of justification received-incorrectly but in a way which had more than contemporary influence-at the hands of Melanchthon and the Lutheran orthodoxy which followed. If only there had been a happier alternative to the Roman Catholic view and to isolated anticipations of the Neo-Protestant conception! Or if only the (counter-) reforming Council of Trent had been able to offer a happier alternative to the teaching of Melanchthon, and perhaps in advance to the Neo-Protestant understanding! Or if only, might one say, the Neo-Protestant view had transcended and overcome the other two in a happier way! As things were, the three views were from the very first no more than complementary to one another. Each in its particular overemphasis bore some responsibility for producing and hardening the other two. Hence one can hardly award the palm to any of them. Different though they were and are, they share the common feature that from the standpoint which we have here adopted they are all deficient, since none of them makes it cjear how there comes into being the Christian, the man who responds to God's faithfulness with faithfulness, the man who as a free subject is God's true partner in the covenant of grace. None of them can show in what sense the existence of this man is grounded in the great possibility of
3
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life God, in this alone, but in this truly. Hence we must set them all aside and return to the central question: What is this great possibility of God?
The answer which Holy Scripture gives to this question ignores all these views and refers us to the decisive point, to the change which comes on man himself in the freedom of the gracious God, the change in which he himself is free to become what he was not and could not be before, and consequently to [006] do what he did not and could not do before, i.e., be faithful to God. Neither in thought nor utterance should we turn aside from this point. Our gaze must be focused upon it. To be sure, if a man is to be faithful to God, there must be an actualisation of his creaturely determination and consequently of his natural powers. To be sure, all kinds of unsuspected powers, hitherto alien to himself and others, so that for once we can call them "supernatural, "might well be given him. To be sure, even at best he will always stand in need of the gracious judgment of God. One cannot deny that in each of the three views there is a particula veriEN2. The real question, however, is that of the reality of man's opening up to this new and strange and different thing, the reality of his free entry into the kingdom of God which has drawn near for him and to him too, the reality of the origin of his free partnership with God in God's covenant of grace which embraces him too because it was instituted for him too. The divine possibility of which Holy Scripture speaks refers to this reality. Man himself, man in his own most proper subjectivity, ceases to stand without as a stranger. He approaches and comes inside to the place where all things are ready for him too, for him specifically. The possibility of God consists in the fact that man-eye of a needle or not-is enabled to participate not just passively but actively in God's grace as one who may and will and can be set to work too. It is God's power to draw and turn, so that this man will voluntarily and by his own decision choose that which God in His grace has already chosen for him, and in this choice he will be one who is converted to God instead of apostate from H im, one who confesses God instead of one who denies Him, a friend instead of an enemy, a man who is no longer unserviceable but serviceable, a witness to God instead of one who brings shame upon Him, in short, a man who is no longer unfaithful to God but faithful to Him. The Christian life has its true source in this change which God brings about in man. It begins with it. Of what avail to a Christian are his natural or even supernatural powers, of what avail is even the most gracious judgment of God, if he does not have his origin in this divine turning with its result in his own free decision, if he himself has not first become a Christian therein? To grasp the meaning, nature, mystery and miracle of this divine turning one must collect and compare the very different but obviously converging ways in which Holy Scripture speaks of it. The figure of the new garment which is given to the Christian and which he has to put on and wear does not mean that man himself can adopt the distinctive being of a Christian, EN2
grain of truth,
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit dressing up as it were in it. Nor does it mean that what is given him is no true Christian being but only something external, not to speak of a mere Christian appearance, a hood which is pulled over him and under the concealment of which he can be the same as he always was. The festive garment in which those who are invited from the streets and lanes take their places at the marriage board of the king is an essential part, indeed, the essential part of the gift which is given them along with the invitation. For this reason it would be no mere fault of etiquette (Mt. 2 2 1') but something which from the very first barred them from the table, if they were to try to seat themselves, not in this garment, but in their old rags or even in puns naturalibus' 3. Similarly, the elect and called are not arbitrarily or autonomously clothed in the white robes which they are said to wear in Revelation (34 5; 6H; 79). These white garments are the official robes along with which-clothes make the man-they receive a new being and are both empowered for and engaged to a corresponding new activity. Above all, the armour (ravo-n-Aia Toi; 0E013'4) which the Christian is to take and put on according to Thess. 58 and Eph. 613' is a freedom and power which is neither proper nor available to man by nature, which surpasses him in all its aspects, but which is appropriated to him as a freedom and power which he must put into effect as resistance in the evil day. What a man puts on when he becomes a Christian is according to Col. 310 and Eph. 424 no more and no less than-after the putting off of the old-the new man who is created Kara 0e3vEN5 Or TOC, Krtaavrog al)r6vEN6 for the knowledge of God, and in the knowledge of Kar' God for agreement with His will, and consequently for a life in true righteousness and holiness; the inner man who (Rom. 722) delights in the Law of God as described in Ps. i i, who certainly stands in need of continual strengthening (Eph. 316) , but who (2 Cor. 416), while the outward man perishes, is in fact renewed day by day; the hidden man of the heart ( I Pet. 34); the man of God as he is briefly and excellently called in 2 Tim. 317, the man who is fully equipped for every good work. if a man can put on this man, this wedding garment, the white robe, the armour of God, this obviously means that he himself (the reference in every case is to the avOpa7rogEN7) can and should affirm, accept, grasp and express himself in a form which is prepared for him, which is radically changed, but which is also adapted and consequently peculiar to him, that he should do this in his true reality which absolutely transcends and completely overshadows all that he was before or otherwise is. He has become (Rev. 214) the bearer of a name which corresponds to this true reality of his, which is thus new, "which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it," but under which (Rev. 35; 38; 78) he is indelibly entered in the book of life. We find the same teaching in other terms in the description which Paul gives in Rom. 2 of certain notable men whom, to the shame of the Jews, yet also as examples, he contrasts with the Jews, who have not let themselves be brought to conversion by God's goodness (v. 4) . Rather surprisingly in view of the context of the chapter, we read here that there are people (v. 7) who "by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality," and whom God rewards therefore with eternal life. These men (v. 3) are justified as doers of the Law, and they will stand in the judgment. They are Gentiles (gym V. 4), and as such they are people who in an astonishing way do what is demanded by the Law (Ta Toi) v6p,ov); without having the Law, they are law to themselves. They give evidence (v. 5) that the work of the Law (not the ve;tuag EN8 but the i4'i pyov raj v4tovEN9 ) is written in their in a pure natural state armour of God according to the likeness of God EN6 according to the image of the one who created him EN3
EN4
EN7 man ENS Law EN9
work of the Law
[007]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* hearts (doing this work is characteristic of them and hence self-evident). This is confirmed by their conscience and by the conflict of inner thoughts-we are reminded of the later description in Rom. 7 -which distinguishes a man who knows the Law from one who does not. Though uncircumcised, these men, by keeping the Law, show (v. 26) that they are truly circumcised. For (v. 28 f.) a man is not a Jew who is one outwardly (a physical and legal member of the covenant people) , nor is that the true circumcision which is outward and corporal. He is a Jew who is so in secret (where only God, but God in very truth, knows him) , and the circumcision which counts is that of the heart by the Spirit and not the letter, the [008] being of a man who has praise and honour with God. Paul knows such men; he refers to them. Whom does he have in mind? According to an ancient and almost universally accepted exegetical tradition, though not a tradition which is to be respected merely on this account, his reference is to outstanding Gentiles. On this view we have in Rom. 2 a compelling locus probans'l° for an effective natural revelation of God and knowledge of God. Shortly afterwards (39), however, Paul says unmistakably that both Jews and Gentiles collectively and individually live under sin, that none is righteous, no, not one (310) , that the whole world is guilty before God (319), that all have sinned and have no glory with God (323), How, then, can he assume in Rom. 2, even hypothetically, let alone in practice, that there are Gentiles who are not merely noble but who keep and fulfil God's Law without knowing it in its revealed form, and who are thus justified before God as its doers? Something is wrong here. In the context the statements of Paul in Rom. 2 are possible only if they refer to Gentiles whom Paul, his readers and the Jews may see in the Christian community, who, in contrast to Jews who persist in rejecting the Gospel, have let themselves be brought by God's goodness to conversion by obeying the summons to the obedience of faith. That the reference is indeed to Gentile Christians, and has nothing whatever to do with natural theology, is plain once one grasps the obvious point that Paul is here describing the strange fulfilment of the radiant Old Testament promise of the future establishment of a completely renewed Israel which is awakened to obedience to God and empowered and ready to keep His commandments. Thus we read in jer. 31 33': "But this shall be the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel after those days (the days of the breaking of the covenant and the ensuing rejection) , saith Yahweh: I will put my law in their inwards parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Yahweh." In the decisive matter jer. 3239f. is even stronger: "I will give them another heart and another way, that they may fear me for ever." Stronger still is Ezek. 1119f (cf. 3626f); "I will ... put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them." Also Deut. 306 (cf. Jen 44): "Yahweh, thy God, will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Yahweh, thy God, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Here are obviously the elements which go to make up the sayings in Rom. 2. The point of the contrast hazarded by Paul here is that now, in the Messianic age of fulfilment, the men intimated in Old Testament prophecy are to be found-unfortunately in only small numbers from among Israel, but in large numbers from among the Gentiles. According to biblical usage the heart denotes the centre of life in which a man is inwardly what he is, and from which he is also what he is outwardly, in all his acts and attitudes. If God's Law is written on his heart, if his heart is circumcised, if he acquires a new and different heart, this means that he himself, in so far as this has a decisive bearing on his whole being and act, becomes another man. According to Rom. 2 Gentile Christians have become other men, and consequently true EN10
proof-text
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit Israelites before God. He contrasts them as such with the majority of God's ancient people who continue in their old ways. It is plain that in so doing he is describing the same process underlying the Christian life as is elsewhere represented as the putting on of a new garment, i.e., anew man. In a third set of passages the same process, the divine establishing of the Christian life, is described as a new and second generation and birth which a man undergoes in sharp contrast to his natural genesis. In classification of these passages it should be noted that in the description of the process in Tit. 35 the same word is used (7-raAtyyEvEata"1-1 ) as that which Mt. 1928 employs for the renewal of the world on the appearance of Jesus Christ in judgment. When a man becomes a Christian, his natural origin in the procreative will of his human father is absolutely superseded and transcended On. 113) . "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" On. 36) . The Christian, however, comes into being in a very different way, of incorruptible, not corruptible, seed (I Pet. 123) . Thus the question of Nicodemus (In. 34) how a grown man can return to his mother's womb and be born again, is quite pointless. Not as a child, but like a child (Mk. 1015) , beginning from the very beginning as is proper to dpTity6vnTa gp4,17 EN12 (1 Pet. 22), a man comes to see the kingdom of God, receives it, 13, not on the horizontal plane of the enters into it. For this he must be born livco0Ev ' sequence of generations, but on the vertical plane of direct divine fatherhood On. 33) . He must be begotten to a living hope, to a share in the heavenly inheritance ( I Pet. 1 3f) . To love God and to believe in Him he must be born of God (In. 113, 1 jn. 47; 51) . Christians are addressed in the New Testament as men who have their genesis in this event. They are begotten by God through the word of truth (Jas. 118) . They are begotten again (avayEyEvvrwE'vot) through His word which lives and abides (I Pet. . They are thus 63 i Cor. 1545) blows where He wills born of the Spirit, who as TrvEiiii,a coo7rotoljv EN14 (Jn. 6, (Jn. 38) . They are born of God, who both can and does raise up children to Abraham from these stones (Mt. 39) . This is the mystery and miracle of divine sonship which Nicodemus, even though he is a "master of Israel," cannot grasp (Jn. 39f) . Paul obviously has the same point in view when, instead of speaking of a new begetting and birth, he refers to himself, and quite plainly to every Christian, as a new creature (Gal. 615, 2 Cor. 517) , as a man for whom the old has passed away and the new has come, as a man who owes his existence, his knowledge, and the whole thought and volition grounded therein, to a new creation. Nor is it difficult to find in all this the same thought encountered already in sayings about the new clothing or the new heart. The Christian life begins with a change which cannot be understood or described radically enough, which God has the possibility of effecting in a man's life in a way which is decisive and basic for his whole being and action, and which He has in fact accomplished in the life of the man who becomes a Christian. How sharp and inconceivable this change is may be seen finally in the (particularly Pauline) passages which describe the genesis and origin of the Christian as a transition through dying and death to a life which is visible and attainable beyond this pitilessly clear line of demarcation, and which is definitely promised and indeed opened to the dead man, but to him alone. This life of one who was dead but who is raised from the dead is the Christian life. Man died, but in so doing he began to live. The tension in this statement is almost unbeara • le. Yet this is what Paul meant and said. I was crucified and died; I no longer live (so far as my previous existence is concerned) . This is what he says about himself in Gal. 219'. He can thus go on to speak of his whole continued existence as one in which he bears about this rebirth new-born babes EN13 from above/again EN14 r me giving Spirit EN11
EN"
[009]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life dying in this body, 2 Cor. 41-°- But Paul speaks to all Christians about this origin of their life which is so dark, and yet as bright as day in the light of what follows. They would not be what they are if they did not have crucifixion, dying and death behind them, if they did not have a future only on this basis (Rom. 62 6 8 11. Col. 33; 2 Tim. 2"). From this dreadful event, and from it alone, they can go forward. From it they do go forward and they should-on to the resurrection (Rom. 65) to Katven-ng co EN 1 5 (Rom. 64). From death they have passed to life (In. 5249 jn. 314).If the old were not passed away and perished, they would have no future, and the new could not come (2 Con 517). Without passage through this narrow defile [010] there would be no entrance into the beautiful open country beyond. But the old is indeed passed away. The Christian has gone through the narrow defile. The new comes; he can and may and should move forward into that land. Forward is his only option. This is the great change in the life of a man wherein he becomes a Christian-an astounding change which can be regarded only as divine. His Christian life begins with this beginning. Is this all metaphorical? in the immediate sense it is undoubtedly so; it seems to apply to this man only in a transferred sense. Nevertheless, in what is said about the dying and ensuing resurrection of this man there is concealed and declared already-we shall have to investigate this furtherthe true point at issue, the point in whose light the reality denoted by the figure may be seen in the figure. This being so, we have to ask in retrospect whether the reality described in these images is not concealed and declared already in what the New Testament says about the new garment, the new heart, the new generation and birth of man. in the description just given of the divine change which we are seeking to understand, we are already on the threshold of the statement in which the matter itself must be expressed and which will thus sum up and give meaning to all our deliberations thus far, and to all that has been adduced thus far from the New Testament.
We must pause for a moment at this juncture. Apart from the Christian view, there are other ideas, conceptions and doctrines of the divine change which sets a man's life on new ground and which consequently alters the man himself in a true and radical way. Restless human longing, inspired human hope, the boldest and most genuine striving, and the most incontrovertible individual and collective experiences have all combined in this matter to produce the most comprehensive theories and to give them concrete form in various more or less successful ways of life. The self-satisfaction with which man-slothful or diligent, cheerful or gloomily sceptical, rough and crude or refined and spiritualseeks to affirm and express himself, is only a thin cover underneath which, constantly striving upwards, a restless disquiet and boundless discontent lies concealed. Always and everywhere there is as it were a repudiation of his present being and work, a final anxiety (we are not the first to live "with the atom bomb") lest the paths which he thinks he can and should take will not lead to any goo i outcome, a dissatisfaction with what man is both in general and in detail, a desire to strike out for new shores, to conquer self and leave it behind, not merely to become different but to become another, and to be able to make a highly serious beginning as such. Always and everywhere the inescapable vision of the finitude of all human striving and the imperfection and transience of all human achievement and accomplishment, and the supEN15
newness of life
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit pressible but ultimately irrepressible thought of ineluctably approaching death, have given man the prospect of a new beginning of this kind, tormenting him, yet also inspiring him, impelling him, keeping him on the alert. Always and everywhere there has herewith impressed itself on man the consideration and even the certainty that this new beginning implies a possibility which is not at man's disposal, which has first to liberate him for freedom, [011] which is thus higher, transcendental, and in some sense divine. Always an everywhere man has dreamed, and written, and formed more or less clear conceptions, and claimed, not without cause, to have had convincing experiences, of a change from without which, whether as imparted gift or imposed disaster, summons him to personal decision, of the suprahuman coming of a very different humanity, of the miraculous investiture of man with a new nature, of a miraculous inner change, of a wonderful new birth, of the last thing, dying, being in some wonderful way that which is truly the first. Furthermore, ways which might lead in this direction have been shown to man, and opened up to him in practice, in no small measure. What the Christian, whether in obscure conception or even in clear vision, knows in this respect as hope or even as the present, namely, the divine change which is his origin, might at first glance seem to be simply a particular instance of the general search for, or experience of, this final deepening, exalting, transcending and at the same time realising of human existence on the basis of its radical transforming from without. Hence it is apparently rivalled and relativised by so many similar and no less human strivings and experiences, theories and practices. Nothing is indeed more natural than that there should be a more or less considerable corner in its self-understan sing where it, too, can regard itself as a participant in this general striving and experience, so that it hesitates to insist with final certainty that what it understands as the new beginning of human life is the only possible one, or even perhaps by far the best among many others. It is no wonder that even in so-called Christianity there is so much Liberalism, i.e., so much scattered surmising, comparing and questioning whether that which, with so many others, the Christian also seeks and thinks he has may not be found and enjoyed equally well or even better, more radically, in a way which is more satisfying and liberating, in a way which gives greater happiness, with greater depth or height, or simply, perhaps, more practicably, in some other form, e.g., in the liturgico-sacramental or privately cultivated mysticism which so quickly made its way as an alien body into Christianity, or in the distant religions and philosophies of India or Japan, or in Dornach or Caux, or in the concept of the new man proclaimed as the work of deity, i.e., the "historical process," by Moscow or even more wildly by Peking; or whether it might not be worth while to snoop about a little in the hereafter in a para-psychological institute, with the help of a medium and for hard cash.
How is that which must be thought and said about the foundation of the Christian life to conduct itself at the annual fair of philosophies and panaceas, of disguised or undisguised religions, with the very different, yet confusingly similar, foundations of life which they espouse and proffer?
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life The answer to this vexed question can only be no less confusingly simple. All these foundations of life which resemble the Christian view, which use the same images, which are in many ways comparable, are in fact unable to compete with it at the decisive point. Hence they can be ignored or rejected, but are not in any event to be relativised or regarded as comparable. It should not even occur to a Christian, who knows whence as such he comes, to vacillate between his own and other origins, or to regard another as possibly just as authentic as his own, or even more so. The decisive point is the divine nature of the change which is the start of the new life of a man in both cases. In all non-Christian views of the matter this change consists in an event in the context of the direct relation to a certain man of a godhead, variously depicted, which exists, and is present and active, generally, i.e., outside time and space. Or else it consists in an event in the framework of the direct relation of a certain man to this godhead. Whatever their deities be, all other bases of life are alike in this. But in this, too, they all differ from the foundation of the Christian life. This has nothing whatever to do with the being and work of a general deity outwith time and space. To be sure, the Christian does not dispute the existence and activity of a supposed power which pretends to be deity, which is honoured as such, and which exists, like God, outwith time and space. Hence he does not contest the possibility and actuality of a direct relation of this power to man, and of man to it, within which there may take place all kinds of incisive events which might seem quite seriously to be new beginnings. On the contrary, the existence and work of a supposed deity of this kind, and hence the possibility and actuality of a direct relation between it and man, will be presupposed by the Christian as a foil to the foundation of his Christian life. This is the being and occurrence, powerful in its own way, which was overcome and left behind as outdated by the Christian when the founding of his Christian life took place. What he must question is the true divinity of the general godhead which is reflected in the human striving for, and experiencing of, something new and different, and which confirms and fulfils itself in this striving and experience. What he must deny is the identity of this deity with the God whom he sees active and self-revealed in the origin of his Christian existence. The God whose work is the starting-point in his life is not this general deity. A direct relation between this God of his and himself, within which that event might one day take place, he must categorically repudiate. He cannot believe in the divine nature of the changes which are sought and experienced in the direct relation between that deity and man. Hence he cannot believe in the final relevance of the renewals which might well take place in a man's life in the course of dealings between that deity and man. He cannot believe in the genuineness of the difference, transcendence and other worldliness which there breaks into the life of man and manifests itself therein. e cannot believe in the mystery, the true newness, of the phenomena which take place there. In spite of their claim and appearance, and the titles ascribed to them, he can regard and interpret them only as (perhaps highly significant) 10
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit movements in the world, operating on the level of this-worldliness. Hence he cannot view them as events in the same category as that in which he himself has is origin. There can be for him no question of vacillation or choice between his own and these quite different origins. The true divinity of the change to which he owes his being as a Christian gives him clarity of vision in relation to these real changes, in their own way notable, but without doubt only ostensibly divine, which he sees at work in the philosophies, panaceas and religions of the market-place. It empowers him for, and summons him to, a decision which, even if he wished, he could not reverse. He understands their concerns, meanings and intentions; how could he fail to do so? But there can be no question of his finally taking them seriously, or even applauding them. For their part, they themselves show how different they are, at least indirectly, by the fact that the foundation of the Christian life can only seem to them obscure, offensive and even absurd in its distinction from them, from new births grounded in the work of that general godhead. The freedom of God in which is grounded man's becoming free to be faithful to God as God is faithful to him, the freedom in which the Christian life thus has its absolutely unique origin, is the freedom of which He, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has made use in supreme majesty and condescension in the history of Jesus Christ. This history is the change, impossible with men but possible with God, and indeed possible only by God's actual judgment, in which a man becomes God's friend instead of His enemy, a man who lives for Him instead of being dead for Him. It is the divine change which has been made for every man and which is valid for every man, but which is thankfully acknowledged, recognised and confessed by Christians. It is so as Jesus Christ is the One elected from eternity to be the Head and Saviour of all men, who in time responded to God's faithfulness with human faithfulness as the Representative of all men. As and because He was this, as and because, in the name and stead of all, He was born and suffered and died as the Man of God, as and because He was manifested for all in His resurrection as the One who did this for all, the change which took place in His history took place for all. In it the turning of all from unfaithfulness to faithfulness took place. In this history of His the Christian life became an event as the life of all. A Christian, however, is a man from whom it is not hidden that his own history took place along with the history ofjesus Christ. As a word spoken to him and received by him in the living power of the Holy Spirit, this has been disclosed to him as the decisive event which establishes his existence as a Christian. He himself in the [014] midst of all other men can see himself as one of those for whom and in whose place Jesus Christ did what He did. The Christian is a man whose life Jesus Christ has entered as the subject of that history of His. He is a man whose acknowledged, recognised and confessed Lord He has become. He is a man to whom Jesus Christ has given not just a potential but an actual share in that history of His. Thus Jesus Christ, His history, became and is the foundation of Christian existence; this and this alone. The Christian comes from Him, from 11
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life His history, from knowledge of it; he also looks back thereto. This is the ground on which he stands and walks. This is the air which he breathes. This is the word which he has in his ears before, above and after all other words. This is the light, the one light, the incomparably bright light, which illumines him. This, the history of Jesus Christ, is the point of convergence for all the New Testament approximations, which, even though they are figurative, are ultimately more than figurative. This is the reality of the new beginning which is at issue in all of them. For what is the new garment which the Christian has put on-and must continually put on-and as the wearer of which he is a Christian? The new man? Yes, but any suggestion which might remain that this is only a self-made costume, or that it is a new costume in which the wearer is still the same, is dispelled when it is expressly stated in Gal. 327 and Rom. 1314 that when a man puts on Christ he puts off the old man and puts on the new. Who other than this is the One who in 1 Cor. 1547 is called the second or new Adam from heaven by whom the first and earthly Adam is done away, transcended, overcome? In His blood, the blood of the Lamb (in a bold combination of images), the garments of the elect and called (Rev. 714; 1913) are made white. And it need hardly be said that only with reference to Him can a man be addressed seriously as a man of God (2 Tim. 317). Who is meant again when this new man is called the inner man is plain when Paul says in Gal. 220 that it is Christ who lives in him, or when Christians are summoned in 2 Cor. 135 to know themselves, and therewith to know Christ in them. Similarly, when there is reference to the new name of Christians which is written in the book of life, it is simplest and surest to think of the name XptaTitavoiEN16 (which they were first given in Antioch, Acts 1126), and thus to think once more of the name of Jesus Christ Himself Again it is only as His law (Gal. 62) that the work of the law, the fulfilling of what God requires, can be written in their hearts. The spiritual man is distinguished from the merely physical man by the fact that he has the volis XptaToi3 EN17 (1 Cor. 216). By His circumcision (Col. 211)-the context shows clearly that the reference is to His death-these new hearts, in virtue of His dwelling in them in faith (Eph. 317), become and are the centres of a life which is to be lived anew. It is exactly the same with what the New Testament says about the new birth and begetting in virtue of which alone, but assuredly, a man enters the kingdom of God. The 4ovataEN18 with which men become the children of God does not fall on them from heaven, nor can it be mediated through other men, and they certainly cannot fashion it for themselves. It is given them by Him to whom John the Baptist could only bear witness, by Him who came into [015] the world and to His own as the true light, by Him who was not received by His own. He gives it them as the freedom to believe on Him, on His name. Thus these men were born of God, On. 19-13). The completely unexpected christological turn of the conversation with Nicodemus points in this direction. In interpretation of EN19 On. 33) this points first to birth EK Trvez:liaaTog EN20. But then quite suddenly (v. 13) the coming down of the Son of Man from heaven, and on earth His exaltation on the cross (compared to the lifting up of the brazen serpent), are described as the event, incomprehensible to Nicodemus, in virtue of which those who believe in Him will have eternal life in Him. Thus, as the first Adam
avo)0E-v
Christians mind of Christ EN18 authority EN19 from above EN20 from the Spirit EN16
EN17
12
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit became tkvvii vocra EN21, so the second and last Adam became Trvo3p,a Cti)011101,073VEN 22 ( Cor. 15'5). Through His resurrection Christians were begotten again to a living hope ( I Pet. 13). The decisive statement of Paul in the account of his conversion in Gal. 1 is that it pleased God to reveal His Son in him qv jii,otEN23, v. 16). Conversely, but to the same effect, if a man is in Christ he is a new creature (2 Cor. 517). Through Him God has poured out the Spirit on us as "the bath of regeneration and renewal" (Tit. 35'). Nor is the meaning any different in other passages which speak of the new begetting and birth of man from God. It is true exegesis, not eisegesis, to say that the nativity of Christ is the nativity of the Christian man; Christmas Day is the birthday of every Christian. Finally, the matter is plain when we think of passages which describe death as man's entry into life and consequently as the foundation of the Christian life. According to the New Testament, the death of man, whether literal or figurative, does not have as such any saving power for him. These passages, though often construed thus, have nothing whatever to do with a mysticism of physical or spiritual dying. When the extraordinary thing happens that a man (Mk. 835) loses his life in order that he may thus (only thus, but truly thus) save it or gain it, this takes place "for my sake and the gospel's." Nor does this mean in the first instance that he dies as a martyr or in some other self-sacrificial endeavour for Jesus and His cause. The saying may include this, but the decisive point is that this saving loss of life takes place for him as one of those who have a share in the life-saving and life-winning loss of life of Him who is the origin, content and proclaimer of the Gospel-as one of those who died in the death which He suffered in their place and for them, and who for this reason, again in fellowship with Him, may look and move forward to the resurrection and to life. Jesus spoke of this saving death of His for many, for all, when in Mt. 315 He gave the reason for commanding John the Baptist (ackg apTt EN24\) to admit Him to the baptism of repentance in EN 25 ) to fulfil all the Jordan along with all the people: "For thus it becometh us (77- pg7rov righteousness." That is to say, Jesus must and will-and the Baptist must recognise this by admitting him to the baptism of repentance-subject Himself, in solidarity and even in identification with all, to the divine judgment proclaimed in the preaching of the Baptist, so that everything which is righteously demanded of all, and therewith the whole of God's righteous will, is fulfilled. As attested by His letting Himself be baptised with them and like them, He thus entered on His Messianic office. Indeed, He here began the discharge of this office which was completed on the cross of Golgotha. In this office the main concern will be, and, already is, the justification, sanctification and vocation of this whole wretched people. Already, then, those who with Him and like Him are baptised by John are passive participants in His death, not in virtue of their own baptism, but in virtue of the fact that Jesus lets Himself be baptised with them and like them, and that He therewith enters upon, and begins to exercise. His saving office. How the event at the Jordan and the event at Golgotha are inter-related as beginning and end may be seen from the saying in Lk. i 25° which describes the goal of the office of Jesus in His death as a baptism: "I have a baptism to be baptised with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" That this baptism of death includes within itself that of is disciples and therewith their death, that they, too, will die in and with Him, may be seen in Mk. lo35-4°. Here, when the sons of Zebedee ask that they may be allowed to sit on His right hand and His left hand in His future kingdom, He gives a threefold answer. First, He states: "Ye know not what ye ask." Then He puts the question soul life-giving Spirit EN23 in me EN24 'let it be done at once' EN25 it is right
EN21 living EN22
13
[016]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[017]
whether they can drink the cup which He drinks (He is already doing this) or be baptised with the baptism with which He is baptised (the present tense again). Finally, when they boldly assure Him that they can, He surprisingly makes the positive statement: "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptised withal shall ye be baptised." The question of the places of honour is left open; they will be given to those for whom they are appointed and prepared. Instead, a clear answer is given to a question which the disciples had not put and which they had obviously not considered, namely, how a man is to enter at all into that glory. The answer is that he enters into t at glory, not as he "can" participate in Jesus' baptism of death, but as his participation in it actually becomes an event, if in passing-but only in passing-there is here perhaps a hint at the martyrdom which the disciples should suffer, the decisive reference of the prophecy is to the death of Jesus Himself, in which it is ordained that the disciples should participate. Jesus does not drink that cup for Himself alone. He is not baptised with that baptism in isolation. This all takes place in their stead and for them. Hence they, too, will die in His death, and therewith their entry into glory will be secured (no matter what places they occupy) . Similarly, in other New Testament statements there is no crucifixion or death of a man which in itself and as such is of saving significance, or constitutes the foundation of his Christian life, or includes within it the hope of resurrection and eternal life, no matter whether it be death in the literal sense or in some transferred sense. Nor is there any begetting or birth of a man which is saving in itself and as such, even though it be understood as a kind of spiritual, moral, or religious regeneration. in itself and as such a man's death is the wages which sin pays him (Rom. 623). Death came into the world, and passed upon all men, through sin (Rom. 512 17). Death is the sting of sin (i Con 556). Sin reigns in death (Rom. 521) so long as it can and may. Man dies through sin (Rom. 710). Christian mysticism in every age, which has often, in pagan fashion, led to death mysticism, ought to have taken warning from these passages. It leads into a blind alley. in itself and as such man's death is in no sense a transition to life. OavaTos EN26 is 00opa EN27 into which all the Ope;v7p,aEN 28 of the flesh plunges as into a cataract. it is the evil fruit which man, having sown to the flesh, must reap (Gal. 68; Rom. 86). But Christ, according to so many New Testament sayings, died for our sins (1 Cor. i5). He bore our sins on the tree ( 1 Pet. 224). He was and is the Lamb of God which removes, bears and bears away the sin of the whole world On. 29). in His death, therefore, He took the place of all men-the place where they all should have died a hopeless death as sinners. He gave His life a ransom for many slaves (Mk. io45 par.). He, the sinless One, who was made sin for us (2 Con 521), died this hopeless death, the accursed death of sinners on the cross (Gal. 313). He died this death for us (1 Thess. 510). Hence we ourselves neither must nor can die the death which we ought to die as sinners. We neither must nor can experience any more the dereliction of this death (Mk. 15). For He has "tasted" death for us all (Heb. 29). Inasmuch as He died the death in our place, we have it absolutely behind us. In His death we who deserved to die as He died are already put to death. With Him Paul (Gal. 2's) who was once Saul, and indeed each of us (as the 7TaAat 63 avoiocor.og EN29 all were and are, Rom. 66), is crucified-with Him the two thieves, the impenitent no less than the penitent (Lk. 2 3399 . What Paul carried about all his life in his body as his own dying was not really his own, but that of Jesus (2 Cor. 410). We are all "planted together in the likeness of his death" (Rom. 65). We are all dead with Him. As the sinners we were and are, therefore, we are set aside, done away, no longer present in Him. "One died for all-then all are dead" (2 Cor. EN26 EN27
death destruction
EN28 will EN29
old man
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit 514). How is this? Because they have appropriated the crucifixion of Christ in the obedience of faith (R. Bultmann)? This is true; it is the necessary consequence of their dying with Him. They are to crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts (Gal. 524; cf. Col. 35) . Nevertheless, their saving death, which promises new life and in which they become the Christians who do this, took place when Jesus Christ, in His death on the cross, at a time when they were still enemies (Rom. 510) and there could be no question of the obedience of faith, appropriated them and took them up into His death. Their saving death took place, not now and here, but in supreme actuality then and there, when they, too, were baptised in and with Jesus' baptism of death, when He "was lifted up from the earth" ("he said this, signifying what death he should die") and drew "all men unto him" (Tn. 12329 . More accurately, it took place now and here inasmuch as it took place then and there.
In the history of Jesus Christ, then, is the origin and beginning of the Christian life, the divine change in which the impossible thing that there is movement EK ITtaTE0ig EN30, from the depth and power of the faithfulness of God, as' ITtaTtliEN31, to the corresponding faithfulness of man (Rom. 17), is not only possible but actual. The witness of the New Testament is so definite in this respect that there can be no evading this statement, and it is so unequivocal that no demythologising or reinterpretation of the statement is possible. Many human events and developments may have other origins and beginnings; the Christian life, faithfulness to God as the free act and attitude of a man, begins with that which in the days of Augustus and Tiberius, on the way from the manger of Bethlehem to the cross of Golgotha, was actualised as that which is possible rrapa OEci) EN32, with God. The fact that the change in which a man becomes a Christian has its ground and commencement in the history ofjesus Christ characterises it as a divine happening, in distinction from all the other natural or supernatural changes which are notable enough in their own way. Any description of the Christian life which might seek to assign to it any other basis can only be the description of a tree hewn off from its root. Whatever may become of it, one can never again ascribe its own life to it. It can have its own life only in unity with the root. Similarly, man's own life as the Christian life is possible and actual only in unity with its origin in Jesus Christ. We speak of its mystery when we say that it has its origin there in Him, that it derives from the divine change which has taken place there in Him. What may be said in explanation of this statement cannot dispel the mystery. It can only make it greater, not smaller. Explanation of the statement will consist only in its confirmation, in giving it greater precision. Let us consider at once the point at which the statement seems to place us before a riddle, so that one is naturally tempted either to evade it or to blunt its [018] force by reinterpretation. With good reason we have had to begin this whole discussion by laying stress on the fact that, if it is to be possible for a man to be faithful to God instead of unfaithful, there must be a change which comes over from faithfulness to faith EN32 with God EN3°
EN31
15
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life this man himself. Nor may this change be simply an awakening of his natural powers, nor his endowment with supernatural powers, nor his placing by God under another light and judgment in which he may stand before God. It must be an inner change in virtue of which he himself becomes a different man, so that as this different man he freely, of himself, and by his own resolve, thinks and acts and conducts himself otherwise than he did before. I oes, then, the unavoidable and unequivocal statement of the New Testament that the divine change effected in the history ofjesus Christ is the origin and beginning of the Christian life, simply bring us back to the highly unsatisfactory view that this change does not affect the man himself, who is not Jesus Christ and whose history is not His history, that, while it might apply to him in some way, it does not really touch him, that it necessarily remains alien and external to him, that it neither is nor can be his own change from disobedience to obedience? If something took place extra n0SEN33 it is an event which is not merely distant in time and space, but also completely different from all our own possibilities and actualities-the event of the obedience of Jesus Christ, of His birth, of His selfproclamation, of His crucifixion, of His whole being and work as very Son of God and Son of Man. What has this Other, who there and then was born in Bethlehem and died on Golgotha, what has He to do with me? What has the freedom of His life as very Son of God and Son of Man to do with my necessary liberation to be a child of God, an consequently with the humanity which is true because it corresponds to the will of this Father? And what have I to do with im? How can it be that, as I grow out of Him as out of a root, He can be one with me and I with him, and in unity with Him my own life can begin as a Christian life, the life of a man who is faithful to God? How can that which He was and did extra nOSEN34 become an event in nobisEN35? And if it does not, how is it that, in virtue of His existence and history, I can and should be faithful to God, becoming a friend instead of an enemy, one who moves on to life instead of being a victim of death, a member of the kingdom of God, a Christian? This is the question which we undoubtedly face and which we must undoubtedly accept and answer. Now if on the one side we are not allowed to offer an artificial solution to the riddle presented by the situation, on the other we must pay heed to the natural solution which suggests itself (if only the facts are permitted to speak for themselves). It may be assumed that any solution is artificial in which the contrast in the unity between Christ and the man who becomes a Christian is eliminates, [019] in which it is obscured or denied that the founding of the Christian life is an event in the genuine intercourse between Go s and man as two different partners. Anything of this kind involves a falsifying of the matter at issue. Hence we have to describe as artificial what might be called a christomonist EN33
outside us outsi e us N35 in us
EN34
. Baptism with the Holy Spirit solution. On this view the in nobis'36 , the liberation of man himself, is simply an appendage, a mere reflection, of the act of liberation accomplished by Jesus Christ in His history, and hence extra nosEN3 Jesus Christ, then, is fundamentally alone as the only subject truly at work. The faithfulness of the man who is distinct from Him cannot be an answer to the word of divine faithfulness spoken in His history. It is not man's free action. It is simply an aspect or manifestation of the act of God fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is not an act of grateful human obedience which, though awakened and empowered by God's grace, is still achieved by man himself. It is simply a passive participation of man in that which God alone did in Jesus Christ. It is itself a divine action, not a human action evoked by God and responsible to Him. The request or summons: "Be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 520) is rendered superfluous from the very first by the reconciliation of man with God which has been omnipotently effected in Jesus Christ. It thus seems to be a pointless summons to an act which is completely useless. The question of a human activity corresponding to the divine activity, the ethical problem of the genesis of the Christian life, is answered by its dismissal as irrelevant. All anthropology and soteriology are thus swallowed up in Christology. Even in their most far-reaching statements, however, the New T estament witnesses, including Paul in Gal. 219 , did not think or say this. They do not ask us to entertain any such "subjectivism from above." If we are to be true to their teaching, we must not be misled by even a sound christocentric intention into thinking or speaking thus, or even in this direction. Indeed, a true Christocentricity will strictly forbid us to do so. An anthropomonist view, of course, is also artificial. On this view it is Jesus Christ, and what took place in His history, extra n0s'38 , which is regarded as a mere predicate and instrument, cipher and symbol, of that which truly and properly took place only in nobisEN 3 9, the subject being none other than man himself. Now it is man who occupies the stage alone in his transformation into a Christian. His human change, his awakening, his inner compulsion, his resolving on faith and love and hope, his much-vaunted decision, is now as such the truly divine change. In its fulfilment the history of Jesus Christ perhaps serves as stimulation, instruction, or aid. Perhaps (but only perhaps) it is even indispensable as an example. But the first moving cause, the secret, of man's salvation history is man himself, his transition from unfaithfulness to faithfulness, his free act of obedience. Act of obedience? Can it seriously be [020] called this? This understanding allows no place for a concrete other which acts with power towards him and which speaks to him in the word of promise. Hence the change does not really have the character of a response to the action of another, of an answer to his word, of an act of gratitude. Here too, from the other side, by making man his own reconciler, teacher and master in in us outside us EN38 u o tside us EN39 in us EN36 EN37
17
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life the relation to God, the ethical problem of the genesis of the Christian life is solve. by its dismissal as pointless. Christology is now swallowed up by a selfsufficient anthropology and soteriology. It need hardly be said that the New Testament witnesses, even when they appeal most strongly to man himself, even in their most urgent calls for repentance, decision, faith, patience and love, never think or speak thus. Once again therefore, if we are to be true to their teaching, we must not be seduced by this monism, which, in contrast to the first, might be called a "subjectivism from below." Common to both these obvious but distorted solutions is the fact that they approach the data-this is why they are artificial-from outside and with the aid of an alien concept of unity. hey do not allow the matter to be its own interpreter. Hence both of them conjure away the mystery which confronts us in it. I ut if we conjure away the mystery and imprison it in one or other of the two monistic formulae (or perhaps alternately in both), we falsify the matter itself and let it slip from our gaze. Thus, no matter how successful the imprisonment (from above or from below) may be, we are really speaking about something else. But this is the very thing which must not be allowed to happen. One must accept the first riddle if one is to see how the matter interprets itself, how the riddle is solved from within. If we follow the singular movement of New Testament thinking we must affirm on the one side that basically the enigma of the matter is posed quite simply by the mystery of the faithfulness of God which in the One affirms, rectifies, saves, gladdens and therewith summons to faithfulness each and every man. This is, then, the faithfulness in which God shows Himself to be the God of man by giving and interposing Himself to prosecute man's cause before Him, to make it a good cause instead of a bad one. He who may hear and follow the call of God sounded forth in this faithful work of God cannot take offence or start back; he can only worship and praise. Everything is well. The history ofjesus Christ is different from all other histories. In its particularsingularity and uniqueness it cannot be compared or interchanged with any other. Different from all other histories, it demands the singular thinking of the New Testament witnesses (which we must accept if we are to understand) because, as the history of the salvation which God in His free grace has [021] ascribed, addressed and granted to all men, it is from the very first a particular story with a universal goal and bias. In its very limitation it reaches beyond itself. it comprehends the world around, i.e., the whole world of mankind. Indeed, it comes with revolutionary force into the life of each and every man. As this individual history it is thus cosmic in origin and goal. As such it is not sterile. It is a fruitful history which newly shapes every human life. Having taken place extra n0sEN40 it also works in nobisEN41 introducing a new being of EN40 EN41
outside us in us
18
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit every man. It certainly took place extra nOSEN42. Yet it took place, not for its own sake, but pro nobisEN43: qui propter nos homines et salutem nostram descendit de coelis EN44. This pro nobisEN45 or propter n0sEN46 is to be taken literally and strictly. As the true Son of God, and hence as the true Son of Man, Jesus Christ was not merely faithful to the faithful God; by being faithful to Him as His Father, and according to His righteous will, He was also faithful to us as His brethren (Heb. 2'7; 32 6). He was faithful to us by being ready to give Himself, and by giving Himself, to fulfil the covenant between God and man in His own person, i.e., by being faithful to God in our place, in the place of those who previously were unfaithful to Him. In our place-even as He was there and then what only He could be, He was this in our here and now, in the weakness, ungodliness and enmity, the heart, the personal centre of the existence of every man. But if He acts extra nos pro nobis EN47 , and to that extent also in nobis EN48 , this necessarily implies that in spite of the unfaithfulness of every man He creates in the history of every man the beginning of his new history, the history of a man who has become faithful to God. All this is because it is God Himself who has taken man's cause in hand in His person. It was not a man who posited or made this new beginning. Not of himself did man become another man, faithful to God instead of unfaithful. Nevertheless, on the path from Bethlehem to Golgotha which Jesus Christ traversed for him as very Son of God and therefore as very Son of Man, the new beginning of his life was posited and made as that of a man who is faithful to God. On the ground of this beginning of his in the history ofjesus Christ he here and to-day can and should live his new Christian life which corresponds to, because it follows, the divine transformation of his heart and person which took place there and then. This is the self-explication of the matter as, with a primary reference to Jesus Christ, the New Testament witnesses render it in their admittedly singular thinking. It is surely clear that, if we follow them, the anthropomonism which we have called subjectivism from below is ruled out at once. The Christian life is founded, not when man takes the place of Jesus Christ as his own liberator, but when Jesus Christ takes the place of man to liberate him there. To give the more place to its mystery, however, we must pursue the other aspect of this self-explication of the matter in which the enigma is resolved [022] from within. The matter explains itself, not only from above downwards, but also from below upwards. Hence the New Testament witnesses of the selfexplication, presenting it with reference to Jesus Christ, always present it also with reference to the Christian. As Jesus Christ takes the place of man, does outside us for us EN44 who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven EN45 for us EN46 on our account EN47 outside us for us EN48 in us EN42
EN43
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life there what he does not do, and is faithful to God in the stead of the unfaithful, He, or God through Him, liberates man for faithfulness to God on his own part. What, then, does it mean for us who are not Jesus Christ that His history, which took place extra nos' , took place pro nobisE N50, that this pro nobis'51 is efficacious, and that it thus includes the fact that, as it took place then and there, as the history of that One, it also takes place here and now, in nobisEN52 in the life of the many? Obviously, in fulfilment of the fulness of the divine possibility, it means that the God at work in that history, while He does not find and confirm a direct relation between Himself and us, does create and adopt this relation, which we could not create or adopt for ourselves, but which we cannot evade when He does so. Interceding for us in Jesus Christ, He is now present to us, not at a distance, but in the closest proximity, confronting us in our own being, thought and reflection. Since He is the righteous, merciful and as such almighty God working in the history ofjesus Christ, what takes place is thus quite simply that in nobis'53 , in our heart, at the centre of our existence, there is set a contradiction of our unfaithfulness, a contradiction which we cannot escape, which we have to endorse, in face of which we cannot cling to our unfaithfulness, by which it is not merely forbids en but prevented and rendered impossible. Inasmuch as Jesus Christ is at work pro nobis' 54 and in nobisEN55 , unfaithfulness to God is a disallowed possibility which can no longer be actualised. It is seen to be the wholly impossible possibility on which we can no longer count, which we see to be eliminated and taken from us by God's omnipotent contradiction set up in us. What then? We can will and do only one thing-the thing which is positively prefigured for us in the action of the true Son of God and Son of Man at work within us. The only possibility is to be faithful to God. This is our liberation through the divine change effected in the history of Jesus Christ. This change which God has made is in truth man's liberation. It comes upon him wholly from without, from God. Nevertheless, it is his liberation. The point is that here, as everywhere, the omnicausality of God must not be construed as His sole causality. The divine change in whose accomplishment a man becomes a Christian is an event of true intercourse between God and man. If it undoubtedly has its origin in God's initiative, no less indisputably man is not ignored or passed over in it. He is taken seriously as an independent creature of God. He is not run down and overpowered, but set on his own feet. He is not put under tutelage, but addressed and treated as [023] an adult. The history of Jesus Christ, then, does not destroy a man's own history. In virtue of it this history becomes a new history, but it is still his own new EN49
outside us for us EN51 for us EN52 in us EN50
EN53 in us EN54 EN55
for us in us 20
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit history. The faithfulness to God to which he is summoned is not, then, an emanation of God's faithfulness. It is truly his own faithfulness, decision and act. He could not achieve it if he were not liberated thereto. But being thus liberated, he does it as his own act, as his answer to the Word of God spoken to him in the history of Jesus Christ. As there must be in this matter no subjectivism from below, so there must be no subjectivism from above. As there must be no anthropomonism, so there must be no christomonism. The time has now come when two related presuppositions, tacitly made in our deliberations thus far, must I e expressly mentioned and clarified. The divine change in which the Christian life is founded has been described as an event. Viewed from above, this means that the history of Jesus Christ becomes once in time the origin and commencement of the reorientation and refashioning of the life of a specific man liberated therein. Seen from below, it means that once in time a specific man is liberated for the reorientation and refashioning of his life in the history of Jesus Christ as his origin and corn mencement. Either way the phrase "once in time" is required in closer definition, for that which is described in these statements is truly an event, not a timeless or supratemporal relation. In other words, what the statements describe is a concrete and dynamic, not an abstract and static, relation. This event which either way takes place once in time, so that it is concrete and dynamic, is the divine change in which a man becomes a Christian and hence something he was not before, a man who is faithful to God. We have thus far described it as this event. We have sought to clarify its structure. But how does this event come about? In tackling this question we must be careful not to juggle away the mystery, sut rather to see the mystery as such in its final and true light. In accordance with the two aspects which we have had to understand and describe, we shall now investigate two inseparable but distinguishable factors in whose power the event takes place. We ask (1) how it can come about that the history of Jesus Christ, which happened once in time, becomes in the life of a specific man, again once in time, the event of his reorientation and refashioning. If we accept the fact that this really does happen-and when we follow the thinking of the New estament witnesses we do reckon with the fact that part of what they have in view is that it does take place-then we presuppose that the history of Jesus Christ which took place in time pro nobisEN56, is birth, His being as a preacher of the imminent kingdom of God, and finally His crucifixion, which fulfils the purpose of His birth and being, contains the power to become the factor which posits a new beginning in nobisEN57 , in the temporal life of man. In making this presupposition, we do not simply ascribe this power to His history, e.g., in virtue of the overwhelming impression which we claim to have received therefrom (W. Herrmann). We make the presupposition because we accept the EN56
for us
-EN57 in us
2
024]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Lift New Testament witness that His history manifested this power quite independently of any impression it might make (or not make) on us, quite independently of even the most convinced appreciation we might accord it, and certainly quite independently of all the misconceptions and misinterpretations it might suffer at our hands. independently of our experience or evaluation, the history of Jesus Christ has shown that it has indwelling power by the fact that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. To put it first in a single sentence: There is manifested in the resurrection who Jesus Christ was in His history and what He did therein-He who was born for us men at Bethlehem and crucified and put to death for us on Golgotha. In His resurrection, then, His temporal history was not transcended and outmoded by another history. it was not made past history. On the contrary, it herein showed itself in its totality to be, not past and transient history, but history which, because it happened once-for-all, is present to all later times and indeed to all earlier times, cosmically effective and significant history. What passed away in the resurrection was not the history, but the appearance and suspicion of its transience, of its imprisonment in its temporal, spatial and personal singularity. What was overcome herein was not the temporary, spatial and personal life of Jesus Christ, but the triumph of death which threatened this life like every other human life. The new thing which took place in it was the manifestation of the triumph of His temporal, spatial and personal life over the death which threatened it. In His resurrection, then, there did not begin as it were a second history of Jesus Christ with a different content. Nor do we have a continuation of the first history in further acts and events on a different, higher, other-worldly plane. His history, which took place once like that of all other men, needs no completion nor continuation, even on an other-worldly level. What He had to do in accordance with the will of Him who sent Him and who was at work in Him, He did perfectly in the temporality, spatiality and personality once-for-all given Him for the purpose, in His existence in this world, in the history which took place there and then. "After this, Jesus knew that all things were now accomplished" (Jn. 1928). His resurrection was rather the beginning of the manifestation of what He was and did perfectly there and then: perfectly both in itself and in its scope for each and every man. In His resurrection His perfected history began to come to light both intensively and extensively in the world, in all other human history. It became vis[025] ible, first to His own, then, in the mirror of their witness, to many. There was here disclosed the accomplished fulfilment of the covenant between God and man in the obedience rendered to the Father by the Son, the reality of His dominion over the quick and the dead as the Representative of all men and therefore as the Liberator of all men. In the resurrection of the man Jesus from the dead, God publicly confessed the power at work in His history. in so doing He publicly stated what had happened. Beyond the fact that it took place, and did so for all, the history ofjesus Christ had become the living Word to all, the unmistakable statement that it took place, and that it did so for all. 22
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit The future into which Jesus Christ went forward from His resurrection was His action as the Revealer, Prociaimer, Prophet and Apostle of the salvation history of all men accomplished in His death, who is alive as such in every age and place, and who is powerful because, as the One whom God has raised from the dead, He has been confirmed in this power by God. In this light one may see how it can come about that the history of Christ which took place once in time becomes in the life of a man, again once in time, the event of his renewing. This can happen in the power which this history has manifested in His resurrection from the dead, in its power to proclaim itself in all times and places and to all men as the salvation history accomplished for all, in its power as salvation history, to be also, without let or limitation, a Word of salvation which is not merely ordained for all but which does in fact reach all and may be received by all. There are no closed doors to the salvation history which is mighty as a Word of universal salvation, to the living Jesus Christ who makes Himself present to all men in all ages, to His "Peace be with you" (In. 2o'9) . Jesus Christ is as such the true light which has come into the world, which "lighteth every man" On. 19), and which is a pledge and. promise to all, whether they realise it or not, and whatever may be their attitude thereto. It is a pledge to all: What I was and did, I was for you and did for you. Through Me your sins are forgiven. In Me you are God's child. In Me you are justified before Him, sanctified for Him, called to His service. It is also a promise to all: What I was and did for you, what you already have and are in Me, shall and will, in the same divine power as that in which I was raised from the dead, be manifested and brought to light as the reality of your poor life, as your eternal life. With Me, after Me, as the man who is reconciled to God in Me, you, too, shall and will rise again from the dead and come totally and definitively to light. For as this Word, in the form of this pledge and promise, Jesus Christ is not just available in some way for every man, e.g., at a historical distance or at a transcendent height. As this Word He is present for, with, and in every man. In His resurrection and ascension He was certainly exalted to the right (the active) hand of God the Father. But this does not mean that after [026] His human life, work, passion and death, after the conclusion of His history, He has returned to a deserved state of divine rest. On the contrary, it means that in His human history in His person He is manifested and visible and comes to all as the kingdom which is coming, which has already come, which is secretly present. It means that in His person the establishment of the lordship of God is perceptible to all. As the living Son of God and Son of Man, as the almighty declaration and assurance of what God has done once-for-all, and for all, in Him, He draws near to every man, "too near." He lives as the One who lives for every man and in every man. He is integrated into human existence as it was integrated into His existence by the divine counsel and from all eternity, and as it will remain integrated in His to all eternity. To be a man means (not incidentally but essentially, not peripherally but centrally) to be once in time (one's own time) the addressee and recipient of the pledge and promise 23
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life which is given one too-not just proffered but given-in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in this sense to be a participant in the history of Jesus Christ which took place once, then and there in time. To be a man is to belong to Jesus Christ as an addressee and recipient of the Word in which Jesus Christ presents Himself and His work to every man. It is to find and have one's own salvation history in the salvation history accomplished in Him in virtue of the fact that it is also a Word of salvation spoken to man. Hence-and this is the answer to our first question-the divine change effected in the history ofjesus Christ, in His birth, life and death, becomes-as thus seen first from above, in the light ofjesus Christ-the concrete and dynamic relation between God and man, the event of the foundation of the Christian life. We now go on to ask (2) how it can happen once in time that for certain men the history of Jesus Christ, which also happened once in time, becomes the event of their renewing. Following the lead of the New Testament, we again reckon with the fact that this does actually happen-it is only another aspect of the same thing. But in so doing, we again make a presupposition which may here be stated as follows. In the life of these men, certainly not apart from the awakening, quickening an. enlightening power of the history of Jesus Christ demonstrated in His resurrection, a power is at work which makes these men free, able, willing and ready to give this event a place, the central place, in their willing and thinking, a place where it may exercise a force and authority which are seriously and ultimately decisive. We presuppose that this power enables, permits and orders them, that through the history of Jesus Christ it both commands and liberates them, to become responsible subjects of their own human history, which, renewed by the presence of the living [027] Jesus Christ, has become a history of salvation rather than perdition. We shall now try to understand this event-which is the same and not another-from below, with reference to the hic et nunc'58 of man as this stands related to the hic et nuncEN59 of what has taken place for him. This does not mean, as we are constantly tempted to think when there is this shift in standpoint, that we must now interpret the event as the stirring and outworking of a power which is native to man as such, e.g., as a particular experience and form of the feeling of absolute dependence (Schleiermacher). To be sure, the reference is particularly and very pointedly to man in his own freedom for life and work which are responsible to God. The special stress is on the fact that he himself becomes faithful to God. Nevertheless, this is already the goal of the selfrevelation of Jesus Christ in His resurrection from the dead. Even at this goal, in the transformation in virtue of which man, standing and marching on his own feet, begins to live as God's friend instead of God's enemy, the basic and decisive thing is not that there is here also a comprehensive fulfilment of man s physical and psychical of his moral, intellectual and even religious EN58 EN59
here and now here and now
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit potentialities. He certainly has to respond to the change which God has effected for him with his own life and work as such. But these can only be a response. That he can and must and actually does respond with his own life and work, that he makes his own free s ecision corresponding to the divine change, is something which he cannot do by his own wisdom and power or in, his own freedom. Be can do it only in a freedom which is given him. His decision can correspond to the divine change and follow it only in so far as the latter makes it possible and demands it. We shall speak of this decision later, not now. What concerns us now-with a particular regard for the goal-is the divine change in virtue of which the human decision can be made and the Christian life is actually founded. The divine change and act in virtue of which this happens-seen now from the standpoint of the freedom, ability, willingness and readiness of man-is the work of the Holy Spirit. To put it again in a single sentence: In the work of the Holy Spirit the history manifested to all men in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is manifest and present to a specific man as his own salvation history. In the work of the Holy Spirit this man ceases to be a man who is closed and blind and deaf and uncomprehending in relation to this disclosure effected for him too. He becomes a man who is open, seeing, hearing, comprehending. Its disclosure to all, and consequently to him too, becomes his own opening up to it. In the work of the Holy Spirit it comes about that the man who with the same organs could once say No thereto, again with the same organs, in so far as they can be used for this purpose, may and can and must say Yes. In the work of the Holy Spirit that which was truth for all, and hence for him too, even without his acceptance, [028] becomes truth which is affirmed by him. The pledge which was previously given to him and to all becomes the pledge which is received by him. The promise which was good for him and for all becomes the promise which is grasped by him. By him! Inasmuch as he himself affirms, receives and grasps! In the work of the Holy Spirit, then, man does not fade away in favour of some other being, divine or semi-divine, which is organised and equipped differently. Intercourse between God and man does not cease in the work of the Holy Spirit. In this work it begins to be genuine intercourse in which the human partner, far from confusing himself with the divine partner or trying to take His place, occupies the place which is appropriate in relation to Him. The work of the Holy Spirit, then, does not entail the paralysing dismissal or absence of the human spirit, mind, knowledge and will. It has often been depicted thus. Attempts have been made to achieve it by strangely resigned twistings of human thought, feeling and effort. It has been overlooked that the attempt to sacrifice the human intellect and will is also an enterprise of the human spirit, that this attempt is impracticable, that the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be forced thereby, and especially that this sacrifice is not well pleasing to God, that the very intention of the Holy Spirit is to bear witness to our spirit, not to a non-human non-spirit but to the human spirit, that we are the children of God (Rom. 816), and to help us to our feet thereby. The point is 25
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* that the man on and in whom the work of the Holy Spirit is done has to put himself seriously at God's disposal in his creatureliness, that he can and should use as instruments of righteousness the very members, his own perception, will and feeling, which previously were instruments of unrighteousness (Rom. 61319). Moved by the Holy Spirit, he is opened up to the history ofjesus Christ as his own salvation history, and he thus begins to cry "Abba, Father" with the Son of God who became man for him (Gal. 46; Rom. 815). This completely new thing does not mean, however, that he takes leave of his wits and starts raving. it means that he finally comes to himself, to rationality, to perception of what he was in the counsel of God fulfilled at Golgotha even before he himself was aware of it, to realisation that he is a brother of the Son of God and consequently a child of God, elected by God even in his humanity. There is no more intimate friend of sound human understanding than the Holy Spirit. There is no more basic normalising of man than in the doing of His work. The fact that man comes to himself, to rationality, is, however, only an inevitable side-effect of the incomparably greater thing which is primary, essential and decisive, namely, that in the work of the Holy Spirit done in him, in the recognition that the history of Jesus Christ is his own salvation history-this is the goal of its manifestation-he is liberated to run to the God whom he previ[029] ously sought to evade, to be faithful to the God to whom he was previously unfaithful. It is not enough that the history of Jesus Christ should be objectively revealed to all men, in His resurrection from the dead, as the history of the one man who was faithful to God in virtue of God's faithfulness. What God wills in this history and with its manifestation is that all men should be saved, that they should be brought subjectively to the truth (1 Tim. 24 ), and that in this knowledge they should be freed for faithfulness to Him. What God wills in the work which He has done in Jesus Christ and the word which He has spoken in His omnipotence is that it should be perceived, gratefully accepted, and obediently followed by all men, by each and every man, and consequently by this or that specific man. What He wills is that this man, as the recipient of the pledge which was long since given and not just proffered to him, should be comforted and admonished by the promise which is addressed to him too, that he should arise, live and act, no longer looking back but, in accordance with the fact that that history was and is and will be his own salvation history, looking and moving forwards, coming to God, becoming faithful to Him, just as He, God, in the history of Jesus Christ an • its manifestations, has long since come to him and shown His faithfulness to him. Liberation for this is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is not a different work, a second work alongside, behind and after the work of the reconciling covenant action of the one God accomplished in the history of Jesus Christ and manifested in His resurrection. It is the one divine work in its movement, its concrete reference, to specific men, wherein for the first time it reaches its goal. The work of the Holy Spirit is concerned with the Word which manifests this history in its access and entry into the hearts and consciences of specific men. It is not for nothing 26
i.Baptism with the Holy Spirit that, conversely, the New Testament calls this history (the story of the miraculous birth ofjesus, His baptism, His death according to Heb. 9") , and its manifestation in His resurrection (Rom. 14; i Pet. 318) , the work of the Holy Spirit. it is now provisionally completed as such in the fact that the history of Jesus Christ which took place ink et tuncEN6° does not remain external to a man living hic et num' . it becomes internal to him. It becomes his as a Word which is accepted, affirmed, seized and followed by him. Constrained and freed by its revealing power, he is associated with the holy people of those who have been similarly awakened to faithfulness to God and with whom he finds himself set in God's service as His witness in the world. These, then, are the two presuppositions about which we must be clear if we are to define and describe the divine change effected and being effected in the history ofjesus Christ as the event in which the foundation of the Christian life takes place. We here presuppose the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as the act of God in which His history was and is revealed as most prop- [030] erly the salvation history of all men. We also presuppose the work of the Holy Spirit as the act of God in which its revelation reaches certain men in such a way that they are opened up for it, and it for its part is disclosed specifically to them. The one act of God is the disclosure of His history to all men in the resurrection ofjesus Christ and the opening up of specific men for His history in the work of the Holy Spirit. These are the two factors, or, as one may and should finally say, the two forms of the one factor, in whose power and on a divine basis men become faithful to God instead of unfaithful to Him, and the foundation of the Christian life takes place. Without considering and expressly pointing to these two factors, or this one factor in the two forms, it would be irresponsible to maintain that the Christian life is not a mere ideal and postulate, but a true event in time. The New Testament witnesses, too, counted upon the Christian life only on the basis of these two factors, in confession of the Lord who rose again from the dead and who is thus the living Lord, and in confession of His Holy Spirit. That assertion cannot be ventured except in this confession of faith. It now seems permissible-in view of the special significance of the second factor it is natural, and in view of the special theme of this treatise it is even advisable-to conclude by bringing these two related presuppositions, which are identical even in their distinction, under the common denomination of an important New Testament concept. We thus maintain that the power of the divine change in which the event of the foundation of the Christian life of specific men takes place is the power of their baptism with the Holy Ghost. Very generally and formally, the word "baptism" denotes an act of cleansing which is effected on a man and which he thus undergoes. Whatever else it may mean, it is thus a new EN6° EN61
there and then here and now
§ 75.
The Foundation of the Christian Life
determination of the one baptised. "Baptism with the Holy Ghost" oTveaTt EN62, or 11, Cor. i 213; jn. 133; Ac. 15; 1 116; 192f) is, in sharp distinction from the baptism with water (tMaTt) which men give, the cleansing and reorientation of a man by the endowment and work of the Holy Spirit. It is thus a baptism which only God Himself, or the Son of God sent by Him, the Messiah of Israel and Saviour of the world, can accomplish, which can take place in this man only directly through Him. We take a certain exegetical liberty, though one which is not without solid foundation, when we understand and stress this concept as the epitome of all that which now occupies us as the divine change which is the primary foundation of the Christian life. It is likely enough that the intimation of John the aptist in the Gospels that a baptism of the Spirit would be given by the gre ter who was to come after him has in view the event of Pentecost narrated in detail in Ac. 2, and the events which followed. If so, baptism with the Spirit is concretely the divine cleansing and reorientation of men, in which, as in Ac. 2, and in analogy to what happened to the prophet according to Is. 67, they are appointed public witnesses of Jesus and are authorised and equipped as such. In fact the ministry of witness forms the meaning and scope of the whole of the Christian life. Hence the meaning and scope of the work of the Holy Spirit which founds it is unquestionably to make men free, able, willing and ready for this ministry. "Take ye no thought how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say" (Lk. 121f). Even more strongly Mt. 1020: "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Among the texts already mentioned, we find neither in jn. 133, 1 Cor. i 2'3, Ac. 16, nor finally in the basic text Mk. 18 par., any express reference to the most concrete meaning of baptism with the Spirit. In Mk. 14, and also in Peter's address on the Day of Pentecost (Ac. 238) , the concrete thing which is expected by the Baptist of the one who comes with the Holy Spin and with reference to which p/cravota EN64 is demanded of men, is in the first instance the forgiveness of their sins, which only God (Mk. 2), or in His name the Messiah, but not man, can pronounce to another. And if we are not merely permitted but commended to find the relation of baptism with the Spirit to the public attestation ofjesus Christ by His community, and by the individual Christian, implicitly present even where the thought is not explicit, it is also to be considered that even where the ministry of witness holds the stage as the meaning and scope of Christian life, and hence also of the baptism with the Spirit which founds it, one has necessarily and tacitly to supply the presupposition that those who are called to this ministry and equipped for it can only be, and must become, men who are awakened to the knowledge of Jesus Christ and summoned to conversion in view of His coming, and to life with Him. We thus regard it as legitimate to understand by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, without prejudice to its special meaning and scope, the divine preparation of man for the Christian life in its totality. To use an expression of 0. Culimann, it is the history of Jesus Christ effected as "general baptism." Already in the account of the baptism of Jesus this history was connected with His quality as the original Bearer of the Holy Spirit. Later (Lk. 1 25'; Mk. i 035-4°) it was called His own baptism of death which includes and anticipates that of the disciples and which as such, according to the exegetical addition in Mt. 311, is, as a baptism with the Spirit, a baptism of fire which fulfils the judgment of God and establishes His righteousness. i ut it is also this history in its manifestation in the resurrection. Finally, it is man's opening up to this, which as the goal of the whole process is to be described and understood, even in detail, as the work of the Holy Spirit. 7TvEoeuaTt sc. clyty EN63, Mk. 8 par.;
[031]
As the epitome of the divine change which founds the whole Christian life, EN62 EN63 EN64
with the Spirit in the Spirit (i.e. Holy Spirit) repentance 28
. Baptism with the Holy Spirit and as a slogan for this, the term "baptism of the Spirit" is well adapted to bring into focus again this ineffaceable side of the problem of the Christian beginning, and therewith to make a place for its exposition on the other side, where, in the second section, we shall be concerned with the foundation of the Christian life in its character as human decision, and where we shall have to speak of the baptism with water which is requested of the community and received from it. Under the epitome and slogan of the baptism of the Spirit we shall sum up in five points the content of what we have said about the act of God which is constitutive for the beginning of all Christian life. 1. The beginning of the Christian life takes place in a direct self-attestation and self-impartation of the living Jesus Christ, in His active Word of power which goes forth hic et nuncEN65 to specific men in the work of the Holy Ghost. e, He alone, acts as the author (dpnyo's-, Heb. 122) of faith, just as He, He [032] alone, is its finisher. To be sure, the witnessing ministry of the community of Jesus Christ, in the form of the human life, speech and action of some of the Christians who are its members, is not without a share, but has a very important share, in this event. To be sure, a man to whom the Word of Jesus Christ comes in the power of the Holy Spirit is not only called by the community but also called in some form to the community, to participation in its ministry. How can a man be a Christian without remembering the teachers who have spoken the Word of God to him (Heb. 137)? How can he be a Christian without realising that he is bound to members of the community as to brethren, that he is commonly engaged and committed with them? Nevertheless, the fact that a man becomes a Christian, and as such a member of the holy people of the covenant, is something which he owes, not to himself, nor to the human work of witness either of the community or of any Christian, but directly to the ord of this people, the Master, whom the community and all its members seek to serve, and can only serve, with their witness. The Church is neither author, dispenser, nor mediator of grace and its revelation. It is the subject neither of the work of salvation nor the Word of salvation. It cannot act as such. It cannot strut about as such, as though this were its calling. Its work and action in all forms, even in the best possibilities, stands or fails with the self-attestation and self-impartation of Jesus Christ Himself, in which it can only participate as assistant and minister. Hence, though the Word ofjesus Christ unquestionably calls a man to the Church, in the Church it immediately and directly calls him to imself as the Lord of the Church, as the Head of this body of His, as the one Good Shepherd. This Word of Jesus Christ which goes forth directly to a man and calls him directly to Jesus Christ Himself, and which all human words from Church dogma, indeed, even from the words of the apostles and evangelists down to the most modest mutua consolatiofratrumEN66 can only accompany, EN65 EN66
here and now mutual encouragement of the brethren
29
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 4,fe expound and illumine, is the divine change in a man's life, his baptism with the Holy Ghost, the beginning of his ChrisOan life. Already we can say here that this divine change at once makes possible and demands the corresponding human decision. Nevertheless, the human decision is not that in and with which, or in virtue of which, the divine change takes place. In other words, the baptism of the Spirit certainly calls for the baptism with water which is requested of the community and administered by it, which is received by the man who accepts the Word of Jesus Christ. I ut it is not identical with this, nor is water baptism identical with it. Baptism with the Spirit does not take place in a an either with or through the fact that he receives water baptism. He also becomes a Christian in his human decision, in the fact that he requests and receives baptism with water. But he does not become a Christian through his [033] human decision or his water baptism. All the Gospels emphasise the distinction between the work of the human baptist, John, and that of the greater than he whose shoes' latchets he is not worthy to unloose. This distinction is irrevocable. Jesus Christ Himself, and He alone, makes a man a Christian. He Himself is the divine change in this man's life. The history of Jesus Christ, which we have here understood as the one power of God in whose work a man can be faithful to God, and is in fact faithful as the work is done, is quite simply Jesus Christ Himself, who then and there came and lived and died propter nas. homines' His resurrection from the dead is again e Himself in His manifestation as the One who lives and acts and speaks and works, not only then and there, but also (as the One He was then and there) always and everywhere, and consequently here and now. Hence the work of the Holy Spirit is again Jesus Christ Himself creating access and entry in a specific man as the Lord of all and consequently as his Lord. This related totality is all His work. It can only be the work of the Son of God at work as the Son of Man in time, in this work of His He calls for the corresponding and confirming answer of man. Nevertheless, He neither needs nor will He tolerate other factors or redeemers in this work of His. There is no place for such. He does not delegate His work to other factors, not even to His community. He cannot let it represent im in this. It is His body. e alone is the ruling Head of this body. A man becomes a Christian, and is thus freed for that response and summoned to it, on the basis of the initiative of Jesus Christ and in the event of the life, act and speech of Jesus Christ present for him. He either becomes a Christian in this way or not at all. Where the life, act and speech ofjesus Christ become an event in the life of a man, this means that Jesus Christ imparts, not in the first instance this or that, not even supreme insights, powers, directions and tasks, but in the first instance Himself as at once the Guarantor of God's faithfulness to him and of his own faithfulness to God. When Jesus Christ does this to a man, when He enters his life as this Guarantor, He baptises him, as only He can, but as He can and does, with the Holy Spirit. He brings about the change which as a divine EN67
for us men
30
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit change only He can bring about-the change in which a man, in virtue of God's faithfulness to him, becomes faithful to God in return, and thus becomes a Christian. 2. The foundation of the Christian life, in so far as it consists in the change effected by God, in so far as it is the self-attestation and self-impartation of Jesus Christ, and consequently baptism with the Spirit, is a form of the grace of God which actually reconciles the world to Him-the form of this grace in which it is addressed to a specific man. This is something one cannot say of the corresponding human decision, of the water baptism which is asked of the community and received from it. This is not a form of grace. But when we look [034] at the divine change, at the baptism of the Spirit, we can and should say no less than that it is the active and actualising grace of God. What is manifest to man in this change, what is not just confessed but (we are thinking of the v ii3OtEN68 of Gal. 116) revealed both inwardly and from within, establishing a new beginning of existence, is the totality of salvation, the full justification, sanctification and vocation of man brought about in Jesus Christ. Whatever one may have to say about the other aspect of the event, namely, about the human decision which acknowledges, confirms, attests and indicates it, and no matter how seriously one has to consider the profound inadequacy of this compared with the fulness of the divine change which primarily establishes the Christian life, even in face of the worst of human failure there can be no diminution of the fulness of that which is addressed to man in it. As the self attestation of the living Jesus Christ in the work of the Holy Ghost it is, in distinction from even the fullest and strongest human attestation of Jesus Christ, His own self-impartation to man, His own almighty and perfect work on him and in him. To belittle what is done to man in Him is to belittle Him. The baptism of the Spirit is more than a reference and indication through image and symbol. It is more than an offer and opportunity. Expressions which are undoubtedly inappropriate with reference to human decision, and more particularly with reference to water baptism, are quite in order and indeed necessary here. Baptism with the Spirit is effective, causative, even creative action on man and in man. It is, indeed, divinely effective, divinely causative, divinely creative. Here, if anywhere, one might speak of a sacramental happening in the current sense of the term. It cleanses, renews and changes man truly and totally. Whatever may be his attitude to it, whatever he himself may make of it, it is (we recall the New Testament descriptions) his being clothed upon with a new garment which is Jesus Christ Himself, his endowment with a new heart controlled by Jesus Christ, his new generation and birth in brotherhood with Jesus Christ, his saving death in the presence of the death which Jesus Christ suffered for him. All this is to be taken realistically, not just significantly and figuratively. As this divine change takes place in his life, as he is baptised with the Holy Ghost, he is to be claimed in all seriousness for this change which has EN68
in me
31
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life come upon him. In the light of it, he is in truth a man who has been changed by God's act on him and in him. This means that his own freedom can be freedom for a specific human decision in conformity with the liberation which has come about for him in this alteration. It can be freedom for that which alone is suggested as possible for him by this divine change, by his baptism with the Spirit. It can be freedom for that which is commanded by God as God [035] empowers him for it. The reality and perfection of his liberation an empowering for it, the direct validity of the command given him therewith, cannot be negated or even diminished by the brokenness of his disobedience, however severe. Once and for all, perfectly and with full adequacy, he is empowered and liberated for it, so that the command which is issued therewith has and retains for him a once-for-all validity. At all times and in all circumstances he will remember this divine change in his life; he will take comfort and glory in it. From the confusion, darkness, impotence and perversion of his own decision he may return to it, and therewith to his true and actual being as a man, his new being, his being in virtue ofjesus Christ, in Him and with Him. This is the foundation of the Christian life on this side. This is its primary foundation. The divine change, man's baptism with the Holy Spirit, is not half grace or half adequate grace; it is whole grace and wholly adequate grace. It is not just an incitement given to man, but his quickening. It is not just his enlightenment from without, but a lighting up from within. It deserves and demands full, unreserved and unconditional gratitude. 3. Particular stress should be laid on the fact that it demands gratitude. it demands it by giving man what is necessary for it and what he could not have without it. Herewith it does truly demand it. As an act of omnipotently penetrating and endowing grace, and therefore as the self-attestation and selfimpartation of Jesus Christ which changes man radically and effectively, it is both man's baptism with the Holy Ghost and also as such the command of God directly given to man. In it man effectively acquires his Lord and Master. As it comes to him, obedience is effectively demanded of him. The problem of ethics is thus raised for him, or, more exactly, the problem of the ethos corresponding to it, of the response of his own being, action and conduct. The problem of the second section now comes directly into view-that of the decision in taking which man is liberated, yet also called, by the divine change which comes upon him. He has to take up a position in relation to this, the only position which can be taken, but a position taken in freedom. It is not that God's act on and in man makes of him a cog set in motion thereby. The free God does not act thus with man. On the contrary, what the free God in His omnipotence wills and fashions in Jesus Christ in the work of the Holy Ghost is the free man who determines himself under this predetermination by God, the obedience of his heart and conscience and will and independent action. Here man is taken seriously, and finds that he is taken seriously, as the creature which is different from God, which is for all its dependence autonomous before lin, which is of age. Here he is empowered for his own act, and
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit invited, commanded and encouraged to perform it. Here-and the more realistically we understand that which comes upon him from God only as grace, the better we understand this-he is set directly before and under God's corn- [036] mand, and claimed directly for its fulfilment. Directly-this is where the emphasis must be laid here too. What it means to have a commanding Lord and Master, and to be pledged to Him, is known only to the man-for he can know it only in the direct happening-who is liberated by the divine change, by his baptism with the Holy Spirit. No other than God Himself effectively becomes his Lord and Master in this change. No other than he himself finds himself changed therein. In and with his own existence, and hence inescapably (for how can he escape?), he has acquired this commanding Lord and Master as his counterpart. Again in and with his own existence, and hence inescapably, he is committed to subjection and subordination to this Commander. From this direct other, from this direct commitment, there is no escape. He cannot appeal to the nexus of sin, guilt and death as the power which binds all beings, himself included, for he has been snatched from the power of this nexus by the divine change which has come upon him, in the history of Jesus Christ, in the work of the Holy Spirit. He cannot resort to grief or lamentation at the weakness or even the impotence of his own personal insight, willingness, or ability, for God's mercy has taken him up in this very weakness and impotence of his; God has liberated this weak and impotent man as such for obedience to Himself. Above all, he cannot seek refuge in a separate freedom of choice and control respecting his own being, action and conduct which still remains to him alongside the choice and control for which he is empowered and to which he is also invited and ordered by God, for a choice and control other than that for which he is freed and to which he is referred by God does not even enter into the question for him, for the man who has become new and different through God's act, through his baptism with the Holy Ghost. God has truly "beset him behind and before" (Ps. 1395). The only way open for him is that of a man who is thus "beset" by God-that of the decision for obedience, i.e., for a faithful human being, action and conduct corresponding to God's faithfulness to him. The only open way is that of the decision which can be made in the freedom granted to him through the act of the almighty grace of God. This cannot be-let it be emphasised again--a mechanical consequence of his being beset by God. If there were any question of mechanical operation, it would not be God who besets him. It can only be his very own free decision for this way. It can only be his own walking according to the Spirit (KaTa TrvElipia) with whom he is baptised-a walking genuinely on his own feet as he is thus beset by God. . Seen from the standpoints presented in what has been said thus far, the beginning of the new Christian life of a man is the beginning of his life in a distinctive fellow-humanity. As Jesus Christ Himself attests Himself to him as [037] his Lord in His active Word of power, as He imparts Himself to him as his 33
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life Brother, he ceases to be a self-enclosed man, and there is actualised his relationship to all those to whom Jesus Christ has also attested and imparted Himself as Lord and Brother, perhaps in the same, perhaps in a very different way. As the covenant of the free grace of God addressed to all shows itself to be validly made with him too, as the human freedom grounded therein shows itself to be specifically given to him too, he finds that he is redeemed from all isolation and also from all contingent or transient attachments to others, and incorporated in the communion of saints, in the people of God which is called together from many peoples with their different histories and cultures. As his wholly personal gratitude and wholly personal obedience is demanded of him by the command of God manifested and made clear to him, he enters at his own point and with his own commission into the company of those from whom, at their own point and with their own commission, the same gratitude, obedience and service is required, and who can as little escape this service as he himself, beset by God on every side, can escape it. He unavoidably discovers himself to be the companion, fellow and brother of these others, bound to them for better or for worse, a participant in their strength and weakness, their joys and sorrows, their little victories and greater defeats, their whole life and enterprise and action. He can be wholly theirs-one who in the midst of them receives from them and serves them in return. He can be the free man he is when born anew, from above, as he belongs to them. He is one in this people of God, a member of the body whose head is Jesus Christ. e is in the community. In it and with it he calls on God as "our Father in heaven." As he confesses God, so in unity of faith, love and hope, he confesses it, its wealth and also its poverty, its failure and also its confidence, its inner edification and its mission in the world around it. This is the special, Christian fellow-humanity which is the work of the Holy Spirit, of the baptism with the Spirit which happens to certain men. Because it is baptism with the Holy Spirit, it is identical with his reception into the Church as the assembly of those who, according to the Vulgate rendering of Mk. 334, in circuitu eius sedebant 69 , who, continuing in a circle around Jesus, are engaged in doing the will of God as His people. Because it is baptism with the Holy Spirit, it is also-to anticipate-not identical with their baptism with water, nor this with it, though it will call for this work of the community, and the man baptised with the Spirit will call for it; and it is certainly not identical with his entry and reception into the Church as a Christian religious society, though it will lead to this and he need not be ashamed of it. Because it is baptism with the Holy Spirit, it also and especially does not consist in his donning a uniform and clapping on a helmet and as a, [038] member of the community, as one specimen among many others, being subjected to the same regimented spiritual and ethical drill. "Infinite gifts from his rich store, he wondrous hand of God doth pour." The Holy Spirit, being the Spirit of the one, but eternally rich God, is no compactly uniform mass. '69 sat
in a circle around him
34
1. Baptism with the Holy Spirit When He is poured forth, when men are baptised with Him, He exists in the fulness of the charismata'7° of the one community. Through their distribu tion each individual Christian-independently of the particularity of his natural character or personal concerns-receives his own special spiritual power and therewith his own special task in the total life and ministry of the community (cf. 1 Cor. 12 and Rom. 12). This may be the same as his divine commissioning to fulfil a specific office in the Church and with his divine training for such, but it does not have to be. There are also wholly individual, transitory and changing endowments of this kind. There are those which cannot possibly be brought within the confines of institutional office The hierarchy of these endowments and equipments, their super- and sub- ordination the one to the other, can never be rigid. Always and everywhere it is fluid, and necessarily remains so. As concerns the recipients and bearers of a specific gift, the last might well become in practice the first, and the first the last. On the other hand, the criterion of the authenticity of the discharge of all institutional office in the Church is always and everywhere the question whether the one who serves in this or that office is a recipient and bearer of the charisma'71 indispensable to his work, and first and finally whether he is a recipient and bearer of the love which is above all spiritual gifts. At no time, then, in the life and ministry of the community, in the fulfilment of Christian fellow-humanity, can one dispense with the petition: Veni Creator SpiritusEN72. Always and everywhere this must be prayed afresh. 5. As man's baptism with the Holy Spirit, the beginning of the new Christian life is and remains a real beginning. It is not perfect. It is not self-sufficient, definitive, or complete. It is a commencement which points forward to the future. It is a take-off for the leap towards what is not yet present. It is a start which involves looking to and stretching for a future. To be in Christ is to have become a new creature (2 Cor. 517). For those baptised with the Holy Ghost the old has passed away and the new is already coming. Nevertheless, this carries with it a Forward. It intimates a work which goes further. In relation to this life, however, it has to be considered that the beginning in itself and as such does not necessarily imply the continuation. When the New Testament uses the concept of growth, this comprises the totality of the movement-not to be confused with Goethe's fine conception of an "impressed form which vitally develops itself." It is not to be understood merely as the progress which corresponds to the beginning. In all its actions the work of the Holy Spirit is always and everywhere a wholly new thing. At each moment of its occurrence it is itself another change, a conversion, which calls for even more radical conversion. As the change to the Christian life was radical in its inception, so it EN70 gifts of grace EN71 gift of grace EN72 come Creator
Spirit
35
039]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[040]
must and will always be in its continuation. To anticipate, its outward attestation in their baptism with water, by the community, by men baptised with the Holy Ghost, brings to light the once-for-allness of the event, and is not, then, to be repeated. Nevertheless, this fact should not prevent or obscure the insight that the baptism with the Holy Ghost attested in water baptism, the work of God in and with the baptised, is an event which takes place once for all times and therefore (to put it generally at first) on several occasions. In relation to this repetition of the beginning of the new life, two forms in which it takes place are to be noted and strictly differentiated, yet also correlated. a. The Spirit with whose baptism the Christian life begins is (according to Gal. 5) the work of God which in season bears fruits in the life of him who is baptised herewith: "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." This is a plenitude of fruits for which t ere will have to be-not simultaneously, but in the sequence of seasons-both sowing and reaping, and which in the course of the history of the Christian in the community will arise in very different detailed histories which may be concurrent or successive. Both in general and in detail there will be new beginnings which in each case and every respect are radical. Weeds will also be found on these fields, and these will be a threat to the good seed. There will also be unskilful or wrong cultivation, a lack of seriousness in caring for the good seed. There will be curable or perhaps incurable setbacks to its growth. it will always be necessary that the good work of the Holy Spirit which has begun thus or thus should begin again at the beginning, that the man to whom a beginning has been given should not be ashamed but happy that here or there, in this way or that, he may take this wholly new and supremely astonishing form, that he should be thus "continued." A man is no Christian if he is not willing, ready, modest and courageous enough, so long as he lives, so long as he is given the unique opportunity, to move forward, not according to the impulses of his own heart or the fancies of his own mind, but according to the impulsion and direction of the Holy Spirit, constantly marc ing into a land (a small portion of the land) "that I will shew thee" (Gen. 121) . Viewed thus, his life is indeed a daily penitence, a constant stretching after the new possibilities which are offered him, a never-resting striding in the light of the divine invitation and command which constantly encounter him afresh. b. The new Christian life however-and this is more important than that it is a constantly renewed bearing of fruit-is only a beginning in the further sense that in its totality it hastens towards a goal which awaits it beyond its confines, or rather which comes to meet it. No matter how spiritually gifted it may be in its service, no matter how rich and ripe the fruits of the Spirit may prove to be in it, it is not yet the perfect life which it is properly and finally destined to be. Like the Spirit, the Christian who now bears witness to Him as the principle which controls his life receives and is only the first-fruits and pledge of the perfection in which he will one day be manifested when Jesus Christ shall come, when He shall manifest imself as the Pantocrator of all life, and hence 36
2.
Baptism with Water
of his mortal life, when He shall awaken him from his life in partial knowledge of God to life in the knowledge which is no longer in the riddle of a reflection, but "face to face." "We shall all be changed" (i Cor. 1551) . This is the absolute future which the Christian is impelled and directed by the Holy Spirit to wait for and to hasten towards in this time of his which is one long Advent season. During this time the Holy Spirit feeds him with the body of Jesus Christ which was given for him, and strengthens him with the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for him, to nourish and sustain him for eternal life in which God will be all in all, and thus in him too. He has not yet apprehended this. The people of God, whose member he is, is the pilgrim people of God. "Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Mt. 69 )-this is his prayer. But he is constantly chasing this perfection which awaits him and comes to meet him. He is constantly running towards it. Apprehende • by Jesus Christ, he constantly seeks to apprehend it. Having this final, true and eternal goal before his eyes, so long as he lives here and now he has before him goals which are penultimate and improper in relation to this, yet illuminating in their own way as pointers to it. He thus lives in a daily renewal to which he can never grow tired of subjecting himself. The rest which is available for him, too, as a member of God's people is the meaning of his existence in the movement in which he finds himself provisionally but ineluctably caught up here and now. The power of the life to come is the power of his life in this world. This, then, in broadest outline is the life of the man who is baptised with the Holy Spirit.
2.
BAPTISM WITH WATER
The two elements in the foundation of the Christian life, the objective and the subjective, are to be correlated as well as distinguished. Only as ( ) the divine change makes possible and demands human decision as conversion from unfaithfulness to faithfulness to God, and only as (2) this human decision has its origin wholly and utterly in the divine change, does there come about the foundation of the Christian life and the existence of a man who is faithful to God. Only as the two are seen together in differentiated unity can one understand them. The act of God in this event is thus to be construed strictly as such, and the act of man in the same event is also to be construed strictly as such. Each of the elements both individually and also in correlation, and therefore the totality of the event, will be misunderstood if it is either separated from or, instead of being distinguished, mixed together or confused with the other. Baptism with the Holy Spirit does not exclude baptism with water. It does not render it superfluous. Indeed, it makes it possible and demands it. Again, baptism with water is what it is only in relation to baptism 37
[041]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life with the Holy Spirit. Whether it looks back to this or forward to it, it presupposes it. To say this is to say that in the one event of the foundation of the Christian life we have the wholly different action of two inalienably distinct subjects. On the one side is the action of God in His address to man, and on the other, made possible and demanded thereby, the action of man in his turning towards God. On the one side is the Word and command of God expressed in His gift, on the other man's obedience of faith required of him and to be rendered by him as a recipient of the divine gift. Without this unity of the two in their distinction there could be no Christian ethics. To see their distinction in unity is especially important at this point where we are concerned with the beginning of the relation between the God who commands in His grace and the responsible action of the man who is grateful to this God. It is particularly important at this point where our concern is the foundation of the Christian life, and where a decision has thus to be made on whose precise correctness all further ethical reflection will depend. in the first section we have spoken exclusively and consistently of the divine change. The human decision has not yet been our main theme, though naturally we have had to point out again and again that it is the goal of the divine change. In this second section we must speak no less exclusively and consistently of the human decision. The divine change cannot be our main theme, though naturally we cannot avoid a constant reference back to the divine origin, theme and content of the human decision. To the very foundation and beginning of the Christian life (as to all the secondary forms which must be mentioned and described), there belongs secondarily a work, action and conduct which is absolutely indispensable to the primary divine foundation, even though it can only correspond to it and follow it. This is the work, action and conduct for which man is freed, empowered and summoned by the divine change which comes over him. It is the work, action and conduct which, as a living hearer of the living Word of the history of Jesus Christ, he not only cannot evade but will freely and joyfully resolve upon as this history manifests itself to him as God's Word. This resolve of his, this decision against his earlier unfaithfulness and for the new reality of a life which is faithful to God, he himself as the future subject of a history which unfolds as a history of salvation rather than a history of perdition, he in person (within the limits, but also in a new use of the human possibilities peculiar to him in his limits), his heart and conscience, but also his hands and feet, quite soberly his obedience, the obedience which may be humanly rendered by him as a man-these were the goal and end envisaged in the history ofjesus Christ, in its manifestation, and these are the goal and end envisaged in the work of the Holy Spirit which is done in, him. The gracious God, showing Himself to be such to a man, wills, makes possible and demands at once the total life-act of this man which is to be performed in gratitude. His life-act! If the grateful Yes of this man to God's grace is sincere, if it is his own, if it is the Yes of a heart truly liberated by grace it cannot remain merely 38
2.
Baptism with Water
contemplative, speculative or meditative, nor can it be merely verbal; it must become at once the Yes of a grateful work. It cannot be the arbitrary Yes of an arbitrarily concocted work; it must be the obedient Yes of a work which is directly commanded by the grace which has come upon him. Nevertheless, it is the Yes of his human work. To the foundation of the Christian life belongs the ready doing of this work, the immediate first step in the new life-act for which man is empowered and to which he is summoned by the divine change. The genuineness of the faith in which he receives and takes to heart the pledge and promise given to him must and will prove itself at once in an action which corresponds to this pledge and promise. At once: When a man begins to believe-even if only in a modest but unavoidable venture, even if only in the quantity, though also the quality, of a grain of mustar -seed, even if only, though seriously, with the petition: "Lord, help thou mine unbelief' (Mk. 24\)-he will not only not be unwilling, but will most earnestly desire, to overcome the ambiguity of a position in which apparently he might still be different or different again, to leave behind him the ostensible possibility of vacillating between Yes and No, between faith and unbelief. When a man begins to believe-whether we assume, as will assuredly' [043] be the case, that he is threatened by all kinds of suspicions, doubts and reservations in respect of this enterprise, or whether we assume, as might well be the case, that he must agree and confess that he does actually begin to believeeither way he will inevitably need and desire to ratify before God, man and himself this decision of his, the Yes of his tiny but honest faith. He will want to establish a fact which-no matter how improbable it might seem, or how often or severely he might later oppose it-he cannot reverse as such. He will want to establish a fact which he cannot reject or argue away as a fact which he himself has established. He will want to establish a fact which neither need nor can be repeated, and by which he is at every later point in time committed as one who by his own choice began to believe, whose whole future being and work is determined thereby, whose future way, whether he treads it consistently or inconsistently, in joy or trouble, is in any case prefigured therein. In no tircumstances can he be, or know himself to be, any other than the man who established this fact and therewith-not just in thought but also in will and emotion, not just in words but also in a concrete act confirming and confessing his faith-took the first and exemplary step on the way of obedience. Obedience! For the need of the one who comes to faith, or who has just come to faith, to establish this fact, the desire and demand for a first step of this kind which will be normative for all others, the courage and humility to take it, are not contingently his own free will and action, nor a matter of his own caprice. They are prefigured, prescribed, ordered and commanded of him by that in which he believes, the reconciliation of the world to God as the divine change which comes over him, or rather by Him in whom he believes, by Jesus Christ, who in this change acts on and in him, and therewith speaks to him. His need to take this first step is in fact his resolution to be obedient to 39
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 14fe Him who has first freed him for the act of this first step, and summoned him thereto. He is nailed by Him to the fact that he nails himself, that he commits himself to this beginning, by establishing that fact. Hence he has to do this, and will do it, with a necessity, joy and haste quite different from arbitrariness or caprice. This, then, is the situation in which a man who is awakened to Christian faith by Him in whom he believes asks for and actually receives Christian baptism, the baptism of water which may be administered to him by men, namely, by the community ofjesus Christ. He freely asks to be baptised. Of his own resolve he is baptised. Yet this is no capricious act. He does it because he is invited and commanded to do it by the grace of God which has come upon him, by the [044] history of Jesus Christ which has taken place for him, by the manifestation of this history which has occurred for him in the resurrection from the dead, by the work of the Holy Spirit in which that history and manifestation become an event in his own life, in short, by Jesus Christ Himself. He himself does it in so far as he requests it. He does it as his own work. But he does it in obedience, as the first exemplary work of faith, of faithfulness to God, for which he is freed and awakened, and to which he is summoned, by the mighty demonstration of God's faithfulness to him. By way of illustration some sentences may be quoted from the diary of a young Japanese girl in the period after the last war (quoted from Robert Jungk, Strahlen aus der Asche, 1959, 16o): "Then I began to attend Christian worship as well as school, and I found that God's Word stands in the Bible. This was for me like rain falling on dry and sandy country. The Word of God soaked down into me ... I resolved to dedicate my life to faith, and asked the teacher whether I might be baptised. Along with me five others were to receive baptism." To this might be added (p. 161) some rather less certain, but from another standpoint no less instructive statements from the diary of a Japanese artisan of similar age who was one of those baptised with her: "I did not then do this out of faith, but out of an indefinite feeling. For I then sought responsibility. And I thought that if I some day found myself on a steep slope, the fact that I was baptised would be a restraining factor, a kind of invisible pledge, a binding agreement. I was not particularly affected or drawn by any profound concepts of Christian teaching. If the evening school had accidentally been under the direction of some very different and quite new religious society, I would probably have become an adherent of this sect."
In this simple sense and character-we are now concerned with the secondary element in the event, but one which has to be considered with equal seriousness-Christian baptism is the first form of the human decision which in the foundation of the Christian life corresponds to the divine change. But what is Christian baptism sefore attempting a direct theological exposition of this action, it is methodologically advisable to try to establish data which can be taken from the New Testament with relative exegetical certainty, i.e., in a way which hardly allows of dispute. 1. As regards the form of the action, Christian baptism is a bodily washing with water. 40
2.
Baptism with Water
In secular Greek, though never in a technical cultic sense, the verbs 13(17rTav EN" and
gaw-TtOlv EN74 denote for the most part the act of violent or repeated dipping in or under. Of the two, the former has retained more of the original meaning than the latter in New Testament usage. In Lk. 1624 it denotes the dipping of a finger, in jn. 1326 the dipping of a sop, in Rev. 1913 the dipping of a robe in a fluid. The New Testament use of both verbs, however, unmistakably presupposes a usage according to which-perhaps in keeping with their technical cultic employment already in Judaism-the act of washing is denoted, especially the washing which takes the form of dipping in or under. Thus in Lk. 1138 the more common iectirTietv '75 can denote the washing of the hands which Judaism ritually pre- [045] scribed before meals, and in Mk. 74 the noun Parr-I-L(70'g EN76 can be used for the (ritual) washing of a vessel used at meals. Heb. 62 and 910 refer generally to such ritual garmatt0tEN77. The death of Jesus, which includes that of His disciples, can also be called a parr,,,pa EN78, and furthermore there is a gictirrTtEtv TrvEt)/itLaTt EN79 , as noted already. This obviously transferred use is perhaps in both instances based on the original meaning of isainq' Etv EN80, "to overpower," though materially there is a significant reference back to the concrete happening in the Jordan. As a rule iiga77-7-1EtvEN81 and geurnatta EN82 denote the water baptism practised first by John and then by Christians as those who sought to confess themselves to be such. As baptism in the Jordan it possibly, or even probably, took the form of immersion, though this is not absolutely certain. There is no proof that it had to take this form in the primitive community. Even the fact that it is called a burial in Rom. 64 and Col. 212 does not require this. Indeed, it is hardly likely in view of many of the situations in which it was administered (cf. the baptism of the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost in Ac. 241). From the very beginning it might equally well have taken the form of affusion or sprinkling. The only sure point is that it entails washing with water; no significance is to be attached to the form of application. Hence we need not become involved in the conflict between immersion and aspersion, which is still bitter in some circles in the Church even to-day. 2. The fact that there is an application of water in Christian baptism is important only in connexion with its formal character as a bodily washing.
The fact that water is used sometimes leads the New Testament to offer interesting sidelights on its significance in view of certain stories about water in the Old Testament, e.g., Israel's passage through the Red Sea in i Cor. io11- and the saving of Noah and his house 81 aTog EN83 on I Pet. 32°f-. It is surprising that the story of Israel's entry into the promised land in josh. 3 is not exploited along these lines in the New Testament, since it involves passage through the Jordan. Certainly there is no theology of water as such in the New Testament. There is no hint of any special power or even symbolical force attaching to its elemental nature and effects. To try to see connexions between baptism and creation in virtue of the baptismal water, even if only by way of recollection that Jesus Christ is Lord of nature too and consequently of water, is an unpromising and far too arbitrary enterprise to dip
EN73 EN74 to dip
to dip baptism EN77 baptisms EN78 baptism EN79 baptism in the Spirit EN80 baptising EN81 baptising EN82 baptism EN83 through water EN75 EN76
41-
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 4,fe from the standpoint of the New Testament. We need not return to this even in the form of controversy with van der Leeuw and similar ingenious contemporaries. The water of baptism is important only because man usually washes or,is washed with water.
Christian baptism has a clear if restricted historical parallel in the nonChristian world, namely, the water baptism which later Judaism demanded from and administered to Gentiles who joined the Synagogue (so-called proselytes).
[046
The parallel, of course, consists only in the fact that in both cases certain persons are washed with water on the occasion of an important change in public station. As regards the form, meaning and bearing of the action, the Jews obviously have different and vacillating ideas. Furthermore their baptism follows at a varying distance in time the circumcision of these proselytes, which is their true incorporation into the holy people. As a physical washing, it has a hygienic and ritual character which, so far as Christian baptism is concerned, is disputed in the definition offered in Pet. 321, just as Christian baptism has nothing whatever to do with the conversion of a man from one religion to another. It may be added that the relation of John's baptism to Jewish proselyte baptism was solidly polemical-a strange connexion!-inasmuch as those who according to the Gospels were baptised by John in the Jordan were all Israelites who, in accepting it, were admonished to submit to the judgment which threatened them as the people of Abraham, and to put their hope solely in the forgiveness of sins which is to be expected as grace from the One who comes as judge and baptises with the Spirit. The distinction between New Testament baptism and pre-Christian Jewish baptism is thus as indisputable as their inter-relation. The same applies to possible connexions with certain customs of the Essenes an o the "hemero-baptism" practised by the Qumran sect. As regards the derivation of Christian baptism from other historical practices, especially the purifications of Hellenistic mystery religions, if this is historically conceivable at all caution must be exercised, since one can seriously reckon with the possibility-it is no more than that-only if it is first decided that Christian baptism is mutatis mutandisEN' something which corresponds materially to the initiations and dedications practised there, namely, a sacramental mediation of salvation and revelation. Worth noting in this connexion is the fact that the noun f3(177-Ttatt.ta EN85 (unlike e8a7rTta poi g EN86‘) is newly coined in Christianity or the New Testament. It thus seems to have been intended to ascribe to Christian baptism a specific distinctiveness vis-a-visEN87 neighbouring phenomena which might be considered and which were certainly more or less well-known to the authors of the New Testament.
As this washing with water, Christian baptism is, so far as we can tell, a custom which was self-evident in the New Testament Church in all places and from the very outset. There is hardly a New Testament congregation which does not suggest to those who join it that they should ask for baptism, if they have not already expressed this desire, and which does not administer baptism to them in answer to their request. In addition to all that they were made into by God, the members of the community were baptised men. Their baptism was the concretely visible commencement of their Christian life. In this respect we do not allowing for differences baptism EN86 baptism EN87 in relation to EN84 EN85
42
2. Baptism with Water know much about the very first generation, the band of so-called apostles in the narrower sense. Since Jesus, as the One He was even without it, had Himself baptised by John, and since Paul, who was added later, made it his first business to be baptised when he had been converted by Jesus Himself and even entrusted with the apostolate (Ac. 918; 2216), one may assume that the original apostles were no exception in this regard, but like Jesus Himself had received the baptism of John. The fact, however, that from the very first all Christians seem to have requested and received baptism is by no means self-explanatory. Why did the primitive community have to be a community of the baptised and a baptising community? Was this necessary? Could it not be content with the baptism of the Holy Ghost which it had either received or was expecting, with its faith in Jesus Christ and all that this included by way of gifts and obligations? Could it not proclaim the message about Him without bringing both itself and those who accepted this message, its faith, Jesus Christ Himself, under the rule proclaimed in Ac. "Repent, and be baptised every one of you," or in Mk. 1616: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved"? No matter how we expound jn. 35, what is the need for the interconnexion evident in the verse: A man enters the kingdom when born awrog ,Kat iTvcopiaTos EN88, and not without either the one or the other? How many exegetes have wished they could cut these verses out of the New Testament, since then everything would be, or would appear to be, much simpler! But there they are, and in their own place they have to be taken into account and honoured. One can expound them, one can explain the surprisingly self-evident attitude of the primitive community and its members which finds expression in them, only if one accepts the fact that the community and its members were under the pressure of an imperious-because authoritative-injunction in this matter-so imperious that in the main they could recognise it only by actually taking the step of human decision which was demanded and by practically regarding it as self-evident in the way they did as men who had received such an order, and who could only follow it, even if they would rather things had been different and baptism dispensable. Can this matter be explained solely and simply by the existence of the baptismal command of Mt. 2819, which from a literary standpoint is very isolated, and was not perhaps known to all everywhere and from the very beginning? Is this any more than the agent and formulation of a very different and true command which was issued directly in and with the manifestation of the history of Jesus Christ? We shall not pursue this question here, but simply state the sure and certain fact that the primitive Church acted in this matter as if it had received an absolutely normative command which it could not evade keeping and which it thus accepted without dispute.
5. The more surprising, then, is the indubitable fact that the New Testament does not speak of Christian baptism more often and more explicitly than it does. With one significant exception, baptism is never a major theme. The one great exception is the account of the activity of John the Baptist with which the record of the history of Jesus Christ opens in all four Gospels. This account includes the story of the baptism of Jesus Himself, which is explicitly narrated in the Synoptic Gospels and unmistakably implied in the Fourth Gospel. Those who would distinguish Christian baptism from that of John as different and better, regarding the latter only as an imperfect preliminary form of the former, can hardly avoid the question whether there is on this view any New Testament doctrine of baptism at all in a serious sense. All the other texts which may be mentioned, including Rom. 63€ and I Pet. 321, which many treat as basic and which seem to offer definitions of baptism, certainly presuppose that baptism is generally practised and known, and adduce it (though for the most part briefly and allusively) in illustration EN88
by water and the Spirit
43
[047]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[048]
and enforcement of the ethical assertion of the Christian message. They do not teach it or present it, however, as an internal part of the message. If what is absent elsewhere is not found in the account of the Baptist, then one is compelled, like O. Cullmann in John's Gospel, to hunt for more or less clear indirect references. One might even try to claim and expound larger sections of the Epistles, or even the whole of 1 Peter, as baptismal sermons, with similar hypothetical amplifications to fill out material which is obviously inadequate. It should be noted that in fact Galatians, Colossians, Ephesians, I Peter and i John each contain only one unequivocal reference to baptism, while there is none at all in 2 Corinthians, and 2 Thessalonians, James, Revelation, and rather surprisingly the Pastorals (Tit. 35 is too uncertain to count) What does this mean? It certainly does not mean that baptism does not belong to the core of the Christian life presupposed and described in the New Testament. It does mean, however, that when baptism is at issue, then according to the New Testament presentation we are actually confronted by the aspect of Christian existence, and particularly of its beginning, which we have here described as indispensable but secondary, i.e., posterior and subordinate to the primary thing, its divine foundation. if in the account of the Baptist, and especially of the baptism of Jesus Himself, Christian baptism is taught and described as the secondary element in the foundation of the Christian life, then there is no need for this to be done again explicitly in later writings. It is enough, as in the Epistles, to refer to it in certain connexions, which, significantly, are ethical. Indeed, nothing need be said about it at all, as is often the case. There is thus no occasion to seek allusions to it where the New Testament does not intend to speak of it explicitly. The view might indeed be taken that the whole of the New Testament is also (secondarily and incidentally) a proclamation and explication of baptism, and to that degree a baptismal sermon. Except in the texts about the Baptist, however, there is no thematic doctrine of baptism in the New Testament. In this respect it is perhaps significant that the Nicaeno-Constant. (381) reads: credo in Deum Patrem Filium Spiritum Sanctum EN89, but then (at least in the Latin): credo ecciesiam EN90, and then, with an obvious distinction, confiteor (6ittroAoyoi3p,Ev) unum baptismaEN91. In faith one may, should and will accept baptism. But one cannot very well believe one's baptism, or believe in it. One can only confess in and with one's baptism; one can only confess oneself to be baptised; one can only confess baptism. When it is a matter of baptism we are in the sphere of divine grace and revelation precisely to the degree that with it a definite human action, and this first, is demanded from the community and its faith. If in the New Testament (apart from the account of the Baptist) baptism normally occurs in an ethical context, this rather unusual fact offers provisional justification for our own handling of it here in the context of Christian ethics.
6. That a man has himself baptised is something which, according to the presentation in the New Testament, he owes wholly and utterly to the free resolve of the divine word and work of salvation which has or will come upon him; he owes it to this just as certainly as it is the free act of his own resolve and work for which he is liberated and to which he is summoned by that divine resolve. In the New Testament, so far as one can see, the way of a man to baptism has in fact this twofold character. His desire for baptism, and the step which he takes in being baptised, springs wholly from the fact that he is who he is through God's free grace and revelation in EN89
I believe in God the Father ... the Son the Holy Spirit I believe in the church EN91 IL confess (we confess) one baptism EN9°
44
.
Baptism with Water
Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1510 ). In his present awakening by baptism with the Holy Spirit, perhaps in recollection that it has already happened, perhaps in expectation that it might do so, he is a man of thankfulness and hope, a man who has come to faith through the power of the Word of God which has reached and won him, a man who is required as such to confess and claim himself as such before God, men and himself. In the accounts of baptism in the New Testament, what other origin does the desire and act of the baptismal candidate have but this origin in God's act? But we must add at once the further question: In the accounts of baptism in the New Testament is it not also unambiguously plain that the act is one which is chosen and executed by the candidate himself, that he himself desires and accepts this washing with water? This is unavoidably the other side of the matter which is always to be found and which complements the first side. Partly invited and summoned, partly not, but in any case freely, of themselves, responsibly, the New Testament candidates seek baptism, and hasten and come to it. The fact that they are ready to subject themselves, and do in fact subject themselves, to this washing and cleansing with water, even though in origin it is clearly God's work, is no less clearly their own work too. it is a matter of their free resolve and deliberate execution. In the New Testament, so far as may be seen, no one is baptised except in actual affirmation of the expressed Yes of his own faith to the Yes of God accepted by him. This applies at the Jordan, and later in Jerusalem, Samaria, Asia Minor, and Greece. It must be regarded as one of the established data of the New Testament.
7. The idea that a man might dispense with the baptising community and baptise himself is just as alien to the New Testament as that the community, in baptising him, can perform more than the service of acknowledging his faith and consequently his membership of itself and of Jesus Christ. The candidate can only ask to be baptised. In so far as he does ask, and accepts what he asks for, baptism is his own act. There can be no doubt that the passive character of baptism reflects the divine origin of his freedom for it. His willingness for baptism is not grounded in his own caprice. To avoid even an appearance of assumption in this act, of triumphant rather than humble action, he cannot confirm his own faith or baptise himself. As one who seeks baptism he begins with the knowledge ofjesus Christ, who discloses Himself to him, but who is, not a private Saviour, but the Messiah of Israel and King of His people. Corning to baptism, he looks and moves forward to the continuation, renewal and completion of this knowledge. This means, however, that in his desire he is no monad in empty space. He cannot pretend to be a bold individualist who is left to arrange things with God for himself, and to enter and tread his way alone. In virtue of his origin he is confronted by the people of those who shared the knowledge of Jesus Christ before him, by the community of Jesus Christ, which, though it does not create his knowledge, can in some ways help him to it with its witness. From the very outset he is directed to the community. He asks to be recognised by it as one who knows Jesus Christ with it, who believes in Him with it; he thus asks to be recognised as a member. This recognition of his faith, and consequently of his membership of Jesus Christ and of the community as His earthly body, is the work of the community which baptises him. Doing this publicly, bringing him publicly into its confession and including him in its prayer of thanksgiving, praise and petition, it can do no more for him. It "suffers" him (Mt. 315); it does not hinder him. It does not do this even though he is a Gentile and his calling seems to transcend the special election of Israel (it is interesting that whenever KwAifiEtv r ' 9 2 is used with reference to baptism in Ac. [836; 1o47; 1117] it relates to the baptism of Gentiles). If the candidate is an acting person in baptism, he owes this no more to the EN92 hindering
45
[049]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life community than he does to himself. The community can only stand by him with its action. It does this by baptising him with water and therewith recognising that his faith is its faith, that he is thus a Christian. Related is the fact that in the New Testament, so far as one can see, the baptising community has no more mysterious splendour than has he who seeks and receives baptism from it. in particular, there is in the New Testament no transfer of the potestasEN" and competence to baptise to a specific circle with a particular ecclesiastical office. Among the gifts of the Holy Ghost mentioned in Rom. i 2 and i Cor. 1 2 there is no specific gift of dispensing baptism, or, for that matter, the Lord's Supper. In practice, of course, not every Christian undertook to administer baptism. As Jesus Himself according to the express statement in jn. 42 did not baptise with water, so the apostle Paul was thankful that he had bap7). His by no means unfounded concern tised no one, or only a few, in Corinth (1 Cor. 113' [050] was that certain people in Corinth, in their lust for authority, might think that they had been baptised into a man, e.g., into the name of Paul, and that they were in some special way under allegiance to him. The reason be gives, however, for this by no means self-evident reserve in the matter is that Christ sent him, not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel. On the other hand, the desire for baptism is obviously directed in principle to any member of the community, and if circumstances require it may be granted by any member, though naturally as a member of the community, not as a private individual. At any rate there is in the New Testament no trace of the later bureaucratic concern for validity in the administration of the sacraments, including baptism. The action of the community is thus indispensable to baptism. But like that of the candidate himself it can only be a humble action, raising no claim, modest in relation to the Lord of both the candidate and the community. Indeed, in the last resort it takes second place to the action of the candidate and simply assists this.
On the relatively secure exegetical basis of these New Testament data we shall now proceed to build. in so doing our task will simply be to extend and apply the basic outlines of a doctrine of Christian baptism as these have already come to light. We shall have to speak of (I) the basis, (II) the goal and (III) the meaning of Christian baptism.
We ask first concerning the basis of baptism. Why is it not superfluous, but necessary, as a baptism with water? Why is it practised, as we have seen, semper ubique et ab omnibusEN" in the New Testament Church? Why is it in practice recognised as self-evident? To what extent was New Testament Christianity right to regard it thus? To what extent had the later Church, to what extent has the Church to-day, the right and duty to regard it similarly? Why is baptism an "invariable" rather than a "variable" element in its existence? Why does one have to say that in Christianity baptism not only may but must be sought, administered and received? To put the question in context, on what basis and for what reason is baptism the first step of the human decision which follows the divine change, the first concrete form of a new life-act of man correspondEN93 EN94
power always, everywhere, and by all
46
2. Baptism with Water
ing to the faithfulness of God, faithful to it in return, and hence obedient? Why is baptism, secondarily but indispensably, part of the foundation of the Christian life? To what degree does this derive from an institution of baptism, a baptismal command which is binding on the community ofjesus Christ and its members, because it is divinely normative and authoritative, because it is received in the knowledge of Jesus Christ? The simplest answer is a reference to Mt. 2819 as a baptismal command expressly uttered by Jesus Himself. This does not merit rejection or casual treatment. According to the context the command which the partly worship-- [051] ping and partly doubting disciples here receive is the command of the Risen Lord to make disciples of the nations and, as a first step, to baptise them. Now the resurrection of Jesus, and consequently the word and work of the Risen Lord, are, as we have seen, the work of salvation publicly declared as the word of salvation, the revelation of the history of the life and death ofjesus Christ in its meaning for the whole world. If this is so, then it is undoubtedly worth noting that in this self-proclamation of Jesus Christ at the end of Matthew's Gospel there is brought to light the fact that precisely in this respect, too, His history was a direction to His disciples, an injunction to baptise. Both implicitly and explicitly it points to the will and command of the man of Nazareth who, crucified on Golgotha, was manifested as the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of the world---His will and command that those who would join and belong to His people should be baptised, that His commission to this people should include the summoning to baptism, and granting of baptism, to those who wish to belong to His people. The fact that the very brief extract from the history of Jesus Christ offered in Mt. 2818-20 sets the command to baptise alongside (and even before) the command to teach gives the passage a significance which is not to be disregarded on the ground that it is "only" a saying of the Risen Lord, and is thus particularly exposed to the suspicion that it might have its origin in the creative tradition of the community. In any case, this saying shows that the community sought to trace back the baptism which it so self-evidently practised to a command of its Lord, and that it did not want any other basis or justification for it. Certain reservations might still be made. Attention has been drawn already to the literary isolation of the passage. That astonishing semper ubique ab omnibusEN95 hardly applies to it, for it is unlikely that Matthew's Gospel, or the prototype here followed, was from the very first known and read throughout the Christian world of the time. More important is the reminder that, though the passage includes the command to baptise, it is in the first instance, not a baptismal command, but a missionary command. Jesus, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, makes an allauthoritative statement with a general commission to the disciples which transcends the previous restriction (Mt. 1 o5) to the Jewish and Galilean sphere and commands them to EN96 possibly corresponds to TO TrAli pa) pia make disciples of the Gentiles (TretliTa EN95 EN96
'always, everywhere, and by all' all the nations
47
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life Ta)1) 01)C01) EN97 in Rom. 1125), summoning and bringing them to knowledge, faith, obedience and discipleship. Obviously because baptism is the first and decisive step which these new disciples from the nations must take, those who are already disciples of Jesus are in this connexion ordered first to invite them to be baptised first, to administer baptism to them, to baptise them. It should then be noted that in v. 19 the emphasis does not seem to be on the mere fact that one should baptise these Gentiles, but that in distinction from any other Jewish or Christian baptising one should baptise them in a specific way, i.e., "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Similarly, the second thing the disciples must do is not just to teach in general, but to lead the Gentiles to an observance of that which HeJesus, enjoined upon His followers. Finally, the decisive conclusion to the address sets over against the baptism and teaching required of the disciples the over-riding promise: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." This is an impressive reminder that He, Jesus, the Lord, is the origin, theme and goal of their baptising and teaching without whom they can do nothing (jn. 10. In this locus classicus, then, the baptismal command is not issued without a definition and also a limitation of the baptism enjoined upon the community. The relativity of the required action is plainly revealed. As the command to teach does not give the community teaching authority, so the command and commission to baptise does not give it baptismal authority. All the same, the fact that the text gives it the commission to baptise is quite unambiguous.
In relation to our question as to the basis of Christian baptism, this explicit command to baptise refers us to the history of Jesus Christ as such, whose manifestation is at issue in the resurrection. As the Easter stories in general are not to be regarded as accounts of new words, acts and sufferings on the part of Jesus Christ, but as the record of the powerful working of those already accomplished, so the direct command to baptise is not a new thing, but an explication and proclamation of the institution of baptism already effected previously in the history of Jesus Christ, namely, in His baptism in the Jordan (no other aspect of is history calls for mention here) wherewith He had Himself baptised by John. By doing this, by appearing in this way, He did in fact give to His people in every age and place, as the Head of this people, the command to baptise which is significantly repeated and expressed, but only repeated and expressed in Mt. 281s. What happened there is narrated by all the Evangelists and was obviously known (more or less exactly) to the whole of the Christian world from the very beginning. It is in this event that we are to seek the true basis of Christian baptism which is then declared and formulated as such in the saying in Mt. 2819. To use for once the searching language of historical research and teaching, the story of the baptism of Jesus contains the aetiological "cult-legend" which creatively indicates the origin of Christian baptism. If so desired, it might be stated thus. But perhaps, instead of depositing it ad actems under this title, it might be more interesting to consider its significance in so far as there are legitimate grounds on which to do so. This is what we shall now attempt.
One cannot over-estimate the importance of what took lace according to '97 EN98
the fulness of the gentiles in respect of the action
48
2. Baptism with Water this story both for the Gospel tradition and also for the community which lived by it. The significance of the event goes beyond the fact that in it we have the basis of Christian baptism. if it is taken along with the story of the temptation, as in the Synoptists, one sees here the beginning of the circle which will finally close with the story of the passion, which for its part refers back to this beginning. The story of the event at the Jordan is thus more than an attempt to fix [053] the historical setting of the story of Jesus. It is more than an indication of its origin in the preceding penitential and baptismal movement directed by John. The Evangelists had no interest in proving this kind of thing. What took place according to their account is thus more than an independent and materially alien preface to the history of Jesus. As they see and present it, it is the prologue which opens and characterises the whole of this history, setting it in motion herefrom both with a definite direction and towards a specific goal. The baptism of Jesus, as His baptism, is in a sense the point of intersection of the divine change and the human decision. In the main character in the event, who here enters upon His way, who, one might almost say, stands here at the beginning of His Christian life, the two aspects, though plainly distinct, are directly one and the same. In this direct unity this person is the subject of the life-history which follows, the history of salvation lived out for all men. At this point, however, the particular interest of the event is that it was the exemplary and imperative baptismal event. In this respect, too, it is a point of intersection. For here baptism with the Holy Ghost, which may be regarded as the epitome of the divine change effected on a man, meets baptism with water, which represents here the first concrete step of the human decision which follows and corresponds to the divine change. The central content of the event is that the one great Minister of spiritual baptism, the incarnate Son of God who came into the world and was the light of life shining in the darkness, that te, the great and strong, wished to be and actually was baptised with water by the man sent from God whose name was John, who was not that light but could only bear witness of that light. This is how all the Evangelists (implicitly even the fourth) saw and understood the event. This is why they regarded it as the beginning of the history of Jesus Christ. In the event as thus enacted and depicted the Christian community found the imperious summons to baptise, the true baptismal command. If Christian baptism did not in fact have its basis in this event, we should be in the difficult position of having to admit that it has no basis, or at least no evident basis, in the New Testament at all. All the other baptismal passages presuppose baptism, its necessity and basis, without further indication. The self-evident way in which Christianity has baptised both from the outset and in every age of ecclesiastical history might well be recorded simply as a brute fact if it did not have a basis in the command which went forth in the event at the Jordan. In this case one could hardly suppress the question whether a brute fact is really deserving of such marked and unqualified respect, whether Christian baptism is really no more than an accepted custom, whether one might not disregard it as such, whether the 49
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life moment might not come when it could be abandoned without loss. This question, with all its implications, arises only if baptism has no recognisable basis in the New Testament, and indeed in the christological centre of the New Testament, in the history of Jesus Christ. Baptism has to be practised under the compulsion of a clear necessity of precept, in obedience to the command of its Lord, and thus to the command of God. The New Testament community with its self-evident baptising seems in fact to have obeyed a clear command of this kind. It must now be shown as well as maintained that this command was and is to be seen at the very beginning of the history ofjesus Christ, in His baptism in the Jordan. What actually happened in this baptism in the Jordan? Three lines may be seen clearly and with relative freedom from any suspicion of artificial imposition. The baptism is (1) an act in which Jesus freely, concretely, unequivocally, and unconditionally subjected and delivered Himself to, and placed Himself under the control of, the lordship of God. In the same act (2) He no less freely, concretely and unequivocally set Himself in the sequence and fellowship of men who had fallen victim to the judgment of God and were referred only to His free remission of their sins. In this act in its twofold sense (3) He undertook to do in the service of God and men that which as God's work He alone could do for men, that which as man's work only He could do for God, that which He has in fact done in His life and death as the Messiah of Israel and the Saviour of the world. The water baptism of John which He accepted was not merely the sign but the actual fulfilment of the act which opens this history, anticipates its meaning and purpose, and thus characterises it in advance, namely, His free subjection to the will of God, His free association with men, His free entry upon the service of God and men. We may thus go on to say that as He accomplished this, those who may believe in Him, being liberated in and through Him for full consecration to God, full solidarity with their sinful fellows and full service of God and men, were and are for their part invited and summoned to confess Him, God and men by submitting likewise to this baptism. in what follows we shall seek to expound this in detail, and in so doing to expound the basis of Christian baptism. 1. When Jesus had Himself baptised with water by John, He began the fulfilment of His mission as the Son of His Father who had come into the world to reconcile it to God. He entered upon His office as Messiah, Saviour and Mediator in an act of unconditional and irrevocable submission to the will of His Father. The act in which He did this, and did it thus, was not contingent, selfdesigned or arbitrarily chosen; it was demanded of Him. The command to perform it was given im when as a member of His people e became a hearer of the preaching of the man "sent from God" n. 16) ,john. Himself an Israelite, He heard with all Israel (Lk. 32) the Word of God which had come to this John. With many others, He obeyed it by having Himself baptised. It is a tenable conjecture that the Evangelists constantly give this man the solemn title 50
2.
Baptism with Water
ga77-7-1,071 4g EN99 because Jesus was summoned to baptism by his preaching and baptised by him (just as Judas is called 6 77-apa8t8(Yog EN100 because he betrayed Jesus). Certainly neither the baptism ofjesus by John nor the words and works ofjohn are for the Evangelists a mere prolegomenon to the history of Jesus Christ. Note should be taken of the implication of the attempt in Lk. 311- to integrate the history ofjesus Christ into the history of the time: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ( ... mention is then made of Pontius Pilate, Herod, Philip, Lysanias and the high-priests Annas and Caiaphas) the k tta Ocol5EN'191. came (one would now expect Jesus to be mentioned, but the text goes on) to John, the son of Zacharias in the wilderness." in Lk. 616 the preaching (aayyagEaOat) of the kingdom of God is dated from the days of John the Baptist. According to Mt. ii12 it is from these days that the kingdom is gloriously open, but also unprotected against good or evil assaults, lying as it were on the streets, exposed to men as to a band of robbers, an easy prey to anyone. This notable time did not begin after John, but with his coming. .M.776 To() 16a77-Ttapiaros2 the Lord Jesus began to go in and out among His disciples (Ac. 1 22) Similarly, YoRivvov ' the first concretely narrative statement in John's Gospel (16) is that "there was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness ..." The rest of the first chapter is then dominated by an account of what this man, according to his own testimony, was and was not in the history of Jesus Christ which already commences. On the other hand, in the disputation recorded in Mk. 112733 par., Jesus, when questioned by the high-priests, scribes and elders about His authority, replied with the counter-question what they think of the baptism ofjohn, whether it is from heaven or from men, and when for good reasons they said they did not know, He would give them no answer to their question. The obvious implication is that if John's baptism is from heaven this is proof of the authority of Jesus Himself. announces that John will be "great in the sight of the Lord," and "filled with the Holy Lk. . Ghost, even from his mother's womb"; Jesus Himself says the same about John in Mt. For all the differences, the interlocking of the two men and their stories is quite unmistakable. It is so pronounced that they were often confused by their contemporaries, as may be seen plainly from Lk. 315, jn. 120E and Mk. 828 par. It is true that John cannot really take the place of Jesus. Mt. 1111 at once goes on to say of him, the greatest born of women, that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Nevertheless, to try to detach the history of Jesus Christ from that of the Baptist is to defy the clear presentation in all the Gospels.
But what was it that Jesus, with all the others, received as God's Word from, the lips ofjohn? From what we know ofjohn's preaching, its content is at a first glance highly complex. But its different elements have a common denominator. In all of them we find the announcement of a new and directly imminent act of God which will radically change the situation of Israel and the Israelite. Jesus accepts this announcement. He submits in advance to what God is about to do according to it. He accepts the implications of this event for all men, including Himself. He is prepared to stand by this event, to give it recognition, as God's act. To do this is-very generally-the demand which John, with His [056] proclamation of the Word of God which has come to him, addresses to all those who came to him in the wilderness ofjordan. That they should do so was the point of His command that they should all be baptised or washed with the baptiser EN1°° the betrayer EN1"' word of God
EN 99
EN1°2 From the time of John the Baptist
1
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 4,fe water. They were not to do this in order to prepare themselves for the imminent divine act but in order to give thereby a first concrete form of the required readiness-a form in which they were irrevocably committed, or committed themselves. Accepting this announcement, submitting in advance to what will take place according to it, making Himself ready for it, prepared already, Jesus has Himself baptised by John. The different aspects of the event which according to this preaching is directly imminent are as follows. According to Mt. 32 what is at hand and at the doors, and can take place any moment, is the gaatAda TeLv oopaveovEN1°3, the establishment on earth of the divine dominion already set up in heaven. What breaks in is also God's penetrating and divisive judgment. "The axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Mt. 310; Lk. 3 9‘) No one is to imagine that he can escape this crisis by appealing to the fact that Abraham is his father (Mt. 39; Lk. 38). just as distinctively as the kingdom, no less majestically than the threatening judgment, there also comes in and with the judgment something very different, namely, remission, the legally effective taking away and setting aside of the sins of Israel, which are not overlooked or taken lightly, but which are brought under the grace of God (Mk. 14; Lk. 77; 33) This is the point of the whole episode. The Benedictus tells us (Lk. 177) that John is to give his 68(i) StKatominnis EN104 as the preacher of people the knowledge of salvation. He came God's rectifying and hence redeeming righteousness, and we later read that the publicans and harlots believed in him (Mt. 2132). It is true that according to Lk. 311' he gave the people, the publicans and the soldiers special instruction on what this knowledge meant for them. To his contemporaries he seemed to be a distant, hard, ascetic figure (Mk. 16'; Mt. 1118) in whom they thought they were to see a grim Elijah redivivusEN' (Lk. 117; Mt. 712E) Above all, his message had ineffaceably the character of a threat of punishment. Nevertheless, these things should not blind us to the fact that his birth was intimated to Zacharias (Lk. 114 ) as a joyous event which was to be hailed with jubilation (etyaAAtacrtg), and about which many would be glad with him. In almost direct connexion with a very severe threat his preaching is expressly described in Lk. 318 as a aayy€AiZcaOat EN106. The voice of one crying in the wilderness-a phrase quoted from Is. 4o3-5 in all four Gospels-is the voice of a messenger of salvation rather than catastrophe, and it is not for nothing that Lk. 36 adds the OPC07-71;p1,01) Tot) 0EoCIEN1°7. The coming kingend of the verse: Kai 60erat 77(iiaa aape dom, the coming judgment and the coming forgiveness of sins, effected by God's rectifying righteousness, are thus the content of the Word of God which Jesus, too, received from the lips ofJohn. He submits in advance to this coming act of God. He prepared Himself, and was ready, for it. In view of it He had Himself baptised.
The readiness demanded by the future event proclaimed by John, and therewith His baptism, had, however, a special character. When the kingdom of heaven is set up as God's rule on earth, a strict subordination of all independent human sovereignties and claims to dominion is demanded. When [057] God's judgment falls, the recognition that it is just and merited, and that it must be accepted without murmuring, is unavoidable. When the good news of EN103
the Kingdom of Heaven righteousness
EN1" in the way of EN1°5 alive again EN106
EN1°7
preaching the Gospel and all flesh will see God's salvation
52
2. Baptism with Water
God's rectifying righteousness, and consequently of the remission of sins, proves true, then nothing remains for man but the astonished joy of faith. But who is ready for this subordination, this recognition, this joy of faith? Who is capable of it? For whom does it not go against the grain? If there is to be readiness for this new thing, ifjustice is to be done to it, a new man is needed, a man who is radically changed in mind and thought and aspiration and will, a man who is adequate for this new thing and open to it. Whether among the publicans and harlots or among the scribes and Pharisees, there can be no readiness for the coming act of God along the familiar lines of human thought and desire. For all of them readiness for it can only mean renewal. Renewal, however, can only mean conversion. Conversion, repentance, is what John required of those who came to him in the wilderness of Jordan and heard his message. This was the clear meaning of his baptism. METavo,ETE EN108 is in mt. 32the imperative which is sounded forth in and with the proclamation of the imminent kingdom of heaven. Its requirement is simply the turning of man to God and a life in orientation to his fellow-men. What is demanded is adjustment to the will of God operative and manifest in the coming event. This adjustment cannot be partial. It cannot be restricted simply to the inner sphere of thoughts and feelings. It must consist in a total practical alteration of attitude and direction. What does this imply? According to Lk. 3101. the people, the publicans and the soldiers asked: "What shall we do?", and the directions 1°9, far from being an abstract generality, given obviously illustrate the fact that pieravoEtv ' touches the sorest practical point in the life of every man. Materially, however, only one thing is at issue: il'i5tKatcoaav Tay 0€6v, "they justified God," they admitted He was right, they gave Him the right which is His due. According to Lk. 729f- this is to the credit of the 6xitot EN110 and publicans who accepted John's baptism, in contrast to the scribes and Pharisees who did not do this, and who thereby rejected the counsel of God which applied to them as to all the rest (71)v gov)div TO6 0E01) Elg gaVT01:;g EN111‘) Conversion EIS' 6,*0-1,1) cliactoTtthvEN112 is demanded according to Mk. 14. The fear of God, of His wrathful judgment, which according to Mt. 37f- and Lk. 3' caused many to flee to John and to seek his baptism, has nothing whatever to do with conversion. Good fruits are certainly not to be expected from it. One does not admit that God is right by fleeing from His wrath. On the contrary, one admits that He is right only by accepting His wrath because it is justifiable. The positively decisive meaning of the message of John is again to be seen, however, in the fact that ptercivota EN113, if seriously directed to the coming demonstration of God's grace, the remission of sins, must consist in the vindication of God even against self, in the confession of sins (Mk. 15; Mt. 36). This alone corresponds to the intimated act of God, the imminent forgiveness of sins. This alone is man's readiness for it. The man who will not confess his sins denies the need for their removal by God. Forgiveness does not take place as men are baptised by John. They acquire no right to forgiveness by being baptised. They only look forward to forgiveness in the accomplishment of the ficiTmap,a ttemvotag Eig lt,OEcrtv
EN108
Repent! repenting EN110 crowds EN111 the will of God for themselves EN112 for the forgiveness of sins EN113 repentance EN109
53
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian L e ariziapTtc3v ENE14 (Mk.
i4 ). They look forward to it as a free, uncontrived act of God which [058] cannot be called forth in any way. In their baptism, however, they do make confession of their sins as the act which is commensurate with and appropriate to the taking away of their sins by God. Their baptism v nart EN115 is their factual declaration that they await and need thorough cleansing. From all this one may gather what Jesus did when He, too, was baptised with water by John. Herewith (as one simple member of His people among others) He accomplished the great renewal and conversion which is demanded by the proclamation of that which is about to come. The account of His baptism in Luke (321) expressly emphasises that He prayed. He thus accepted rather than rejected the counsel of God which applied to Him too. He vindicated God rather than Himself He did not flee from God's coming judgment but recognised its necessity even for His own person. He thus confessed His sins when He let Himself be baptised by John in and with the water of the Jordan. The question of the Baptist (Mt. 314) is instructive: "I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me?" What sins could Jesus confess as His own? A story in the Gospel of the Hebrews handed down by Jerome (c. Pelag. III, 2) shows that the post-apostolic period (not unjustly in this instance) reflected on the riddle thus posed: The mother and brethren ofjesus said to Him: joannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum, eamus et baptizemur ab eo Dixit autem eis: quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod dixi, ignorantia est.f EN1 16 in fact He would have been guilty of the same ignorantia DeiEN11 7 , the same unwillingness to submit to God's judgment, as the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of, if He had persisted in the quid peccavz? EN118, if He had refused to vindicate God against His own person (as He vindicated Him again even formally in the prayer in Gethsemane), if He had not been ready to make confession of His sins, if e had been unwilling to be baptised. We shall have to return to this matter. Provisionally we cannot avoid the paradoxical statement that the siniessness of Jesus demonstrated itself, and He acted in su • reme knowledge of God, precisely in the fact that He did not refuse this confession, this baptism of John, but submitted to them, and therewith gave the glory unreservedly to God. He, the Son, was fully obedient to the Father in this. He submitted to the Father's dominion. He accepted the necessity of His judgment and its execution. He believed in the goodness of the God who remits sins.
2. When He had Himself baptised with water by John, Jesus confessed both God and men. A better way of putting it is that because He confessed God, the God whose will was soon to be done on earth as it is done in heaven, therefore He confessed men, the men who are in view in this doing of God's will. Because He is committed unreservedly to subordination to God, therefore e is committed unreservedly to solidarity with men. He who as God's Son was very different from all men, being one with the Father who sent Him, and therefore Himself God, negated this difference, this distance, this strangeness between Himself and others, even to the last remnant. He became wholly and utterly one of them, not in an act of secret or even public condescension, like a king for a change donning a beggar's rags and mingling with the crowd, but by
baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins in water John the Baptist baptises for the forgiveness of sins, so let us be baptised by him! But he said to them: 'What sin have I committed, that I should go and be baptised by him? Or is what I have said by chance ignorant?' EN117 ignorance of God EN118 'What sin have I committed?' EN114
EN1I5 EN116
54
2.
Baptism with Water
belonging to them in every way, by being no more and no less than one of them, by having no point of reference except to them. He became one of them, not in order to renounce full fellowship with them when the game was over, like the king exchanging again the beggar's rags for his kingly robes, not [059] in order to leave again the table where He had seated Himself with the publicans and sinners, and to find a better place, but in order to be one of them definitively as well as originally, unashamed to call them brethren to all eternity because He was their Brother from all eternity (Heb. 211), a veritable King in this true form of His, and at is place of honour. With the men of is people, then, He received the Word of God which came to John and to which John bore witness. With them He looked forward to the intimated new act of God which would change all things. With them He looked forward to the establishment of God's kingdom, the threatened judgment, the remission and taking away of their sins. With them He obeyed the call for conversion issued to His people. With all the rest He had Himself baptised with water. With them He thus confessed His sins. His sins? if we do not say this, we question and even deny the totality of His self-giving to men, and therewith the totality of His selfgiving to God. We say that He had Himself baptised with the rest oily improperly, contrary to the meaning of John's preaching and baptism, in a demonstration which had neither truth nor necessity for Him. We say at root that this was just a theatrical show. gut it was not a theatrical show. The seriousness with which others, frightened before God and setting their hope in Him alone, confessed their sins, is infinitely surpassed here by the divine earnestness with which this One, when faced by the sins of all others, their confusions and corruptions, their big and little acts of ungodliness, did not let these sins be theirs, did not regard, bewail or judge them from a distance wit H tacit or open accusation, did not simply characterise them as sins by His own otherness, but as the Son of His Father, elected and ordained from all eternity to be the I rother of these fatal brethren, caused them to be His own sins, confessed them as such, and therewith confessed that He was baptised in prospect of God's kingdom, judgment and forgiveness. No one who came to the Jordan was as laden and afflicted as He. No one was as needy. No one was so utterly human, because so wholly fellow-human. No one confessed his sins so sincerely, so truly as his own, without side-glances at others. He stands alone in this, He who was elected and ordained from all eternity to partake of the sin of all in His own person, to bear its shame and curse in the place of all, to be the man responsible for all, and as such, wholly theirs, to live and act and suffer. This is what Jesus began to do when He had Himself baptised by John with all the others. This was the opening of His history as the salvation history of all the others. Hence it is inappropriate to think that the accusation and threat which, according to the Synoptists, formed an unmistakable element in John's preaching, was directed only to the others and not to the Man of Galilee who came with them to the wilderness of Jordan, as though He were not affected thereby. Thus according to Mt. 37' and Lk. John speaks of a
55
[060]
§ 75.
The Foundation of the Christian I*
generation of vipers which seeks to escape but will definitely not escape the coming wrath of God. There is a bitter equation of the physical historical descendants of Abraham with those whom God can raise up from the stones of the desert. Fearful reference is made to the axe which is already laid to the root of (all) the trees and whose blows, which can lead only to the fire, will be arrested only where good fruits appear at the last moment. According to Matthew these sayings are aimed especially at the scribes and Pharisees. It is worth noting that for Luke the 05xitot EN119 or crowds, who justified God along with the publicans (729), were also the recipients of these accusations and threats. However that may be, Jesus stands with this generation of vipers (why not also and particularly with the Pharisees and Sadducees?) with this impious or all too pious mass which either way is wicked and lost. He accepts solidarity with them in their great perversion. He is one of them, and confesses them as His brethren, when He has Himself baptised. He, too, looks for the man whose fan is in his hand and who will thoroughly purge his floor, gathering the wheat into his barn but burning the chaff with unquenchable fire. This man is coming to Him. In this connexion we can and should think of the prayer in Gethsemane with its reference (Mk. 1436 par.) to the cup of wrath (Is. 5117) which is handed, not to others, not to the corrupt generation of men, but to Jesus, who desires that it should pass from Him, but who does not refuse to drink it to the last drop because this is His Father's will. He goes to the Jordan as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" ah. , ready, according to the almost unbearably harsh expression in 2 Car. 521, to be made sin by God, to be identified with it, to become a curse according to Gal. 313. Hence He does not stand at a distance from the sin of others and its curse. He bears it as His own in order to bear it away, to take its curse out of the world. He is divinely elected and ordained to do this. Faithful to this election and ordination, He enters His way when He has Himself baptised by John. He who from the very first is for all what He alone is-vere homo EN120 no less than vere Deus EN121---begins in His baptism to do for all what He alone can do for them. 3. When He had Himself baptised with water by John He took up the service which was assigned and commanded Him in and with His election and sending: the service of His one life as Messiah and Saviour which was lived wholly for God and therefore wholly for men, wholly for men because wholly for God; the service of Him who fulfils and perfects the covenant which God resolved upon from all eternity, which He set up with Israel (yet already with a view to all mankind), and which, in virtue of is great love, in spite of all man's unfaithfulness, He willed to bring to its goal in Him, the Son of God as true Son of Man. God for man and man for God is the fulfilled covenant, the accomplished reconciliation, the ministry of Jesus Christ. The two lines already described converge at this point. The subjection of Jesus to God described in His baptism did not lead Him to futile because arbitrary service of God. It led Him to total and definitive commitment to men. Nor did this commitment become a futile because arbitrary service of man. It became the act of His total subjection to God. This twofold service was the future into which Jesus entered in and with His baptism, which began already with His crowds EN120 truly man EN121 truly God EN119
56
2. Baptism with Water
baptism, by whose purpose and task His baptism was already determined as [061] such. His willingness to accept this service with all that it involved was no idle willingness. It was confirmed at once in action when He had Himself baptised. His resolve to honour God in all circumstances took on at once and had already the unequivocal form of the act in which He totally and unconditionally confessed men. Again, His resolve to accept unconditional solidarity with men and to interpose Himself for their salvation took on at once the unequivocal form of the act in which He placed Himself unconditionally at God's disposal. As this act of His the baptism of Jesus was, in a typical and decisive way for His whole history, the first and basic act of His self-proclamation as the Mediator between God and men. In it the ministry of reconciling the world to God began to take place, and to do so indeed as is own history. in it He came forward as the One in whose person and work all that John had announcedthe kingdom, judgment and forgiveness of God-was now to take place. In it, it began to do so. Thus far we have not referred to one element in the preaching of John and consequently in the meaning of his baptism. According to all the Evangelists this is obviously the most important element which in their view includes all the rest within itself. This element is that John the Baptist worked in prospect of a very concrete form of the imminent act of God which would change all things. He worked in prospect of a human person who was to come after him, from whom and from whose baptism he and his baptism were totally because qualitatively distinct, but with reference to whom he wished that he himself, his preaching, and specifically his baptism should be understood. He announced this Man, this Other, when he announced the coming kingdom, the comingjudgment, and the coming remission of sins. The imminent new act of God would consist in the history of this Man. What was he, John, in relation to Him? Certainly not the light, but the one whose business it was to bear witness to the light On. 18) . In the Benedictus (Lk. 1 76) John is described as the prophet of the Highest who is to go before, but only to go before, the coming One, the Kurios. He is regularly called the forerunner or precursor described in Is. 4O3 and Mal. 31. In keeping is the sharp contrast (Mk. i par.) which he himself draws between himself and the One who comes after him, though in so doing he associates himself with Him. This is the "mightier" than he (laxvpjo-Epos- EN12 2 ) whose shoes' latchets he is not worthy to unloose. For while he baptises men with water, that One will baptise them with the Holy Ghost (and with fire, Lk. 316). He is the One-this element is to the fore in Mt. 312; Lk. 31-7-who executes that penetrating judgment. In the Synoptists the arrangement of the different sayings of the Baptist which have been preserved shows that this explicitly Messianic proclamation is regarded as the true burden of his preaching and baptism, of his whole history. The whole account of his word and work is as such the dipp) idayycAtov 'Inca) XptaToi3 EN123 (Mk. 11 ). Then in the Fourth Gospel, in keeping with the striving of the author for concentration, abbreviation and precision, everything is focused on the one point that John simply witnesses to Him @rEpl a07015 EN124, v. 15), to Him as the true light (v. 7). John is simply the man with the outstretched finger who only points to Him (or5Tog EN125, vv. 5, 30, 34) who comes after him but who was in truth before him (vv. 15, 30). Almost unmistakably implied in John is a EN122 EN123
mightier beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ EN124 concerning him EN125 he
57
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[064
polemic against over-estimation of the person and mission of the Baptist, or of water baptism as such. John is the man who in relation to Jesus, while he is not outdated or set aside, must still decrease (DAT-To/M.0m) in order that Jesus may increase (330). He is not the Bridegroom, but only (though still) the friend of the Bridegroom who is glad to hear is voice (329). The reason (the only, but still, the reason) why he baptises with water, the purpose (the only, but still, the purpose) of his existence, which according to his answers to all those sent from Jerusalem (11' 27) was obviously felt or suspected to be in some way Messianic: rya OavEptuOn Ta? lrapalpA EN126 (v.31), is that His coming should be declared and made known to the people, and that they should adopt the right attitude to this event. HeJohn, who did not know about Him before (v. 31, 33), saw the Spirit alight and rest on Him (v. 32 f.), and thus recognised Him as the One He was, the Baptiser with the Holy Ghost (v. 33), the Son of God (v. 34), the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (vv. 30, 36) . On the basis of this recognition he bore witness to Him (v. 34). He did this by baptising with water. The impressiveness of the distinctive concentration of the Fourth Gospel on the Messianic declaration of John is enhanced by fact that, though this refers, as in the Synoptists, to Him who is still to come (v. 15), it then refers (from v. 26 onwards) to Him who, unrecognised by the questioners, is already in their midst, and finally, in vv. 29 f., 35 f., there is direct reference (hence the urgent aiTos- EN127) to the incarnate Word (v. 14), to Jesus, with whom he and his disciples are confronted a second and a third time. One cannot deny that the way is already prepared for this concentration in the synoptic presentation. For them, too, John was first and finally the prophet of Him whom he had already dramatically encountered while still in his mother's womb (Lk. id') . Hence the conversion which he demanded in view of the act of God which was impending and already in process of fulfilment did not have a character which might be described in the categories of impersonal morality or religion. It consisted simply in conversion to the Messiah Jesus, in faith in the kingdom which had drawn nigh in Him, in the judgment which was to be executed by Him, in the remission of sins which He should pronounce. Furthermore, the water baptism which John required and gave, and which was received from him, could be only the concrete and binding form of this conversion, of faith in Jesus. A saying which Ac. 194€ attributes to Paul when he was talking to the disciples ofjohn found at Ephesus is perhaps typical of the view of John's baptism which obviously came to be held quite generally-and it is interesting that the saying is traced back or attributed to Paul. It runs as follows: "John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance ( iecilmaEv Pevn-Ttapta p,€Tavoiag), saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they (not John's disciples, but the people at the Jordan) heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus." What needs to be said authoritatively to these disciples of John (v. 6 f.) by the laying on of Paul's hands is simply that in being baptised by John they did in fact accomplish the conversion to Jesus which was the point of his baptism, they did in fact meet the requirement that they should believe in Him, and therefore, baptised in His name, they already belong to His people and are Christians. That this is so is confirmed at once by the fact that their earlier disturbed confession to Paul: "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" (v. 2), is rendered pointless, since there at once comes on them that which on the Day of Pentecost had come on the disciples, who had probably been baptised by John too: "The Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Those baptised by John in the Jordan were as such truly called, invited and summoned to faith in Jesus Christ. Accepting John's baptism, they made in fact a genuine confession of Jesus Christ. EN126 so that he might be revealed to Israel 'he
EN127
58
2. Baptism with Water Our question, however, is as follows: At this focal point, in its Messianic character, expli- [063] citly as a reference to the coming and already present Jesus, what is the meaning of John's preaching and baptism for Jesus Himself, for Him as the Hearer of this preaching and decisively for Him as the Recipient of the baptism of John? It will perhaps sound rather strange-though this does not exhaust what must be said on the point-if the first answer that is unquestionably to be given in relation to this supreme and comprehensive aspect of John's preaching, which is also as such the decisive point of his baptism, is simply that Jesus, when He had Himself baptised by John, confessed Himself, sought baptism into His own name, i.e., into His mission, into the work laid upon Him, accepted the fact that He was claimed and committed to the execution of this work, and committed Himself to it. When with all the rest He listened to God's Word through John in this supreme Messianic form, this Word, as the Word of God's coming rule,judgment and forgiveness, applied to Him in a different way from all the rest to the degree that He did not merely recognise, experience and suffer it as God's act, but that even as He had to recognise, experience and suffer it, He also sought to execute it. As God's act He willed that it should be done by Him personally, by Him as the one Israelite who was elected, ordained and born and who lived to do this, as the Israelite who was also Israel's Judge and Deliverer, its Messiah, the eschatological Son of David, the goal of its whole history, in His own person the fulfilled purpose of the mission of Israel to the nations. He lived for this. This was the name which only He could and did bear. In fulfilment of the covenant made by Yahweh with Abraham and his descendants He was to prosecute victoriously the cause of God among men and the cause of men before God. He, the Man of Galilee, who came to the Jordan with thousands of others, was the One appointed to exercise this ministry in God's place and in the place of all men, the ministry of the reconciliation of the world of God. The discharge of this ministry was to be His future, the content of His life-history. This meant I-LEI-al/OM EN128 and ga,topia ,J,ETavoiag EN129 for Him. He had to sacrifice Himself for this ministry, this future. He had to put Himself wholly at the disposal of God and men. He had to subordinate Himself unconditionally, to give Himself, not to save His life but to lose it for the sake of God and men. According to Mt. 314 the Baptist opposed His readiness for this, for His percivota'13°, by seeking to restrain Him from baptism: 8toaavEv afrrofvEN131. Did the judge, Deliverer and Messiah of Israel, who was to come and who had already come, need in baptism to commit Himself unconditionally to God, to confess Himself a sinner before God in solidarity with all the people, to give Himself up to God'sjudgment, to be referred solely to His promise of the coming forgiveness of sins?'What John was not in contrast to Jesus is more clearly reflected in this objection than in the saying, recorded in all the Gospels, about his unworthiness to unloose the shoes' latchets of this One. We read later that John had doubts about Jesus (Mt. 1 2'; Lk. 7189 : "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Here the same uncertainty takes a different form: Is he not blaspheming by letting Jesus receive the parrTtaiLa auteTavo tac EN132 with all the rest? Could his water baptism be any affair of this have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me?" One is naturally Man? reminded of Peter's saying in Mt. 622: "Be it far from thee, Lord." But the horror of John, like that of Peter ( -771,1-tiketvEN133 ), was no small error. It was the greatest conceivable error. In both instances not just something but everything was at stake: all righteousness frracra EN128
repentance baptism of repentance EN130 repentance EN131 he tried to prevent him EN132 baptism of repentance EN133 'sternly rebuking' EN129
59
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[064]
81,Katoaijv7l), the doing of the holy and gracious will of God which was to be fulfilled personally by Jesus in His history. His whole readiness for the hazarding and sacrifice of His life in 134 which was necessarily demanded of Him the service of God and men, the tteTavota, ' specifically in this form, His obedience to the command which He specifically had been given to confess Himself, His election and calling, His own true name, in this particular way. It was not accidentally or arbitrarily, but from the very first with the set intention of being baptised by John, that Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan (Mt. 313). It "became" Him to fulfil all righteousness. He came to do it. Accepting this ministry and office of His, He had to be baptised. This was very much His affair. Hence He could not be stopped. He gave the command (as the One He was and in relation to what He had to be and do, He could give an imperious command at this point, and had to do so): eitIPEs apTt EN135: "Let it be done at once." And so, otecToos, EN136, in this way which befitted the fulfilment of the whole righteousness of God which now commenced, it was done. To draw together our previous deliberations in the light of what has just been said, the baptism of Jesus is quite plainly the act of obedience in which he entered upon His ministry and way of life in a manner typical and decisive for all that was to follow. The Evangelists, however, were not content merely to portray this as His act of obedience, as the concrete form of His subjection to God, as the concrete achievement of solidarity with the men of His people, or finally as His concrete confession of Himself and His election and calling. They continued and concluded the account of this event with the story of a contrapuntal and crowning event from the other side, of something which was done directly by God Himself, of a happening which by its very nature could be described only "mythologically," but which, described thus, is the more impressive in its unique bearing on what was told before. We read that when Jesus had been baptised and came up out of the water, then (immediately, as stressed by Mark and Matthew) heaven opened and Jesus (the Baptist according to jn. 132f) saw the Holy Ghost (thg TrEptaTEpaV EN137 , or more precisely in Lk. 322:v crwitaTticei) Er8 EN138) descending upon Him (and abiding upon Him according to jn. 132f). wç And then (only the Synoptists recount this) a voice was heard from heaven: "Thou art (Matthew: This is) my beloved Son, in whom (or him) I am well pleased" (in Luke some MSS follow the royal Ps. 27: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee"). The variations in the four accounts do not affect the substance of the common statement. Even the surprising 1 in Lk. 322 does not say that (in Adoptionist fashion) Jesus only CrlijILL Ep 0v yEyEvvniai (ye EN39 became God's Son at that moment. As in Ps. 27 the "this day" is the day of God which cannot be fixed chronologically, the vv aeternitatis'H° of His election which is now proclaimed. What is the common statement made here? First it is plain that reference is here made to a word and act which are immediately divine-immediately as compared with the k lua ocoi; EN141 laid on John (Lk. 32) . In addition to all that has already taken place between John and Israel, John and Jesus, heaven now takes a hand. The Gospels are none too lavish with such accounts of direct interventions from above. Parallels which suggest themselves are the appearance and address of the "angel of the Lord" to the shepherds of Bethlehem, the multitude of the heavenly host which followed the angel (Lk. 29f 13f. the story of the transfiguration (Mk. 92' par.), the voice from heaven heard in the temple after the entry ofjesus E
„limp aT €p v
repentance let it be for now EN136 thus EN137 as a dove EN138 in bodily appearance as a dove EN139 today I have begotten you EN140 now of eternity EN141 word of God EN134
EN135
6o
2. Baptism with Water into Jerusalem Gn. 1 228') , and the angel which appeared to Jesus in Gethsemane to strengthen Him (Lk. 2 243) . As in the present context, the function of all these events is to confirm and display the divinity of the mission of Jesus at certain turning-points. One might write across them all the text in jn. 1632: "I am not alone, because the Father is with me." They furnish the turning-points with more than life-size exclamation marks which call attention thereto. The event which is appended to the baptism of Jesus, and which may be called at once "supranatural," is a decisive reference of this kind. To the dvagatvavEN142 of Jesus out of the water there now corresponds the KaTagatvavEN143 of the Spirit which is visible to Him (also to the Baptist according to the Fourth Gospel) , and the sounding forth of the voice from above. That which in a decisive hour took place and was said and done on earth at [065] the Jordan is here, as in similar incidents, answered, confirmed and approved from heaven. In this inter-relation the difference between the two actions is also plain. In no sense does the text suggest that the heavenly action is to be regarded as a kind of interpretation of the earthly action, that the KaTagatvavEN144 Iisprojected into the dvagatvavEN145, the baptism of the Spirit into water baptism, the dispensing of grace and the revealing Word of the Father into the work done on earth, that along the lines of speculation only too well known elsewhere there may be ascribed to the performing of the work as such the character of the direct divine work and word of which the end of the story ofjesus' baptism speaks. This story follows the beginning, is set in juxtaposition to it, stands in relation to it, but it is related to it precisely in its character as a human work, the pure act of obedience there done by Jesus. It is true that with this act of obedience Jesus entered upon and began His ministry as the Mediator of God's grace and revelation to men. But He performed the act as the incarnate Son of God who, as Man taking the place of all other men, lived, acted and suffered for them. If we are to understand His ministry as Mediator of the covenant of grace it is thus decisively important to perceive that He did not enter upon it and begin it in an act in whose performance He ex opere operato' 46 became, and has ever since been, the Lord, Owner and Worker of God's grace and revelation. He entered upon and began this ministry in a pure act of obedience in which there could be no question of disposing of God's grace and revelation, in which, conversely, He placed Himself at the disposal of God and men, in which He was able and willing to find a place only for His divine election and calling as Man. The baptism of Jesus was the act of One who is lowly in heart (Mt. 1 1 29) . it raised no claim. In it His hands were not divinely filled. 77-poacvAtzevogEN147 (Lk. 321) He stretched them out to God as empty hands, not trusting in a power secretly native to this act, and certainly not glancing at the inner goodness and meritoriousness of the act as a reason why they should be fled, but in simple reverence before the God who ordered the act. In the act there was thus no getting, grasping or receiving of the grace and revelation of God needed for the discharge of His ministry. There was only-one is continually reminded of Gethsemane-His practical, concrete Yes to the ministry corresponding to His election and calling, and therewith also to the freedom towards Him, of the God by whom He was elected and called, and to His own utter need in relation to God. How else could He fulfil all righteousness? How could He be the true Son of Man as Son of God, how could He act for God among men and for men towards God, if He discharged His ministry, if He sought to enter upon it and to begin it, in any other way than by accepting His election as election, His calling as calling, grace ising descending descending EN145 rising EN146 by the fact of the action being performed EN147 praying EN142 r EN143 EN144
§ 75.
[066]
The Foundation of the Christian I*
and revelation for Him too, and precisely for Him, as free grace and revelation, God's sovereign gift to Him? This is how the Man chosen and called by God stands in relation to His God. He shows Himself to be the true Son of God and Son of Man by accepting water baptism in obedience to the direction of His Father, and by acting gratisEm48 therein, not having or seeking anything, not receiving anything as a possession, giving God alone the glory. This and this alone, not appropriation, not seizure of God's grace and revelation, but His own appropriation to the will of God, is what He does when He has Himself baptised by John. Thus, and thus alone, does John serve Him when he admits Him to his water baptism. Thus, and thus alone, does the water with which He is baptised serve Him-for it is in no sense an instrument of grace and revelation. This is what is made clear in the Gospel account of His baptism when it contrasts what Jesus and John do with the work and word of God, when it tells of the opening of heaven over what took place on earth. For the obvious meaning of the event from opened heaven, which is not to be equated or confused with what took place on earth, is that it is the divine response to what took place on earth, namely, the divine appreciation, acknowledgment, approval and affirmation. It is the proclamation, the making visible and audible, of the divine de iureEN1-49 to the entry into service which Jesus effected de facto 5o in His baptism. This entry into service neither rested on an illusion nor consisted in an usurpation. He who here began to act did so neither by His own whim nor in His own strength. He neither contrived nor seized anything. He did not deck out His own caprice as obedience. His subjection to God was not a refined attempt at divine dominion, nor His solidarity with men a fraternising with a view to His own ends. His entry into service was not a pretension to office. What could He seek or attain by letting Himself be summoned to conversion and baptised by the desert preacher along with thousands of others? What was there great in this? What could it establish for Himself, for Israel, even for God? The answer to this, as later to the enigma of the passion, could only be the free and sovereign answer of God Himself. God's answer was His full appreciation, acknowledgment, approval and affirmation of what Jesus undertook and began, His divine Yes to the Yes spoken by His Son who became man and who thought, willed and acted as such, His Amen to the human work and word of His Son. It would not have been His human work and word if it had not needed this divine affirmation. Even in its ful 'meat in the crucifixion it needed divine affirmation, justification and glorification by the fact that the Father raised Him from the dead. its divine affirmation, justification and glorification is at issue here at the beginning. The account thereof is the continuation and conclusion of the story of the baptism of Jesus. The Evangelists did not have to reflect or speculate whether there was a divine affirmation of the baptism of Jesus as His human work, how this might come about, how it would have to be understood. They were acquainted with it as a fixed element in the story handed down by them. They had to bear witness to it, to narrate it, as the beginning of His history. They had to do this no less definitely and concretely than they had to record the human Yes of Jesus uttered in and with His baptism in the Jordan. They could not tell it in any other way than they did-even though it might seem to come under the rubric of the "mythological" account of a "vision" and "audition." Heaven opened, the Spirit came visibly on Jesus. The Word of God which described Jesus as the Son was spoken. escribed thus with material clarity, Jesus did not submit in vain to p#ETCGVOta EN151 and water baptism. Not for nothing did He subject Himself totally to God, or accept absolute solidarity with men, or set Himself thus in the service of God and men. He did this-this was visibly EN148 freely EN149 EN15° EN151
as a matter of right as a matter of fact repentance 62
2. Baptism with Water and audibly proclaimed in His justification and vindication-as the Man on whom the Holy Ghost descended, who received Him, who was baptised with Him, who was thus equipped to baptise with the Holy Ghost, but who was also ordained and pledged to enter on and to tread that way into the depths, the way of the Servant of the Lord of Is. 53. Furthermore, it was not in vain that in all this Jesus acted with humility of heart, without claim, gTatis'152 like Job (19) chinnam, in free and absolutely generous obedience. Only He who was freely elected and called by the free God, only His beloved Son, would and could act thus, and had to do so, and was now addressed by God Himself as this Son of Man on whom God's good-pleasure rested as on the first among avOpcuTrot E-MoKicts- EN153 (Lk. 2 14 ). Finally, it was not in vain that Jesus, when He had Himself baptised by John, confessed Himself, His commission and ministry. It was not in vain that He irrevocably identified Himself therewith. He did thisand this was now made visible and audible from heaven-as He whom God had confessed from of old, as He to whom God had entrusted His work and word from of old, as He to whom He had assigned His grace and revelation from of old. What was manifested in this anticipation of His resurrection was that Jesus needed the almighty mercy of God like any [067] other man, but that, without controlling it, speculating on it, or meriting it, He was sure of it, so that He could be free to take up His task without murmuring or complaint, to enter on His ministry with complete unselfishness, to fulfil it again and again in the future, and thus to confess God, men and Himself. If, then, in describing what Jesus did when He had Himself baptised by John we use the rather strange expression, not found in the New Testament, that He had Himself baptised "into His own name," we have to add by way of explanation that in that which took place from opened heaven it was made visible and audible that His own most proper name, which He confessed when He had Himself baptised, was the name given to im by God, the name which is above every name (Phil. 29) and alongside which there is under heaven none other from which salvation may be expected (Ac. 412). This, then, is what the Evangelists had to attest and narrate, in a way which is decisive and definitive for all else, when along with the story of what Jesus Himself did at the beginning of His history they spoke of the disclosure of the mystery, not of the Baptist and His baptism, and least of all of the water which he used, but of the One who in obedience had Himself baptised with water there.
We have now asked concerning the basis of Christian baptism. In the beginning of the history of Jesus Christ to which we have just referred, in His baptism in the Jordan, its basis comes to light and may be seen-the motivation which distinguishes it from a custom, a traditional ceremony, which is accepted and cherished because of its venerable age and universal practice, its motivation as a command which is given to the Christian community and which it cannot evade without making itself guilty of caprice, of a caprice which must sooner or later avenge itself. But is that event really an imperative? Does it constitute a necessary reason why every new Christian should have himself baptised and why the Christian community should invite and admit new Christians to baptism? It might have been merely an occasion or incitement to o this, which would leave the way open for some other course. Why is no other course possible? EN152 freely EN153
men favoured
3
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life There is no direct reference to the normativeness of this event in the New Testament, not even in Matthew, which is so fruitful for its understanding at the decisive point. It is no accident that here the explicit baptismal command is preserved both at the beginning of the event and at the end. Even here, however, the relation of this command to the event is not brought to light.
It must be borne in mind that the story of this event is obviously an established part of the tradition concerning Jesus on which the community was nourished from the very first. It was also an integral element in the proclamation of the community. When, however, witness was thus given to this event as the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mk. i), the commencement of His self proclamation what practical goal could possibly be in view apart from an action which, corresponding to the beginning of Jesus Christ, is the beginning of the new life of members of His community? The material question, however, is deeper than the formal question. Could it be that the community, [068] and those who, summoned by its witness to faith in Jesus Christ, come to faith in Him and thus join its fellowship, could let themselves be neutral and passive in relation to the basic action of their Lord as thus recorded, leaving im isolated as it were in the concrete choice, decision and act which He took herein? The community certainly did not have to enter upon a new Messianic and saving office of its own. But it did have to enter on the way of those who are called to be His witnesses, and who are thus called to fellowship with Him ( Cor. 19) . As they entere I on this way, the beginning of His way could not be of mere historical interest for them. It necessarily became exemplary, normative and binding in respect of the form of the beginning of their new life. When in faith in Him the beginning of a life of fellowship with Him was at issue, it had to follow His act of obedience, His subjection to God, His solidarity with men, His acceptance of service both of God and men. It had to submit to this, to integrate itself into it. It had to perform the same act of acknowledgment and commitment as that with which He began His work as Man. It had to do this with reference to Him and to His beginning, yet resolutely for this very reason. Since His concrete act was baptism with water, it had to perform this act in the same concrete form. Could it be obedient to im, or follow im, without perceiving, affirming and accepting in practice the fact that there, in and with is baptism in the Jordan, an order was set up which embraces and applies to all His disciples, to which they must all submit, since there the community was in fact commanded to baptise, and all who seek to attach themselves both to Him and to it are commanded to have themselves baptised? This is a train of thought which is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament, perhaps because its content and conclusion were so self-evident to the New Testament community. If we are not to accept blindly the givenness of a basis of Christian baptism, if we are not to maintain blindly that this basis was and is given in the baptism ofjesus, if we are to understand this fact, then we must venture on this or a similar train of thought. If the baptism of Jesus was the establishment or institution of Christian baptism, then the baptismal command in Mt. 28'9 is 64
2.
Baptism with Water
not left hanging in the air, the naturalness with which the Church has baptised and received baptism semper ubique et ab omnibus' is not a mere phenomenon to be respected as a brute fact, and the administration of Christian baptism is necessary necessitate praecepti'155 . In other words, baptism has a valid basis established once and for all.
II We ask secondly concerning the goal of baptism. What does the Christian community have in view when, because its Lord, the origin, theme and content [069] of its fait , was first willing to be, an. was, baptised by John, it administers the same act of washing with water to those who with it confess faith in im and therewith declare that they are willing and ready to join Him, and so to join it, too, as the people of His witnesses? What does it have in view when it accepts the confession and declaration of these men, when it does that which corresponds to their desire, when it admits them to baptism? What do the candidates for baptism have in view when, confessing the faith of the community as their own, expressing their willingness and readiness to belong to Jesus Christ and thus to the people of His witnesses, they ask for baptism with water and actually have this administered to them? What is the intent and direction of the community and the baptismal candidates in this action? What are they thinking, affirming, expecting, seeking, or desiring when they perform this common act? We ask concerning the goal set for them in the action, the commanded direction, the thinking, affirming, expecting, seeking and desiring which are required of them, which are valid because they correspond to the basis of the act, in contrast to whatever they might think or desire on their own, in a freedom which is very different from the freedom given to them. We do not ask concerning an arbitrary goal. We ask concerning the goal which the community and the candidates have in view in obedience. Other goals which could arise in respect of this human act might well be interesting, fine and good in their own way. They might be worth striving for. In this context, however, they must all be dismissed as theologically worthless. If this is understood, it may also be perceived why this second question must precede the third question, which will finally consider the meaning of what is done in baptism, the character of that which, sought in obedience, is in baptism effected and established in obedience. It is surely clear that apart from a reference back to the basis of baptism a legitimate answer can be given neither to the second question nor to the third question which then follows and which is also determined by the second. For it is in the light of the basis of baptism EN154 EN155
always, everywhere and by all by necessity of command
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life that a decision is taken in respect of the question of obedience which is also crucial in the questions as to the goal and meaning of baptism. As concerns the goal of baptism, there can be no doubt but that the action of those who give and receive Christian baptism, like that of John and those whom he baptised (Jesus included), is one which looks beyond itself, beyond the capacities of the participants, the power of their common action, the pardollar character and effect of the action as a physical washing, and quite obviously also the properties and possible effects of the water used in the action. its telos is transcendent, not immanent. What John and those baptised by him in the jor • an had in view was the future which John proclaimed to be directly [070] imminent, the coming kingdom, the coming judgment, the coming grace of God in the form of the remission of sins, the "mightier" than John who was coming to baptise with the Holy Spirit. The demanded conversion, and baptism in the Jordan as its concrete form, had reference to this future. There could be no question of any presenting or materialising of this coming One either openly or secretly immanent in, or brought about by, the human action of the Baptist and those baptised by him. What was preached was not the bringing or representing of this coming One, but conversion towards Him. It was towards Him, and not as though He came or were present herewith or herein that conversion was concretely effected in the form of water baptism. The human act was performed in expectation of the act of God which was approaching the present, which was about to enter it, which was already at the door, but which was only at the door. This applies also and supremely to the candidate Jesus of Nazareth. He was, of course, identical with the coming Baptiser with the Holy Ghost. In the event from above which followed the story of His baptism, He was confirmed by God Himself as such, as the one great Recipient of the Holy Ghost, and hence as the One who as such could also be the aptiser with the Holy Ghost. In seeking and receiving water baptism, it is evident that He too, and He precisely, sought only to look and stretch forward to the coming act of God, to His own existence as the Baptiser with the Spirit (as the kingdom, judgment and grace of God in person) . It is evident that He sought only to move on to His ministry and the work of His history as the Reconciler between God and men. The whole event at the Jordan-and not last, but first, His own baptism-needed the divine acknowledgment and confirmation which were then given but which He could not anticipate in what He did, or what e had John do. How else could it have been His pure subjection to God, His pure solidarity with men, or a pure entry upon His service as Mediator between the two? Be would not have been the Son of God instituted in this office as Mediator if as true Son of Man e had not been willing to cry like all others for the hearing of His prayer, and if, in so doing, e had not learned and practised obedience (Heb. 71.
Now it would obviously be strange if Christian baptism were different from that of John, which Jesus sought and received like all the rest, and after which 66
2.
Baptism with Water
He was manifested, acknowledged and confirmed from heaven to be the Baptiser with the oly Ghost and the Son of God. It would be strange if Christian baptism were plainly better and stronger than that of Jesus in the sense that it had its goal somehow within itself, in the faith of the community, in that of the candidates, in an efficacy proper to the act because somehow imparted to it, in a sanctification of those who give baptism by their commission or of those who receive it by a cleansing, endowment or change which they undergo [071] in, with and under the baptismal water. Christian baptism, like John's, is in no sense a self-sufficient act which is in some way divinely fulfilled or self-fulfilling within itself. Its goal does not lie in its administration. As its genuine goal, its truly divine goal, this goal lies before it, beyond the participants and their action and means of action. Christian baptism, as a human, creaturely action, is directed to seek its divine, creative fulfilment in that which it cannot be or achieve or bring about or mediate of itself, but which it can only seek and intend and hasten towards. Baptism with water is a promise entrusted to and enjoined upon the community and those whom it baptises. As such it points forward, away from itself and beyond itself, to its fulfilment in the future baptism with the Holy Spirit. The baptising community and those baptised by it neither can nor should seek in the administration of baptism a present which is somehow enclosed or anticipated in this administration. It must strictly and exclusively intend, affirm and seek only that which is beyond the administration and future to it. When in an action on this side the community baptises, or the candidates are baptised, in prospect of and in orientation to that which is beyond them and their action, and future to them, then baptism corresponds to its institutions, it is done in obedience to the baptismal command, and it is well done; it is Christian baptism, not a Jewish or pagan baptism, both of which seek to be and do more than this, and for this very reason are and do less. What has been said might be regarded as a first and formal interpretation of the preposition E 15,g EN156, which in the most important passages is used by the New Testament to denote the goal of baptism. Eig EN1579 as we have seen, links iect77-TiEtv EN158 or i3c1rriccrOatEN159 with an unambiguous other. It tells us that baptism does not take place for its own sake, that it is not self-sufficient, that it is not a random occurrence, but that it takes place in relation, in orientation, and with a view to this other. Elg EN160 also distinguishes baptism from this other, and vice versa. When baptism takes place as a movement towards this other, the independence and majesty of the other are no less apparent than its own limitation as a movement towards it. There is one verse (Mk. 19) in which ga,77-7 - tEaOat EN161 ficilTi-tc7077 as- 7-61, seems to denote a movement into the other: Tricrofig Top&ivnv 757T6 Twavvov EN162. But it is hardly advisable to take this verse as a key to the into Into baptising EN159 being baptised EN156
EN157 EN158
EN160 into EN161
being baptised 'into' esus was baptised 'into the Jordan by John
EN162 J
67
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life general use of Els- EN163 in connexion with baptism, for what we have in it is obviously a description of the technique of baptism (dipping in the Jordan) rather than the intention, which is our present concern. Where the reference is to the intention, very strained exegesis is needed to make the texts speak of baptism into another. Where the goal and purpose of baptism are at issue, baptism is characterised by the Eig as a movement which is orientated towards another, but which does not enter into this other, or take possession of it, or allow it to take possession, or surrender to it, just as John, the man sent from God, had to point, but could only point, to the Lamb of God. The action of the baptising community and the candidates is to be seen and understood in this orientation as Eig TtEN164, or Els- Tiva EN165 , in this its teleological character.
[072]
But what is this goal of baptism, this other, this future thing, envisaged and intended in it? We may first say very generally that the goal of baptism is God's act of reconciliation in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit, God's act of judgment and grace, of salvation and revelation. The goal of baptism is that which in the first section we have designated and described as the divine change which founds the Christian life from above, and consequently as baptism with the Holy Spirit. The human decision which now occupies us, and Christian baptism as its first and exemplary form, encounters this, responds to it, relates itself to it-this is the foundation of the Christian life from below. Baptism is administered in the Christian community with a view to this divine act, in orientation to it, just as it is with reference to it that the community believes, loves, hopes and comprehensively serves the world in its work of witness. I aptism is for those who newly join the community the first concrete step of faith, love, hope and service. It is the first step by which they publicly and bindingly confess and commit themselves to their recognised and acknowledged Lord as Mediator of the covenant, and also to the mutual fellowship of Christians. It is a step which they take in face of the divine act which is before them and not just the community, in orientation to this act, towards it. It is at once apparent that one can hardly speak of a baptism into this act of God, just as it makes little sense to try to maintain that as Christians we have to believe, love, hope and serve into the divine act. The inner contradiction in this concept is most plainly seen when one realises that service is the characteristic feature of the Christian life, that entry into service is the essence of the human decision which follows the divine change, and when one then tries to conceive of this entry into service as an entry into the divine change, or of the human action as action in the place and role of the Lord, whereas service can surely consist only in orientating and adapting one's human action to that of God, of the Lord. What God does in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit is exclusively His action. Similarly, what man can and should do in face of the divine action is wholly his own human action. tet us be grateful that there is a necessary and firm connexion between God's action and ours, between ours and His! Let us be grateinto into something EN165 into someone EN163
EN164
68
2.
Baptism with Water
ful that we are liberated and summoned by the divine change to make the corresponding and ensuing human decision! Let us do this in the gratitude of obedience, not with the arrogant opinion that we have to effect the divine change along with God, that in, with an. under our work-the work of our faith, love and hope, the work of our service-we have to do the work of God Himself! Our human work has to acknowledge the work of God, to bear witness to it, to confess it, to respond to it, to honour, praise and magnify it. This is befitting for us. It is enough that we are allowed to do it. In so far as this permission is also a given command, we shall have our hands full trying to do it, to [073] do justice to this task. But we disregard it at once, and our praise of God becomes at once an act of the most dangerous presumption, in which we shall inevitably be rejected, if we try to do more at this point, if with the movement of our Christian life we invade the divine prerogative, if we seat ourselves on a. chair or stool in proximity to God's throne, if from this seat we ourselves try to exercise judgment and grace or to accomplish or effect salvation and revelation. That we are appointed to reign with Jesus Christ is certainly held out before us in 2 Tim. 212. But this has nothing whatever to do with any such attempt on man's part to invade and usurp the divine action. The rule ofjesus Christ Himself is the rule of the Man who as God's Son willed to be and was the Servant of God and of all men. Thus, and thus alone, could He be the Lord at the right hand of God the Father. All this applies also and primarily to our Christian baptism (in a way which is exemplary for the whole of the Christian life in so far as this is also a human work which derives from and hastens towards the work of God) . The dignity, seriousness, power and glory of this baptism is that it stands or falls with the fact that, like the baptising of John and the baptism of Jesus Himself, it takes place with a view to God's word and work as a pure and sincerely humble act of obedience which looks and moves forward to the divine act of salvation and revelation, doing so in modest resolution and with resolute modesty, prepared from the very outset to renounce any attempt to represent-or misrepresent-itself as divine speech or action. There is unity of human speech and action with the divine in the divine act of salvation and revelation, i.e., in Jesus Christ as very Son of God and Son of Man. In His baptism, however, He acted and spoke as Man, and by this very fact He honoured His mission as God's Son. All the less, then, can one allow to Christianity a baptism which seeks its honour and power elsewhere than in self-reference and self-orientation to God's speech and action. The more certainly Christianity will deceive both itself and the world if it pretends that its baptism accomplishes something which is more and better than a human answer, and at the same time a human question, in face of God's grace and revelation. We shall now sum up and try to be more precise. Christian baptism is the human work of basic confession in which the Christian community finds itself associated with those who are newly joining it, and they with it. It is the confession of their faith. Without the faith of the Christian community and of those 69
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life who join it there would be no Christian baptism. More accurately, it is the confession of the obedience of their faith, the active confession which consists as such in a washing of the candidates with water. It is not, of course, their own faith which the community and the candidates confess in baptism. Even less do they confess the efficacy of their obedience of faith, and consequently of their act of confession. They confess the divine act of grace and revelation which is the origin, theme and content of their faith. Christian baptism is confession of this. The baptising community and the candidates who are baptised all have their starting-point in the proclamation of this act. In the administration of baptism they look and move forward to its demonstration in their lives. What is in view is the "washing" of the candidates which takes place in the divine act of grace and revelation and in this alone, and which, believed and recognised as such, seeks to become an event in their own lives. Neither the faith of the community and candidates nor their washing with water can anticipate or accomplish this event. The common act of confession can only refer to this event. Like all Christian confession, it can only bear witness to it as God's work. In this work of God on man the human work of water baptism has its basis, its goal, and therewith also its limit. Ventured and done with, a view to this work, of God, it has the promise an s , entrusted to and enjoined upon the community and its candidates, it is itself the promise which they are permitted and commanded to grasp and apply. Both are to be done in expectation and confidence that the promise will be fulfilled, that God's work will infallibly demonstrate its power in their lives, since it is the promise which He has entrusted to and enjoined upon them, and they grasp and apply it in obedience to Him Administered in this expectation and confidence, baptism is Christian baptism, and is well done as such. In this whole delimitation we do not overlook the fact that after Pentecost, in the sphere of the community of Jesus Christ which was visibly constituted then, the relation of Christian baptism to its goal is not exactly the same as it was before or as depicted in the baptism ofjohn. The event intimated by John, with a view to which he demanded conversion and baptism, had taken place in the meantime. Apparently then-though this will need further discussion-it had ceased to be a purely future event which is still awaited in time. In the meantime the One whom John spoke of as the coming One had in fact come. The kingdom, judgment and remission of sins could no longer be anonymous factors for those to whom He disclosed Himself in His coming and who saw Him therein. In fulness and as an act they now stood before their eyes in the whole enacted history of Jesus Christ up to its consummation on the cross of Golgotha, and also in His resurrection in which this history was made manifest to them. The Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God, became flesh, tabernacled among them, and was revealed to them in His glory On. . As those who had beheld His glory, they believed in Him. He, the Baptiser with the Holy Ghost, then showed Himself to be the mightier than John, by acting on them as such, by appointing, empowering and equipping 70
. Baptism with Water them as His witnesses to the world, as eye- and ear-witnesses of His life and words and acts, His passion, death and resurrection. This took place at Pentecost. They had now only to think of His name, "Jesus," or "Jesus the Christ," or "Jesus the Lord," to see God's eternal will for the world and themselves, to see the whole fulfilled righteousness of God. They had only to utter His name to say therewith, in development and elucidation of what became event and word under this name, all that which was disclosed to them as God's act of grace and revelation, all that which, claiming their ministry of witness, sought to be disclosed to the people of Israel and all peoples, and to be known by every man. It was inevitable that their proclamation of this divine act, and with it their baptising in the sign of this name, should acquire a new aspect and weight, a new tone and emphasis, which it has not lost to the present day: new and different in comparison with the preaching and baptism of John, which was in fact directed to the same divine act, the coming Mightier than John, but which had an exclusively future reference. The name "Jesus" as the basis and goal of the apostolic message and apostolic baptism shows that the divine act had taken place and the Mightier had come. It was inevitable that in view of this they should thus take on a new character of their own. It should be noted that though John's Gospel (which for all its critical estimation of the difference between the Baptist and Jesus links the two more closely than the Synoptics) causes John with the emphatic otn-og EN166 to refer directly to the One who encounters him directly, and has him say in 329 that his joy as the friend of the Bridegroom is fulfilled when he hears the voice of the Bridegroom, it never has him pronounce the name "Jesus." That he did pronounce it is not the meaning of what Paul says to the disciples of John in Ephesus according to Ac. 19. With his demand for repentance John did in fact, implicitly, summon the people to faith in Jesus, who was to come after him. His baptism was in fact baptism in the name of Jesus. But when Paul says this, he can hardly mean that John did so expressly. Proclamation of the name of Jesus in which all salvation is enclosed, and baptism in His name, are thus the distinguishing mark of the apostolic preaching and baptism which began on the Day of Pentecost. Herewith both acquired a character markedly different from that ofjohn's preaching and baptism.
In the light of this decisive point several important differences are to be seen between Christian baptism (in the narrower sense) and the baptism of John. These may be mentioned in detail and briefly described. (1) After the completion of the history of Jesus Christ, after its manifestation on Easter Day, and from the Day of Pentecost, Christian baptism, in distinction from that of John, has taken place with a view to-the relation can be described only in con paratives-a more urgent and threatening, but also a 0761 more promising imminence of the divine seizure of power, the kingdom of God among men. The demand for attention and recognition is now more serious, more sharp, more imperious, but also more comforting, more helpful, for in execution of the eternal counsel of God the divine kingdom has now EN166 ,he,
7
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life become an element (for the time being, it would seem, only one element) in temporal world-occurrence. The perfect i;yytKEv PaatAda '167 on the lips of Jesus (Mk. 115) says exactly the same thing as it did previously on the lips of John (Mt. 32), but it says it quite differently The kingdom is no longer just at the doors; it has broken in and crossed the threshold in the power of the words and acts of Jesus and then (confirmed and manifested in His resurrection) in His sacrifice and victory at the cross. Strictly speaking, then, it is only now that the ei;yytKev EN168 means that the kingdom, having become a factor in world-history, is brought right home to the human race like a house built in front of one's window. Hence the tension between it and the men who see and experience its proximity has been increased rather than diminished. It has drawn near to them, not now in the word laid upon the next to the last prophet, but as God's work in the person and history of the last Prophet (who is also the first, the one Prophet) . The tension has been increased, then, because the kingdom is now present in a total perfection which can never be surpassed, but the manifestation of its presence only began on Easter Day, and calls and presses for continuation and completion. It is remarkable that the prayer which Jesus taught His disciples: ,IA0acrco flaatAda Gov EN169 (Mt. 610; Lk. i 12), does not have its true place in the Advent sphere of John but in the kingdom of Jesus Christ. As the whole of the Christian life is a form of this petition, so is Christian baptism at the commencement of this life. The compelling necessity of its orientation to God's act of grace and revelation increased rather than diminished when this act took place, when God's kingdom came so close. Christian baptism is thus given a seriousness and power which it could not have in its original form as John's baptism. (2) After the occurrence, completion and manifestation of the history of Jesus Christ, after the Day of Pentecost, Christian baptism, in distinction from that of John, derives from the outpouring and impartation of the Holy Spirit which took place for the first time at Pentecost, but which has taken place repeatedly since. The Baptiser with the Holy Spirit, to whose coming John pointed, had meantime come on the scene and begun to do what John had designated and described as His future action, namely, the baptism of men with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Fruits of the Spirit had meantime grown and come to light in the acts and conduct of those who had received this baptism. In its way this is no less a new thing as a sign of the kingdom of God which has drawn near and is indeed in the midst of men. As the Holy Ghost descended on them, men were called to the ministry of witness to Jesus Christ and equipped and instructed for this ministry, so that with new tongues they could speak to every man in his own language of the mighty acts of God (Ac. 23f). They found that the love of God was shed abroad in their hearts (Rom. 55) . They received the witness of the [077] Spirit that they were the children of God (Rom. 816) . There were no such men in the sphere of John and his water baptism. The New Testament often speaks of the disciples of John, but whatever they were or did it was certainly not that for which the apostles were empowered by their endowment with the Holy Spirit, so that the twelve in Ephesus, who had not even heard whether there were a Holy Spirit (Ac. 192), were perhaps no exception but typical of their whole circle. According to the notable editorial saying in jn. 739, of course, the whole history EN167
'the Kingdom has come near' 'has come near' EN169 'thy Kingdom come' EN168
2. Baptism with Water of Jesus Himself prior to its manifestation, and hence prior to Easter, took place in the sphere of John and was thus itself Advent history in this respect: OZ57TCO yap v7Tv€13a, OTt
Yncroi3g of)86Tco aoeacrOnEN170 What there was in the sphere of John could only be in principle the expectation that the existence of men like the apostles might become possible and actual, not by a better water baptism (John never spoke of such), but as the giving, dispensing, outpouring and imparting of the Spirit through the coming One to whom men were to turn at the Jordan when they had themselves baptised with water. Christian baptism presupposes His coming and work, but also His giving, dispensing, outpouring and imparting of the Spirit, and therewith the existence of such men. It knows of Him, and it thus knows of the commencement of this work of His among men and on men. On this basis it looks to Him who has already done this, and it does so in the expectation that He will do it again in the future to and in those who are baptised. its expectation of His act is the more tense and lively because it knows Him already as the One who can and will do this, but also as its Lord whose giving it does not control, whose action it constantly needs, for whose giving and gift it must continually pray, and can only pray. Hence Christian baptism, as it is the form of the petition for the coming of the kingdom, is far from being itself in any sense the baptism of the Spirit. It is a form of the petition for this-that the outpouring of the Spirit might take place again, and especially on these newcomers to faith. The relation of Christian baptism to the baptism of the Spirit is no different from its relation to the imminent kingdom of God. Precisely because it derives from the event of a baptism with the Holy Spirit, as baptism with water it cries more urgently, earnestly and intensively for this event than does John's baptism. What were the three thousand who according to Ac. 241 had themselves baptised on the Day of Pentecost when they had been added by the Holy Spirit, and what were all the thousands who followed them, when measured by the promise of Joel 2 28: "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh," with which Peter (Ac. 217) began his Pentecost sermon? And what was the appagdwENrn, the instalment (2 Cor. 122, 55; Eph. 1 13f.), the a7TapK4 EN172, the first-fruits (Rom. 823), of the Spirit, when measured by the fulness promised to Christians in and with this beginning? Venit Creator SpiritusEN'73-but Veni Creator Spiritus' is the cry of need uttered by the very ones who know and have the Spirit of Christ in this beginning of His work. They and they alone know what they want and do when they pray for the Holy Spirit as hungry children ask their father for a fish or an egg (Lk. i 111f). It is instructive enough that Ac. (815f-, 1929 tells both of those who have not received the Holy Spirit even though baptised in the name of Jesus and also ,046f., 1825f.) of those who have received Him though they are not yet baptised, so that they [078] can now be truly baptised, i.e., set in a position to ask for Him. The same baptism, which obviously does not guarantee reception of the Holy Spirit but can only be a prayer for Him, cannot be in any sense dispensable for those who have received Him, since they have to for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified installment, guarantee EN172 first fruits EN173 Come,Spirit Creator EN174 Come , Spirit Creator EN17° EN171
73
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* receive Him again, and hence to pray for Him. All this corresponds to the relation of baptism to the imminent kingdom of God as a petition for its coming. One might recall in this connexion the remarkable variant which Codex D offers in the second petition of the Lord's Prayer according to the Lucan text (112). The prayer for the coming of the kingdom of God is here replaced by a prayer for the descent of the Spirit: iAi9E?-rco TO arov ITVEVLa gov jirk' ?)11,6fig icat KaaptaciTco 7)11,ecc EN175. It may be deduced from this that there were ancient and perhaps primitive Christian circles which regarded the PaatAELEN176 and the TrvEi3p,a army EN177 as alternatives to denote one and the same divine human reality which is present and yet also future, so that prayer must be made for it. One can hardly avoid recognising the close connexion between the two concepts in view of the analogy of the relation of the PacrtAELEN178 and the 7711Elipici ov EN179 to baptism.
ar
(3) After Pentecost Christian baptism, in distinction from that of John, carries a heightened emphasis on God's judgment inasmuch as it now takes place in retrospect of the judge who had come and the judgment which He had executed. The future wrath of God (Mt. 37) had become present. The man with the fan in his hand (Mt. 312) had done his work. The axe laid to the root of the trees (Mt. 3 10 ) had cut them down. The hour ofjudgment on Israel and the world had struck. This had all taken place, of course, in a way far different from any that those who were called to repentance and baptised with water at the Jordan, however serious they might have been, could ever have imagined. He who had come as judge allowed Himself to be judged and executed as the One condemned and rejected in place of all the rest. He allowed that which all the rest had merited to be visited on Himself. In so doing, however, he did not cease to be the judge; - e became the judge in truth. Nor did baptism in is name cease to be the baptism of the most disturbed and radical conversion; it became this with a precision it could not yet have in its form as John's baptism. "Repent" is still the basic answer to the question: "What shall we do?" at the conclusion of eter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2'). Was not man's sin uncovered and brought to light in its whole horror and shame only when, according to God's just judgment, no less was needed than the sacrifice of His own Son to free men from it? How they were unmasked-this this is particularly emphasised in Acts-by the fact that God, to free men from their sins, permitted and willed that they should be the murderers of their Judge and therewith the executioners of the judgment which He allowed to fall on Him in their place! How could further sin be possible and actual when this had happened, when their sin had thus been estroyed and done away in His death, when they had all died to sin in His death? This is the judgment with [079] which apostolic preaching confronted the Jews first, then the Hellenes and the whole world, with a threat very different from that contained in John's preaching. This is the judgment in view of which and with reference to which the let your Holy Spirit come, and cleanse us Kingdom EN177 Holy Spirit EN178 Kingdom EN179 Holy Spirit EN175
EN176
74
2. Baptism with Water
apostles summoned to conversion and to its concrete fulfilment in baptism. More strictly than the baptism in the Jordan, with the strictness with which only one was baptised there, baptism can now mean subjection and unconditional surrender to this judgment, the judgment of the Lamb of God which took away the sin of the world, but which in so doing took away every excuse, so that in face of it there is no possibility whatever of declaring any liberty for further sin, or compulsion thereto. Before His judgment seat we must all be made manifest (2 Cor. 510). The baptising community and those baptised by it stand together before this seat. One may thus understand why it is that at the beginning of Peter's Pentecost sermon (Ac. 219€) the prophecy ofjoel which follows the intimation of the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh is not only not omitted but expressly quoted, namely, that signs of "blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke" will come from heaven to earth, and "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come." One may also understand the bitter accusation which follows in 223: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." One may also understand Mt. 2531', where the goats are so inexorably separated from the sheep and set on the left hand. One may understand, too, the apparently not very evangelical conclusion to the New Testament in the Book of Revelation with its trumpets which proclaim only evil, with its almost inexhaustible vials of wrath, with its distinctions (right up to the final pages) between those who are within and those who are without. Yes indeed: Dies irae, dies ilia, solvet saecla in favilla! EN180 and: quid sum miser tunc dicturus? EN181 One thing alone is possible: "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered" (Joel 2 32; Ac. 221) This calling on the name of the Lord-in face of the ineluctable threat of judgment and consequently e profundis'2-is at issue in Christian baptism. One may thus understand the urgency with which Paul in Rom. 61-11 warns against the impossible idea that Christians, to give more scope for grace, might want to live on in sin. The death of Christ has come between them and sin like a flaming sword. In it our old man has been crucified (v. 6), and we have been baptised into the death which He suffered for us. Having called on His name, we have been set aside as those who could once sin, and wished to do so. We have been solemnly and definitively buried (v. 4) . We have no more future as sinners. Those who are baptised regard themselves-not in virtue of their baptism, but in virtue of the death of Christ into which they are baptised-as men who are dead for sin, who are buried corpses for it (v. ) In having themselves baptised they acknowledged that to wish to sin and to commit sin is a possibility which is closed to them. What then-this is the special question which runs disturbingly through the whole epistolary part of the New Testament-what then if we do sin again in spite of this? What then if we do choose and actualise that excluded possibility? Is it not obvious that baptism in the name of Jesus is orientation to God's judgment with a severity which was, of course, intimated, but could only be intimated, in the baptism of John? This aspect in particular is obviously given emphasis by the epexegetical addition in Mt. 311 (cf. Lk. 316 ) in which the baptism with the Holy Ghost which John expected from the rrvpi). The Old Testament "mightier than he" is explained to be a baptism with fire already holds out the prospect of a coming of God with fire (Is. 6615; cf. 44) . This coming, The day of wrath, that day, will reduce the generations to ashes! How then am I to speak, in my wretched state? EN182 from the depths
EN180
EN181
75
[080]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life and the fiery baptism which John proclaimed to be imminent, is to be construed as the fulfilment of the definitive, eschatological judgment of God. On the one side it is the crisis in which God, who is absolutely different from man and absolutely new in relation to him, judges and condemns man, not as the reality which is distinct from Himself, but as the man who holds aloof from Him, who does not identify himself with Him, who does not correspond to Him, who is disobedient to Him. On the other side it is the rising of the "sun of righteousness" in whose radiant light the only man there is or can be is the man who satisfies it, who is obedient to God in all things and from the heart This divine judgment which John expected did not tarry. it came in the person of Him who according to John was to baptise with the Spirit, of Him who came to kindle a fire on the earth (Lk. i2). As He offered Himself and was obedient to the death on the cross, as He accepted the baptism of His death (Lk. 125°) , as He thus bore in the place of men the judgment which pertained to them and threatened them, He did not rule out the actual kindling of that fire on the earth. Indeed, it was the goal of His whole history. "Yahweh thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God" (Deut. 424), is a statement which is found not only in the Old Testament but also in the New: "For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 1229). Just because God establishes and reveals Himself once and for all in the person and work of Jesus Christ as 0€6sEN183, just because He fulfils in Him His covenant with men, and fulfils it in such a way that only the existence of a man who is obedient to Him is meaningful and possible, He also reveals Himself herewith as the Judge, and now for the first time His judgment on the sin that is plainly robbed of any possible basis, acquires a truly consuming and painful severity. Hence there can be no Pentecost, no baptism with the Holy Ghost, unless one receives Him j)crEi ,n.vp6s, EN184 (Ace ___ 3) ]H ence after Pentecost there can be no baptism with water unless one is now more urgently and seriously conscious of the jealous No of God than in the baptism of John. (4) Not in contradiction but in marked contrast thereto we must add that after Pentecost Christian baptism, in distinction from that of John, is orientated predominantly, a parte potion 85, and with much stronger emphasis to the remission of sins. It is thus decisively and predominantly an affirmation of God's act as an act of salvation, of His revelation as a revelation of salvation, as Gospel, glad tidings. The preaching of John, inasmuch as it heralded the corning Deliverer of Israel, was incontestably good news too. The goal of his baptism was the joyfully awaited blessing of God. No less incontestably, however, this aspect is overshadowed by expectation of the coming judgment of God. It was mainly in view of this, in confession of His willingness to submit to it, that Jesus had Himself baptised by John in the Jordan. But now He had submitted to it. In the very fact that He discharged therewith His judicial office, letting God's judgment fail on Himself in place of all others, the remission of sins was accomplished and came to pass. The promise became fulfilment. As manifested in the resurrection, it came to pass in Him. Every sinful man could now [081] see, grasp and receive it. The serious, perfect pardon of the whole sinful people, the whole guilty world, was now legally valid an. effective. Hence the grace of God could no longer be overshadowed by is judgment. is jud our God as of fire EN185 for the most part EN183
EN184
76
2. Baptism with Water
ment, though hard and severe, though still depicted as such, was now inevitably illumined by His grace. His wrath could no longer be regarded as the limitation but only as the unavoidable way, the consuming fire of His love. His Yes could no longer be enclosed in His No; His No could only be shown to be enclosed in His Yes. Conversion, if it was to be serious conversion to the Judge judged for us, could consist only in faith, in sure and joyous confidence in Him and His work. It will be appreciated that this is only a shift of accent or emphasis; nevertheless, it had to take place. Christian baptism looks first to God's love and election, and only in the light of this (as its reverse side) to His hate and rejection. It looks first to the victory of Jesus Christ manifested in His resurrection, and only then and on this basis to the judgment which is passed on us men in this victory ("I, I and my sins ") It looks first to the salvation secured for us in His death, and only then and thence to the impossibility of continuing in sin, which is sealed in is death. Inasmuch as it does this, it can and will be, for all its binding seriousness, for all its renunciation of the devil and all his works, an action which first and last and properly is cheerful and peaceful. It cannot be burdened or clouded by any anxiety as to the consequences of the failure which is only too likely even in the case of the Christian, or any concern to try to make amends oneself for that which has long since been taken care of in Jesus Christ. Credo remissionem peccatorum EN186. Did not even John (Mt. 310) reckon with the possibility that there would be some good and fruitful trees and that the man with the fan (v. 12) would find wheat for the barn as well as chaff for the fire? Did not he already preach good news (Lk. 318) ? The main impression left, of course, is that of threatening. This is what is later changed. Note should be taken of the summaries of the preaching of John in Mt. 32 and that of Jesus in Mk. 115. It is no accident that, though similar at a first glance, these are formulated very differently. The aptist opens i, EN187 and then goes on to give as a reason the fact that the kingwith the call to iETavo€1v dom of God is at hand. The imperative predominates, and the indicative underlines it. The preaching of Jesus begins with the comprehensive statement: "The time is fulfilled." There then follows a saying which is linked to the first by a Kai EN188, and which is obviously meant to define its content: "The kingdom of God is at hand." Only then, as the practical implication of the situation described in that double sentence, do we find the summons: Repent ye, and (again linked by an epexegetical KatEN189) believe the gospel." Here the indicative is predominant, and it defines the imperative: Believe in the good news of the imminent kingdom, this faith being the required repentance. When "repentance for the remission of sins," which is ascribed to John in Mk. 14, occurs again in the sphere of the Christian community at Lk. 2447 (on the lips of Jesus Himself) and Ac. 531, the content is still the same even though the time has been fulfilled, the hour has struck, repentance consists in faith and faith is proclaimed as the right action demanded of all. For after all repentance is still repentance, and forgiveness forgiveness. Nevertheless, the phrase has now acquired a different ring or flavour. The man who believes in the divinely appointed Judge of the quick and the dead receives remission of sins, and he receives it, not through the seriousness or force of his I believe in the forgiveness of sins repent EN188 'and' EN189 'and' EN186 EN187
77
[082]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Lye repentance or faith, and naturally not through any power in his baptism, but &a Tot) oveituaTos- airroli "19°, through Him in whom he believes and is baptised (Ac. 1o42f), Faith is the active acknowledgment and affirmation of this name and consequently of the remission of sins which according to the Gospel has been effected in the coming of God's kingdom and vali • ly pronounced for all. Interpreted by faith, repentance can no longer be what it could be alone. It can no longer be understood as the condition which man must fulfil to attain to forgiveness of sins, as penitence in the later gloomy and legalistic sense of penance. Repentance as faith in the good news of the kingdom which has come is not a burden. As is now clear, it is the first natural breath in the air of the forgiveness which has already come to pass and which is already present to men. Repentance itself can now be called a gift of God (Ac. 531, 1118) . it should be noted in this connexion that though we still find sad and accusing recollection of the crucifixion in the sermons of Acts, this is less prominent than recollection of the resurrection and the associated proclamation of the salvation proffered to all men precisely in the crucifixion. In the same connexion it should also be noted that according to Mk. 218 the disciples of John, like the Pharisees, fasted often, and they were bothered by the question why the disciples of Jesus did not fast. The well-known reply is that wedding guests cannot fast so long as the bridegroom is with them (v. 19) . In other words, the wedding is in full swing, the Bridegroom is among His guests-this is the great change as compared with the sphere of the Baptist, and this change has come about with the intervening history of Jesus Christ. The dawn has given way to full morning, and the joy, the initial joy of the friend of the Bridegroom when he heard His voice, has now been fulfilled (In. 329). This alters, not the goal, but the character of the georirtatta pieravotag Els il0Eatv 1-(Z1) _ 4 ). We read of the Ethiopian eunuch who was baptised by Philip (Ac. apictoTtth, v EN191 839) something which we do not read of those baptised by John in the Jordan: "He went on his way rejoicing." We also read of the Philippian gaoler who was baptised by Paul and Silas (Ac. 1634): "He set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." (5) After Pentecost Christian baptism, in distinction from that of John, has obviously a gathering and uniting character. it proclaims, though it does not establish, fellowship. One could hardly deny that John's baptism, too, was concerned with the separating and assembling of the people of those who look and move forwards toward the kingdorn,judgment, remission, and King of the coming last time. Those baptised in the Jordan obviously formed, among the hosts of those who were not, what might be described in fact as the new and final prophetic remnant of Israel which was to make ready for the dawn of the last time. They did so, however, only in fact. To be sure, a group attached itself to the Baptist. The so-called disciples of John persisted for some demo es after his death and obviously found it hard to deviate from the lines laid down in their master's preaching, and thus to perceive and achieve their self-evident membership of the community of the "mightier than he" who had come after [083] him. Nevertheless, even if one is not to assume that the crowds who came back from the Jordan did not simply disperse, there is no evidence that they stayed together. When the last time dawned, however, all this was changed, and it was changed precisely in relation to baptism. Even as the concrete form of the EN19° EN191
through his name baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins
78
2.
Baptism with Water
repentance or conversion of faith, baptism is always a work of the individual who is summoned to knowledge and confession of Jesus Christ. it is not a collective act but a personal one. Now for the first time and quite unequivocally, as distinct from the initiatory rites of contemporary Judaism and paganism, baptism is not an initiation into the mysteries and redemptive techniques of a new religious society. it is a public declaration on the part of the baptised that they stand in a personal relation to the Lord of the Christian community as the only source and cause of all salvation. Baptism is now their public acknowledgment of and commitment to this personal relation to Him, in short, their baptism in His name. Those who in baptism called very personally on His name, the name of the Head of the community, recognised and confessed herewith that they were eo ipsoEN192 members of the body which is called in and with him, and as such, in this adherence to the community, they for their part became recognisable, and were recognised and pledged by those who baptised them, as members of the clearly manifested people of God of the fulfilled time, as brothers and sisters "in the Lord." From their own standpoint and from that of the community, their baptism was the confirmation of the fact that they had been added by God to Jesus Christ, and therewith to His people too (Acts 241 47) . As the proclamation of their own growth it was necessarily also a proclamation of the growth of this people, of the fellowship of witnesses of Jesus Christ. The preaching and baptism of John might be taken individualistically (though only per nefasEN'93), but that of Christianity after Easter and Pentecost certainly cannot be. As the Baptist is a lonely figure in his baptism, so, too, the Jesus whom he baptised seems to be. But now all that is changed. Jesus is now manifest as the Lord of His community. His body of disciples is manifest herewith. They now do with their preaching and teaching what John alone once did. Those who seek baptism have to do with them. it should be noted that when IV. 242f- tells us that 3,000 were baptised at Pentecost we then go on to read at once that the whole community as thus expanded "continued steadfastly (77-pocKapirEpEiv) in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers," and there then follows the famous description of what has subsequently come to be called primitive Christian communism-all practised "with gladness and singleness of heart" (v. 46). It should also be noted that the baptism of Simon Magus (Ac. 8's) and Cornelius (1048) and Lydia (1615) and the Philippian gaoler 634) and Paul himself in Damascus (919) is succeeded at once by house- and table-fellowship between the baptised and the one who administers it. The only exception seems to be the Ethiopian eunuch, who returned to his own country (839). The man who is baptised, being received by the community, unhesitatingly enters it. Thus Paul 194-because in His name, in His says expressly in i Cor. 1 2'3: Els- giv ath` p,a i ii3arrTio-OrripiEv ' death, or quite simply in Him as the one all-embracing goal of the event, therefore in one [084] body, which according to 1 Cor. 227 and Col. 13 is His community, the people of His witnesses. thereby mistakenly EN194 we were baptised into one body EN192
EN193
79
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Lift (6) After Pentecost Christian baptism, in distinction from John's, is baptism in the name of Him who is the Messiah of Israel and the Soter'195 of the world. it is thus baptism in one body which is the Church of both Jews and Gentiles. The world, the Gentiles, may be seen from afar, but only from afar, in John's baptism. At its supreme point, but there alone, this baptism transcends the covenant which, though for all nations, was made exclusively with Abraham and his descendants. This baptism is the turning-point, but only the turningpoint, to the disclosure ad extra at which the whole history of Israel had aimed in secret. In the meantime, however, this slightly opened barrier had been pushed wide open. Strangely enough, even as the expected Messiah of Israel appeared and was delivered up by Israel itself to the Gentiles to be put to death, and even as the Gentiles, dramatically enough as executors of the sentence of rejection passed by the spiritual leaders and the people of jerusale incurred the guilt of practical murder in respect of Him, "strangers and foreigners" became "fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Eph. 2'9), "fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers" of the promise (Eph. 36)-the promise which according to the counsel of God was fulfilled in that very crime. The call to conversion as the call to faith, and with it the invitation to baptism, is now addressed to all men. If all are guilty concerning Jesus Christ, for whom did He not die? Who was not included both in the judgment executed in His death and also in the grace of God at work in this judgment? For whom did He not rise again? To what man was He not manifested in His resurrection as his own Deliverer, the forgiveness of his own sins in person? Who is not now permitted and commanded to say Yes to Him and His work, and consequently to ask for baptism in His name? To whom may the community forbid baptism when it is requested with patent seriousness? The Church ofjesus Christ exists in the unity described in Rom. 1116f. The Jews are the original stem, while we poor Gentiles are ingrafted branches. If this unity is broken either on the one side or the other, it is no longer the Church of Jesus Christ. This is the greatly extended horizon within which baptism is now administered and received. It would again be quite wrong to try to understand John's preaching and baptism as a purely Jewish affair and consequently as a particularist movement of protest and reform (rather after the manner of the Qumran community seeking holiness in its cliff-cloisters) . To be sure, since the Gospels offer no evidence in this respect, it is best not to resort to the conjecture that there might have been non-Jews among the crowds who hastened to the Jordan, perhaps among the publicans or soldiers. Nevertheless, the saying about the stones from which God can raise up children to Abraham (Mt. 39 and Lk. 38) is worth noting here. [085] The forward and outward step which was taken when God did in fact make use of this power was, of course, so great that, understandably, it could only be intimated at this point. This step into open country is called in Eph. 34 the mystery of Jesus Christ (of His delivering up by the Jews and crucifixion by the Gentiles). This mystery was not disclosed at once even to the apostles and the first communities. Were they really to go forth? Could they be the EN195
saviour
8o
2. Baptism with Water Lord's witnesses, not only in Jerusalem and Judaea, but also in Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Ac. 18)? Could they make disciples of all nations (Mt. 281-9)? At first there is obvious hesitation in this matter. But this is how it had to be. What God had called cleanand in the death of Jesus Christ He had called the Gentiles clean-even Christians from 119). In the long run they neither could nor Israel could not regard as unclean (Ac. would do so. it is interesting that according to the presentation in Acts, the second half of which is devoted exclusively to the story of the apostle Paul, who took the lead in this matter, the modest figure of Philip the deacon is mentioned as the first to preach in Samaria (Ac. 84 f) and then to baptise a Gentile, the Ethiopian eunuch (826'). It is even more interesting that Peter (Ac. lo') is named as the one who, resistant at first, but then willing and resolute, went to the oman Cornelius, proclaimed to him and his house the word of Jesus Christ, witnessed the descent of the Holy Spirit on these pagan listeners, baptised them forthwith, and then (112 ) interpreted what had happened to the brethren in Judaea: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (111-8)-a conclusion which was solemnly confirmed when Paul and Barnabas conferred with the leaders in Jerusalem (Ac. 15"), Peter again playing a normative role. Luke was obviously concerned to show that this great step into open country was no mere fad of Paul's but an act which was taken by the whole of the Christian community, not self-evidently or without anxiety, yet in the long run resolutely, and from the theological standpoint rightly, no matter how things might have turned out historically. The great debates in Galatians and Romans, and in its own way Ephesians, and even Acts, bear witness to the problems and difficulties by which the process was attended and beset on both sides. But it could no longer be arrested. A Kcal/mcv, a restraining of the Gentiles from baptism (Ac. 836, o47) was quite impossible. The Church could now be only the Church of both Jews and Gentiles, bound together by one Lord, by one faith, and therefore also by one baptism (Eph. 45).
We pause for a moment and look back. What have we learned from these six comparisons between John's baptism and post-pentecostal Christian baptism in our attempt to answer the question of the goal of baptism? First, we have undoubtedly learned that the goal of John's baptism is from every standpoint one and the same as that of the baptism of the Christian community which is associated with it on the basis of the baptism ofjesus Himself. In both baptisms the reference was and is to the one divine act of salvation and revelation. In both there is expected by those who administer baptism and also by those who receive it, as the fulfilment of the promise given to them, (1) the coming to pass of the kingdom and rule of God in their lives, (2) their baptism and endowment with the Holy Spirit, (3) the execution of God'sjudgmeat on them too, (4) the receiving of remission of sins, (5) their membership of the new people of God of the last time, and (6) their existence in the [086] unity of Jews and Gentiles in common judgment and blessing. In respect of both we have referred six times to the one but manifold reality of the one divine act of salvation and revelation. In the one baptism as in the other all this is summed up in the one history ofjesus Christ, whose fulfilment in His death and manifestation in His resurrection are either awaited or seen to be accomplished, actualised and fulfilled as God's act. In neither the one nor the other can any of this be overlooke or forgotten in the light of the One who is to come or has already come. In both everything is concentrated in His name. In
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life both-either directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly-baptism is in His name, with the trust of those who know and confess Him, with their certain expectation, hope and confidence that His name, the name of the Son of God who as Lord of all men has acted in the stead of all, will have validity and force, will rule and decide, in the lives both of those who baptise and also of those who are baptised by them, and that the remainder of their lives, their future, will be under, by and with Him. in both, as the concrete form of conversion to Him and faith in Him, baptism with water is given and received toward Him. In both baptism, as the first step of human decision, is a response to the divine change in its fulness. if, as is perhaps allowable, the goal of baptism is called its substance, t en one may say that in both Jesus Christ Himself is the substance of baptism-and in Him with equal necessity, guaranteed by Him, the kingdom, the Spirit, judgment, forgiveness, membership of the people of God, the existence in fellowship of Jews with Gentiles and Gentiles with Jews. Jrom the standpoint of their goal, and hence of this substance of theirs, the baptism of John and that of the community after Pentecost are not two different baptisms; they are one and the same baptism. Secondly, we have, of course, drawn attention to the different ways in which the one goal is depicted on the two sides. These may all be summed up, however, in the fact that the act of God which was still awaited in the baptism in the Jordan had in the meantime become an event, a definitive and irrevocable fact, which in its fulfilment spoke and speaks for itself, and may be proclaimed and believed. In Christian baptism after Pentecost the goal of baptism, the one true Son of God and Son of Man, is no longer, as in John's baptism, the One who is to come; e is the One who has already come. He is no longer unknown; He is the Messiah, Kyrios and SoterEN1-96 who gives Himself to be known and who is known by the community and its baptismal candidates, known by them as Him in whom their own washing, renewal, justification and sanctification, to which they turn in their conversion, namely, in their faith, and consequently in their baptism with water, have taken place with full suf[087] ficiency and are a reality. This does not mean that the goal of their baptism has changed, that it has acquired a different content or quality. The baptism of John already looks to Him, to the coming One who brings and reveals the salvation of all men. What it does mean is that the picture which the ministers and candidates have of Him has now acquired at all points a distinctive and unmistakable clarity, brightness, precision and depth. Because the substance of baptism is the same in both instances, we can speak only in comparatives, in terms of a relative change. But it may be asserted comparatively and relatively that the kingdom of God envisaged in baptism has now drawn nearer, disproportionately nearer. ri aptism with the Holy Spirit, to which baptism with water looks forward, has now taken place already in incipient form. God's judgment, to which man submits in baptism, is more terrifying now that it has EN196
Lord and saviour
82
2. Baptism with Water been validly and efficaciously fulfilled for each and all in the death of Jesus. In face of it, and again in the death of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins brings greater comfort. Also seen in clearer contours are the people of God and the unity of Israel and the world into which a man is about to enter openly when he is enlightened by Jesus Christ and becomes a member of His body. The goal of baptism is the same. its character as a human action which looks and moves forward to Him is changed, however, by the fact that the same goal presents a different picture. This new picture-the picture of the "mightier" who was to come and who has in fact come-cannot be altered again. Nor can the new character which the action of baptism has acquired in the light of its goal. There is no way back, then, from Christian baptism after Pentecost to the relative provisionalness, imprecision and obscurity ofjohn's baptism. The glory of this baptism was and is that Jesus Christ as the coming One sought and received it along with all the rest who looked forward to salvation and the manifestation of the imminent act of God; that He actualised His submission to God and solidarity with men, and thus entered on His ministry as Messiah, Kyrios and Soter. The glory of post-pentecostal Christian baptism, our baptism, is, however, that this baptism of Jesus was acknowledged by God as His free rendering of obedience, and that in His history, which began t us under God's good-pleasure, all righteousness has been fulfilled according to that beginning. It can and should be viewed in the light of this righteousness which He fulfilled. For all the seriousness required, the brighter, more joyful and more positive character which it has thus been given should not be denied by any regression into the situation of John's baptism, which was an Advent situation, but only an Advent situation, prior to Christmas and Easter. There must not be any return to the garment of camel's hair, the locusts and wild honey, and the other peculiarities of John. We must remember this when we speak of the meaning of Christian baptism. Our third point is a negative one. Looking back to the delimitation with [088] which we began, we could not say one thing when we drew our comparisons. in the transition from John's baptism to Christian baptism in the narrower sense there was no change in the relation between the goal of baptism in the divine act of salvation and revelation and the action of baptism in orientation to this goal. In Christian baptism too (as in Christian proclamation and faith), the distinction remains between the basic divine change to which it refers and responds and baptism itself as the basic human decision in which, with the freedom now given to man from thence, the reference thereto is made and man's first answer is given. In the sphere of John and also in that of the Christian community water baptism and the Spirit's baptism, water baptism and God's kingdom, judgment and forgiveness, water baptism and membership of God's new people ofjews and Gentiles, though they stand in strict correlation, are two very different things as man's free work on the one side and God's free work on the other. In our comparison where did we find even a hint that in, with and under the water baptism administered and received by men there 83
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* takes place a continuation, repetition or oublet of the divine act of salvation and revelation, or that there is present an anticipatory immanence of the goal of this human action? o be sure, Jesus Christ is the origin, theme and content of Christian baptism as of Christian faith. If, however, we give the terms origin, theme and content their natural sense, and especially if we reserve for Jesus Christ Himself His transcendence in relation to the Christian act, this does not mean that He becomes either in whole or in part the Subject of faith and baptism, or that the work of the Mediator, or even a part of His work as the Executor of divine grace and revelation, is to be ascribed to faith or baptism as the instruments, channels, or means which He uses. He is He, and His work is His work, standing over against all Christian action, including Christian faith and Christian baptism. In the freedom given by Him one believes in Him, and in the same freedom one baptises into Him, into His name, into His death, in movement towards Him. His own movement towards us, His reconciling being among us and with us and in us-where does the New Testament ever say anything to the contrary?-is always His movement, which we may expect and hope for with certainty and joy, but for which we have always to pray. It is His affair. it is His free rejoinder to the answer which we give to im with our faith and baptism. It is not the affair of our faith and baptism. In the baptism of John-the baptism which Jesus Himself desired and received-this relation is immediately apparent. it has not been altered one whit, however, by the fact that baptism is now administered in the light of the Lord and Saviour who has [089] come, who has appeared, and who has completed and manifested His history On the contrary, this distinction between above and below has been the more sharply established and defined now that baptism is administered in confrontation with the total righteousness fulfilled by Him, which cannot be confused with any humanly postulated ideas, wishes, or expectations of salvation, but which stands out in sharp outline as the work of God. Now for the first time the goal of baptism is in truth the goal which is superior, transcendent and future to it. For now in the mystery of Christmas and the cross, in its disclosure in the resurrection, the divine salvation and its revelation, the kingdom, the judgment and the remission of sins, are for the first time genuinely etched out and depicted as the free act and gift of God, which come to us freely, which cannot be distrained by us, which cannot be put in our service. Furthermore, the deliverance which takes place for us, while it comes from Him as the completed fact of salvation, is still future inasmuch as its manifestation only began on Easter ay and has since continued in various outpourings and impartadons of the Holy Spirit, of which Pentecost was the first. Hence we are referred to the fact that in our time between the times it still proceeds in confirmation of the Easter event, and will ultimately be completed in the last definitive and universal revelation of Jesus Christ. Finally, there is the simple practical point that in any case baptism can only be the first step into the Christian life. In its full reality this life is not in it but before it. Baptism is a beginning in the light of which it can be only the first grasping of the promise which is made to a man 84
2. Baptism with Water in God's work and word, and hence the joyful but prayerful orientation of this man to the fulfilment of the promise in a specific temporal future. We ask once again where in the New Testament baptism is understood otherwise than as this christological, eschatological and purely practical teleological movement in w ich those who are baptised desire to participate and in which they are in fact given a share by the community which invites and admits them to baptism. In recollection of the first main point in our deliberations we also add that on the exemplary basis of Christian baptism in the baptism of Jesus Himself it is surely impossible that the goal of baptism should be understood otherwise than as the goal which is genuinely and strictly distinct from it and consequently set for it. We may sum up the whole of this second main point in our positive development of the doctrine of baptism by emphasising once more that Jesus Christ, who is the basis of baptism, is also the one goal which is distinct from baptism as such but which is immovably set for it. Administered towards im as its goal, Christian baptism is different from all other known or imaginable religious acts of dedication, initiation, illumination, endowment, renewal, or transfiguration. He, Jesus Christ, is in person the salvation history which God planned and brought about: He in the history completed in His death, in which all [090] righteousness was fulfilled by Him; He in the manifestation of this history in His resurrection and in the outpouring and imparting of His Holy Spirit; He, then, as the One who turns and dedicates Himself to man in the fact that He awakens and frees him for knowledge of Himself; He as the Creator of the witness and witnesses to this knowledge (to Himself). The reference is absolutely to Him when the kingdom of God, the judgment of God, and the sinforgiving grace of God are proclaimed. The reference is to the life of the body of which He is the Head when God's people is gathered, edified and sent out. The reference is to His eternal election and calling when the election and, calling of Israel and the Gentiles is manifest in Christian baptism. The reference is to that which was effected in Him, the washing, renewing and rectifying of all mankind and each man, their baptism with the Holy Ghost, when baptism with water is administered in the Christian community. This takes place in retrospect of His finished work, in view of His living presence as the One who continually makes His work manifest and fruitful, and in prospect of the fact that at the last He will be definitively, perfectly and universally manifested as the ero of this work. Christian baptism is the first form of the human answer to the divine change which was brought about in Him who was and is and is to come, "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever" (Heb. i 38) . It is the first concrete step of the human decision of faith and obedience corresponding thereto in so far as it is resolutely and exclusively movement to Him, and thus the true baptism of conversion. Some exegetical elucidations must form the conclusion to this sub-division.
85
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 14e General remarks have been made already on the meaning and function of the preposition EN197 in the context of what the New Testament has to say about baptism. It may be added that hrt 198 is used instead at Ac. 2 38 and EN199 at Ac. 1048. But these verses do not support a change in meaning, as though the different prepositions referred to the authority of those who administer baptism. Nor can there be any question of following the Vulgate, which seemed to think it possible to translate the common Els- EN200 by the linguistically more intelligible in ("I baptise thee in the name ... ") which, suppressing the definition of the goal of baptism that is so clearly expressed by ds. EN201, can only awaken false associations, e.g., a special sacral authorisation of the minister. In my view there is only one true exception to the rule that garrfirtt:Etv EN202 or EN203 gaw.TiZEo-Oat denotes either directly or indirectly the orientation of this act and event to Jesus Christ. This exception is in Mt. 311, where John says that, in distinction from the "mightier" who is to come after him, he baptises with water dciueravotav EN204, which means that he does so in order therewith to lead to the conversion which is required in view of the coming "mightier than he." On the other hand, when iCoi. 102 speaks of the baptism Etc McolialivEN2°5 which the fathers underwent in the cloud and in the sea, the typological context suggests t at this baptism was orientated to the old form of the covenant of grace embodied in the person of Moses. Secretly, however, this old form already enclosed the new [091] form within it, so that it can be said (v. 4) that the rock from which they drank in the wilderness was Christ. Again, when Paul asks ironically in i Cor. 113 15 whether anyone knows of a EN206, he is indirectly confirming the rule that true tecvn-Tt0a0at dc 7- 6 t5vop,a flaaov Christian baptism can be only into a very different name. Finally, we read in Lk. 33 and Ac. 2 38 of a 16a7TTtatta ittEravotag Etc ackatv apiapTito:niEN2°7 9 but here again, as shown by the context, there is a direct reference to Him who either is to come or has already come, to Him who either will accomplish and pronounce, or has already accomplished and pronounced, the remission of sins which is the goal of the baptism of conversion. We now turn to the passages in which the Els- EN208 refers explicitly to Jesus Christ. The simplest is Gal. 327: Eig XptaT6v 49a7T-ricrOnTE EN2O9 . Because Christ was the goal of baptism which Paul here seeks to bring to their remembrance, the Galatians are to be directed to that which He is for men, their new garment. They are to be claimed as men who (not in baptism, but in the history in the light of which they were baptised) have put on Christ as their new garment which makes them new men, so that for all their differences as Jews and Hellenes, slaves and free, men and women, they are one, i.e., children of God in faith in Him. Again, in the materially related saying in i Cor. 1 2's: Et A, aci*a 43arrricrOnp,Ev EN210, the Eig points explicitly to Jesus Christ. They are baptised, not into their individual membership of this body, but into the one body as such. The one body, which is a central concept of the chapter, is, however, the body of Christ (v. 27). Recollection of the baptism from which all in the Etc
into
EN197 EN198 on EN199 EN200
in into
EN201 into EN202
baptising being baptised into EN204 into repentance EN205 into Moses EN206 being baptised into the name of Paul EN207 baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins EN208 into EN209 you have been baptised into Christ EN21° we have been baptised into one body EN203
86
2. Baptism with Water community come-it is again a baptism ofjews and Hellenes, slaves and free-carries with it the principle that the unity of this body cannot be called in question by the differences of gifts, ministries and powers within it. As Head of His body, He who baptises with the Holy Ghost is the origin and secret of them all. The differences prove the richness of the life of this body, and can only confirm its unity as such. When we turn to Rom. 6, we first have a N simple statement like that of Gal. 327: E wrrT tcrOnittEv Etc XptaTov yn ao v E211 but then EN212. there is added the more precise E ig T61) OavaTov co3Tot5 The goal of baptism is now Jesus Christ concretely in the fulfilment of His work for all on the cross, where their old man was crucified and put to death with Him, and done away with once and for all. Baptism can now (v. 4) be called 1344'77-Latta Els- Ten) OcivaTovEN213 (into their own death already effected in His). Their own complete displacement as men of sin is now before them in Jesus Christ as the goal of their baptism. They themselves, by having themselves baptised, have confirmed it as in a solemn act of burial (avvETakuEvEN214, v. 4; cf. Col. 212). In the light of baptism it is no longer possible for them to seek to live again to sin (this is the theme of Rom. 6'). We now come to the important passages in which Els- EN215 (or in the verses already cited britEN216 or jv EN217,) refers to the 6vo,ua EN218 the name of Jesus Christ. We must begin with a general observation. Quite early it was thought that these verses contained the baptismal formula which was used at baptism in apostolic times, and which was thus of binding validity. In this connexion it might well have been supposed unthinkingly that the "into the name" could and should be changed into "in the name." The idea was that the minister of baptism does not baptise on his own authority, but with the commission of another. But does this have to be said specifically? is it not to be noted rather than expressed? Even if it is said, it must not be said at the expense of the decisive Els- EN219. It may be assumed that from the very first baptism was not a mute action. Prayer was offered and a confession made either by the minister, the candidate, or both together. There were other forms of speech too, all (as we have seen) with decisive reference to Jesus Christ as the goal of action. What may not be presupposed, however, is that from the very first a specific formula was used, even less so that this stated the higher authorisation of the minister, and even less still that it was always and everywhere the same. If a formula of this kind was required, it is hard to see why the simple "into Jesus Christ" of Gal. 327 and Rom. 63 did not contain all that was needed, or why it would not have been enough to include the term 6vop,aEN220 as in most of the relevant verses, e.g., "into the name ofjesus Christ" or "of the Lord Jesus Christ." In the most solemn passage of all however, though with no change of meaning, this short statement took the familiar Trinitarian form (Mt. 2819) , and this form-perhaps it acquired the dignity because it was Trinitarian and because it occurred in the only express baptismal command-established itself in all parts of Christendom as the ecclesiastically normal and obligatory formula. In the Roman Church, though not in it alone, its use along with water and the correct intention of the minister came to be regarded, and was enforced in practice, as the necessary prerequisite and criterion of a valid baptism, so that if it were omitted new baptism would be demanded, and if there were reasons for thinking that it might have been we have been baptised into Christ into his death baptism into death EN214 we have been buried EN215 into EN2' EN212
EN213
EN216 on EN217
in
EN218 name EN219 into EN220
name
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[093]
omitted conditional rebaptism would be given (si nondum baptizatus es, ego te baptizoEN221) It may be noted that what we have here is a custom that should be observed for the sake of ecumenical peace even though its exegetical, dogmatic and theological necessity cannot be demonstrated. There are undoubtedly baptisms which are invalid from a Christian standpoint, namely, those which cannot be Christian baptisms because the words uttered at the decisive place point in a very different direction from that which is essential to Christian baptism. Thus baptism into "liberty, equality and fraternity," such as we find here and there at the time of the French revolution, or into "the true, the beautiful and the good," administered in Bremen cathedral at the beginning of this century, were very definitely not Christian baptisms. Jence they were not "valid" baptisms, and should not be seriously regarded as such. Nevertheless, the only thing which is unconditionally necessary from a theological standpoint is that baptism should be a washing with water (whether in the form of immersion or aspersion) and that whatever is said-whether formally or otherwise, and, if formally, in whatever formula-should characterise it unequivocally as a movement into Jesus Christ, into the washing of man accomplished in Him. We do not forget, however, that there is also no theological need to disturb ecumenical custom, whether by dispensing with a formula or substituting another formula for the Trinitarian formula which is used semper ubique et ab omnibus EN222. why may there not be Christian custom? Why may not a baptismal formula be used? Why should it not be the Trinitarian formula, which, as we shall see, has certain advantages? The only point upon which we must inexorably insist is that any words used in baptism should preserve for the Eig TO avs op/aEN223, or restore to it, its teleological character as a reference to the goal of baptism. In other words, the ancient arbitrary rendering of in nomen by in nomine EN224, which, though more intelligible, obscures everything materially, should be corrected. To return to our theme! In the thought and speech of the Old and New Testament, in distinction from that of the Greek and especially the Platonic world, a "name" is not given to its bearer accidentally or merely by way of etiquette, nor is it a matter of "sound and fury' that can be changed at will. On the contrary, it is itself the bearer, his person, being and potency, his whole historical reality in its nature and essence, to the degree that there belongs inseparably hereto the power to reveal and disclose itself, to the degree that it is capable of communication and engaged in it. In his name a man, speaking or acting, makes himself known to others as the man he is, the man who does what he does. In it be opens himself to dealings with others, he is engaged in such dealings, he goes among people and is with them. This means that in his name he becomes and is a person who can be addressed, but who can also be claimed. In his name he can and will be burdened by them. In his name he turns to them, and thus comes into their clutches. He would not have a name, nor would he be who he is, if it could be otherwise. On the other hand, in his name he becomes and is a decisive factor for them too, for their person, being and potency, for their historical reality. He exerts on them the power at his disposal. He burdens them with what he is and does for them in his dealings with them. As they may call him by name, he proclaims himself to them. He thus calls and speaks to them too. The name is always both the humiliation and exaltation, both the condescension and glory, both the servitude and lordship of its bearer. All this applies to the Old Testament name of God as a prototype and example. When the reference is to the biblical concept, nomen is in no sense to be understood or expounded nominalistically. The name of the Lord (shem Yahweh) is not an abstract phenomenon. In its if you have not yet been baptised, then I will baptise you _-, everywhere and by all always EN223 into the name EN224 into the name by in the name EN221 EN222
88
2. Baptism with Water manifestation it is concretely and genuinely the self-revealing Yahweh Himself as He who has mercy on Israel, its Law-giver, judge and King, the God of the lost little people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who as such is nevertheless engaged in taking the throne appropriate to Him as Ruler of the world. Similarly, the name of Jesus Christ is quite simply, concretely and truly Jesus Christ Himself. As His own Logos, He has shown Himself to be the divine Logos by becoming flesh (in. 1 14 ) and in the flesh revealing His divine glory. At God's command He is called Jesus because He isJesus, who will save His people from their sins (Mt. 121). He is called Jesus because in His history the history of the deliverance and salvation of all men takes place. The distinction and glory of this name-that which makes it the name above every name (Phil. 2°)-is that His history, and in it the salvation history of all men, is the history of the Son who is obedient to God as His Father, and that as such, as John's Gospel emphasises, it is the history of the glorifying of the name of this Father of His. When His people call Him the Christ, the Son of God and Man, the ebed Yahweh'225, the Soter, the KyriosEN226, the High-priest, etc., none of the New Testament writers who bear witness to these names can surely think of them as ascribed titles of honour. They refer to them as expositors of the name which God gave Him and which is thus His own a priori EN227. He Himself is present and before them in this name. His whole work, God's work, is to be found in it. "His name is the Word of God," says Rev. 1913 quite explicitly. Materially, then, baptism into the name of Jesus Christ means exactly the same as the simple "baptism into Jesus Christ"; it merely gives it precision. The reference is to the Jesus Christ who has manifested Himself to the baptising community, and to the candidates who have come to faith in Him, as the One who came down into the depths to them and who has been exalted far above them. In His name He is present to them and before them. Baptism into Him or His name is baptism which is given and received in orientation to Him in His self-revelation. It should be noted that in the New Testament many great and supreme things take place "in" or "through" or "for" the name of Jesus Christ. A lame man can be commanded to rise up and walk in the name of Jesus Christ (Ac. 36, 410). Demons were cast out in His name, even out of people who did not belong to His disciples or His community (Mk. 938; Ac. 1913f). Other signs and wonders are also done in His name (Ac. 430). There is preaching (Lk. 2447), teaching (Ac. 528), prophecy (Mt. 722), admonition (1 Cor. 110), command (Ac. 618; 2 Thess. 36), thanksgiving (Phil. 210), also judgment (1 Cor. 53f.), labour (Rev. 23) and compassion (Mk. 9379 in or through His name. Col. 317 reads: 'Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Inasmuch as His name contains within it His humiliation and passion too, there is also the shame, hatred, scorn and suffering which is experienced and borne in His name, for His sake, for Him (Mk. 1313f; Ac. 541, 916 I Pet. 414). The remission of sins (Ac. 1 on 1 jn. 2 12 ) and the cleansing, sanctification and justification of Christians also take place "in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 611). In His name those who believe have life On. 2.031). In all these verses, His name, and therefore He Himself, is the place where salvation took place for all men. Here is the basis, authority and power with which Christians, resorting hither, can and should act and speak. His name is a field of force. It is the source of their freedom. It is the law under which they and their whole being, action and decision are set. it is the ultimate objective and subjective motive behind everything that takes place, everything that is said and done, in the community. One might thus expect that there would also have to be believing and baptising in, through and for the name of Jesus Christ, believing and baptising in or from this place as the origin. There is, however, only servant of the Lord the saviour, the Lord EN227 axiomatically EN225
EN226
89
[094]
§ 75.
The Foundation of the Christian Life
believing on (Eic EN228 once Tti) EN229 ) His name On. 112, 223, 318; 1 jn. 323, 513) . Again, in what is, to the best of my knowledge, the only verse in which love occurs in connexion with His Els- 7-6 6vop,a, a f,T01, EN230 Similarly, baptism is into (ds. EN231 ) the name, we read: etri7rn name of Jesus. This Eis- EN232 does not negate the fact that faith, love and baptism, like all Christian acts, have their first place and origin in the name of Jesus Christ, derive from it their authority and power, are motivated by it, and take place for the sake of it. Indeed, this is a self-evident presupposition. If one presses the actual wording of the isolated verse Ac. lo48 (jv To:) 6v6iu,aTtEN233), this tells us that Peter "commanded them to be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ" (as those who, having received the Holy Spirit, were obviously in the sphere of power of His self-manifestation). What distinguishes Tr icrns, dyd EN234 and pa:777,01m EN235, however, is not this, but the fact that the name of Jesus Christ, the place of salvation and the origin of all the related action, is here the object and goal of Christian action, which is referred and orientated to the name ofjesus Christ as this goal. In faith, love and baptism the Christian moves towards the name of Jesus Christ, towards Jesus Christ Himself. In this sense dc 7-6 6vottaEN 236 is used in Ac. 816, 195 and the command of Mt. 2819, Tct3 6v6ttaTtEN237 in Ac. 238, and probably v Tc1) 6v6iccaTtEN238 in Ac. 1048. In this connexion one might profitably consider that the Old Testament often ascribes a temporal location (e.g., dwelling in His house, 2 Sam. 713) to the name of the Lord as the epitome of Yahweh's Word of grace, power and revelation. "The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe" (Prov. 18"°). The name of the Lord, however, can also come from far to judge the world (Is. 3027). And whatever may be the reference of Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini EN239 in Ps. 11826, the New Testament relates it to the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mk. 119 par.) and thus thinks it important as a description of the Bearer and Bringer of salvation in His spatial action. In any case, the name of the Lord is also distinct from His people. It cannot be conjured up or made an object of magical seizure and control-this misuse is forbidden in the Decalogue (Ex. 2.37; Deut. 5h1). On the other hand, it can be called upon (Joel 232; 1 K. 1824; cf. Rom. o13; Ac. 221), and-"all that is within me, bless his holy name" (Ps. 1 o31; 717, etc.) . This brings us close to what the New Testament calls faith and love. Part of the movement towards Jesus Christ which corresponds to the nature of His name is John's baptism, and also the baptism of the Christian community. When the community baptises, and when its candidates are baptised, they are on the way into that strong tower, on the way to the One who enters Jerusalem, the Lord, their Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer. One might also think here of the virgins who go to meet the Bridegroom with their lamps (Mt. 259 . Knowing of Him, invited and appointed thereto by Him, they desire Him and seek His presence with all that this implies. I aptism is a going forth to Jesus Christ. It is not a movement into the unknown. It is encircled by the light of the promise shining from the goal. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary movement; it is commanded and ordered. Nevertheless, it is a going forth in the strict sense in which it is said of Moses in Ex. EN228 into EN229
EN230
without a preposition love into his name
EN231 into
into in the name EN234 faith, love EN235 baptism EN236 into the name EN237 on the name EN238 in the name EN239 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' EN232
EN233
90
2.
Baptism with Water
1917 that he "brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount." It is a going forth in the strict sense which it had for Paul as [095] the essence not merely of the beginning but of the whole of his apostolic existence: "Not as though I had already attained, or were already made perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended by Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3 12 ). This is what is meant by 13a7TT itE1,1) EN240 or iewn-TtEo-Oat Eig Ynaoi3v Xpta-r4vEN241 and the equivalent Els7-6 lifvoeua ca,,Toi3 EN242 . In conclusion a particularly careful discussion of Mt. 281s is again demanded. Here, in an extension of the christological formulae of Acts and Paul, the goal of baptism is indicated by the words Els- TO 6volla Toy TraTp6s- tad Toi) viol; Kt To13 jytOV ITVEt/WaTOg EN243, at least in the great manuscripts and versions. Already in the 2nd century (Justin, Hermas) and the 4th century (Eusebius) there seem to have been texts which did not contain this extension, or, indeed, any express mention of baptism at all. When one combines this fact with the further fact that the Els- TO 6votta EN244 in its Trinitarian form in Matthew is identical with what became and has continued to be the official baptismal formula, one may conjecture that this form was imported into the Gospel later, the obvious purpose being to put it on the lips of Jesus Himself. Though not impossible, this hypothesis fails to explain, of course, why Ac. 816 and 195 were not emended similarly to eliminate any challenge to the dignity of the official formula on the basis of these texts. It is also quite possible that what became the normative form Mt. 28' was the original (or one original) of the official formula, and not vice versa. Certainly the opposite view is not to be acclaimed too readily as an assured finding or result of historico-critical exegesis. We have not based our own understanding of baptism on Mt. 28's. It is permissible however, and even mandatory for further elucidation of the matter, to ask whether there might be a good reason for this formula in the present context. In any case the extended Eig TO 6voila EN245 is a genuinely ancient understanding of the goal of baptism and is worthy of note as such. We have emphasised already that the whole baptismal saying in Mt. 28' stands in the context of a missionary command given by the Risen Lord. This is to be borne in mind in its exposition. The little address with which Matthew ends opens with the statement that "all ouuta EN246 (freedom of will and action) is given unto me in heaven and on earth," and it closes with the promise that He, the Bearer of this -eovaioLEN247, will be with and among those whom He addresses and commissions even to the end of the world. The central portion, the command: 7TOpEVOgilTEg auaarrcoaaTEEN248 and the two participial clauses: 13a77 -7 -tov7 -Eg EN249 and 8,8aCTKOVrES EN250, refer back to the statement and forward to the promise. With Easter the hour has dawned when the disciples, now apostles, are to go forth and make disciples of all nations. They are to do this because their crucified Lord has been manifested in His resurrection as the Lord of the whole world and all mankind. When they go forth thus, on all the future roads they take in execution of their commission, they are to cling to the fact that He has not left them alone like orphans On. 1418) but will always be with EN240
baptising being baptised into Jesus Christ EN242 into his name EN243 into t e name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit EN244 into the name EN245 into the name EN246 authority EN247 authority EN248 go and make disciples EN249 baptising EN25° teaching EN241
9'
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[096]
them to champion their cause. Rather oddly the command speaks of littOnTE6 a1) EN251, not of Knpikraav EN252 or accry€M,,O•a0at EN253 as one might expect. This alone gives a distinctive note to Matthew in comparison with Lk. 2447, Ac. 18 and Mk. 161.5. It is obviously presupposed that they are to preach the Gospel. But this task has here a specific edge. They are not merely to confront the nations wit L the objective word of the message. They are not merely to call them to faith. They are not merely to address them. They are also made responsible for what happens to the hearers of the message, whether they accept it with obedience, whether they become doers of the word (Jas. 122), titan Ta,if EN254 of Jesus like the apostles themselves, men who pay heed to Him, who let Him go before, who follow Him, who want to learn from Him. The second participial clause is obviously referring to this task of theirs among the nations when it says that they are to teach them to observe (nipeiv) what Jesus enjoined His first disciples to do. It may thus be assumed that in the first participial clause which speaks of baptism the same special task is in view. In this context to baptise the nations-and this explains why it must come first here-is to invite and encourage them to, or at least-the bare minimum-not to hinder (KwAlmtv) them from, the conversion which is required of them as well as Israel, i.e., from its concrete manifestation in washing with water, from turning to the name of the Lord, from calling upon it, from salvation in the power of this name (not in the power of their conversion, their calling on the name, their baptism, but in the power of Him upon whom they call in baptism) (Mk. 1616). In this connexion there might well be good reason for an extension of the christological content of the name of the Lord into which, or with a view to which, they are baptised, and consequently for the definition of the name of the Lord as the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which as such is the goal of the baptism which the apostles are to give to the nations. A first indisputable presupposition, then, is that here as elsewhere the expression 6vop,a EN255 states the goal or direction with which baptism is administered 13ot7ri-tav as Gentile baptism-this is where the stress now falls. It may also be presupposed, however, that the goal described here in Trinitarian terms is not a different one but the same as that set forth in the usual christological formulae of the New Testament. When there is reference to 13curTtav Etc EN256, an early Christian reader of Matthew, and consequently of an address like this, which is in all its constituent parts so explicitly christological, could hardly think of looking in any other direction than to Him who here speaks as the Possessor of all ou ataEN 257 in the cosmos and as the One who promises His presence to the community for the whole of its future. Only occasionally has a need been felt to assimilate the Trinitarian formulation to the christological, and it has never been felt necessary to replace the christological formulation by the Trinitarian in other passages. Even in the Didache the two are used together quite uninhibitedly. We may thus assume that the 6votta EN258 of this passage, though expounded in a Trinitarian sense, is centrally and decisively, though with a significant extension, the 6vop,a XptaToi3EN 259. This implies that the christological 6vop,a EN260 of the other passages might equally well have been Trinitarian, just as later the EN251
making disciples proclaiming EN253 preaching the Gospel EN254 disciples EN255 baptising into the name EN256 baptising into EN257 authority EN252
EN258 name EN259 EN260
name of Christ name
92
2. Baptism with Water Trinitarian confession was obviously developed and built up out of the christological. In this connexion it should be noted that the name into which the nations are to be baptised is one. The apostles are to baptise them, not into three names, but into one name expounded in. three different ways. It is patent that the formula must have played a part in the later formation of the dogma of the Trinity; no other passage in the whole of the New Testament anticipates so explicitly the basic affirmation of this dogma. For the moment, however, it is as well not to consider the dogma but to ask simply and directly what is meant here, in this baptismal injunction, by the naming of Father, Son and Holy Ghost as the one name into which or with a view to which baptism is to be given: not to the exclusion of the name of Jesus Christ, which is expressly mentioned as that of the Son in the second member, i.e., in the middle of the formula, but in development of what this one name has to say, and offers for reflection, about the sending of the community into the world, to the nations. If the mention of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is to be regarded as an enumeration, it is the enumeration of the dimensions of the one name of God, i.e., of His one work and word, of His one act of salvation and revelation, with a view to which, if there is to be faith, love, obedience and service, so the nations are to be made disciples, summoned to conversion, and led to enter and pursue the way of jesus Christ. The words Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in their inseparability and distinction, together indicate the expansion of the one name, work and word of God. This is why they occur here in the context of the missionary coinmand. Mission is objectively the expansion of the reality and truth ofjesus Christ. This is the tertium comparationis' 2' between it and the extension of the christological definition of the one name of God into the Trinitarian. Here, however, mission is concretely the going forth of salvation and its manifestation beyond the confines of Israel to the nations; the step in which the Messiah of Israel shows Himself to be the Saviour of the world. We recall the sixth and final point in our comparison between john's baptism and post-pentecostal Christian baptism. In that connexion we had to see in the divine act of salvation and revelation the way from restriction to freedom which was only intimated on the one side but taken in the death of Jesus Christ on the other. Unless appearances deceive, what we learned there will be helpful now. Already in the history of Israel as such, was not God's name, work and word the reality and truth of salvation which transcends the limits of this history and embraces the whole Gentile world? And what else is His name, work and word in the history of Jesus Christ, which fulfils that of Israel and was completed on the cross, but the breaking down of the middle wall of partition (Eph. 2") between those who are within and those who are without? And what can His name, work and word be now, after the Easter revelation of the old covenant confirmed in the new, but the divine self-attestation which is echoed in the witness of the one people of the last time, the community of Jews and Gentiles? If, as the context of Mt. 28120 strictly demands, the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost are to be related to the expansion of the name, work, and word of God, their occurrence at this precise point is very understandable. The name, work and word "of the Father" is what is to be shown and proclaimed to the nations as the goal of their baptism. This is the extension of the one name backwards. The Gentiles, too, are to realise that the history ofjesus Christ as their own salvation history is not of yesterday, not a novelty; it is the issue, crown and fulfilment of the history of Israel in which they, as children raised up to Abraham from the stones, already had a share: a share which is now being publicly confirmed; a share in the promises of the God of Israel who was and is as such the Creator and Lord of the whole world, and hence their God also. In Him, and hence from of old, from primeval time, indeed, from before all time, the history ofjesus Christ has its basis. On this basis it is also their salvation history. The Father is the basis of the EN261
basis of comparison
93
[097]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[098]
history ofjesus Christ, of the history of Israel and of all world-history. No one knows Him but "the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Mt. 1127). Jesus comes from this basis. On it He is what He is and does what He does. Jesus is the Son; He knows the Father and reveals Him. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" On. 149). Loving Him, the Father sends Him. Loving the Father in return. He comes, does the Father's will, and glorifies His name. Obedient to Him, He submits with all people to the baptism of conversion. in execution of His mediatorial ministry He is and remains obedient to Him even to the death of the cross: to Him upon whom He calls along with His disciples ("Our Father ... "); to Him from whom He alone (Lk. 23') begged forgiveness for the Jews and Gentiles who in their common misdeed did not know what they were doing. To Him from whom He went forth He also returned, manifested and recognised in His resurrection as He that sitteth on His right hand (His basis is also His goal) . He is invested with the glory of His name, work and word, with His ,E,eov r EN262 in heaven and on earth. But surely this basis and goal of the history of Jesus Christ, i.e., God as His Father, is God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles. Yes, He is God of the Gentiles too (Rom. 329). "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. on') . This Father knows what He wills and does when He will not recognise any aliens or enemies, when e causes His sun to shine on the good and the bad and His rain to fail on the just and the unjust (Mt. 545) , when in any nation the man who fears Him and practises righteousness is acceptable (8EKT4g) to Him (Ac. o35) . The son of this Father is not just the first boy who, when asked to work in the vineyard, very respectfully says: "I go sir," but does not go. He is also, and truly, the second boy who insolently replies: "I will not," but then repents and goes (Mt. 2 128-31) Again, he is not just the one who with such exemplary stoutness remains and serves at home, but also the one who in a foreign land squanders his substance on harlots, lives among swine, is lost and dead for his father, but then repents and is ready to perform the service of the meanest hireling in his father's house (Lk. 15h1_32).The point of both parables is obvious. The second is also and especially the son. The Gentile and publican is truly the son beloved of the Father. This is the great expansion of the name, work and word which, manifested in the speech and action and passion and death and resurrection of the Son, are the name, work and word of His Father, the K .optos- 15774p /Tay-I-coy '263, with a view to whom all the nations are baptised along with the Jews. "And of the Son": this is the second, middle, central and decisive aspect of the goal towards which the Gentiles too-and here the Gentiles in particular-are to be baptised. in the light of this the whole of the extension in this verse is to be understood as such. In retrospect, the one name, the one work and word into which baptism is given, was and is already the work and word of the Father. Prospectively, it will also be in its unity that of the Holy Ghost. It is both, however, as it is centrally and decisively that of the Son. The at EN264 which links this second form of the one name to the first, and which will later form a link with the third, is here, as often in the New Testament, more than a Ka( which simply adds A. to B. It is a K at which points away from A to a B which is urgently needed for its understanding. It is a Kai which characterises, transcends and explains A by the ensuing B. The transition is as follows: Into the name of the Father," namely, of the Father of the Son, who, executing and revealing His will and purpose, is of the same name (or nature, as would be said later). It is legitimate and indee s imperative to refer the term "Son" to the voice which EN262 EN263 EN264
authority Lord over all Kai can mean.. and, even, and yet, also 94
2. Baptism with Water came to Jesus from heaven directly after His baptism in the Jordan, and consequently after His entry on the way to Golgotha to which He was directed for the fulfilment of all righteousness. It may thus be assumed that "Son" is closely related to the concept of the ?Tag 0,0.5EN265 which is applied to Him in Mt. 1218 and Ac. 3 13 26, 427 30 and which denotes the obedient Servant of God who suffers for an indefinite number of others. God Himself, in an anticipation of the verdict pronounced in the resurrection from the dead, declares, not that He became the Son for the first time, but that He was this already, when in baptism He took up the office of this obedient Servant of God who suffers on behalf of many. If we are on the right track here, this central element in the Trinitarian form of the name implies that the one work and word of God which forms the goal of baptism is decisively the work and word of this Servant of God, of Jesus Christ, who was rejected by the Jews and crucified by the Gentiles. In the statement about Him as this Servant the second article of the ancient Creed reaches its climax: qui passus crucifixus, mortuus, sepultus est EN266. There naturally follows the triumphant: et resurrexit'267 yet in such a way (the structure and tenor of the Roman Mass speak plainly here) that the incarnate Son of God who was revealed to be the Victor in the resurrection, who ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father, is still to be invoked as none other than agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundiEN268: "which taketh away the sin of the world" (In. 129); who gives "his life a ransom ().67- pov) for many" (Mt. 2023), who shed His blood "for many" (Mt. 2628) , who is "the propitiation (lAacteuAg) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 jn. 22), who through the atonement made at the cross "preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh" (Eph. 216f). This is the Son. Baptism looks and aims at Him who as the Father's one elect and beloved Son alone could do this, who when the time was fulfilled did do it once, once and for all, and perfectly, with no merit or co-operation on the part of either Jews or Gentiles, in face of their contradiction and resistance, on behalf of both, so that all that is left for them is conversion to the obedience of faith in Him. It looks and aims at Him who in view of the lowliness of His servant form (Phil. 27) was and is the true Son of God, enjoys the Father's good-pleasure (Mt. 317) , and is worthy to bear the highest name (Phil. 29) and to be with His Father the Possessor of all -eov a taEN269 the Lord of all. Both Jews and Gentiles are to be baptised, and to have themselves baptised, into the one name which as the name of the Father as the basis of His history is also the name, work and word of His history, i.e., of the Son. "And of the Holy Ghost"-this is, from the centre, the forward extension: God's one act of salvation and revelation in the dimension which points to future time, but also to the end of all time and beyond all time. The connecting KatEN 27° has here, too, an emphatic epexegetical sense which explains and transcends what goes before. One might paraphrase the transition from the second to the third member as follows: "In the name of the Father and of the Son, that is, the Father and the Son whose one work is also that of the Holy Ghost as the force in which, whether as quiet breath or raging wind. He establishes, demonstrates, activates and validates His power and truth among the men of all times and beyond all times." Spiritus sanctus qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificaturEN271 (Nic. Const.). As the Gentiles have to learn, believe and realise along with the Jews, more is needed than the eternal basis of their salvation and its manifestation in the will and purpose of the Father, and more servant of God who ... suffered ... crucified died ... was buried EN267 and rose again EN268 the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world EN269 u a thority EN270 Kaican mean: and, even, and yet, also EN271 the Holy Spirit ... who is adored and worshipped together EN265 EN266
95
[099]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I*
[100]
is needed than its execution once and for all in the life and death of the Son. What about the ongoing days and years in the life of the individual or humanity? How is Christian life and history to be possible in the light of the work and word of the Father and the Son? How is it to correspond thereto? The answer to this question is given in the one name into which Jews and Gentiles are to be baptised: "I (the Son) will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (n-apaKAirog) ... the Spirit of truth ye ... know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you" (In. 1416f) It should be noted that there is no talk of a coming third kingdom of the Spirit by which that of the Father and the Son will be outstripped and outdated. The Son asks the Father for the Spirit, recognising that His disciples need Him. The Father from whom the Son comes and who sends the Son gives the Spirit too. But direct continuity with the Son is maintained. "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you" On. 1418). The Father sends im in the Son's name (In. 1426). The Paraclete will take what He has proclaimed. He will continually open up the treasure of His work and word. He is the awakening, quickening, illuminating power of His history. Hence He will glorify the Son (In. i 613_14).Th e name, work and word of the Holy Spirit is again the one name, work and word-now in its future and eschatological aspect-which is the goal of baptism. This would obviously be described incompletely if in its unity it were not also described as the work and word of the Holy Ghost. Whence are men to have the power to be born anew as children of God (In. 112; 3")? Whence are they to have the power to be certain that they are God's children (Rom. 816)? Wher.ice are they to have the power not just to repent once but to tread to the end the way which begins with repentance? Whence are they to have the power to believe, not just once or intermittently, but in spite of every weakness continuously, yet also with the freshness of the first day, and at the same time with depth, ripeness and freedom? Whence are they to have the power to pray, not as the hypocrites (Mt. 65) but sincerely, not just now and then but "without ceasing" (1 Thess. 517), not wrongly but as they ought (Rom. 826)? Above all, whence are they to have the power to be among men witnesses to the Father and the Son, to their work and word? Whence are they to have the power so to speak to men that they will at least (one cannot say more, but this is enough) pay attention, listen, and be somewhat affected? Finally, and transcending all else, whence are they to have the power, in spite of man's enslavement to mortality, in victory over ineluctable death, to awaken to eternal life (Rom. 8")? Man has no power of his own to do any of these things. Even the most loyal and enlightened Christian neither has nor will have any such power. This is the power of the Spirit of the Father and the Son. As such it is the power of the one name, work and word, of the one salvation and revelation, which is to be preached to both Jews and Gentiles, which calls both to faith and obedience, and which is thus the goal with a view to which both are baptised, both are recognised as legitimate children of the one Father and hence as true brothers of the one Son, both are hailed and welcomed as members by the people of the last time. This TrvEi3pLa '272 blows where He wills On. 38). "The promise is unto you and to your children," but also "to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Ac. "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Ac. 2'7). We have made what might be regarded as a natural attempt to understand the distinctive Els- T6 6votta EN273 of Mt. 281s in the context of the missionary command. If this attempt is successful and fruitful both in general and in detail, this els T6 6vottaEN 274 gives a special emphasis to the last five verses of the Gospel. it strengthens impressively the marked counter-stress of this conclusion to the orientation to the 01. Testament promise which Spirit into the name EN274 into the name EN272
EN273
2. Baptism with Water characterises the message of the Gospel elsewhere. This extended Els TO 6voicca EN275 is not, then, an alien body. Though not intrinsically impossible, the hypothesis that it is an ancient interpolation loses its relative necessity, and it certainly cannot claim to be the only possible exegetical solution. The Trinitarian extension of what is as a rule a christological Et g TO 6ivo,u,a EN276, confirming the rule rather than breaking it, proves to be meaningful in this instance, so that it is not to be interpreted as an assimilation to some generally known and recognised baptismal and confessional statement which was Trinitarian in form. On the contrary, one might ask whether we do not have here at least one of the origins of the Trinitarian theology which was to become so important and which was at this point-though this was not apparent later-a part of missionary theology. The formula is not, then, a free development of the concept of God. It is a confession which follows the transition of the message of salvation from Israel to the Gentiles, which may even anticipate this, but which certainly confirms and explains it. It received its content and form in connexion with the baptism of the Gentiles (as a statement of the goal with a view to which they particularly were to be baptised). it thus found its appropriate place in the context of the missionary command of the risen Lord: "Make disciples of all nations."
III Now that we have considered the basis and goal of baptism, the theme under the third main head will be its meaning. As concerns the basis, we believe that baptism does not take place contin- [101] gently, or capriciously, or mechanically, or under any physical or moral compulsion. It takes place as an act of free obedience to the command of Jesus Christ, in willing recognition of its validity and authority. it takes place necessitate praecepti EN277. As concerns the goal, we believe that baptism is not a step in the dark, but that it looks and moves forward to Him to whose command it corresponds. It is baptism into His name. The community and those whom it baptises believe in Him, love Him, and commit themselves to Him. Christian baptism is given and received in hope in Him. it is a specific action taken in concert by those who are already serious Christians and those who seek to be such, by the Christian community and those who newly confess their Lord. In the light of the first two main points we are constrained to make the general statement that the meaning of Christian baptism which we now seek is the meaning of this human action as such: the characteristic intention with which it is done; the true thing which takes place in this washing with water as distinct from what happens in similar processes both secular and sacred; the distinctive thing which stamps it as Christian baptism and which stamps those who participate in it both as ministers and candidates. We must emphasise that it is the meaning of this human action, the action EN275 EN276 EN277
into the name into the name by necessity of command
97
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* taken by men who are obedient to Jesus Christ and who hope in Him. At issue is the baptism with water which responds to baptism with the Holy Spirit and which cries out for this. At issue is this human work which is done in free decision and which is made possible, permissible and mandatory by the divine work and word of grace which took place in Jesus Christ. At issue is the meaning of this human work and decision. The "praise of baptism" cannot be exhausted by a reference to the divine basis and the divine goal of this human action. Baptism has to be seen and understood and praised also in the true and distinctive thing which characterises it as a human action proceeding from that basis and hastening to that goal. We ask, then, concerning the meaning of the water baptism which responds to the baptism of the Spirit and which cries out for it. To begin with a critical observation, the praise of baptism is not served but fatefully damaged if the sanctity of this action is sought, not in the true and distinctive thing which characterises it as a human action, but in a supposedly immanent divine work. The presumed better becomes an enemy of the good, and one misses the meaning, if one regards it as too mean a thing to focus attention on that which is willed and done in baptism by the men whom God has liberated for it. If the true and distinctive thing in baptism is sought in a divine work and word which takes place in, with and under what men will and do, then we are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. On the one side, that [102] which men will and do is completely overshadowed and obscured by the immanent divine work and word. It is thus robbed of significance and interest, and cannot be the proper theme of independent study. On the other side, that which men will and do becomes as such the will and accomplishment of the divine work and word. The human action as such is also a divine action. Water baptism is integrated into the baptism of the Spirit, and renders the latter super uous. Either way, Christian baptism is treated docetically. It is diveste • of its character as the water baptism which is distinct from the baptism of the Spirit, as the human decision which corresponds to the divine turning to man. It thus ceases to be a truly human work and word which proceeds from that basis, which hastens to that goal, and which is done in the freedom that God has given to men. At the commencement of the Christian life there is, then, no free human answer to the act and call of the free God. The subordination of baptism to its basis and goal also disappears; its meaning is identical with its basis and goal. It is a strangely competitive duplication of the history of Jesus Christ, of His resurrection, of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. All this, and the implied understanding of the meaning of baptism, has to be resolutely rejected. Nor is this rejection surprising in view of what has had to be thought and said already about the basis and goal of baptism. Baptism relates to the one divine work which took place in Jesus Christ, to the one divine word which was spoken in Him. it is not itself, however, a divine work and word. It is the work and word of men who have become obedient to Jesus Christ and who have put their hope in Him. Baptism, as water baptism, takes 98
2. Baptism with Water
place in the light of the baptism of the Spirit, and with a view to it. As such, however, it is not itself the baptism of the Spirit; it is always water baptism. Baptism takes place in active recognition of the grace of God which justifies, sanctifies and calls. It is not itself, however, the bearer, means, or instrument of grace. Baptism responds to a mystery, the sacrament of the history of Jesus Christ, of His resurrection, of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is not itself, however, a mystery or sacrament. It is evident that in this respect we oppose in principle and ab 0v0'278 an ancient and overwhelmingly strong ecclesiastical and theological tradition. Since we oppose this tradition in principle, it will perhaps suffice if we consider briefly and without detailed polemics three of the most important forms of this tradition, the understanding of baptism as a secret work and word of God, and consequently as a mystery, a sacrament, a means of grace. According to Roman Catholic dogmatics-we follow the account of the general doctrine of the sacraments and the specific doctrine of baptism in B. Bartmann, Lehrb. d. DogmatiklI, 7th edn., 1929, 208 ff. and 251 ff., and especially in Michael Schmaus, Kathol. Dogmatik IV, 3rd/4th edn., 1952, 5 ff. and 109 ff. -baptism, like the other sacraments, is a sign which was [103] instituted by Jesus Christ Himself and which is used and guaranteed by Him (through the Church's baptism). it is filled with divine power and (far more profoundly and comprehensively than the word, since it is perceived with all the senses) it also symbolises and causally underlies this power. As a plunging into water and a coming up out of the water it is a similitude of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but a similitude which controls and mediates the reality depicted. To this degree it is the basic epiphany, the basic extension of His existence. But as such it is also the medium and instrument of His mediatorial person and work. In baptism He proclaims Himself, He re-presents Himself and His work, He makes Himself the contemporary in every age of those who receive Him, He makes them His contemporaries, He reaches them in time. In it He also works on and in them. in it, if it is given correctly (with the intention of doing what the Church does), and if they do not oppose the corresponding intention to receive it (if they place no obex) the work of the Holy Spirit is done in them, and the Spirit is imparted to them. In it, as an imitation of His saving work, God Himself in His incarnate Logos does His own work of salvation on them and in them, drawing them into the sphere of His operation. In it, then, their sin is destroyed, they are born again and created anew, and they also acquire an active part in the priestly offering and royal rule ofjesus Christ. In it the theological virtues of faith, love and hope are poured into them once and for all. in it they receive-as the presupposition for receiving all further sacramental and other bestowals of grace-the indelible character of men who belong to Jesus Christ, who are fashioned in the likeness of His human nature, who are thus like Him. In it the stream of divine love, which flows from the Father to the Son, from the Son to the human nature which He assumed and the Holy Spirit sanctified, and from this to the baptising Church, debouches in the human ego of the baptised person. All this takes place ex opere operatoEN279 . Though faith and obedience are both demanded and established, it takes place quite independently of the faith, the personal orthodoxy, or the moral worthiness of either minister or recipient. As this mystery, as the first of the seven sacraments entrusted to the Church (the Eucharist is the central sacrament in this system), baptism is the foundation of the Christian life. EN278 EN279
from the outset automatically
99
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life The baptismal teaching of the Lutheran Church, according to the confessional documents and the presentation in H. Schmid, Dogmatik der Ev.-Luth. Kirche, occupies, like much of Lutheran theology, a midway position between the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed doctrine, which we shall outline later. It is intentionally more compre ensive than either, and in its outworking it is more difficult and (seemingly or genuinely) less coherent. Here, too, baptism (along with the Lord's Supper) is a visible sign which was instituted by Christ and which proclaims Him, and it is also the effective means, organ, or instrument of an invisible grace. Here, too, God is the original and true Minister, though normally represented by the regular ministry of the Church. As compared with Roman Catholic teaching, which also sees the connexion, greater emphasis is here laid on the relation between baptism (or the sacrament generally) and the written and preached Word of God, the signum audibile EN280, which resembles it in power and efficacy, but which also takes precedence of it. More difficult to explain, then, is the necessity of baptism as well as the Word. Since the means of grace is fundamentally one, why does it take a twofol I form? Is it because of the weakness of faith that in addition to the Word the sacrament is also needed as a personal application of the Word? However that may be, baptism, or the baptismal action, is again in the first instance a reflection (pictura). Rather oddly, it is here a reflection of the anthropological analogue of the death and resurrection ofjesus Christ, namely, the death of [104] the old man and the rising to life of the new. There is here exemplified the conversion which is required each day in the life of the baptised, so that a special sacrament of penance is redundant. Baptism is again dynamic rather than static. It can reproduce in the baptised that which is reflected. For it brings with it as an objectively certain promise the gift of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sin (non-imputation rather than eradication), the new birth, and reception into Christianity. How can water do such great things? L Jow can it convey this promise to those baptised therewith? Luther's first answer is that these things are done by God's Word, which is in and with the water, and by faith, which trusts this Word of God in the water. But he himself, and all his followers, went on at once to make a more precise distinction. Faith alone makes true use of baptism, for it is man's saving, subjective appropriation of the promise which is offered to him with objective certainty. Without faith, the promise is given, but in vain. The idea of an ex opere operato EN281 effect of baptism is thus avoided. Faith, however, does not make baptism the bearer of the promise or consecrate the water as the "divine, heavenly, holy and blessed" baptismal water. This can be done only by the Word of God, which demands faith, which mysteriously creates it in the normal instance of infant baptism, but whose force cannot be conditioned in any way by the faith of either the recipient or the minister. Concretely the Won of God is the word of institution which is to be spoken in baptism and which stamps water baptism as such. This word culminates in the specific application: "I baptise thee in the name "High Lutheran orthodoxy, not, of course, without inner opposition, would then speak of two "matters" of baptism which are constituted an inseparable unity by this word. On the one side is the earthly matter, water, and on the other the heavenly matter, the blood of Christ which justifies the sinner, or the Holy Spirit who renews him, or the whole Trinity which comes to dwell in him. Either way, the consecrated water becomes (ex verbo 1ocuto EN282 if not ex opere operato? EN283 ) the objectively powerful bearer of the promise, and baptism (this is the Lutheran concern on the left hand) is more than a nota et signum christianae confessionisEN284, more than a symbol of Chrisaudible sign by the fact of the action being performed EN282 by the word spoken EN283 u a tomatically, by the action performed EN284 mark and sign of Christian confession EN281
100
. Baptism with Water tian fellowship, more than an allegory of mortficatio EN285 and vivi catio EN286 more than an admonition to faith, in short, more than a sign. Like the Lord's Supper, and like the written and preached Word, it is, as sign, a means of grace too. In the Reformed doctrine of baptism, according to Calvin's Institutio IV, 14 f., the confessional writings, and the presentation of Reformed orthodoxy in H. Heppe, Dogmatik der Ev. Ref Kirche, baptism, like the Lord's Supper and the Church in general (politica administratio'287 comes at the end of the same list), is one of the externa media vel adminicula, quibus Deus in Christi societatem nos invitat et in ea retinet EN288. More strongly than in Roman Catholic or Lutheran teaching, baptism is here not merely related to the written and preached Word of God, but subordinated to it as an appendix. What it makes possible or establishes in the power of the free operation of the Holy Spirit is knowledge. Presupposing that the baptised is elect, and can thus have a share in the testimony of the Holy Spirit, baptism bears witness to him and confirms and assures him that he belongs to God's covenant of grace with His people, that he is implanted into Christ, that he is accepted into the community, that he has remission of sins, renewal and sanctification, it seals (obsignat-the idea of a seal attached to a document plays a great role here) the application of the Gospel to him, its validity for him. He receives in it a sign and pledge of the fact that the promise which is given him through the Word is really true, and stands fast. Here, too, the special function of the sacrament is explained to be that of a signum visibleEN289 which, because of the imbecillitas'29° of the flesh, is necessary for man, and is given to him by God in gracious condescension. The sacramental union to which there is reference here, too, is thus as follows. Just as certainly as we are normally washed with water which cleanses away the filth of [105] the body, the same happens to the soul as a cleansing from sin through the blood and Spirit of Christ. Faith, which recognises, affirms and grasps Christ and all His benefits, is not, then, an effect of baptism. In the elect, awakened like a seed by the Holy Spirit even in the mother's womb, it precedes baptism. When, however, the Holy Spirit makes baptism profitable for faith, faith receives therein indispensable strengthening, assuring, nourishing and deepening. This is the specific work and gift of baptism. Related is the fact that the Word by whose addition to the water the sacrament was constituted is not here the mere word of institution, or the formula in nomine EN291 ,u, D the whole living proclamation entrusted to the ministerium Verbi diviniEN292. Related, too, is the fact that the right to baptise, in contrast to what is in this respect the broader theory and practice of both Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism, is granted exclusively and without exception-there are to be no baptisms by midwives or emergency baptisms-to the regular members of this ministeriumEN293 during public worship. it should be noted that in addition to its significance as a divine work and gift Calvin also sought to ascribe to baptism a complementary meaning of a very different kind, namely, as the initial act which attests, pledges and confesses the Christian faith before God, angels and men. He developed this aspect, however, with surprising brevity, and when he was concerned to establish or defend infant baptism he usually preferred not to speak of it at all. Similarly, in the teaching of the Reformed confessions and Reformed orthodoxy mortification vivification EN287 political administration EN288 external means or ordinances by which God invites us into the fellowship of Christ and keeps us in it EN289 visible sign EN290 weakness EN291 In the name ... EN292 ministry of the divine Word EN293 ministry EN285 EN286
101
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Lffe
[106]
there are only traces of this complementary side, and consequently of the recognition that baptism can have this meaning too. The controlling and decisive statement of Reformed doctrine is that baptism, though it is not the causa salutis EN294, does mediate its cognitio EN295 and certitudoEN296. It is not here a form of God's work, but it is a form, relatively necessary in its proper place and manner, of the Word of God which reveals this work. In this sense it is here the sacramentum initiationis EN297 , the foundation of the Christian life, which cannot be repeated and which does not need to be supplemented by confirmation or penance. (My own work The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism, 1943, E.T. 1948, belongs fundamentally to the Reformed tradition as here outlined.) The differences between these three classical forms of traditional baptismal teaching are plain to see. All three are still held to-day in many variations which either emphasise the distinctive features or involve reciprocal assimilation. We are interested here neither in the differences nor in the variations and nuances. Our present interest is in the consensus that the meaning of baptism is to be sought and found in a divine action which is concealed in the administration by men and which makes use of this. What concerns us is the consensus that baptism is to be defined, described and explained as a mystery. This consensus needs to be demythologised. We oppose it. Against it we set the principle that the water baptism which is given by the community and desired and received by the candidates is the human action which corresponds to the divine action in the founding of the Christian life, which goes to meet this, which responds to baptism with the Holy Spirit and cries out for it. It is the human action whose meaning is obedience to Jesus Christ and hope in Him. In this counter-thesis we neither can nor should contest the fact that God, who as such is the auctor primariusEN298 of all creaturely occurrence, is specifically in the work and word of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit the free Lord of the action of the community which bears witness to Him, and therewith of its baptism too. He is this as the Lord who has freed and who continually frees these men for this ministry, for kee ing His commandments, for grasping His promise. Hence His action within and on them, His presence, work and revelation in their whole action, and therewith in their baptism, does not supplant or suppress their action. It does not rob it of significance. On the contrary, it establishes and demands it as their own action which is obedient to Him, which hopes in Him, which does not encroach but is responsible to Him, which in all its genuine humanity bears witness freely to Him. How could baptism, along with all the action of the community and the individual Christian, be a true answer if the action of God were not present and did not precede and follow it in His work and word? Nevertheless, God's action among and on them awakens and demands their own action, including baptism, as the human response thereto. God's action gives ethical meaning to their action, including their action in baptism. It gives it the character of a counter-witness which receives and affirms the witness of the Holy Spirit. If baptism were a mystery, if at root God were acting in the place of men and men in the place of God, this ethical significance could be ascribed to it only incidentally, more or less artificially, and fundamentally not at all. Calvin seems to be aware of this ethical meaning. But he could not establish or maintain it seriously. In him it is palpable that baptism, regarded as a sacrament, cannot have this significance. If, like faith, love, and the whole action of the Church, especially its preaching, it is basically a divine action, how can it be understood and taken seriously as a human action? Our objection to the sacramental interpretation of baptism is cause of salvation knowledge EN296 certainty EN297 sacrament of initiation EN298 primary author EN294
EN295
102
2. Baptism with Water directed against this conjuring away of the free man whom God liberates and summons to his own free and responsible action. Lest this objection be misunderstood, we must insist that it also contradicts and in no way conforms to the understanding of baptism which was championed in the early Church by groups which stood under Gnostic influence, which was held by the Separatists in the age of the Reformation, and which is still espoused by some denominations to-day. There is a certain similarity in so far as this understanding, too, carries with it an explicit criticism of the sacramental interpretation. On closer examination, however, it will not be overlooked that this is the only point of agreement, and that the context and meaning of this criticism are obviously very different from ours. If in this understanding the sacramental view of water baptism is rejected or avoided-often far too hastily and critically-the price which is blatantly paid is that the external work of water baptism, robbed of its glory as a sacrament, is replaced by an "inner work" in the form of experiences, inspirations, illuminations, exaltations or raptures. This work as such is then invested with the sacramental interpretation denied to water baptism, and it is thus identified with the baptism of the Spirit. Hence the problem of the sacramental significance of water baptism, which was supposed to be set aside in this understanding, is not set aside at all in practice. It immediately reappears in another form. Here again there is no place for the man who obeys the work and word of God. The answer which he is liberated to give to that which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man," to that which may be known only by God's revelation through His Spirit (1 Cor. 29f), is fundamentally eliminated again by exclusive interest in a divine factor which is to be grasped in the human. The fact that this doctrine of baptism constantly leads in practice to a more or less openly admitted depreciation of water baptism is not the real problem; it is only a typical symptom of the problem. As the outer work of water baptism is shunned in favour of an inner baptism labelled the baptism of the Spirit, as this outer work is despised or even omitted, there is again manifested in a special and acute form the fact that on this view of baptism the rendering of man's obedient answer to the grace of God is omitted and thwarted. For the freer or stricter praxis pietatis"299 which is finally seen on man's part in the train or context of this "baptism of the Spirit" cannot be called a free and obedient answer to the word of revelation, since, combined with a more or less explicit refusal to obey the command by submitting to the external work of baptism, the freedom proclaimed in respect of the divine commandment is thus in truth non-freedom, and the praxis pietatis'° based on this understanding of the baptism of the Spirit is in truth arbitrariness. That which true baptism with the Holy Spirit, as God's Spirit, demands, that which this baptism aims at as something which can indeed be called a sacramental happening, namely, the human answer which corresponds with faithfulness to the faithfulness of God, the obedient freedom which is also free obedience, is thus endangered, obscured and hampered also by a sacramental interpretation of certain inner processes in man which take the place of water baptism. In delimitation therefrom it should be made clear that our earlier criticism of the view that water baptism is a sacrament was not designed to disparage, weaken, or demean the true and proper dignity of this baptism, but rather to enhance it. This dignity consists in the fact that in baptism-certainly along with all kinds of experiences-a man may take up his responsibility to God's work and word in a first public and binding act, and may thus begin to live the life of one who is obedient to the divine promise and claim. EN299 EN300
practice at. piety practice of piety
103
[107]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life Before going on to develop the ethical meaning of baptism, we must first take up a question which cannot be evaded by any dogmatics which is faithful to its task. The sacramental understanding of baptism in all confessions appealed and still appeals to certain concepts, statements and passages which are to be found in the New Testament. It claims to rest on a biblical foundation. In order that we may pursue our positive train of thought with a good conscience and without fear of attack, it is obviously necessary that we should give an exegetical answer to the representatives of this tradition. In the book Vocabulaire Biblique, which was published in 1954 and which is in its own way a valuable and commendable work, the editor jean-Jacques von Allmen defines the New Testament doctrine of baptism as follows: Le bapteme est essentiellement une oeuvre de Dieu-rend efficace la mort et la resurrection du Christ -insere dans le Christ crucOe et glorifie ajoute a l'Eglise est une nouvelle naissance- est une condition d'entree dans le Royaume de DieuEN3°1 , and, from the standpoint of the action of the minister, est une facon de sacnfier (consacrer, dedier) a Dieu aux qui desormais ne veulent plus vivre pour eux-memes, mais pour sa gloire 302. Is this really the New Testament teaching?
To oppose that tradition is one thing; we think it imperative to do so here. To oppose Holy Scripture is quite another; this we may not do. Our previous discussions of the basis and goal of baptism, in which we have kept as close as possible to the understanding of baptism found in the New Testament, have not led us to the conclusion, however, that it is to be regarded as a mystery or sacrament in the light of New Testament teaching. On the contrary, what we have seen to be the basis and goal of baptism in the New Testament can only lead us to take up the question of its meaning with a certain preconception, namely, that this meaning has to be understood in any case as the ethical meaning of an action which, though it comes from Jesus Christ and hastens towards Him, is still genuinely human. It would perhaps be as well, however, to [108] suspend this preconception temporarily. For it might be that there are New Testament statements about the meaning of baptism, about what takes place when it is administered, in which, contrary to all our expectations, there is ascribed to it a sacramental character, a hidden work and word of God which completely relativises the action of the human participants. it might be that there are passages which show that that tradition and its consensus are justified-passages with which we have to come to terms, to which we must orientate ourselves at all costs, and in the light of which we shall perhaps have to reassess and correct our conclusions about the basis and goal of baptism, and thus to give to the whole of our baptismal teaching a different aspect which is closer in some ways to the conventional understanding. We have thus to ask, Baptism is essentially a work of God, making effective the death and resurrection of Christ, incorporating into Christ crucified and glorified, adding to the Church, is a new birth, is a condition of entering the Kingdom of God EN302 is a mode of sacrifice (consecration, dedication) to God those who from now on no longer wish to live for themselves, but for His glory EN301
104
2. Baptism with Water
with an open mind, whether there are any such statements in the New Testament. First, however, a clarification of the concept mystery or sacrament is needed. The decisive point may be made succinctly in a single statement. The New Testament does not use this concept to denote baptism. In the New Testament pivariiptovEN303 denotes an event in the world of time and space which is directly initiated and brought to pass by God alone, so that in distinction from all other events it is basically a mystery to human cognition in respect of its origin and possibility. If it discloses itself to man, this will be, not from without, but only from within, through itself, and therefore once again only through God's revelation. The appearance and development of certain demonic and ungodly powers, which in a puzzling way are tolerated for a while by God, though they hasten to their defeat and destruction, and hence to the revelation of their nothingness and of God's sovereignty, can be called a p,vo-nfiptov EN304 , cf. the great mystery of iniquity which precedes the final return of Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 27), or the whore Babylon-Rome, which is drunk with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (Rev. 175). To be understood along the same lines is the partial hardening of Israel which for the time being is simply to be noted and bewailed as a fact (Rom. 1125). As a rule, however, a izvaTiiptovEN305 is a form of the doing of God's positive will. Thus in Mk. 411 par. it is the divine seizure of power which takes place in the word and deed ofjesus, and which is hidden from the many but revealed to the few. Again, in i Core 27 it is God's wisdom in relation to man's-a wisdom which in the cross of Jesus Christ is concealed from some and revealed to others. In Col. 22f. it is simply Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. in Col. 127 it is again Christ in His presence v 5piv EN306, in His community. in 1 Tim. 3 16 it is the whole movement of His being, humiliation and exaltation. In Eph. 19 and 339 it is the will and act of God in adding the Gentiles to Israel. In Eph. 532 it is the relation of Christ to His community as the original of the relation of husband and wife. In 1 Cor. 1551 it is the changing of the living at the moment of the final parousia'307 . Something of the same is in view when i Cor. 132 ascribes to Christian prophets a knowledge of (all) p,varlipta' 3°8 and i Cor. 142 says that those who speak with tongues utter mysteries (in a way that others cannot understand). One thing is clear. Whether in the singular or plural the New Testament uses the term exclusively with reference to God's work and revelation in history, not to the corresponding human reactions. The ITtaTIS EN309 to whose pdval-lptovEN31° I Tim. 39 refers is obviously the fides quaeEN311- and not the fides qua crediturEN312, and the same may be said of the ILvari;ptov Tijg aarE-Petag EN313 in Tim. 3's. Faith as a human action is nowhere [109] called a mystery, nor is Christian obedience, nor love, nor hope, nor the existence and function of the &KAncrtaEN314, nor its proclamation of the Gospel, nor its tradition as such, nor baptism, nor the Lord's Supper. Would this omission have been possible if the New EN303
mystery mystery mystery EN306 in you EN304 EN305
EN307 coming EN308 m ysteries EN309 faith EN310
mystery which by which it is believed EN313 mystery of piety EN314 church EN311 faith EN312 faith
105
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life Testament community had been aware that certain human attitudes, actions and institutions were freighted with the divine word and act, if it had ascribed to baptism in particular the quality of a bearer and mediator of grace, salvation, and its manifestation? There are mysteries of this kin' in ancient Greece and then in the mystery religions of Hellenistic antiquity. Originally-and this is still discernible in all the meanings added later-the reference was to certain cultic rites which partly presuppose a special edication of the participants and partly convey this. The details of these rites were shrouded in secrecy. In them the story of a (or the) godhead is set before the participants in specific acts which are designed to mediate to them a share in the history, and therewith salvation, namely, a life which conquers death. From the 2nd century onwars s (plainly in Justin and Ignatius) the Church begins to use this concept, though it does not occur in the New Testament. Recollection of what the New Testament denotes by tcvai-ptovEN315 gradually fades. The new concept is applied to the action of the Church, and especially to what it does in baptism and the Lord's Supper. Pagan mysteries are naturally explained either as malicious imitations or (along the lines of the idea of the Myog crTrEpp,aTtKeig EN316\) as significant anticipations of the Christian mysteries. In fact, however, was not Christianity in the process of being given a new form which followed the dazzling pattern of these pagan mysteries but which was quite different from that found in the New Testament? laptism and the Lord's Supper now (for the first time) began to be regarded as cultic re-presentations of the act and revelation of God in the history of Jesus Christ, and consequently as the granting of a share in His grace. They thus began to be described and treated as mysteries. The parallel translation of ,uvar4pLov EN317 by sacramentum EN318 is a separate issue. As a term in Roman law a sacramentumEN319 is a deposit which litigants must leave at a holy place on the opening of a civil suit, and which is forfeited by the defeated party. in the military world it is the oath of loyalty accompanied by an act of religious devotion. One cannot say for certain whether the adoption of this word into the language of Christian theology is really to be explained by the fact-and again, therefore, by way of the mystery religions-that these legal and military pacts were in a sense dedicatory acts, while conversely the initiations of the mystery religions might be regarded also as quasi-legal or quasi-military acts. As Zwingli perspicaciously noted very much later (Gomm. de vera rel., 1525, at the beginning of the section De sacramentis), "sacrament" in the original twofold sense of the term could point in a very different direction when used of baptism. But the Church was hardly looking in this very different direction from the 2nd century onwards. In the vocabulary of Christian the32° derived, not from ology "sacrament" came to have irresisti sly the sense of ptvaTiiptov ' the New Testament, but from the Greek and Hellenistic mystery religions. It came to be used for euvo-77ptovEN321 = re-presentation of the cultic deity means of grace.
This linguistic reminder does not, of course, exclude the possibility that even without using the word the New Testament might have had in view that which began to be called mystery or sacrament in the post-apostolic period. The only sure and certain point is that New Testament usage does not invite or EN315
mystery seminal word mystery EN318 sacrament EN319 sacrament EN320 mystery EN321 mystery EN316
EN317
1°6
2. Baptism with Water
compel us to use this term for baptism, so that those who do so (as that whole [110] tradition has done) cannot appeal to the language of the New Testament. Having said this, however, we must now ask quite seriously whether that which the New Testament says about baptism might not have had in view what was later called a mystery or sacrament according to the usage of older and contemporary mystery religions. In support of this understanding of baptism constant appeal has been made to a whole series of New Testament sayings. We cannot evade the task of considering these in detail to find out whether they perhaps have to be taken sacramentally, whether they might be taken thus, or whether they very definitely cannot be understood in this way. In view of what is at stake, we might begin with two indications of our general hermeneutical approach to this task. Scriptura sui ipsius interpres' 322. In this matter, too, we commend this rule as not merely the simplest but also relatively the most secure. Its observance does not rule out in principle (a) the use of non-biblical parallels in exposition of the text, or (b) critical emendations or truncations of the text. More or less plausible hypotheses are undoubtedly to be considered as they arise. It does mean, however, that the introduction of such hypotheses can enter into the question only as a final means of exposition. The primary attention of the expositor must be focused on asking how a verse, in its traditional form, is to be understood in terms of itself and its narrower and broader context. Again, observance of this principle does not rule out (c) the danger that an expositor will be too restricted or too broad in his approach to a text, and will thus do violence to it, by reason of the conscious or unconscious philosophical or dogmatic presuppositions which he brings with him to the task. This danger has to be constantly borne in mind, and we must be on guard against it with all possible conscientiousness at every turn, so that the text is given as much liberty as practicable to say what it has to say. The expositor must be aware that even when he interprets scripturam per scripturamEN323 he is still interpreting. He is not expounding as it were from heaven or in terms of an absolutely assured self-understanding. The results of no exegesis can claim to be completely selfevident. In every case findings can be published only with the statement that in this or that text, according to the view and well-considered judgment of the expositor, with a high or small, or perhaps a higher and even the highest degree of probability, this or that is to be read or not read. No exegetical method either has been or is infallible. To be sure, each age in Church history, and in each age each school (including the heterodox and those disparaged on other grounds), has had and has, in its particular method, its own special possibilities of approximating to what the Old and New Testaments actually say, at some points to its advantage, at others to its disadvantage, as compared with other ages and other schools. There never has been nor can be any question of more than possibilities of approximation. Happy is the expositor who can have at least relative certainty at any point! No one should boast that he has said the last word, that he has spoken with absolute accuracy or authority, on any text. No one should laud another for so doing. The more definitely an expositor thinks he has found or not found this or that in a text, the more sharply he should let the question be put to him whether he has not been too clever and found too much, or too obtuse and found too little; whether he has not found what is not there, or perhaps failed to find what is. This does not have to imply uncertainty in respect of his findings if he goes his EN322 EN323
Scripture is its own interpreter Scripture by Scripture 107
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life [ill] way resolutely, circumspectly and with a good conscience. Why should he not dare to proclaim what he has found, to give the reasons which have led him to it, to test whether or how far the findings and the reasons will speak for themselves to others? What is implied is the modesty with which the expositor is ready to examine his results afresh and to subject them to the scrutiny of others. In the meantime, however, he is provisionally directed and authorised to base his further thinking on these findings. All this is to be expressly noted and stipulated in advance in relation to our study of the New Testament texts which are so commonly and impressively adduced in favour of a sacramental understanding of baptism, and in relation to the results of this study.
Three preliminary observations must be made on this exegetical task in detail and in concreto EN324. First, the act of baptism was such an impressive and incisive event in the life and thinking of the New Testament community, of those who already belonged to it, and of those who were joining it, that one may well make the general and non-committal assumption that when words or concepts like water, river, pool, fountain, bath or washing are used in the New Testament texts, the authors, hearers and readers recall and are reminded of baptism to a greater or lesser degree. In this sense there are probably more baptismal texts in the New Testament than those which carry an express reference to lecon-tOitv EN325 , etc. It should be added at once, however, that for the most part such texts are only externally associated with this whole field, so that they have little or nothing to tell us about the meaning of baptism. Secondly, it should be considered that strictly speaking baptism is an independent theme in the New Testament only in the account of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and in Mt. 28's. The baptismal narratives of Acts, though instructive, obviously do not contribute to a doctrine of baptism. They simply serve to emphasise and illustrate the story of the astonishing progress made in proclaiming and spreading the Gospel. For the rest, we find properly only references to baptism, and it is worthy of note that these all occur in ethical contexts. Baptism was plainly an element in the life of the New Testament community rather than its teaching. One searches the New Testament in vain for a theology of baptism such as that which we are attempting here, particularly in relation to the question of its meaning. Thirdly, when the New Testament speaks directly or indirectly of baptism, a distinction has always to be made. Does what is said about it really refer to the action as such, or does it refer (even if in the light of the action or with reminiscence of it) to what we have called its basis on the one side and its goal on the other, i.e., to the divine act of salvation and revelation which is the basis and intention of the action and which is reflected, though only reflected, in it? To come to grips with the matter, it is natural to begin with passages which are controlled EN324 EN325
in concrete baptising
o8
2. Baptism with Water by terms that correspond to the vivid realism of the action. Baptism is called a [1121 KaaptapAr EN326 at jn. 25 3 in a context in which its technical character as water baptism plays a special role. Washing with water is obviously for the purpose of cleansing. in what sense does baptism cleanse? "The blood ofjesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin" (1 jn. i 7). Is it permissible or even mandatory to say this, with some modification, about baptism too? This is the primary question. "And now why tarriest thou? (says Ananias to Saul in Damascus) . Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name (the name ofjesus)" (Ac. 2216). Nowhere else in the New Testament is baptism brought into such direct relation to cleansing from sin (without even the interposition of tt€Tavota EN327 ). Is the verse saying that Saul's washing with water is (causatively) the instrument of his cleansing from sin or at least the visible sign which he is given of this invisible grace? If so, it refers (sacramentally) to a divine action which is at work in and with baptism or through its administration. A first glance at the wording shows that this interpretation cannot be ruled out altogether. Closer investigation, however, suggests that it is most unlikely. "Why tarriest thou?" "Arise." This appeal, and the use of the middle gdwiTtaatEN328, show that no wonderful experience of grace is held out to Saul. On the contrary, he has already experienced the grace, and he is not summoned to a resolute act, and this in the context of the disclosure (v. 15) that God has foreordained him to be a witness ofjesus Christ to all men. The basic act of baptism which he is commanded to perform at the beginning of the way that he must go is, however, that herewith, by having himself washed with water, he can and should call upon Him, Jesus (in v. 14 the Just One whom he has seen and heard), the One by whom his sins are already washed away, by whom he is cleansed from them, in whom he can know that he is truly clean, in whom he may thus find himself liberated to discharge that ministry. The guilty Saul, who is nevertheless ordained to be the witness ofjesus, will not pray in vain for the forgiveness of sins to Him, the just One, who has called him to Himself. His water baptism will not effect this. It is, however, his prayer for it, not merely in words but in a concrete act. Its goal, then, is this euroAamcrOat EN329 which is to be effected by the Lord upon whom he calls. This invocation or petition is thus the meaning of his baptism. All things considered, this non-sacramental exposition of the passage, though not incontestable, is to be regarded as decidedly the more probable. The matter is much the same when we turn to Heb. 1022. The context here is that of exhortation to make undeviating use of the entry into the sanctuary of God which has been opened and assured by the blood of Jesus Christ (v. is). It is the context of exhortation, then, to make an unwavering confession of hope (v. 23) The relevant verse runs: "Let us draw near (irpocrEpr.bauda) with a true heart in full assurance (jv ITATipockoptq,) of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (tlepavi-tap,6ot) from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." It will be seen that there is no express reference to baptism. The final clause is so vivid, however, that one can hardly deny that there is actual allusion to water baptism. Washing of the body with pure water is exactly what takes place in the act of baptism. One thing which is not so clear in baptism, however, is that with the washing of the body there has also taken place the sprinkling of the hearts of the readers, so that in virtue of the washing of the body they are capable of drawing near with a true heart. Perhaps it might seem legitimate and even necessary to regard this statement as the purpose of what is done, and tacitly to supplement it thus. Hebrews, however, knows no entry into the sanctuary but cleansing repentance EN328 have yourself baptised EN329 washing away EN326 EN327
109
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life that which was opened and assured once and for all by the blood of Jesus Christ, and quite obviously it also knows of no eavTtcrp,cls EN330 wcis necessary for making use of this entry [113] apart from that in which man participates again through the blood of Jesus Christ. Only in the power of what has taken place in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, of the i)avincrsatp,aTog 'Inca XptaTot5EN331 (1 Pet. 12), only through the offering (TrpocrOopa) of His body, are Christians sanctified ( low) , or, according to the present verse, cleansed from an evil avvEt8n ç 332 , from the continually disquieted knowing together (with God) which characterises the past with its constant sacrifices. They could not escape this disquietude without knowing the change brought about in Jesus Christ. But they are liberated from it, their hearts are liberated from it, by the coming of this change and its manifestation. They are liberated from dead works to serve the living God (9'). In the full assurance of the faith which knows, accepts and grasps this change and which is based upon it, with true hearts which are cleansed by the truth of this reality, they can and should dare to make this entry. Baptism does not effect this true and actual cleansing. It cannot be the object or basis of their faith. According to the whole tenor of Hebrews there are no cleansings apart from that which took place in the death of Jesus Christ: neither that of the old covenant nor any new ones which might replace it. But the baptism of Christians-this is perhaps the meaning of the final clause in the verse-can and may and should remind them of the cleansing which took place once and for all in the death of Jesus Christ. For they were the ones who, having themselves washed with pure water, committed themselves irrevocably to the earTta,u6s- EN333 of their hearts by the blood of Jesus Christ. In this connexion one should recall what is said in Heb. 61E about the uniqueness of conversion to Jesus Christ which corresponds to the uniqueness of His being and work. If the baptismal action to which the readers once submitted could neither effect nor reveal their cleansing for entry into the sanctuary, they themselves, by submitting thereto, are witnesses to the fact that they are bound and pledged to Him who did in fact effect and reveal it, so that the drawing near to which they are summoned can only be a continuing on the way which they have already entered. Unless appearances deceive, one can hardly ascribe sacramental significance to baptism on the occasion of its mention in Heb. 1022. The same cannot be said quite so definitely in respect of Eph. 525f- . Rather oddly, at a first glance, this says: "Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and aaTog cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Kaaptuag Tc1) Aotr-rpci) kiliaTt). It must be conceded that when there is reference to washing with water neither author nor readers could avoid thinking of baptism too. The question is: In what sense did they recall it? Do we have here-this is the decisive point-two different processes, a first in which Jesus Christ loved the community and gave Himself for it, and a second in which He sanctified it that He might present it without "spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" (v. 27)-sanctified it by coming to it in His self-sacrifice, displaying His power, and cleansing it with the washing of water by the word? If so, this sentence or clause undoubtedly ascribes a sacramental character to the cleansing and thus to the act of baptism. Christ Himself is at work, not merely in love and self-offering, but also in baptism, and the cleansing of the community does in fact take place, in and with its administration. On this view the rather disruptive Ey 13,4tuaTt EN334 (rendered "in conjunction with the word" in the Zurich Bible) is to be understood along the lines of Augustine's accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentumEN335 , or sprinkling sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ EN332 conscience EN333 sprinkling EN334 byy the word Ems5 if the Word by joined to the element, a sacrament is made EN330
EN331
10
2. Baptism with Water Luther's water of baptism embraced in God's Word and command, or even as a reference to the magical formula which is part of the celebration of the Gnostic mystery of redemption. On this whole line of exposition the possibility that in Ephesians the mystery infiltrated into the New Testament certainly demands serious consideration. The exposition is by no means impossible, and if the statement does in fact contain two parts it is even to be described, perhaps, as necessary. Nevertheless, the whole saying can be construed and understood [114] quite differently. The statement about the sanctification of the community does not have to be a second one standing over against that about the love and self-sacrifice ofjesus Christ. It, too, may refer to what took place for the community in the love and self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, namely, its sanctification. It is undeniable that if this is so, then there is a plain reference to baptism as "washing with water." What is said is that the sanctification of the community which took place in the love and self-sacrifice of Jesus is the true cleansing of the community through the washing with water which it has truly undergone, which is the goal of water baptism, which is reflected in its technical administration, but which naturally does not take place in and with this. Its sanctification, effected in Jesus Christ on the cross of Golgotha, can be its true cleansing, and in fact it is. For it is not a remote or silent act. As the work of Jesus Christ, it is also a living and present word, and v p7LaTL EN336 it is thus at work among and in them as the divine work which was spoken and which speaks to Christians. On this view we have a parallel here to jn. 1 53: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." Not last or least in view of this much more natural and fruitful interpretation of eihttaTt E337, a non-sacramental exposition of the passage is ultimately to be preferred. A final verse which is relevant in this connexion is Tit. 35, which has played a particularly eminent role in the history of the doctrine of baptism. In the immediate context (vv. 4-7) the decisive saying is as follows: "After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward men appeared (h-44,mi) , not by works of righteousness which we had done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The more immediate passage is set in the broader framework of an admonition that Christians should as such be ready for every good work (v. 1) and that they should exercise themselves in good works (v. 8) (which are to be done in righteousness according to v. 5). The obvious point of the section is to make it clear that the admonition, directed to Christians, is not demanding the impossible but can and should be followed by them. They are no longer under the regime of ignorance, disobedience, error, unbridled desires and mutual hatred (v. 3). The epiphany of the Saviour God has taken place, and in and with it, not on the basis of works of righteousness which were expected, and which have been achieved by them, but on the basis of God's pure mercy, they have been saved, i.e., set in the position of men who are capable of such works. He did this sta Aovi-poi3 TraAtyycvcatag Kca avaKatvd)aEcog 77-vicoeuaTos- EN338, the Spirit who was abundantly shed abroad on them in Jesus Christ. if this AovTp4v 339 is identical with the act of baptism, then, since it can be taken only instrumentally and causatively, a sacramental meaning has incontestably to be ascribed to baptism. The baptism administered to them is the means by which men are set in this new standing, by which they become Christians, i.e., heirs of eternal hope who are justified through the grace ofjesus Christ. Now D the word by the word EN338 through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Spirit washing EN336
y
EN337
ii
i
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life it is likely enough that the sta Am)/ po iiEN34° is here an allusion to the act of baptism. But those who see more than an allusion, those who see a statement about its meaning, and consequently about its meaning as a means of renewing, as many have done in the history of exposition right up to that of the Reformers, those who take this course expose themselves to the following very considerable difficulties, ( ) They must make the attempt-which is not a sound procedure exegetically-to expound this many-sided and materially heavily freighted passage solely in the light of the two words Sta Aov-rpoliEN341, i.e., in the light of these two words as the point of the whole. (2) They have then to justify materially the orien[1 1 5] tation of the whole statement to this single point, showing that the aim of the epiphany of the Saviour God is to save, justify, and make into heirs of eternal life certain men, not by works required of them and performed by them, in virtue of His mercy alone, but through the fact that they have themselves baptised and are baptised. (3) They must assume that this thesis, in distinction from Tit. 2'4, where it is said that Jesus Christ through His self-sacrifice has purified for Himself a people which is His possession and which is zealous for good works, refers to a second and different cleansing, which is in practice decisive, namely, that effected in baptism as that "washing." (4) They must give to 77- akyy EvEa tag EN 3 42 , not the sense which it has in the only other instance in the New Testament (Mt. 1928), namely, the universal restoration or new creation of the world, but a meaning which is abstracted from jn. 33E, namely, that of the individual new birth of specific individuals. (5) They must assume that in this passage-in spite of what the Gospels say about the distinction between the baptism of the Spirit and the baptism of water, and in spite of what Acts presupposes in this respect-renewing with the Holy Spirit is identical or coincident with the act of baptism. Those who feel that these difficulties are too heavy must question whether &a AouTpot5EN343 means "by baptism." Though these two words are reminiscent of baptism, they do not speak of it. In agreement with Tit. 214 the cleansing bath in which Christians have their origin, described also at Tit. 35 in the language of Ezek. 3625 Is. 443 Zech. 13' is the purifying and renewing outpouring of the Holy Spirit which has taken place on the basis of the new creation ushered in by the Saviour God in the history ofjesus Christ. Through this, not through baptism, men become Christians. This is the aim of the epiphany of the Saviour God. It is in this that Christians participate and, justified through the grace of Jesus Christ, become heirs of eternal hope as the people (Tit. 2'4) which He has purified for His own possession and which is as such zealous of good works. In virtue of this, they can and may and must 7naT6s. 41.6yos-EN344,v. 8) be summoned and exhorted to the conduct which befits this new station of theirs. The probable allusion to baptism in the two words sta AouTpo6EN345 consists once again, therefore, in a supplementary reminiscence. Having begun by submitting yourselves to the washing of baptism, you have recognised and confirmed for yourselves the renewal of the world which has taken place in Jesus Christ and which has led to your personal cleansing in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is thus legitimate and necessary to address you on the basis of this new position. One may thus venture to say that a sacramental interpretation of this passage to which appeal is most often made is ruled out almost completely. We now turn to some of the most important verses in which baptism is referred directly to the relation or even the unity of Christians with Christ. What is its connexion with this unity or union which embraces all of man's salvation and founds the whole of the Christian life? Gal. 327 must be considered first. The saying which is decisive in this connexion is to be through washing through washing EN342 regeneration EN343 through washing EN344 'tile saying is trustworthy' EN345 th rough washing EN340
EN341
112
2. Baptism with Water found in the narrower context of vv. 26-29: "For ye are all (nweivi-Eg) the children of God by faith v XptaTc1) 771.73'346 (= that which you have in Him, i.e., by faith in Him). For all of you (6'aotEN347 ) who have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all (rrcivTEg) one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." This narrower context stands for its part in the broader context of a demonstration that the Galatian Christians, by grasping in faith the promise fulfilled in Christ, are freed from the Mosaic Law which precedes this fulfilment, and especially from the requirement of circumcision, so that they do not have to become Jews first in order to become Christians. In both the narrower and the broader context, then, we obviously do not have in v. 27 a mere allusion to baptism but a statement about its meaning: believers are addressed as the baptised. In the light of their baptism it is said to them that their freedom when, grasping the promise, they received baptism, was grounded not only in their faith, but critically. On the basis of a specific happening they are the children of God, they are all one as those who belong to Christ—not Hellenes as distinct from Jews, under no obligation to become Jews first, just as slaves do not have to become free or men women or vice versa. As those they are, they are all Abraham's seed, heirs of the promise given to them and now fulfilled. They believe as people who are all these things. They are all these things because they are in Christ Jesus (vv. 26, 28). They are in Him as they have put Him on, as in virtue of His intercession for them they have been set directly in the sphere of His dominion, of the dynamically advancing law of His life, of His Spirit, as they have become new and different men. This is what is said to them in the light of the fact that they have had themselves baptised. Does this mean that the act with which they all began was itself their putting on of Christ, their ontic renewing? It may be conceded that, though v. 27 does not have to mean this, taken alone it could do so. it could thus lend support to a sacramental view of baptism. The narrower and broader context, and indeed the whole thesis of Galatians, makes it highly unlikely, however, that this is the real meaning. If it is, Paul is saying that the Mosaic Law with its demand for circumcision as initiation into salvation and the beginning of the new life no longer applies to you, and you are free from it, because you already have this initiation and beginning behind you in the event of baptism. The requirement of baptism thus replaces that of circumcision. In the light of its observance, of the fulfilment of this prerequisite, appeal can now be made to the new being of the Galatians as children of God. If this is what is meant, however, it is truly surprising that neither in the narrower or broader context nor in the rest of the Epistle is there any explanation. Why is so decisive a statement made, or merely hinted at, in just a single sentence? If this is the meaning of Gal. 327, how could Paul refrain from dealing plainly and explicitly with baptism in the basic passage Gal. 2"f"? Instead, we find that in both passages the divine act and revelation in Jesus Christ, faith in Him, and the work of the Holy Ghost are specified and described as that initiation and beginning, as the one great renewal of man's being, and hence as the effective abrogation of the Mosaic Law. There is no more place in Galatians than there is in Hebrews for any other alongside it or as the condition of its subjective actualisation. It is thus more natural to assume that Gal. 327 is looking back to the divine change, to the putting on of Christ which in Jesus Christ Himself has been effected objectively and subjectively for the recipients of the Epistle by His Holy Spirit, and that baptism is recalled as the concrete moment in their own life in which they for their part confirmed, recognised and accepted their investing with Christ from a ove , their ontic relationship to Him, not only in gratitude and hope, but also in readiness and Vigilance. They had themselves baptised into Christ dc XptaT4v) when, EN346
in Christ Jesus many as'
EN347 'as
"3
[116]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life along with those who baptised them, they could see and confess that they were men clothed upon with Christ, renewed and liberated in Him. ly this concrete moment in their own lives the apostle entreats and charges them that, as those who have their origin in the divine change, but also in the public human decision which responds and corresponds to it, they should stand fast in freedom (Gal. O. They themselves have affirmed the fact that Christ has made them free. They have done this by having themselves baptised. As viewed neither from above nor below, then, can they let themselves be brought back under a yoke of bondage. They cannot link the entry into salvation and the beginning of the new life with circum[117] cision, with a prior conversion to Judaism. If expounded in any other* way, if expounded sacramentally, the saying in Gal. 327 is a foreign body in its narrower and wider context. With respect to the unity of Christians with Christ, Rom. 63-4 says of baptism: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." A full exposition of this passage would be possible only in the context of an analysis of the whole complex Rom. 5-8. We can deal with it here only in the special light of the meaning of baptism. It has been claimed again and again as the locus classicus"348 of the New Testament doctrine of baptism which is normative for its general understanding. The attempt to treat it thus is not intrinsically impossible, but it is undoubtedly difficult. If it is to turn out well, more care must be taken than is usually the case to note what is actually said and not said. Especially important is the thesis that what is said about baptism has here too, not an independent or thematic character, but in the twofold sense of the word a subsidiary character. It is in the first instance a dramatic underlining of the statement which dominates the narrower context vv. 2-10, namely, that Christians are men who, as concerns the 77-ctAat6sEN350, are crucified with Christ. They are dead to sin in avOpcorrog EN349, the ac3p,a etapTias tk Him. They have no future as sinners, because they have no possibility of existence as such. Thus reduced to nullity, dead with Christ, they may also live in Him, live to God. Also underlined hereby is the point which Paul is making in the larger context vv. 1-11. Not even with the pious ulterior motive of v. 1: "That grace may abound," can Christians try to continue in sin. There can be no such continuance because they are no longer in sin. Since they are dead with Christ, their existence as sinners is irrevocably behind them. What is before them with and in Him can only be a new and different life. This is the real thesis of the passage. It is thus over-hasty exegesis to derive from vv. 3-4 the secondary statement that in baptism Christians have died with Christ and, if possible, been raised up with Him also to a new life; that in practice this radical change has taken place in and through baptism; that in baptism the old things have passed away and all things are made new (2 Cor. 517). According to v. 3 they are certainly to remember that they were baptised into the death of Christ, in which thFir own dying as sinners took place, and from which, since it was followed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, there is opened up the prospect of their own new life beyond this point of nullity. The verse does not say, however, that baptism was the change in which this dying (not to speak of their entry into new life) took place. What we do read is that they were buried with Him by their baptism into His death (in view of the reality of their own dying in His death). In this burial with Him they were not crucified and put to death with Him. When they had been crucified and put to death with Him, then, in view of His death in their place, which enclosed within it their own death, they were—in baptism— buried, laid to rest, interred with Him. This happened to Him too after His death. His body EN348 EN349 EN350
key text old man body of sin "4
2. Baptism with Water was laid aside in burial—the final confirmation that He truly died. This burial with Him, their baptism—this is the ultimate meaning of burial, and hence of the baptism which is behind them—is the regular confirmation of the fact that they have died with Him and in Him. It is not the actual conclusion of their existence as sinners, but the dramatic concluding line which denotes it. Nor is the line which denotes this conclusion a sad one. As participants in Christ's death they need experience no despair nor resignation in view of the resurrection from the dead which follows His death and burial. They can draw the line with the certain hope of a new life which follows their death with Him. This burial from which [118] they come is a happy one—yet it is obviously a burial. Understood thus, the reference to baptism in vv. 3-4 underscores the thesis of the whole context. As Christians are baptised with a view to the death of Christ in which they, too, died as sinners, they register the fact, and it is registered of them, that there is no going back on their way, but that there is for them a promised, permitted and commanded Forward beyond the point behind which they can never go back again. Done away once and for all in the death of Christ, their existence as sinners is behind them; before them there is only a walk in newness of life corresponding to the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead. This is the great change in their situation which is graphically indicated, but not brought about, by their burial with Christ, and hence by their baptism. A subsidiary and incidental appeal can thus se made to this too. Subsidiary and incidental—for the burial of Christians with Christ to which vv. 3-4 allude is one thing, their actual death and future resurrection with Him is quite another. Baptism cannot be—as though this were necessary—a repetition, extension, re-presentation or actualisation of the saving event which is the true theme of the argument in vv. 2-10. it is a basic human Yes to God's grace and revelation, but not a "sacrament," not a means of grace and revelation. The third passage in which baptism is mentioned in relation to the unity of Christians with Christ is Col. 2 12. This saying, too, must be put in its context (2 9_12 ):"For in Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head (sovereign) of all principality (etpx4) and power (eovata): in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation (jvgpyEta) of God, who hath raised him from the dead." An obvious statement about baptism is made only in the parenthetical participial 1N351) clause v. i 2a (crvvTa06,7 -Es, and this agrees materially with the decisive statement in Rom. 64, so that it might suffice to refer to what was said about this. The possibility arises, however, that another and less obvious statement might be made about baptism—a statement which might be decisive for its meaning—in the context of this parenthesis. Because this is in fact maintained, we shall have to devote full attention to this verse. It should be noted first that, while Rom. 6 is directed against libertinism, Col. 2 is aimed at judaistic Gnosticism. On the one side it is shown that in the light of the work of Christ which has been done for them, and which thus embraces their own history, Christians cannot possibly continue in sin; on the other it is shown that in the light of the same work of Christ which was done for them, and which embraces their own history, they cannot possibly let themselves be controlled or influenced by other realities, truths and laws which are supposed to be necessary to salvation. First, then, the general statement is made that God's power, wisdom, holiness and mercy are present completely and perfectly and in all their plenitude in Christ, that the 7TAilipcop,a Tijg 0E4T711-0g EN352 is present bodily (acoitzaTtKCog) in a way which can be neither transcended nor supplemente s in Him who is the KakaAll EN353, who is sovereign having been buried fulness of the Deity EN353 head EN351 EN352
115
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[1 1 9]
over all actual or conceivable authorities and powers, Christians, too, have a share in this fulness (rTE7Tkvcopvot"354), so that they need no supposedly divine revelations, but are in fact sealed off in principle against them, since anything more is only less in comparison with this fulness. To what degree this is so is explained in the two statements in v. : "Ye are circumcised in him," and v. 12: "Ye are risen with him." Because this took place for Christians in the almighty being and work of Jesus Christ, we are told in v. 14 that He set aside the accusation against them and in v. 5 that He disarmed and subjected to Himself all competing apx,tEN355 and je °y aw, EN356. Because they are not circumcised (clicpogvaTtaEN357 ) in Him, because all their transgressions are forgiven through Him (v. 13), He sets aside and forbids all those things which certain teachers were trying to make plausible to the Colossian Christians, and to force on them as necessary to salvation, e.g., sacral dietary rules, feasts of the new moon and sabbaths, the worship of angels (v. 16 f.), and obviously above all circumcision. Another circumcision which has already taken place for them in Christ withstands the temptation to meddle in such things, and so, too, does the awakening which they have already in Christ, in faith in the power of Him who first raised Him from the dead. With respect to this Paul will later challenge them (39 "If ye then be risen with Christ (in Colossians and Ephesians, as distinct from Rom. 6, the resurrection of Christians with Christ is an event which, like their dying with Him, is already behind them) seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God ... your life (which) is hid with Christ in God." The arbitrary worship (jO€Ao0pnaictaEN358 , 223) which is commended to them by those false teachers is not a seeking of the things which are above. For this reason, too, they are forbidden to touch it. Decisive first of all, however, is the circumcision which has taken place for them already. This has not been done with human hands (but obviously with God's, v. 1). It is called a putting off of the "body of the flesh" (obviously the same as the "body of sin" in Rom. 66 and the "body of death" in Rom. 724). It is the circumcision of Christ. Many expositors have tried to see in this circumcision Christian baptism, regarding this as the New Testament equivalent to the Old Testament rite called circumcision. If they are right, then in view of the lofty predicates ascribed to this circumcision in v. i i it is clearly settled that we have in baptism a means, instrument, or channel of grace. There are serious objections, however, to the equation of this circumcision with baptism. Is not the statement: "You are baptised in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament? Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands? In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. i 1: "You are baptised," be set in juxtaposition with that in v. 2: "You are risen ..." when in v. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism? Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends at the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism! Positively, when the clause in v. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not pointing back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that by the circumcision effected on Christians-described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to its thesis-there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took EN354
'having been filled' principalities powers EN357 uncircumcision EN358 self-willed worship
EN355 EN356
11.6
2. Baptism with Water place for Christians and embraces their life. in this death of Christ which embraces them Christians receive a share in the fulness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands, but by God's hand. In it the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. ii speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, its relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found elsewhere in Paul. The reference to Christ's death is a clear and cogent argument against the -0€AoOpnaKta EN359 by whose onset the Colossian community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e., the circumcision effected by God in Him, is justifiable in a defence against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3") the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein-in [120] accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcision (cf. Tit. 2')-God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. i2a a reminiscence of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This reminiscence is not an argument. As in Rom. 6' it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christians you begin with the event in which your burial with Christ, and therewith your liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification or salvation, was concretely confirmed and registered by that which you yourselves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! There is one New Testament saying in which baptism is related to what might be called individual regeneration as distinct from the universal iTaAtyyEvEcTia EN360 or Mt. 1928 (and Tit. 35). This is jn. 35, where the second answer of Jesus to Nicodemus is: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Champions of a sacramental understanding of baptism-Calvin is the only exception-have appealed with particular emphasis to this saying in support of their thesis. There is good reason for paying particular attention to it. "Born of water and of the Spirit" in v. 5 expounds the "born from above" (avcoOcv) in the first saying of Jesus in v. 3. The reference is to the unique event in a man's life which can be expected and effected only from above, from God, the event of his total transposition into one who may see (v. 3) the kingdom of God and who may thus enter it, receiving an active part in its establishment. How does this come about? We note that the man born from above is later described in v. 6 and v. 8 as yEyEllirilliAVOS" j1C 1-013 7TVapa.TOg EN361 (with no e aarog EN362) The natural conjecture that ri,8aTog EN363 in v. 5 was added in an ecclesiastical redaction of the Gospel and should be excised has been advocated by several modern commentators, including R. Bultmann. This removes the difficulty, but it perhaps sets aside as well the true point of the verse. It has no textual support. Hence it is as well to consider the meaning of the traditional text. I/That is meant by "of water and of the Spirit"? Since the two terms could later be reduced to one, we do not seem to have here two different events. Since it is denoted first by the two terms, the one event obviously at issue could be the total renewal in which that which water does is identical with that which the Spirit does, or in which there is a secondary and instrumental operation of water and a primary operation of the Spirit, or in which the work of the Spirit is symbolically revealed in that of water. In the contemporary religious world Hellenism, Judaism and even the so-called disciples of John and related groups described in these or similar combinations the total renewal of man which they, too, preached in different self-imposed worship regeneration EN361 born of the Spirit EN362 of water EN363 of water EN359
EN360
"7
§ 75.
The Foundation of the Christian I*
terms. jn. 35 might have i een influenced by these movements, and, if so, it might be speaking of a sacrament of baptism, to be interpreted more ontically or more noetically in detail. In this case the statement, made on ground common to the New Testament community an the world around it, would be an asserted, though not proved, commendation of Christian baptism: through this and this alone, not through the ordinary rites of initiation, does one enter the kingdom of God, for in this and this alone, in and with the operation of water, there is also-however one understands it-the operation of the Holy Spirit. In ay its variations the dominant Christian theology of baptism has in fact taken this line. jn. 35 can be regarded as offering support for this. But jn. 35 does not have to be understood in terms of the theory and practice of the world around the New Testament community. It does not have to refer to a sacrament of baptism. That it speaks of baptism may be assumed from the fact that the story of Nicodemus is set in the context of the great contrast between John and his [121] baptism on the one side and the person and work of Jesus oft the other. This is the introduction to the Gospel which comes to an end only with 41. The question arises however: How is baptism treate I here? Might it not turn out that there is here a protest against the idea of a work or revelation of salvation in baptism and thus against the baptismal belief which was held in the surrounding world and which was perhaps wis espread, or was just arising, in certain circles in the community itself? If it is surely legitimate to consider the possibility of a non-sacramental interpretation of the e aaTog Kca 7Tv€1),u,aTos- EN364, it is natural to assume that we have in this formula one of the many pairs-in-tension which are characteristic of the thought and utterance of the Fourth Gospel, e.g., "the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent" (173), "grace and truth" (117), "spirit and truth" (423), "blood and water" (1934), "resurrection and life" (1 125), "hear and learn" (645), "hear and believe" (524), "see and believe" (6"), "believe and know" (669), etc. "Eat and drink" (653) might well belong to the same series. This johannine form of speech cannot be regarded as simple parallelism. The second word, connected by a KatEN365, certainly refers to the same thing as the first. Hence it does not set a second thing alongside that first mentioned. The accent, however, is always on the second, so that the order is not reversible. In this irreversible order a step is taken, a critical synthesis made, in which the second member totally explains the first, absorbs it, and thus completely replaces it. Knowledge of the true God shows itself to be such, not by being also knowledge of Him whom He has sent, but by being totally and exclusively knowledge of this One whom the true God has sent. Grace is true grace, Spirit true Spirit, not as they are also truth, but as grace can be no other than truth, and spirit no other than truth. What issues from the blood of the crucifie s Jesus is not blood and also water, but the blood which has power to heal because it is water which the thirsty drink. Jesus is not the resurrection and then also the life. He is the resurrection in the fact, and only in the fact, that He is the life. To see and hear Him are useless unless they take place wholly and utterly in faith in Him. Even faith in Him is useless alone; it can consist concretely only in knowledge. it is surely strange, therefore, if the pair "water and Spirit" does not belong to this series of dynamically critical syntheses. What the "water" is by which a man is born from above is explained wholly and exclusively by "Spirit." In the function here ascribed to it there is no water at all outside or alongside the Spirit: not the water of Jacob's well (46L), nor that of the pool of Bethesda (52f), nor the water of Christian baptism which many were perhaps extolling in circles around the Evangelist; not this water even as a representative, means or witness of the Spirit. In this function no water can supplement the Spirit, no water can mediate the Spirit even as a secondary cause, no water can reveal the Spirit. Water is to be defined in this function solely by Spirit. He who begets a man from above is He who moves EN364
by water and Spirit .7 can mean: and, even, and yet, also
EN365 KaI
118
. Baptism with Water where He wills, whose voice may be heard but not localised (v. 8). He, the Spirit alone, is the "living water" (410E , 738\) His baptism, the baptism of the Spirit, is the true and proper baptism, namely, that which begets a man from above, that which gives him the ability and power to see and enter the kingdom of God. Calvin (Gomm. onjn. 35, CR., 47,55 f.) understood the awrog Kat iTTVEt;suaTog EN366 thus: The copula KatEN367 is to be taken exegetice, quum scilicet posterius membrum explicatio est priorisEN368. if this interpretation is correct, one can understand why zmaTog EN369 does not occur in v. 6 and v. 8; it has been rendered superfluous by the synthesis in v. 5. It is not denied, then, that water has another function which is also necessary. It is not denied that water baptism as such has its place and is necessary and mandatory. This is not the issue, however, in the present context. Nor is a sacramental understanding of water or baptism considered here if this interpretation is correct. Indeed, it seems to be called in question or even disputed. Essentially much easier to answer is the problem posed by two verses in which a saving [122] function is ascribed to baptism. The i&rcoacv EN370 of m* in 35 does not arise in this connexion, since baptism is not the theme of the verse. The two passages are first Mk. 1616: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved," and then I Pet. 321 (a verse which will have to be examined more closely in a later context): "The like figure whereunto (sc. to the water through which Noah and his house were delivered) even baptism doth also now save us." With regard to these it is to be noted that atgEtv, ad4EaOat, aarrriptaEN371, unlike KaTaAAar EN372 and d7rolt'rrpcoatc EN373 , are ambiguous terms in the New Testament. For one thing, they usually refer to the liberation which Christians will experience in the future, in the consummation and final manifestation of the divine work of salvation, in the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment. They denote the liberation for which Christians are now hoping, the definitive preservation from the eternal death which is the consequence of sin. On the other hand, quite often and impressively there is denoted also the liberation and deliverance which, even as they hope for it, comes upon them and characterises them in the present, so that they can be, and can be called, "saved" even now. Again, and in connexion with this, salvation is usually an act or event whose subject is God or the Deliverer 0.(.01.,4p EN374) Jesus Christ, who has come from God and who acts and speaks in His name. Yet it can be also (and not infrequently) a work which is entrusted to men and enjoined upon them, obviously as and because they are "saved." It can be an action and mode of life in which they are to set forth and declare in practice, to work out (4ygco-Oat, Phil. 212), the o-coTnpta EN' divinely promised and present to them, their salvation. in this secondary., indirect, but very serious sense the Philippian gaoler (Ac. 163°) can ask in startled amazement: 'What must I do to be saved?", while Mk. 835 par. can speak of saving one's own ovx,4 EN376 and jas. 520 of saving the soul of others. Paul, too, can refer to his work among the Jews as a "saving" (Rom. 1114), and he can admonish Timothy ( I Tim. 416) to save himself and his hearers by taking heed to himself and the doctrine. Again, in 1 Cor. 7 16 the saving of a pagan partner is a problem for married Christians, and in i Tim. 215 it can be rather EN366
by water and Spirit
EN367 and EN368
as explanatory, since clearly the latter element is the explanation of the former of water EN370 he saved EN371 saving, being saved, salvation EN372 reconciliation EN373 redemption EN374 saviour EN375 salvation EN369
EN376
soul
"9
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[123]
strangely said of Christian wives that they will be saved 8ita Ti)g TEKvoyovias-'377 "if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." Saving power can be ascribed to preaching (1 Cor. 121, Thess. 2 16 ) and especially to faith (Lk. 750; 812; Rom. io9). This can and may and should be done, not because the human work has the 8.ovatug 61€oisi Eig aw,nptav EN378 (Rom. 116) within it, but because it is grounded in it, because it is made possible by it, because it takes place in correspondence with it. The two verses about the saving character of baptism obviously belong to this context. In the case of i Pet. 321 this is indisputable in view of the express definition of baptism as an 6T Epciorritta Etc 0€6vEN379, and in that of Mk. 16' it is highly probable in view of the juxtaposition with faith. Baptism saves because, like faith and with it, it is an element in the action which God has entrusted to and enjoined upon those who will be saved by God and who are saved already in hope in Him. It is a human work which is, like faith, wholly appropriate and indispensably proper to their position. A sacramental meaning of baptism can hardly be deduced from either passage. We conclude with a consideration of two johannine verses in which baptism is perhaps related to the most important New Testament concept of witness. These are particularly interesting because they might seem to constitute a biblical basis for the version of a sacramental understanding of baptism which was advocated by Calvin, who in this respect followed very closely Augustine's doctrine of the signa visibilia gratiae invisibilisEN38O . If in the New Testament baptism does not effect man's renewing in unity with Christ, his baptism with the Holy Ghost, his salvation, does it reveal these as a means of divine self-attestation? We turn first to ijn. 55-8: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." It is essential to take note of the first statement in v. 5, which controls the whole passage: He who believes in Jesus as the Son of God overcomes the world. As previously said in v. 4, the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is our faith, the origin, basis and theme of our faith which has indeed overcome the world already. But to what degree does Jesus prove to be worthy of faith as God's Son, so that one can and must speak thus of faith in Him? The answer is: He is the One who has come, who comes, and who will come again. The DiOdni EN381 is best related to all the three tenses of His existence, but with emphasis on the first. He comes and will come again as the One who has come. He is and will be the One He was in His history. The 811748corog Kat arpiaTog EN382 refers to this history, to His having come in the flesh. We have here (cf. 1 jn. 42 3, 520; also 2 jn. 7) the emphatically anti-docetic realism of the Christology of the First Epistle ofjohn. Jesus is the Son of God in His true and genuine humanity, not in abstraction therefrom. To refer the two words acop EN383 and a tp,Gt EN384 to baptism is possible if they are taken alone, but once again we seem to have a dynamically critical pair. Like the Spirit in jn. 35, the blood of Christ is now true baptism. Less probable is a reference to baptism and the Lord's Supper, for it is hard to see why the "matter" (water) should be mentioned in respect of baptism when the eucharistic reference EN377 through child-bearing EN378 power of God for salvation EN379 pledge to God
visible signs of invisible grace 'coming one' EN382 through water and blood EN383 water EN380 EN381
EN384 blood
120
2. Baptism with Water is to the res sacramenti 385 , the blood of Christ (and why not the body?). in fact, the context suggests that it is erroneous to think of any ecclesiastical action, whether baptism alone, or baptism and the Lord's Supper. The reference is to the historical coming of Jesus as a demonstration of His divine sonship. It is to the fact that Christian faith overcomes the world specifically as faith in Him. When we read that He came 81 aaTog 'am, we are undoubtedly to think of a baptism. This is not, however, the Church's baptism, but the event which is its basis, namely, the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan—and this in proleptic relation, not to the Lord's Supper, but to the crucifixion ofjesus, the shedding of His blood. He who came thus, beginning 81 aaTos- EN387 in the Jordan, concluding 81 arttaTog EN388 at Golgotha, is Jesus Christ (v. 6a). The continuation in v. 6b underlines the fact that, while the reference is to both these events, it is decisively to the second, which is intimated in the first. He did not come "by water only," but by water and blood; not in the event at the Jordan only, but in that at Golgotha too—which of the two was the more unpalatable to the Docetics. On the way from the one to the other, from that entry into service to its consummation, in this irreversible sequence, in this teleological determination, in this totality of His history, He has shown Himself to be the Son of God. But has He really done this? Is this more than a (disputable) interpretation of His history? Have not others been baptised and crucified? Does not even that which took place between these pillars of the history of Jesus Christ find exact parallels in other histories? The answer is given in v. 6c: The Spirit bore witness (and bears witness) that the One who was baptised in the Jordan and crucified at Golgotha was (and is) the Son of God. One might perhaps paraphrase it thus: The Spirit bore witness to this immediately after the baptism of Jesus when Jesus, as the One on whom He alighted, was manifestly approved by the voice from heaven: "This is my Son, on whom my good-pleasure rests." He also bore witness to it directly after the death of Jesus when Jesus (Rom. 14) through the Spirit was raised up from the dead by the Father. The same Spirit, the Paraclete, Advocate and Comforter sent by the baptised and crucified Jesus, speaks in the community, and through it to the world, about Jesus as the Son of God. He who is the Spirit of truth (In. [124] 1526), or who is here the truth itself, proclaims Him as such; "our faith" hears His voice, and in so doing overcomes the world. At first, then, it sounds surprising that in vv. 7 -8—a theologoumenon peculiar to i John—the three concepts introduced in the course of the desired proof—the Spirit, water and blood—are associated as three witnesses. In their own way, however, the water and blood, the two pillars of the history of Jesus Christ, were already valid witnesses of His divine sonship. The Spirit was and is, of course, a very different witness who confirms the validity of the other two. He is mentioned first because He spoke and speaks the final and decisive word both then and now. But in their own tongues all three witnesses bear witness to the same thing with equal emphasis—the two historical facts on the one side, on the other the direct work of God which gives utterance to the first two as truth within, and which causes them to be heard as truth without: Kai`, a Timis- Els- TO igiv claw EN389, they bear witness to the one thing. They all bear witness to the fact that He has come in the flesh, that He comes, and that He will come again, that He is not from below but from above, that He has come from God, that He is His Son. Inasmuch as "our faith" (v. 4), being faith in Him, is established in the mouth of two and even three witnesses, it overcomes the world. It is obviously a much less promising venture to try to seek in this saying about the three witnesses, even from afar, the distinctions which characterise the sacramental teaching matter of the sacrament through water EN387 through water EN388 through blood EN389 and the three testify to the one EN385
EN386
12
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian iffe of Augustine and Calv(in, namely, between signum and res, visible temporal form and invisible eternal content, symbol and reality. This is impossible even if i jn. 55' refers to baptism (ecclesiastical baptism), or to baptism and the Lord's Supper. Nowhere, not even in Hebrews, does the New Testament think in t ese (Platonising) categories. We come finally to the crowning passage in the johannine story of the Passion, jn. i 933-37. Just before, we have been told that the soldiers of Pilate broke the legs of those crucified with Jesus either to be sure that they were dead or to put an end to their lives. "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." According to the style of John, the passage is in all its constituent parts a distinctive blend of vivid, concrete pragmatism and symbolical significance. A twofold sense? No, a single sense, but single in this very unity of history and salvation history. This certainly applies to the statement which now concerns us, i.e., that about the blood and water which flowed from the dead body of Jesus when it was pierced by the soldier's spear. Whether the stroke of the spear was a final attempt to make sure that Jesus was really dead as reported or a purely mischievous act, it was in any event the last deed of violence and shame perpetrated against Jesus by men. The point about it which interested the Evangelist may be incidentally (and anti-docetically) an insistence that Jesus really died physically, but obviously his main attention is focused on the effect of the spear-stroke, which was not part of the treatment accorded to the other two crucified with Jesus. This opened up the wound in the side which plays such a decisive, though not always felicitous, role in the later theology, preaching and poetry of Zinzendorf, and from which blood and water came out, j600Ev. Does this note come from the Evangelist himself? it is thought by some that the passage makes quite good sense without the statement about the coming out of blood and water. Yet on the one side, anti-docetically, it emphasises the reality of the death ofjesus, on the other the fact that final [125] human violence was offered even to His dead body, and both with a reference back to the Old Testament prophecies which are mentioned in vv. 36-37 and of which the second ("they ") is to be understood as a threatening allusion to the Last Judgment. The shall look suggestion has thus arisen, championed recently by R. Bultmann, that the saying about the blood and water (like the formula "water and the Spirit" in jn. 35) is the addition of a Church redaction. If, as expositors assume magno consensuEN390 , the blood and water denote the Lord's Supper and baptism, one can hardly deny that this critical conjecture has some probability. In this sense the statement is in fact a surprising intruder into the text. But the very or • er of the terms is against this interpretation, for why should the blood (the Lord's Supper) come first and the water (baptism) second? Here too, as in i jn. 56, one has to ask why the reference in the former is to the thing signified (and why not the whole body of Christ?), whereas in the latter it is to the sign, water? On the other hand, if there is critical emendation on the basis of the assumption that the saying refers to the Lord's Supper and baptism, one has to ask whether here too this does not perhaps rob the whole passage of its point. If this saying is left out, is not the rest a somewhat meagre statement for the climax of the whole story of the passion? Since there is reason to question the assumption, we shall proceed on the basis of the traditional text including the saying. If we do this, then in respect of its context we may begin with the general affirmation that the verse speaks of the body of Jesus, the indisputably dead body, as a flowing source. What is it that flows out? The ancient typological explanation, repeated in our own age in the encyclical Mystici Corporis of Pope EN390
by general consensus 122
2. Baptism with Water Pius XII, may sound strange, but it does not have to be basically or totally distorted. It recalls the story of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib when he had been put in a deep sleep. Adam's sleep is the death of Jesus, the taking out of Adam's rib is the wound in the side of the dead Jesus, and Eve, who is associated with Adam and comes forth from him, is the Church. Now there can be no disputing the tertium comparationis EN391 in the decisive stateEN392 of ments in both the New Testament story and the Old Testament story. The the text undoubtedly refers to the springing or issuing forth of a new reality from Jesus, from Jesus crucified and slain. Nor can one dispute the fact that this new reality has something to do with the community of Jesus, and the issuing forth with the rise of this community. The only question is: What? If blood and water really referred to the Lord's Supper and baptism, then the new reality (blood and water) which proceeds from the death of Jesus might be in the first instance the Church which exists in the administration of these two and perhaps other sacraments. It might even be the Church in its institutional character. This is naturally the opinion of the encyclical. But in view of the objections to the presupposed equation we can no more accept it than we can the modern proposal to eliminate the verse on the basis of the same equation. if, then, we must seek another interpretation of the two words blood and water, it is exegetically sound to look into the meaning and function of the terms elsewhere in John's Gospel. What power is in the first instance ascribed to the blood of Jesus here? Rather surprisingly this is not in the Gospel a cleansing power, as it is in the First Epistle and elsewhere. According to the hard figure of speech in 6' the blood of Jesus is to be "drunk." His blood is here His life, which, unlike any other He has in Himself (653; cf. 526), but which was in Him ( i 4, 5 26) ; His life, which as such is eternal life. He to whom He gives His life, he who, as it comes from Him and is dispensed from Him, drinks it, receives it into himself, he and he alone has it, "and I will raise him up at the last day" (6'). That He can give them His blood to drink, His life to share, presupposes that it is given, poured out; it presupposes His death. Only the slain body of Jesus can be the source of His life, eternal life, for others. Only the community of the cross which receives its life from His death, only the Christian as an individual member of this community, can receive His life. But with the attia EN393, probably [ 26] in critico-synthetic dynamic, not as a second added to the first, but as a second which interprets and defines the first, we find Kai, acop EN394. How can the blood which flows from the wound in His side, how can His life, eternal life, be "drunk"? The great symbolical speech about water is relevant here. jn. 737f.: In the last day, that great day of the feast (Tabernacles), Jesus stood and cried (as to Lazarus in i 43), saying, If any man thirst (at Tabernacles water was dispensed every morning) , let him come unto me, and drink-as one that believeth in me; the scripture hath said, out of his body shall flow rivers of living water." According to the unanimous view of modern commentators the body from which these rivers flow is not that of the believer but the body of Him in whom he believes, the body of Jesus Christ. Thus one reads also in 4'4: "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." But what is this water which flows forth from Jesus, which is to be received from Him, which is, when received, to be drunk? The Evangelist himself comments in 739: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive (later) : for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." According to the johannine view, the exalting and glorifying ofjesus took place in His crucifixion and death. Without this, before it, the water could not yet flow forth, the outpouring basis of comparison out' EN393 blood EN394 and water EN391
EN392 'came
23
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life of the Spirit could not yet take place. "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him into you" (i67). This happens. When there is no doubt as to His death, immediately (EZNig) the water begins to flow out, the Spirit comes forth from im and begins His work. jn. 1.934 tells of the fulfilment of the promise given in 737€ and 167. Consequently, as the thirst-quenching water of the Spirit proceeds from His slain body to be received and drunk by believers, so also does His blood, His life, the eternal life received from Him. This living water does not flow from His slain body without the blood, and especially-this is the emphasis here-His shed blood does not flow forth without the living water of the Spirit. The blood and the water, the eternal life and the Holy Spirit, the objective grace and its subjective appropriation-both flow from the same source. Hence the whole new reality of the Christian community and all its members does so too. What Zinzendorf said about this is right, though less so in the way he often said it. The community and all its members are "born" out of that wound in the side, and they live on that which flows therefrom, the blood, i.e., the water which is the Spirit. It is a community of the cross or it is not the Christian community at all. The Christian is a member of this community or he is no Christian at all. The eye-witness of the death of Jesus to whom the Evangelist appeals (1935) testifies that t is is true "that ye might believe." Old Testament Scripture is also fulfilled in 7 ). The thrust of the spear, or the blood and water which flowed from the this event (193' wound caused by it, offered (both in history and salvation history) the decisive proof of the reality of His death, of the divine act which is fruitful in this event, of ,C00077-0/1,77CTIS EN395 through the TrvElip,aEN396. Because the breaking of His legs could not have offered a proof of this kind, this had not to take place in the case of Jesus as it did in that of the others. His dead body, and His alone, was the source of life and the Spirit. According to the second Old Testament saying, to look on Jesus as the One who was pierced, and therefore as the source of life and the Spirit, of life which goes forth and is to be received from Him as the Spiritthis and this alone (the Evangelist seems to have construed the saying as a promise rather than a threat) will be in every age the real seeing of the real Jesus (who was really slain). if this explanation of the passage, which we have taken from John's Gospel itself, is right, then [127] one can understand all the elements in it: the importance of what is done specifically to the body ofjesus; the indispensability of the saying about the blood and water; the emphasis on the testimony of the eye-witness; the point of the two allusions to the Old Testament. All these things are obscure if the blood and water denote the Lord's Supper and baptism. Even if they do denote these, one can hardly deduce from the passage the Augustinian and Calvinist doctrine of the significative force and hence the sacramental character of these two actions. If one can and should say that the passage speaks of the birth of the Church, it certainly does not lead us to think of the birth of the sacramental or institutional Church.
The question with which we approached these passages was this: In the light of what is said or not said about baptism in them, does there have to be ascribed to the act of baptism, may there be ascribed to it, or may there not be ascribed to it, a sacramental meaning, the character of an act and revelation of salvation enacted therein? I will first divide the results of our enquiry into groups. We have found passages, namely, the two last in 1 jn. 55-8 and jn., 1933-37, which do not make any direct contribution to answering the question because, though the term EN395 EN396
making alive Spirit
24
2.
Baptism with Water
"water" is important in both, it seems not to refer to Christian baptism but, in the first, to Jesus' baptism in the Jordan as an anticipation of His death at Golgotha, and, in the second, to the outpouring and gift of the Holy Spirit (not water baptism, but the baptism of the Spirit) on the basis of the death of Jesus. We have also discovered that in Heb. lo22, Eph. 525f., Tit. 35 without any express mention of baptism, and in Gal. 327 with an explicit allusion, there is reminiscence of it, but only in a comparative reference back to the true content of the passages, with reference, not to the power of baptism, but to that of Christ's death and of the Holy Spirit, to the import of the "clothing upon" which has taken place for Christians through the Holy Spirit, of their full uniting with Christ. Again, there encountered us in jn. 35 a saying-it states, not that baptism but only the H oly Spirit effects man's divine renewing-which certainly presupposes and validates baptism as such, but which clearly calls in question its sacramental character. We found that in Acts 2216 and I Pet. 321 baptism is understood as invocation and petition, while in Rom. 63' and Col. 2 12 it is the burial of Christians with Christ which comes between their dying with Him and their future resurrection with Him (as a subsequent confirmation of the former) . in Mk. 1616 we found it described as a work associated with faith. All these are statements which, even when taken quite seriously, seem to hint at least at a very different meaning of baptism from the sacramental. In relation to the question which concerns us, then, our findings are at every point negative, though necessarily with varying degrees of distinctness. That some of the passages could be taken sacramentally we do not deny, though it is no more than a possibility. We have not come across a single passage that has to be taken thus. On the other hand, we have found a whole 128] series of passages in which a sacramental interpretation is more or less completely ruled out, and another series in which we are forced to look in a very different direction. Nevertheless, these are only findings. The caution which must be observed with respect to all such findings was noted at the outset and must now be recalled. it applies to our own findings too. Even though we admit this, however, we have no option but to maintain that until we are better instructed both as a whole and in detail we must regard these findings as proved and binding, and presuppose them in all that follows. According to what the New Testament says concerning baptism, it is highly and even supremely probable that this Christian action is not to be understood as a divine work or word of grace which purifies man and renews him. It is not to be understood as a mystery or sacrament along the lines of the dominant theological tradition. According to the New Testament, man's cleansing and renewal take place in the history of Jesus Christ which culminates in His death, and they are mediated through the work of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament does not refer to any additional or accompanying history or mediation of salvation. It mentions no duplicate of this one divine act and word. 125
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 4fe If, however, baptism is not a sacrament, its meaning, as indicated in the preliminary thesis, is to be sought in its character as a true and genuine human action which responds to the divine act and word.
[129]
One matter should be cleared up briefly before we proceed further in this direction. More than one knowledgeable reader must have been asking for a long time why the name of Huldrych Zwingli has thus far been mentioned only once, namely, with reference to his emphasis on the original meaning of the Latin word sacramentunz'397 . Now this is certainly not the only reason why Zwingli should be of interest in this matter. It is thus appropriate that, as we now move on from criticism to a positive exposition of the meaning of baptism, the relation of his view of baptism to those set forth here (and vice versa) should be explained. Zwingli's understanding and doctrine of baptism are worked out in the Commentarius, the the reply to the Toujbuchlein of Balthasar Hubmaier, the Elenchus in book Vom touf catabaptistarum strophas (all 1525), and the Quaestiones de Sacramento Baptismi aimed at Schwenkfeld (1530). His teaching departs from the tradition which we have considered in its Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinistic forms. It does so first in a way which brings it close to that represented in the present work, for Zwingli very definitely dissociates himself from the sacramental view of baptism, which he also, not unjustly, thought he could detect among his Anabaptist adversaries. Among his contemporaries he was a lonely figure. When we read what the Confess. Helv. Post (published thirty-five years after his death) has to say both about the sacraments in general and baptism in particular, we should never suspect, if we did not already know, that its author Heinrich Bullinger was Zwingli's immediate successor. This work is wholly influenced by the dominant Reformed tradition of Calvin, so much so that in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper there is even a strange attempt at assimilation to the Roman Catholic doctrine of a change in the elements. According to Zwingli himself all teachers from the days of the apostles had greatly erred. Through a misunderstanding of jn. 35 they had sought to ascribe to the water something which it cannot have. Christ has taken from us all external justifying (ed. Schuler and Schulthess, Germ. III, 238) . Water baptism, in spite of the opinion of the earliest fathers, does not cleanse or save a man (255 f.) . He can be saved without baptism (241 f.) . It has no vis mutandiEN3' (Lat. III, 229) . Nor does it serve-the core of Calvin's teaching is here rejected in advance-to give assurance or confirmation to faith (Germ. 243, Lat. 229 f.) Only the direct work of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit can do these things. This alone is the basis of faith in the elect. In this delimitation we have undoubtedly followed Zwingli, though it should be noted that both materially and exegetically we have laid the foundation more carefully, for in Zwingli everything finally stands or fails with the principle, which is more philosophical than theological, that an external thing cannot do an internal work, that a material thing cannot accomplish or reveal what is spiritual. Undeniable too, is the fact that there is a certain kinship with Zwingli in respect of the positive aspect, for, rejecting a sacramental interpretation, Zwingli was forced to seek another meaning at some point in that which is done by men, in the performance of a ceremony, as he liked to put it. In other matters, however, the similarity fades almost to vanishing point. According to Zwingli the founder of baptism was not Jesus Christ-He simply confirmed it in Mt. 2819-but John the Baptist (Germ. 246, 261) . Its true basis, or necessitas praeceptiEN399, he seems to have found (Germ. 366, 424) in EN397 EN398 EN399
sacrament transforming power necessity of the command 12 6
2. Baptism with Water the Old Testament covenant sign of circumcision. This is why he was the most passionate of all the Reformers in contending for infant baptism, and Calvin undoubtedly learned from him either directly or indirectly in this respect. Baptism, like circumcision, is for him a sign of the people of God (Germ. 274). This people of God, among whom it is for God alone to distinguish between believers and unbelievers, the elect and the reprobate, is probably the object of Zwingli's real interest in baptism. According to him baptism is the sign of loyalty which marks all members of the covenant people. It is comparable to the white cross which men wear on the anniversary of the battle of Nafels to show that they are confederates from the heart (239). It is also like the cowl which the novice in a monastic order may put on even though he does not yet know the rule but has still to learn it (246) . The children of Christian parents, i.e., parents who belong to this covenant people, are God's (291); this is the constant refrain. By baptism they for their part become members of the covenant and participants in its promises (293, 301, 364, 369, Lat. 366). They are thus marked for the true God (Germ. 249), thrust into Christ and bound to Him (253, 258)-Zwingli lays stress on the Eig TO Gotta EN400 in this sense. They are stamped as those who have to amend their lives and follow Christ (246). They are marked thus in the eyes of other believers (243) to assure the Church of their status and adherence (Lat. 231, 239). Whether they themselves believe or not-this is known to God alone-plays no part in the matter (Germ. 285). It might be asked whether, of the parts of the sacramental view which Zwingli has rightly rejected so sharply, he has not retained precisely the ex opere operato EN401. At any rate, has he really done justice to the original sense of sacramentum EN402 set forth by him? There can be no doubt that in all Zwingli's baptismal works one seeks in vain a true elucidation of what takes place in it, an evaluation of it as a free human action, an explanation of its meaning, a concern for the understanding of this ceremony as a human answer to God's work and word, in short, an attempt such as we regard here as necessary. His will and purpose in relation to the Catabaptists is quite plain. Infant baptism must be accepted at all costs as the shibboleth of the corpus mixtuniEN' of the people of God. On the other hand, his view of the spiritual [130] quality of the action as an element in Christian life and thought which was adopted on the authority of John the Baptist and after the model of Old Testament circumcision, remains obscure. The Reformed Church and Reformed theology (even in Zurich) could not continue to hold the remarkably sterile baptismal teaching of Zwingli. Even at the cost of a backward step, it preferred to move in the direction of Calvin's cognitive sacramentalism. This is understandable. We for our part cannot deny that both negatively and positively Zwingli was basically right. Hence we can raise little objection if it occurs to someone that the doctrine presented here should be labelled (either approvingly or critically) Neo-Zwinglian, even though its development does not in fact owe anything to Zwingli's influence. No one should label it thus, however, unless he is prepared to concede that an attempt is here made, in the well-known phrase, to understand Zwingli better than he understood himself or could make himself understood.
urning to our positive task, we begin with some formal statements. Indispensable to an understanding of the meaning is (1) a recollection of the technical administration of the act, which is by no means indifferent, nor abandoned to chance or caprice. In depicting the life for which the Christian as such is liberated and to which he is summoned, we shall hardly find, outside nto the name by the fact of the action being performed EN402 sacrament EN403 mixed body EN400 i EN401
127
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[131]
the Lord's Supper, any other form of human decision and act in respect of which one may state with such comparative precision and comprehensive validity in what it consists and what has to be done. Christian baptism has as such a perceptible form, visible to all, in a way which does not apply to an inner conviction, a thought, or a mere feeling. It is an action which copies and reflects, but it is still an action. It is a concrete happening. It takes place-this is its concrete form-as a washing with water. We add at once that, even in the case of immersion, it is more properly the indication of such a washing. There is in it no true or effective "putting away of the filth of the flesh" (1 Pet. 321). This is not even so physically, let alone spiritually and theologically It is enough that as a human action it is a rough and approximate, though recognisable, reflection of the divine act to which, as a human action, it looks back, from which it comes, to which it looks forward and towards which it also moves. It could not take place equally well in another form. That to which it must reply as the first concrete form of the affirmative human decision is the wine work and word of the cleansing and renewal which have taken place in Jesus Christ and are mediated by the Holy Ghost. Integral to its fulfilment is the fact that it is differentiated from similar actions, and made known as Christian baptism, through the word which is spoken in it as a response to the deed of the God who acts and speaks in Jesus Christ through the Toly Ghost. Integral to it, finally, is the fact that it takes place with some publicity, so that the participants guarantee to themselves and one another that it has taken place, and may be invoked in support of this fact. For an understanding of the meaning of baptism (2) it is also important that consideration be given to its social character. At its very beginning, which is at issue in baptism, the Christian life, without detriment to its individual particularity, is a participation in the life of the Christian community. I aptism involves both one who baptises and one who is baptised by him. The former is an acknowledged member of the community, the latter is being acknowledged as such in the action. Theologically it is hard to show that the dignity of the action of the one is different from that of the action of the other. In what is done in baptism neither is sovereign; both act in the service of their common Lord. They act as they are bound to Him and to one another in readiness to perform the act as such, and decisively to perform it in the obedience of faith, with a view to Jesus Christ, and consequently in the sense which is peculiar to it in the light of its basis and goal and in accordance with the word which is part of its fulfilment, namely, as a first human answer to the divine act and work of grace. in this readiness, in the common act of baptism which reflects God's cleansing and purifying action, they join in the action of the community as such. They do by way of example that which characterises the whole action demanded of them as Christians. To this degree each baptism, which is as such the common action of two individual Christians, is to be understood and taken seriously as something in which the Christian community as such, the broader, total community represented by the minister and candidate, is present and at 128
2. Baptism with Water
work. it is present and at work each time afresh, in new faith, new love, new hope, new responsibility-afresh also in the sense that there takes place each time what is called in Acts the increase of the community. For each time, problematically perhaps, but with promise and with unforeseeable consequences, a new member makes confession and is acknowledged by the community as such. Hence the body of Christ appears, and engages in witness to the world, in a new form. It might well be that the practice of having sponsors, which we do not find in the New Testament, was originally meant as a special representing of the candidate to the wider cornmunity and also as a special representing of the wider community to the candidate, so that the narrower fellowship of minister and candidate was set quite emphatically in the framework of the comprehensive fellowship, the community as such. Understood thus, the custom has a theological meaning beyond anything that is usually said in defence or explanation of it. If a special underlining and intensifying of the relation between the candidate and the community is the point of sponsorship, then it is theologically defensible. On the other hand, if this point is not brought out clearly, it might be considered whether the whole congregation should not be asked and required to act as sponsors in preference to individuals, as is obviously the custom already in some places.
Decisively important for an understanding of the meaning of baptism is also (3) the principle that we have here a free action on the part of all those concerned. We have seen that Jesus Christ is the basis and goal of baptism. in the light of this basis, baptism is an act of obedience to the God who acts and speaks therein, and in the light of this goal it is an act of hope in Him. It must always be understood from this twofold standpoint. We have thus to say, formally in the first instance, that it cannot be performed by the participants as something which they ought to do and must do. It cannot be an obligatory act done under a compulsion which restricts or destroys its spontaneity or responsibility. Baptism has to do with the beginning of the Christian life as a life in faithfulness to God. But how can faithfulness to God begin with an act which is not free? Obligatory and enforced obedience is not obedience to God. Obedience to God can only be free obedience. Obligatory and enforced hope is not hope in God. Hope in Him can only be free hope. The men who act in baptism do what they do (if they do it aright) in the light of what God has done for them in Jesus Christ and what He does on them through the Holy Spirit. To this they give in baptism a first and exemplary answer which commits them for the future. In a human commencement and beginning they seek to correspond here, with what is done together in baptism, to the cleansing and renewal which have come to them in Jesus Christ through the oly Spirit. Even technically in its administration baptism is a human reflection of the cleansing and renewal willed and executed by God. This cleansing and renewal, however, consists in the fact that God in Jesus Christ has freed them for Himself and for the doing of His will, that God through His Holy Spirit frees them for a life for Him and for one another which is released from all alien service or compulsion. They may now do that which corresponds to this 129
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* act of God, to the fact that God Himself has elected them in freedom, that e has acted for them and acts upon them in this free election. They do this in baptism. As those who are liberated by God they may baptise and be baptised. This being so, baptism as the beginning of their new life is an act which they themselves have chosen and willed. They thus perform it in free obedience to Him and hope in Him. just because a first step is to be taken which does justice to the free, fatherly turning of God to them, the act of baptism must have for all concerned the character of a genuine human decision. It must not be in any sense a destiny to which they must adapt themselves, which they simply allow to come upon them, in which they are fundamentally no more than instruments and objects. They are indeed witnesses. They are servants. But they are not the instruments and objects of an event which storms past them. Hence the community and its representatives cannot be forced to baptise all and sundry whom they meet accidentally by the way. They baptise only those [133] who according to their understanding and judgment are appointed and ready for baptism. Similarly, no man can have himself baptised merely in subjection to a controlling sociological mechanism. He can be baptised only when he also chooses that this should be done. Baptism, then, is not to be administered in application of a general, natural, historical, social rule as part of the traditional and normative pattern of human life. In each instance it must be a breaking of all rules, customs, sequences and arrangements, a completely new and special event in relation to them. It must be seen by the candidate, and not by him alone but also by the minister and the community which he represents, as a venture which is to be made without compulsion or assurance, but simply in the obedience of faith. For what do they know in detail about the future into which they take this first, bold, serious, and binding step? What do they know about themselves, not merely in relation to tomorrow and the day after, but even in relation to the choice and desire with which to-day, now, they stride forward to this act? What guarantees have they for the validity of the judgment on whose basis the community thinks it can and should admit a specific man to baptism? What gu rantees have they for the validity of the self-judgment on whose basis this man seems to be seeking baptism? Since the freedom to administer baptism is not at their own disposal, does it not have to be continually granted to them afresh, and do they not have to be continually reinstructed in the right use of it? In a given instance, will they really administer baptism in obedience and hope? This question is at all events deeply disturbing. Yet there is an answer to it. God is the stronghold in which the community and its baptismal candidates may and should do with certainty that which they do. From the disquietude of this question, which is unavoidably bound up with the nature of baptism as a genuine human decision and hence as a free venture, there may be no flight, however, into other strongholds, particularly when there is readiness to hear this answer, so that the venture can be made, and baptism given and received, with a quiet conscience. Yet this answer can be heard only if we see clearly, or begin to see clearly, what is the 130
2. Baptism with Water , material meaning of baptism precisely in its character as the free venture it is, encircled by that question. After this formal statement, we turn to the material problem. Our task is to answer the question as to what actually takes place in this concrete action which is to be performed concretely in a free venture. What is willed, done, and established by the men who take part in it? What makes it Christian baptism? What distinguishes it as such both externally and internally? What is it that does not just indicate its character as such (as the so-called baptismal formula or other words spoken at its administration might do), but constitutes this character from the standpoint of the human action? We do not yet speak [134] of the meaning of baptism when we speak of what is most necessary to its technical administration or when we describe it as a work of the community or a free venture. The meaning of baptism is that which takes place in and with this action as the human act responding to God's act. Baptism takes place on the basis of God's command. It takes place in the freedom which can only be ever and again is gift. God in His work and word is also the goal with a view to which it takes place. What takes place when God, its basis and goal, receives, approves and takes pleasure in it as the human answer to what He has done and said, when He blesses it, when He responds with a new work to the candidate who has come to it-this is another question. There can be no doubt that that which, according to the Gospels, was done and said from heaven after the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan was not a part of the baptismal event but a free sequel, its free acknowledgment on God's part. It is the affair of God, before whose countenance baptism is administered, to bring about that which is promised and which is thus to be expected. This does not take place in and with the event as such. Hence we cannot speak of this when we seek to understand the meaning of baptism as such. Its meaning is to be sought simply and narrowly in that which takes place in it-which can and should and will take place in it, since true Christian baptism is a human action-according to God's command, in the freedom which is given by God for it, and in orientation to Him. The crux of a correct answer to the question of the meaning of baptism lies in a strict correlation and a no less strict distinction between the human action as such and the divine action from which it springs, on whose basis it is possible, and towards which it moves. We have generally described the act of the participants in baptism as an act of obedience and hope. It is an act of obedience from the standpoint of its basis, for in it they obey the divine command. it is an act of hope from the standpoint of its goal, for in it they grasp the divine promise. The command and the promise do not come from them: neither from the person to be baptised nor from the community which baptises him, let alone from its representatives in this matter. The command and the promise-we have to say this in respect of the baptising community as well as the candidate-have both come down to them from the inaccessible height, distance and otherness of God. They have both come into their heart, conscience and thought as a wholly new 13
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life factor. They have taken the reason captive (2 Cor. lo5) , i.e., made it able, willing and ready to receive them as good news, to place itself at their disposal. The inconceivable, unmerited but incontrovertible thing-Emmanuel: that God is not against us men, that He is also not without us, but that He is with us, with all men; that He is specifically their cleansing and renewal in what He [135] does on them again and again in the gift of His Spirit which enlightens themthis divine change, this work and word of the true and living God, is the command and the promise which calls forth the human answer and waits for it. Their whole being can and should respond to this: the existence of the Christian community as such and the Christian life of the man who is newly called by God to God and joined to the community. Each new beginning of this human existence in response to God's command and promise is, however, the baptism which is dispense • by the community and received by him who joins it. The washing of this man with water, which as a human action is externally so unassuming, equivocal and irrelevant, becomes and is eternally important and significant in its relation to the divine act of cleansing and renewal which comes ever and again on the world, the community, and now this man in particular. Hence it is not a neutral, empty action, lost in the plenitude of all the dubious things that men can do and actually do. For in it there is obedience to God's command. In it God's promise is grasped in hope. It is an act which corresponds concretely to that act of God. To put it provisionally and generally, the fact that the choice, will and action of the participants are at issue in the baptismal act constitutes the meaning of baptism. Obedience and hope are two terms for the one human action which constitutes the meaning of baptism. In this differentiation, which we shall have to explore further, it is one, for it is the command of the one God which defines it as obedience in respect of its basis, and the promise of the one God which defines it as hope in respect of its goal. Its unity, which must claim our attendon first, is comprehended most clearly and firmly, whether from the standpoint of the matter or from that of the New Testament, in the concept of "conversion." John's baptism, which Jesus sought and received along with all the people, is called "baptism to conversion." Similarly, we must understand as conversion the obedience and hope which inseparably constitute the meaning of Christian baptism. Baptism is already conversion in the sense that it gives concrete and binding emphasis to the fact that the community in relation to the candidate, and the candidate in relation to the community, is engaged in leaving an old path and entering upon a new. In this respect there is in baptism a Before and an After, which have to be distinguished. The old path was characterised as such by the fact that the community, though it could see in the candidate one of the many for whom Christ died, could not yet see him in his relation to Jesus Christ, so that it could not recognise, claim, or treat him as a member; he was still outside it. It was also characterised as such by the fact that for this man the community was a society in whose experiences he had no sure part and in whose obli132
2. Baptism with Water
gations he had no binding share, so that, whether he was sympathetic or hos- [136] tile, he certainly did not belong to it. The new way which is entered upon in baptism is characterised as such by the fact that this man is now confessed and acknowledged as a member of the community, that he has become one of it, so that it is under obligation to share with him its whole gift and task, and can no longer isolate or exclude him from it in any way. Again, it is characterised as such by the fact that he for his part, being no longer without but within, can no longer hold aloof from it; he has entered into the ministry as well as the privileges of the previous members; he is in solidarity with them in victory and defeat, in honour and shame, inwardly as well as outwardly. On both sides this is already an incisive conversion. That baptism is conversion in this sense is usually seen in the younger churches which are the direct product of mission, at least in their early days. The situation is different in our own national or other mass churches, with all that these involve. Here baptism is either not taken seriously as conversion in this sense, or it is so only with the greatest weakness and uncertainty, and with all kinds of enfeebling interpretations. The reason for this is not to be sought in historical circumstances alone. If circumstances arise-and they normally do so fairly fast in the younger churches too-in which the conversion which is at issue for both community and candidate is hardly or not at all in evidence as such, this is also due to a doctrine of baptism which does not seek its meaning at all in its character as a free act performed in concert but which has increasingly obscured this by its extolling of the mystery. Might not another doctrine have helped to shape different historical circumstances? Might it not do so still? Should it not do so? However that may be, theology was undoubtedly badly advised, and the Church poorly served, when that which baptism was generally felt-or not felt-to be, was allowed to obscure the fact that even from the standpoint of the mutual relation of community and candidate there is in every baptism a conversion, a very radical conversion, a new thing.
Thus far, however, we are only in the forecourt of what is to be said about baptism as conversion, as transition from an old path to a new, and thus about the meaning of baptism. The issue in baptism is not just conversion in the relation between community and candidate. What is at issue is first and decisively the common conversion of both community and candidate to God, which is effected in the transition from self-will to obedience to God, from anxiety before Him to hope in Him, or more accurately, by the common and reciprocal determination in baptism-this is what makes it a turning-pointto leave the old way of self-will and anxiety and to enter upon and tread the new way of obedience and hope. Here for the first time, as the community and the candidate commit themselves materially to one another by this common action, the distinction between the Before and After of baptism is brought out in all its sharpness. It is here set in the light of the antithesis between enmity against God and reconciliation with Him, between a being under sin unto death and a being under grace unto life. Naturally man comes first from the [137] old way when, according to his desire for baptism, in knowledge of the cleansing and renewal which have taken place in Jesus Christ and which are applied to him by the Holy Spirit, he finds he is categorically summoned to leave it. '33
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life When he has himself baptised, washed with pure water, he has to confess that this way can no longer be his way, that he knows it is forbidden and closed to him. He wants this to be confirmed before God, the world, and his own conscience. He wants it to be established once and for all. But when he comes to the community with this request, and when it meets him accordingly, there is set up for it, too, a sign which cannot be missed. There is set before it the fact that, while it was previously ahead of this man in its knowledge of the great acts of God and in its consequent disowning of him, he has now caught up with it, and-who knows?-he, the novice, might have outstripped it, or might do so sooner or later. In baptising him, it is thus unavoidably confronted by the question whether, in spite of its better knowledge, its own way might not have been still the old way of man in self-will against God and anxiety before Him. The turning aside of the new candidate from this way might have been much more sincere than that of many of its members who did this long ago and think it is behind them-perhaps more seriously than is evident in their preaching. in undertaking to baptise him, to acknowledge him as a new member, it has every reason to accept solidarity with him, to associate itself with him in his turning aside from that old path, in realising afresh that this is a path which it has left, which is closed and barred to it. To be sure, if baptism is conversion in this negative sense of repentance, it is so in the first instance for the recipient. If he did not show the community that he is engaged in this turning aside, how could it baptise him? On the other hand, how could baptism be this turning aside for him if it were not this also and first for the community which baptises him? he candidate, however, is not only at the end of an oil way. in the same knowledge of what God has done and is still doing for him, he is also at the beginning of a new way, the way of hope in the same God whom he had hitherto feared, whom he could not obey for this reason, but before whom he could only come with anxiety. He now is, and shows himself to be, summoned to obe ience and resolved on a new life of confidence in God. He now asks for baptism in order that his conversion may be concretely confirmed and established before God, men and his own conscience not only as a forsaking of the old path but also and primarily as the entering on a new path. If he did not desire it above all in this sense, how could be he baptised? If, however, he receives baptism, this will necessarily be in this positive sense, too, an event in the life of the baptising community and all its members. It knows this new path [138] with its comfort, joy and saving power. It knows that this path is wide open before it. It is already treading it, or at least it is trying to do so. But perhaps it for its part needed to be summoned by the addition of the quasimodogenitus EN404 to bow before God afresh with the candidate, and also to stand up afresh before God, who through this new member is attested anew in faith to be the God of comfort e is. erhaps it needed to be summoned by the candidate to become in a wholly new way the community of hope which EN404
new-born
'34
2. Baptism with Water
lives by the divine promise. When baptism is administered, community and candidate make open affirmation together that they will stride on into the future in obedience to God and in hope in Him. Hence baptism does not merely set up a sign of reciprocal union and obligation. It is also the concerted concrete ratification of their knowledge of the purifying and renewing work and word of God and of their own declared conversion on the basis of this knowledge, their transition from self-will to obedience and from anxiety to hope. As so often in the New Testament, both community and candidate may rightly be told and reminded and kept to the fact that they have not merely made this transition, but that in baptism, in free responsibility, they have confirmed it once and for all together. Thus the meaning of baptism is man's conversion-the conversion of all who have a part in it. It is the conversion which takes place in knowledge of the work and word of God. It is the common forsaking of an old way of life and the common following of a new way of life. This definition must be deepened and sharpened, however, if it is to be adequate in the present context. For how could that knowledge fail to call for man's conversion, or even to include it from the very first, thus making its fulfilment directly necessary? It would not be this knowledge if it could remain theoretical or idle, if its fulfilment did not follow immediately, at once, and self-evidently. How could man's conversion take place in another way than as that transition from the Before of self-will and anxiety to the After of obedience and hope, the forsaking of the old path and the following of the new? This transition is undoubtedly the meaning of baptism. But if through poor understanding or misguided will something of what has to be said about this were missed, it would be easy to think along such lines as the "Change your life" of Moral Rearmament, and this would certainly not catch the meaning of baptism. Moral Rearmament is undoubtedly close to what is meant, but it does not hit it. In the conversion which is at issue in baptism, a work has to be taken in hand, and man is to be invited and sum moned to do this, as John the Baptist and later Jesus Himself invited and summoned him. There has to be resolve, decision. There has to be the will and act of those who take part. There has to be a transition which in that knowledge is taken freely and responsibly. Nevertheless, not every transition which men seriously and radically make from one path to another is the conversion which is [139] the meaning of baptism. There are indeed very different traditions which, the more serious and radical they are, the more powerfully and clearly they oppose and run contrary to that which is the meaning of baptism. The priests and Levites who opposed the work of John the Baptist from Jerusalem n. the Pharisees and Sadducees who visited him personally at the Jordan (Mt. 37), were in their own way awakened and even aroused and startled people, but they were so aroused and startled that they never even thought of submitting to the baptism of John. From the standpoint of the meaning of his baptism, they were so well armed morally that they actually stood in supreme need of moral disarmament. But what help would this have been to them? Moral disarmament is also commended to us to-day, not without striking a sympathetic 1 191),
'35
75. The Foundation of the Christian Life chord and sometimes very instructively, through such varied media as journalism, literature, drama and cabaret. The possibility is held out before us that a Pharisee can be turned into a publican, a rigid ethical idealist into a cheerful man of the world. But this kind of thing, too, has nothing whatever to do with the conversion which is at issue in baptism. It can even work against it just as powerfully as the corresponding rearmament. There are Pharisaic publicans, and these might well be the worst of all Pharisees.
At issue in baptism is the conversion which is grounded in knowledge of tL e work and word of God. This we must now underline and emphasise. Although it may seem to be self-evident, the point which has to be made is that a man's conversion, and its confirmation in baptism, are his conversion and its confirmation in his relation to God. They are the new thing in the dealings between God and men, and now this man in particular. They are the new thing in the dealings between God and His people, which this man now joins. They involve God's command and promise, obedience to God and hope in God. Though this is self-evident, it needs to be stressed because it is so easily weakened or evaporated or assumed, which means that it is not taken seriously or even thought of at all, when consideration is given to conversion, and in it to the meaning of baptism. God is not just a very lofty or profound idea. He is not a first or last principle or a counter-principle (like communism or anticommunism in our own day) . He is not something whose truth and validity man can sense if only he considers it deeply enough or has sufficient good will and capacity for experience. God cannot simply be perceived, affirmed and appropriated in practice. Similarly, the conversion at issue in baptism is not just an intellectual, ethical, or religious change of mind, or the alteration in manner and orientation of life which follows such a change. it will, of course, work itself out in such changes and alterations. It will probably do so at once in changes very different from those which usually follow the discovery of truly and validly perspicuous principles or which are the practical affirmations or denials of some ideology or doctrine. Not even in its special outworking, how[140] ever, is it man's conversion. The conversion at issue in baptism is the decision and act which precedes, sustains and characterises all the outworkings. This is man's decision and act in relation to God as the basis, origin and norm. God is not identical with any ideology, and is not to be confused with such. Hence conversion to Him is not to be confused with any human decision for rearmament or disarmament in orientation to any ideology. The self-evident way in which we usually think and speak of "God" in relation to this kind of decision too is highly dubious. The word "God" in this context is almost always introduced as a flourish with which, it is thought, the ideology or doctrine can and should be adorned because it is regarded as unconditionally perspicuous and normative. "God" proves to be no more than a title which may be accorded or not. indeed, in the West no less than the East, the asserted truth and validity of the ideology or doctrine is in no way altered, and might even-who knows? be set forth the more gloriously, if the title is withheld. This kind of conversion, then, is not (or is only ostensibly) aman's conversion in relation to God. It is 136
2. Baptism with Water
not, or only ostensibly, that new thing. In reality, it is only a decision which, on rational or irrational, moral or anti-moral, religious or non-religious grounds, he takes in relation to this or that ideology or doctrine. Hence it is difficult and even impossible to see in it the meaning of Christian baptism. The meaning of an action which in the New Testament is directly related to faith, obedience, hope and prayer, and indirectly, but the more seriously, to the unity of a Christian with Christ, his total cleansing and renewal in Christ's death, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, is to be sought, if in a human decision, then in a decision which has a very different basis from the ideological or doctrinaire. The conversion at issue in baptism has to bear comparison, in nature at least, with that at issue in John's baptism, namely, with the baptism which Jesus Himself sought and received, with the baptism of the apostolic community which followed His command and grasped His promise, with the baptism of its candidates from both Jews and Gentiles. The conversion which consists in a change of mind or manner of life in relation to some ideology which impresses itself on a man, either with or without the adornment "God," does not stand up to this comparison. This has never needed, and does not actually need, confirmation in baptism. What change of outlook, conviction or direction of life, however radical, has ever made the administration of baptism obligatory or necessary? Conversion actually requires baptism only because it is conversion to God in a way which is central, not incidental. "God" is not here an arbitrary or optional predicate or title. It is grounded in God, not by way of an unemphatic presupposition, but strictly and exclusively. it is effected in knowled e of His work and word. Even in Christianity did not conversion as man's free and responsible decision very [MU quickly and generally become his decision in favour of an ideology which was codified in Christian dogma and which carried with it an appropriate intellectual, ethical and religious change of mind and life? Or was it not at least thought of in a way which very closely resembled this? If so, then-and only then-one can understand why it was regarded as a very serious matter, but not as so serious a matter that the meaning of what is called baptism in the New Testament could be found in conversion. It was sensed and felt-quite rightly-that something bigger, deeper and stronger must take place in baptism than this rather meagre human acceptance of even so lofty a theoretico-practical principle, than this ethico-religious decision. This is what the world of mystery religions surrounding the Christian community had to offer. Certainly the human decision which found visible expression in the baptismal confession and vow could be established as a prerequisite for the receiving of baptism. But when the question as to the meaning of baptism was raised, then attention was diverted away from man's conversion as his free and responsible decision and the meaning was sought in a divine work of grace and revelation which takes place invisibly but none the less really in the action. it was then natural to interpret in a sacramental sense even what was found to be said about it in the New Testament. If conversion be understood as acceptance of even a Christian ideology, whether doctrinal or moral, then it is not incomprehensible that this should be regarded as inadequate when the meaning of baptism is at issue, and that the offer of something which is indeed greater, deeper and stronger than this very dubious conversion should be joyfully accepted. One can thus see how, in this question of meaning, the doctrine of baptism was forced to take the sacramentalist path with all its later variations. The need to
'37
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life ascribe something greater, deeper and stronger to the action, and the thesis, borrowed from the world of the mystery religions, that a divine work of grace and revelation takes place in it, will naturally fall away again, however, if there is restored to the conversion which is at issue in baptism its specific weight and dignity as conversion, not to an ideology, not to a doctrine or teaching along with its practical consequences, but to God, i.e., as the positive answer which man makes to God's work and word in free responsibility.
"And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God 7-6v OE6v), being baptised with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him" (Lk. 729f). By being baptised, the former confirmed in a concrete action the fact that they justified God. By not being baptised, the latter, refusing to perform this concrete action, confirmed the contrary, namely, that they rejected the will of God which reached and claimed them. There was thus a visible parting of the ways in this willingness or unwillingness to be baptised. The break did not come over an ideology or doctrine which some accepted and others denied. Invisibly, the break was over the relation to Him who in both cases is emphatically called 6 0E4s- EN405. It is then manifested at once in the fact that the former have themselves baptised and the latter do not. To reject the will of God is the old way which is visibly forsaken in baptism. To justify God is the new way which is visibly entered upon in baptism. The first is the way of self-will and anxiety, the second the way of obedience and hope. The first is an evil way which leads to destruction, the second a good way which leads to salvation. For on both the relation to God is at issue. He who ceases to reject God's will, who justifies God instead, and who has himself baptised in confirmation thereof, is not just deciding for this or that programme, this or that doctrine (even though it be Christian), this or that way of life. e is not just deciding for (or against) this or that in general. He is simply deciding to let God be God, to let Him be his God, and his precisely. God has encountered him too, and specifically, as God. He has known God because God has known him and given Himself to be known by him. God may be known inasmuch as He has encountered him as the One who incontrovertibly is right and irresistibly does right-right for, against and to all men, and hence also right for, against and to him in particular. Who is God? He is the only One who can raise such a claim because it is His nature to be and do right. He is the only One who does raise such a claim because it is impossible for Him not to do this, not to be true to His nature. Baptism has been defined again and again as a change in lordship, but this is not true. Previous claims to lordship have no right to be taken seriously. The lordship they claim cannot be compared with that which is now acknowledged. There is no liberty to submit just as well to some other lordship. Baptism is conversion to the One who is entitle not merely to be called the only Lord but above all to be the only Lord. It is thus a turning aside from all pretended claims to lordship. It is conversion as the human decision
(atKakocav
EN405 God
138
2.
Baptism with Water
which is in reality quite different from all the other decisions it seems to resemble. it consists in the fact that a man is no longer free to evade God's claim to deity, His claim to right against, for and to all men, and hence specifically against, for and to himself. A man is no longer free to reject God's will. As the freedom to do so, this false pretended freedom, is refused him, spoiled for him and taken away from him, he is granted the true and genuine freedom to acquiesce in God's will, to accept and acknowledge God's right against, for and to him, and therewith God Himself as God, with heart and lips and act and life. Conversion consists in a man's desire to abandon all his own previous and, as he thought, at least approximately right judgments, opinions and decisions to the judgment of God, who is certainly in the right, not only against him, but also for him. It consists in his desire to gain and have for himself only the right which God does not owe him but which He has in mind and ready for him as for all men, which He allots to him, too, in free generosity. It consists in his desire to place himself under orders for the action which is right before God, the only righteous One. He who desires this, he who "hungers and thirsts after righteousness" (Mt. 56) in this comprehensive sense, he is engaged in the con- [143] version which is at issue in baptism and which is the meaning of baptism, and to him the promise is given that he will be filled. Now since this conversion consists quite simply in the fact that a man associates himself with all the people and the publicans who justified God, it is represented as a distinctly human action. That it is God's grace and gift to be awakened, summoned and empowered to do this, that man cannot start to justify God except in the freedom which is given him by God-that is one thing. What he does, however, when he starts to do this, the movement which he executes in conversion, is not superhuman or supernatural. It is genuinely and truly human correspondence to the legal claim which God asserts over against him in His work and word. One has even to say that all pseudo-human masks fall away, and truly human action is evident, when a man is reduced to justifying God, when his action becomes that desire, when it is one long hungering and thirsting after righteousness. In the fact that man's conversion is the most human thing he can do is to be found also its dignity and honour. Since it is effected in human knowledge, thought, resolve and will, it is, of course, "only" human. It is not divine. It is human action which simply responds to divine action. Nevertheless, it does so in an appropriate way. It reflects this action. It is thus a pre-eminent human action. It is an action sui, huius generis EN406 To refer again to the beatitude, a being filled, or, to refer to others close by, a being comforted, an obtaining of the mercy of God, a seeing of God, divine sonship, inheritance and possession of the earth, or, comprehensively, the kingdom of heaven-all these things are, not assigned and allotted, but promised to it in all its humanity. For this reason an action so full of EN406
in a category of its own
'39
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life promise should not be disparaged because it is "merely" a human action. Furthermore, when the question is that of the meaning of baptism, it is foolish to look beyond this action, man's conversion to God, to something greater, deeper, stronger, and more in keeping with the significance of the action, and hence to copy ancient and more recent mystery religions in dreaming of a divine work and word immanent in this action. One should not make the mistake of preferring the two birds in the bush to the bird in the hand. One should not make the mistake, then, of ascribing a sacramental meaning to baptism if the purely human act of conversion, instead of being regarded as conversion to an ideology or teaching, is taken seriously as man's conversion. to God, and hence as that action which is supremely distinctive and preeminent, because full of promise. One cannot extol and praise baptism more highly than by understanding and describing it as the concrete form of this human action, and seeking and finding its meaning in the fact that in its exe[144] cation a man joins with the Christian community, and it with him, in justifying God, in confessing and declaring that he hungers and thirsts after God's righteousness. This is what the people who heard John and the publicans did when they had themselves baptised. This is what the Pharisees and lawyers failed to do. This is what is to be done in concert by community and candidate in Christian baptism. As man's conversion to God this is to be done in a way which is visible not only to God but also to His people and all men. It is thus to be done as a wholly human act in the human sphere, and it is binding as such. This being so, it needs the act of baptism as its manifest confirmation in the human sphere. To be sure, man's conversion to God stands in serious and ultimate need of confirmation from above, of God's judgment that (as distinct from other human decisions) it is indeed conversion to Him, and that it is accepted by Him as such. How can it consist in man's justifying of God unless man relentlessly submits all his doings, including what he does in this conversion, to God's judgment? Even baptism, ventured and accomplished as a free and responsible human act, is not an anticipation of this divine confirmation nor an act of self-justification on the part of the man engaged in conversion to God. It is done in expectation of the divine judgment on this conversion and in appeal to God's grace. Hence it is done, not with despair, but with joy, yet with the joy of humility before Him who alone can be and is the Judge in this matter. In expectation of the gracious judgment of God, it is, however, to be actually performed as a human confirmation of human conversion to God. in relation to God, who alone can approve this confirmation, one cannot say that it is valid for Him or pleasing to Him because it is performed in baptism. Nevertheless, if one cannot say that, one must say that as conversion it is certainly not valid for Him or pleasing to im if a man arbitrarily fails or even refuses to give it visible expression in the human sphere, to confess in baptism that he is bindingly committed by it. Does he really take it seriously even before the forum of his own conscience if he seeks to perform it only before this forum, if 140
2. Baptism with Water
he does not also want it to be taken seriously in his relation to the Christian community and to all men, if he is not prepared to recognise that he is committed by it in the human sphere as well? in these circumstances, can he expect that God will take it seriously, and confirm and accept it, as conversion to Himself? He cannot expect this if he can rest content with a conversion which takes place only inwardly, with the confirmation which he may fashion and give by himself. He can justify God, however, only as a whole, which means that he must do so concretely and visibly, not only to God, but in the numan sphere as well. if he refuses to accept baptism before God and men, he does not justify God. The desire to submit to God's judgment, to be justified only by God's loving-kindness, to do what is right before Him, is not in this case a. [145] serious desire. He is not one of those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. The Pharisees and lawyers obviously were not. On the contrary, they rejected the will of God which came to them, which struck home, which pressed in upon them. They had no need to justify God. This was against the grain. It seemed to be undesirable rather than desirable. They preferred to justify themselves. What they regarded as their conversion was their theoretical and practical acceptance of the ideology of the command of God understood (or misunderstood), not as Torah, but as NomosEN407. They confirmed that this was so by not being baptised. Conversion to God summons, leads, drives and impels to baptism, to its human confirmation in the human sphere. In baptism as a reflection of the divine work and word to which a man responds with his conversion, he confesses not only before God but also before the community and all men that, humbly awaiting its confirmation by God, he will give this answer to the best of his ability. In baptism the community also confesses that it acknowledges him as one who will give this answer to the best of his ability. In baptism the community and the candidate together establish a fact by which they are ready to be committed on all the common way ahead of them. To the life of the candidate there now belongs the free and responsible answer in which he was ready to justify God, and did in fact justify Him, in a first step which is exemplary and normative for all those that follow. To the life of the community there now belongs the free and responsible act in which it has recognised this man as one who was ready to do this and who did it, so that in a way which is binding for all time he is now regarded as one of them, as a brother in faith, obedience and hope. This fact is baptism. In the life of both candidate and community it denotes, though it does not create, the distinction between an old way which has been forsaken and a new way which has been entered upon, the frontier between Before and After which has been drawn once and for all by the work and word of God and which each time, again and again, becomes effective and visible. Whether this fact will later speak for or against the candidate, for or against the community, they have in any case introduced it into their own lives, and they no longer stop it speaking to them EN407
Law
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life
[146]
as such. When a man seriously wants to justify God, and does so, then neither he nor the community can refrain from establishing this fact which cannot be reversed and which speaks once and for all in a way which cannot be mistaken even though it is so very human. The people which heard John and the publicans neither could nor would nor did refrain from confirming their conversion to God by having themselves baptised. Their baptism was the public and binding fulfilment of their conversion to God. Their conversion to God was the meaning of their baptism. This conversion, however, is conversion to the God who has acted and spoken, who still acts and speaks, and who will act and speak again in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. To stress the radical nature of this conversion as compared with all the other relatively significant human changes, decisions and conversions which do not have this promise and distinction, and which can have nothing to do with the meaning of baptism, we have temporarily defined and described it in what might seem to be a very general way as man's conversion in his relation to God. When we speak of conversion to God as the meaning of baptism, however, this cannot be the God of an indefinite concept of God. To conversion to this kind of God, if it can be called conversion at all, one can hardly ascribe the radical character which we have sought to emphasise. Baptism, and the conversion concretely and visibly set forth in it, take place in the sphere of a God who is quite different from the God of any general concept. We refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who works in this triunity, who speaks to is people, and through His people to the world. We refer to the God of the eternal covenant who even before the creation of all the reality which is distinct from Himself willed the resisting and overcoming of its apostasy, the reconciliation of the world to Himself, and who then, remaining faithful to Himself, achieved and revealed this in His omnipotent mercy. We refer to the living God who creates, sustains, declares and gives life in His history with 7is creature. We refer to man's conversion to this God. This God is more than the various mysteries of the natural and historical macrocosmos and microcosmos in which, by chance or whim, man thinks he can see, and ought to worship, now this and now that ultimate reality. Knowable in His special work and word, He is God over the gods of the religions. He is also more than the quintessence of being, origin, transcendence, the all-embracing, the wholly other. Knowable in His work and word, He is also God over the god of the philosophers, however he be named. To use the phrase of Paul 'Mich, He and He alone is God over God, namely, over all that which might present or commend itself as God to general thought. in contrast to that which of ourselves we can know, or at least sense or postulate, as the wholly other, He is in truth the Other, and also the One who makes other, the wholly Other. Conversion to Him and to Him alone is marked by the radicalness in which it is the meaning of baptism. Just because the baptism of man to this God is at issue in baptism, we must 142
2.
Baptism with Water
speak of this conversion, and consequently of the meaning of baptism, much more precisely than we have done thus far. We have said that this conversion follows God's command and grasps His promise. Hence this conversion-and therewith the meaning of baptism-4s [147] an act of obedience and hope. But we must now be more definite. The command which a man follows here is that of Jesus Christ. The promise which he grasps here is that of Jesus Christ. He becomes a disciple of Jesus Christ when he forsakes his old way and enters on a new, when he is converted, when he has himself baptised in concrete confirmation of his conversion. His relation to God is basically, decisively and distinctively changed by the fact that he is not confronted here by God in general or by this or that god. He is confronted in the power of His Holy Spirit by the living Jesus Christ as the Son of the Father. It is Jesus Christ who has spoken to him, i.e., revealed to him what He is for him, what He has done for him, in his stead, in a way which embraces and determines his life's history, what he, this man, has really become and truly is in Him. His conversion consists in the fact that he learned to know and knows the one true God and Him whom He has sent On. i7). It is this conversion which he cannot keep to himself. It cannot be for him a mere matter of his own heart and conscience. It cannot remain a private affair. Although, and indeed because, it is a matter of his free and responsible decision, it is no mere affair of his own personal outlook, piety, or morality. Whether he be important or not, it is of public concern. For it is his attitude to the world-change which has taken place in Jesus Christ. The kingdom of God which has come in Jesus Christ is eo ipso EN408 to be proclaimed as such from the rooftops by the man who has become aware of it t. 027). This man must confess Him who, seated at the right hand of God, is the Lord of all men and of the whole world. Unlike Peter in the house of the high-priest (Mk. 147 ), he must also confess that he is one who knows "this man." Confession of this Lord, and of himself as His, is no mere matter of an opinion, outlook, or conviction which might at some future time either change or be exchanged for another. Hence the one who ventures this confession (because he must) has to do so once and for all. it is not merely for to-day but for to-morrow and the day after. He has not even to consider the possibility that some other time something else might be expected from him. He has to defy his human uncertainty. He must commit himself to the statement: "I know this man." Regarding himself as one who does know this man, Jesus of Nazareth, publicly confessing himself as such for all time, he also trusts His community. He recognises in all who make the same confession (whether he is close to them in other things or not, whether he likes them or not) his brot ers and sisters. He wants to be recognised by them as one of them. He thus sees no other possibility but that of confessing that he belongs to Jesus Christ, of confessing this in a binding way in fellowship with all those who do likewise. In this conversion then, obeying the command of Jesus EN408
by its very nature
143
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* Christ and grasping His promise, he desires baptism. This vital confession of Jesus Christ is also at issue, however, for the community which responds to his desire. It listens to the candidate's confession of Jesus Christ, not in the first instance as the confession of his faith, though naturally it is this, but primarily as his confession of Christ, as an echo of what its Lord has said to this man. It trusts him, responding to his desire, not on the basis of its conjectures, however well founded, as to the sincerity and seriousness of his confession and the position demonstrated by it, but in the light of the One towards whom he has adopted, according to his confession, this position to which he is now resolved to be faithful according to his desire for baptism. It trusts him; it ventures—a venture of faith is required from it too—to look on him with confidence in the light of Jesus Christ. It, too, obeys the command of Jesus Christ and grasps Tis promise by baptising this man, by accepting his knowledge and confession as valid, not merely for to-day but also for to-morrow, by publicly acknowledging him as a member, by declaring solidarity with him in brotherly union. Hence a man has himself baptised, and is baptised by the community, not in his own name, nor in that of the community, but in the name, work and word of God in Jesus Christ, in relation to the grace of the everlasting covenant which became and is and will be act and revelation in His coming and history, in the name, then, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Tim. 612 is instructive in this regard: "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." What was this professing of a good profession? It is not expressly said to be Timothy's baptism. Calvin construes this profession before many witnesses as the whole of his life thus far in his special ministry as a preacher of the Gospel. But the continuation in V. 13, which refers to the confession of Jesus Christ Himself, tells us concretely that this was the confession before Pontius Pilate on the day of His death. it may thus be assumed that Timothy's profession is also a specific, datable event in his life. A confession at ordination has often been suggested, since he might have made some such confession on the occasion of the laying on of hands by the presbytery (1 Tim. 414). But the whole passage i Tim. 66-'6 is an admonition to Timothy, not as a bishop or the like, but quite simply and personally as a Christian and a man. The fight is not one which h. s to be fought in his ministry; it is the fight of faith in which every Christian, serving in some capacity, is involved. The calling is not to a specific function; it is the calling to eternal life. Fleeing temptation (especially love of money, v. 6 f.) and following after righteousness (v. 11), he is to lay hold on this. He is to orientate himself to it as something which is already promised and present. Here, then, is the fight which he is admonished and exhorted to fight, with decisive recollection of his calling to eternal life, i.e., the Christian life, and also of the good confession which, in accordance with his calling, he has made before many witnesses. Since the reference is to a definite and highly important event in his life, it is most natural to follow Chrysostom, J. A. Bengel, and in recent times Schlatter and M. Dibelius, who all speak of his baptism before the assembled congregation, of this basic event at the beginning of his Christian life. In this he himself, not of himself but in answer to the call issued to him, declared once and for all that he would follow the way of flight from temptation and pursuit after righteousness. In what follows (w. 13-14) he can thus be reminded in solemn and categorical tones: give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this commandment wit 144
2. Baptism with Water out spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." When he professed his calling, he submitted unconditionally to the command issued to him. This is the basis of the exhortation, it is expected and very definitely required of him that in his life even to the final horizon in the appearing ofjesus Christ he should not sully the purity of this command but display it as 7-677-0g TOW TrtaTan, EN409 (412) .Significant here is the distinctive form in which the command is given. The apostle entreats his reader to come with him into the presence of God and Jesus Christ. He addresses him before the face of the life-giving God. This means, more precisely, that he addresses him before the face of the Witness whose confession Timothy can only follow in the confession which he himself makes in and with his baptism, whose confession he can and must endorse and appropriate as one which is binding for him too. This is what he had already done in his baptism before the eyes and ears of many witnesses, the whole congregation. The first Witness did not make His confession before the Christian community, but before Pontius Pilate. I Tim. 613 is the only verse in the New Testament Epistles in which this name occurs, and it is a peculiarity of this first of the Pastoral Epistles to introduce the bearer of this name as the very one to whom the confession of that first Witness was made. is the reference to the hearing before Pilate, and if so, is it to the brief statements in Mk. 152' or to the richer saying ofjesus to Pilate in jn. 1834f, or is it to the impressive silence of Mk. 155? As the executor Novi Testamenti'41° (Bengel) Pilate, however, was the (apparent) master of that whole day. The expression piapTvpi7jaag (liu,oAoytav EN411 also seems to suggest that the reference is not just to the scene in the Praetorium and to what Jesus said (or did not say) there, but to the whole passion (as in the later creeds) which Pontius Pilate as the responsible representative of world dominion inflicted on Jesus that day, and which Jesus accepted from his hands without murmuring or hesitation, confessing the will of God in His commission even to its final fulfilment. In thus accepting it, Jesus confessed the life-giving God, and Himself as His Servant. This Kali) 6,ttoAoyta EN412 of Jesus Himself, made before Pilate, the world and the fulness of its power, was the basis of the baptism of Timothy by and in the community. He had himself baptised in the name of this first Witness and in subordination to His confession, i.e., as a confessor of this Confessor. With this Kaki) 6,u,oAoyta EN413 of his he entered the militia ChristiEN414 and subjected himself to Christ's discipline. The apostle can now remind him of this, and in thus reminding him of his once-for-all answer to the call issued to him in the confession of Jesus Christ, he can summon him to fight the good fight of faith, ordering him to honour and not to dishonour the command which is well known to him as a soldier of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the first step of the way of a human life which is shaped and stamped by looking to Jesus Christ. It is the first step which the baptised person who has come to see Jesus Christ takes along with the community. It is also the first step which the community, which is already on that way, takes along with the one baptised. in baptism a human life comes into the life of the communIt is not submerged therein. It does not lose its individuality. In all its individuality, however, it becomes the life of a member of the community. Again, in [150] baptism the life of the community is extended, though not altered, by the
an example for believers the executor of the New Testament EN411 gave witness to his confession EN412 good confession EN413 good confession EN414 any of Christ EN4°9 EN410
'45
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life addition of the human life of the candidate who has become one of its members. Who or what has led them to take this first step? Not common ideas, religious experiences, intellectual convictions, or moral aspirations, and certainly not a common general belief in God, but the living Jesus Christ, is history, His work, His word, His Spirit, and the fact that in im they have the freedom to look to Him, and that they have grasped and exercised this freedom afresh in the common work of baptism. The free look at Jesus Christ is simply the knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Mediator, Saviour and Lord who has come to reconcile the world to God and hence to reveal the sovereign love of God. It is the knowledge of the divine election of grace made in Him from all eternity, of the divine Yes to man which was spoken in judgment, but also in restoration and rectification, in the history which was completed in His death, of the demonstration in Him of God's victorious faithfulness to His creature. Since Jesus Christ is a Servant, looking to Him cannot mean looking away from the world, from men, from life, or, as is often said, from oneself. It cannot mean looking away into some distance or height. To look to Him is to see Him at the very centre, to see Him and the history which, accomplished in im, heals everything and all things, as the mystery, reality, origin and goal of the whole world, all men, all life. To look to Him is to cleave to im as the One who bears away the sin of the world. it is to be bound and liberated, claimed, consoled, cheered and ruled by Him. Those who look to Jesus Christ go their way through time in awareness that He is the Lord of all time and therefore of their time too, in confidence, and in orientation to the fact, that He lives for all and therefore for them, that the life of all, including theirs, belongs to Him, that in all its ambivalence, impotence, confusion and peril it is hidden in Him and ordained to serve Him. This awareness, confidence and orientation is Christian faith. The way trodden in faith is the way of the Christian life. The first step on this way is Christian baptism. Here the Christian communit extends its hand to a man. Here a man stretches out his own hand to the community. Here they join forces in this unassuming reflection of the purifying and renewing act of God which took place in Jesus Christ and which is present in His Spirit. Hence it can be only a first step. Other steps, many more, will have to follow this first one-all in looking to im, all in awareness of Him, all in confidence in, and orientation to, the history which reconciles the world to God, all, then, in faith, and each in its own way a further answer to God's work and word, each in its own way a reflection of the divine cleansing and renewing. Baptism, however, is the first step on this way, which all the others must follow, which is an example preceding them, which as the first step can [151] be taken only once and not repeated, to which all those taken afterwards can only look back. This gives it the distinction which is accorded to it in the New Testament and which has always and everywhere been accorded to it-for various reasons-in the history of the Church. As many things follow in the life of the candidate, so many things may precede: impulses which he received, deliberations which he undertook, decisions which he made, rejected, and made all 146
2. Baptism with Water
over again; beyond these the swift or hesitant awakening of his faith, the unripe or ripening forms of his knowledge, readiness for obedience and hope; beyond these again the real presence and work of the Holy Spirit in his thought, acts and conduct. Many things may also precede on the part of the community: preaching which was more or less deliberately aimed at this man or which perhaps struck home without any special intention; possibly the powerful spiritual examples of some of its members; then direct invitation, instruction and direction; not to speak of that which, grounded in God's eternal counsel of grace, and accomplished when the time was fulfilled in the act and revelation of salvation, took place long before in the form of the special over-ruling and guidance of His fatherly providence. Nevertheless, the human step at which all that God willed from eternity and did in time was primarily aiming, and with which the answer of man thereto primarily begins, is baptism. This is the step in which the stage of the provisional and the non-obligatory, of mere preparation, is overhaule and left behind, in which looking at Jesus Christ becomes necessary instead of contingent, fixed instead of vacillating, in which faith becomes solid in spite of unbelief, in which it rings out as man's response, in which his conversion becomes an act which is visible to God and irrevocable, an irreversible event. That this step has behind it the eternal will of God, the work of God which has been done and which speaks in time, and much that is humanly significant, though also dubious, by way of preparation; that it also has before it (again both significantly and dubiously) a new segment in the life of the community and the life of the candidate which now flows into it; that this first step of human decision is always taken, and this beginning of the new Christian life always takes place, with a look at Jesus Christ-this is the glory of baptism, of which all the angels of heaven may always be presented as the witnesses, though it cannot be wholly concealed from the eyes of all the human participants, but can and should be perceptible to them in spite of every human weakness. Some instruction in the faith in some form will always be among the things which precede baptism both on the part of the community and on that of the candidate, in this the baptising community and the candidate enter into a common relation in which the fellowship which begins between them in baptism, and in which he is recognised as a member of this community, is already concrete and visible in a provisional form. The imparting of instruction to a candidate prior to baptism, though as a special form of proclamation it can be proved only from the 2nd century in the form of the catechumenate, is materially justifiable, legitimate and imperative on the ground that the New Testament witnesses plainly presuppose it. They count upon it that prior to baptism candidates have not only been addressed by the proclamation of the Gospel but also that they have in some measure heard and received it, that they have more or less understood it and taken it to heart. When Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, says mi Cor. 117 that he was sent, not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, his statement is surely to be understood in this way and not as a relativising of the command to be baptised. The task of imparting instruction to candidates is none other than that of Paul's evangelising, which in this case is best fulfilled in the special form of instruction (KaTrixElv,
'47
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian I* Gal. 66) in the Christian message. It certainly does not consist in testing the moral or religious (and certainly not the intellectual) worthiness of the candidates. It does consist however-this is how Augustine understood the task of the catechumenate-in imparting to them a material and intelligible narratio"' of the great acts of God which is orientated to their future baptism. The point of this instruction-this is the reason why it comes first-is that the candidates should not be overtaken and surprised by baptism (as in the drastic instance of the German mission) but that they should have been set in a position and in readiness so to seek and desire baptism that they know what they are doing in the matter. Finally, the aim of baptismal instruction, which is to be emphasised especially in this context, is that baptism should actually follow as quickly and meaningfully as possible, that the recipient of the instruction should take the first binding and irrevocable step, that he should venture to be baptised on his own decision and responsibility. To be avoided is something which seemed to result from the theory and practice of the catechumenate in the early Church (perhaps again in connexion with the influencing of the mystery religions on its understanding of baptism), namely, that the candidate is not encouraged by the catechumenate to have himself baptised, but is hampered, so that he begins to hesitate, preferring to postpone his baptism, finally accepting it, not as the first step of the Christian life but as the last, taken only on his death-bed. This prevention of baptism can arise when baptism, as obviously happened to a large extent (cf. the mystagogic "catecheses" of Cyril of Jerusalem), is surrounded by a thicket of fences, by a wall of mysteries, or secret practices, which are themselves protected by a secret discipline, and also by religious and moral rules, statutes and conditions which the candidate has to fulfil, so that the catechumenate is conducted, not as evangelical instruction freely and hopefully given and received, but as initiation by various stages into deeper and higher mysteries. The community renders neither God nor man a service when, after it has pleased God to open up access to Him in His Son, it makes the entry to baptism difficult and obscure in this way. Indeed, even if it were to make baptism attractive and interesting thereby, through the erection of such fences it would not point to, but away from, the mystery which is disclosed in Jesus Christ and which both it and the candidate are to confess in the act of baptism.
But a final task is still before us. We have said that the meaning of baptism is the conversion which is to be achieved by a man in concert with the Christian community, and by the community in concert with this man. It is their conversion to God, namely, to the God who acts and is revealed in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is thus the first step of the Christian life. We have [153] not yet described it, however, in such a way that we have a clear picture of the free and responsible human act which takes place herein. Here is one of the failures of the rejected sacramental interpretation in all its varied forms. For all their powerful insistence on the work of grace and revelation effected through the action, its champions are fundamentally unable to imagine or portray this. When asked how it takes place, they either make arbitrary conjectures of one kind or another or they are reduced to silence before a mystery which is to be treated with reverence. A similar failure would burden the baptismal teaching presented here if we were to rest content with what has been said thus far. In the conversion which we have called the meaning of baptism we do not have a mystery which is either to be interpreted capriciously or to be surrounded by reverent silence. Presupposing the mystery of God and His action to which this conversion responds, it is a free and responsible human action, a happening which can be imagined and poi-EN415
narration
148
2. Baptism with Water trayed. One can give an account of what takes place, of what the community and the candidates do in it. One can give information about it which is at least approximately clear. This is what we must now do.
1. We first take up again the first of the two main terms which we expounded briefly at the beginning of this whole discussion. In baptism there is obedience. This is a very specific form of obedience which may differ from much else that goes by the name. But it is unequivocally obedience. When rightly performed, baptism follows a command. in each instance this command is issued specifically to the community and its candidate, and is to be received by them. But it is unequivocally a command. When a man desires baptism, this may well be a need of his heart and conscience. It is a need, however, which is decisively awakened and determined by the fact that he has received a command and that he desires to obey it. With this desire he turns to the community, for in this matter, and in this matter particularly, he cannot be obedient without it. Again, if the community responds to his desire, there may well have been some evaluation of its seriousness, some appraisal of the sincerity of the applicant. The decisive reason for responding, however, is that it, too, hears a command and seeks to obey it along with this man. The command is the baptismal command of Jesus, which goes forth afresh and specifically to this or that man and the community, and which is to be received by them afresh and specifically. Formulated in Mt. 281s, this command was properly promulgated when He desired baptism, and had Himself baptised, at the hands of John. In this baptism He took up the ministry which reached its goal in His death at Golgotha. On this basis of Christian baptism at the commencement of Jesus own Christian life in His baptism, the act of baptism is commanded, and it is constantly commanded afresh, as the beginning of the Christian life. In the first instance, then, its meaning is quite simply that it is an act of obedience made in free responsibility. The fact that it visibly expresses and confirms a man's conversion to God with a view to Jesus Christ means primarily, then, that it brings to light the freedom of those who are bound by and in and to Jesus Christ-the freedom of those who in relation to Him, as us brothers and, sisters, recognise that with Him they are the children of God, and thus perceive that in His discipleship, in His footsteps ( it Pet. 221) , they are empowered for obedience to God and summoned thereto. In baptism there can be no question of any other obedience than that which those who are granted the freedom of the children of God both desire to render and do render because they have no other choice as such. There can be no question of mere submission to what is for the moment a recognised custom or a valid ecclesiastical ordinance. They obey the command which is written on their own hearts by the Holy Spirit of the history ofjesus Christ. They obey this command; they obey this command. They thus do what they do in baptism, certainly not in fulfilment of an externally suggested or imposed ceremonial duty, nor in performance of a rite which by their own experience and judgment they have found to be sensible, significant and beautiful, so that they have resolved to conform to
1
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life it. When they perform the act of baptism, it can neyer be-this has nothing whatever to do with the liberty of the children of God-that they might just as well have left it undone. I aptism, or being baptised, is in no sense one of those acts whose glory consists in doing them as though one did them not, as though one could also not do them. A man does this act because he wants to, but he wants to do it in obedience, so that he could not just as well not want to do it. The man who does it as it should be done avoids both all legalism and all licence, steering a middle course between them. He obeys the Holy Spirit of the history of Jesus Christ and no one else. He thus obeys in the freedom which has been made his own in Him. In this freedom of his he obeys the Holy Spirit. In matters of baptism, whatever is thought, said, or done to the right or to the left of this narrow way is contrary to its meaning, falsifying and corrupting it. I aptism, if well done, is done in serious responsibility to the question_ whether the community an s the candidate are together on this narrow way on which obedience is freedom and freedom is obedience. It should be consid,ered in this connexion that baptism is the first exemplary step of the whole Christian life. What can the Christian life be in all its dimensions and forms, what is it to be called, if not a continuing on the narrow way of a life in the freedom which is obedience, in the obedience which is freedom? It would be strange indeed if the first step to and in this life were to follow another rule than that of the obedience which is to be rendered in the liberty of the children of God. Is not this to set all the points incorrectly at the very outset? A great deal is indeed hazarded if the meaning of baptism is sought in a supposed [155] height or depth in whose contemplation and admiration we may well forget that what is to be rendered above all in baptism is obedience-the obedience which alone is possible in the discipleship of Jesus and the school of is Holy Spirit. If the majesty of the ecclesiastical act of baptism is to be restored, then perhaps in the baptismal liturgies the decisive story of the baptism of Jesus (preferably according to Mt. which is the imperative reason for the act, should be read in place of Mk. 1013' par. ("Jesus the Friend of children") , Ac. 239 ("The promise is unto you, and to your children") , and similar texts which are only indirectly relevant, and also in addition to the formal baptismal comman in Mt. 28'9. Perhaps this is also the place to raise the ticklish question whether a man can become, be, or be called a Christian in the full sense without being baptised. It is a ticklish question because every doctrine-and we openly admit that this applies also to that represented here-will be entangled in inextricable difficulties if it answers with an unconditional affirmative or with an unconditional negative. Hence no one can give an unequivocal answer. However strict one might be, exceptions will have to be allowed. The legitimacy of the exception depends, however, upon whether it does not allow the strictness of the rule to be forgotten, but in its own way helps to bring it out for the first time in all its fulness. If the meaning of baptism is sought in a causative or cognitive work of divine grace which takes place therein, a necessitas medii salutis" should logically be ascribed to its administration. Appeal may be made to Mk. 1616: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved," or EN416
a necessary means of salvation
50
2. Baptism with Water to the (misinterpreted) saying in jn. 35: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It should not be overlooked, however, that the saying which follows at once in Mk. 16 tells us only that those who do not believe will be damned, and that the continuation in jn. 3 speaks only of the need to be born of the Spirit. Obviously it was neither possible nor desirable to tie the work of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Spirit, in any absolute way to baptism as a medium salutisE 417 . Hence the administration of baptism could not be declared absolutely necessary to salvation. Thus Roman Catholic dogmatics up to our own time holds out for the unbaptised children of Christians the prospect of kindly exemption or modified damnation (the limbus infantium EN418) This is also why in the case of unbaptised Christian martyrs the baptism of blood may take the place of baptism with water. This is also why a baptism of desire is acceptable in the case of the unbaptised who display perfect charity and steadfastness. This is also why, with some safeguards, even entry into a monastic order could be regarded as equivalent to baptism in the Middle Ages. Calvin too (Instit.IV, 15, 20) declared it to be poor exposition of the dogma of the necessity of baptism to salvation if it was asserted that a man can be robbed of the grace of renewal by dying before baptism, as though the work of grace were dependent on the sign which seals it. Boldest of all in opposition was Luther, who preached on the matter as early as III, 142, 1.8): "A man may believe even though he is not baptised. For bap1522 ( WA., tism is no more than an outward sign to admonish us concerning the divine promise. If one can have it, it is good to take it, for no one should despise it. if one cannot have it, or is refused it, he is not damned if only he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is, there is baptism and everything a Christian needs, for damnation does not follow from any sin, only from unbelief." There was no thought here of setting aside or even weakening the doctrine that baptism is a medium salutis' or cognoscendae salutis EN420, or that it is necessary to salvation as such. Nor was there any thought of declaring it optional (though Luther incau- [156] tiously comes close to this) . The only point is that it was obviously found impossible to assert its necessity without recognising possible exceptions to the rule. According to the view espoused here baptism is not a means of the divine work and revelation of salvation. It is neither a causative nor a cognitive medium salutis EN421. It is a genuine human answer to the divine work and word of revelation. it bears witness to the efficacious mercy of God which is shown to be omnipotent by its efficacy. if it is not a means of salvation, then one cannot speak of a necessitas mediiEN422 but only of a necessitas praeceptiEN423. Only? In effect, this might well mean that it is very much harder, not easier, to give an affirmative answer to the question whether a man can become and be a Christian without undergoing baptism. We have had to speak very definitely about the necessitas praeceptiEN424 of its administration, about its character as an act of obedience to the command of Jesus Christ. Can it be omitted, then, as the first human answer to God's work and word of salvation? in the words of Mk. 1616, can there be a faith for which baptism is just optional? Or in the words of jn. 35, can there be a birth of the Spirit which need not perhaps be accompanied by birth of water, absolutely subordinate though this is? Can the freedom of the children of God for baptism be, in some circumstances, their exercised freedom from it? If on the basis of a sacramental understanding of baptism it seems to be natural, legitimate, and even imperative to admit means of salvation net of infants EN419 means of salvation EN420 means of knowledge of salvation EN421 means of salvation EN422 necessity of means EN423 necessity of command EN424 necessity of command EN417 EN418
15
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life that God has other ways to save men apart from the regular medium salutis 425 , what happens if baptism is a matter of command and obedience? How can there be exceptions then? Does the command not apply in some instances? Has due obedience not to be rendered to it at times? On our basis we are in fact in greater difficulty (even than Luther and Calvin, let alone the wonderful baptismal jurisprudence of Roman Catholic dogmatics) . We must be very careful what we say, lest on this basis we maintain that baptism is absolutely necessary and that without it no one can be a genuine Christian, so that in practice we come at this point to exactly the same conclusion as the proponents of a sacramental doctrine of baptism. The maxim would still be true of course: duo cum dicunt idem, non est idem EN426 On the basis of our presuppositions the problem is to be posed and answered as follows. The administration of baptism is the commanded form, the visible and binding confirmation, of the obedience for which the community is empowered and to which it is summoned along with the one who now comes to it with a request for its baptism, the novice in faith, in his faith which is its also. Their obedience of faith is closely related to baptism; they should be a single act. aptism arises in the obedience of faith. The obedience of faith is rendered in baptism. Materially, and also temporally, the obedience of faith as such is, however, prior to baptism. Baptism, demanded by the obedience of faith inasmuch as the freedom of the children of God is eo ipsoEN427 amd primarily the freedom for baptism, must, needs follow this obedience, though it can only follow it. When a man becomes a true Christian in knowledge of the work and word of God in Jesus Christ, since he cannot be this privately, since his knowledge cries out for public expression and needs acknowledgment by the community, since it needs baptism, he wishes to be baptised. He does so because this is commanded of him as a true Christian, because as such he wants to obey the command. He would be no true Christian if he did not want to do this. Inasmuch as the community is a true Christian community in the same knowledge, it responds to his desire and baptises him, for as a true Christian community it hears the same command and wants to obey it. It would not be a true Christian community if it did not want to do this. This is the only normal relation between the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, the command issued thereby and the obedi[1.57] ence grounded therein on the one side, and the administration of baptism on the other. There is no freedom of the children of God from baptism, no occasional suspension of the baptismal command, no release from the obedience which must be rendered to it. God's work and word of salvation calls unconditionally for this answer. This neither can nor should be disputed. Nevertheless, it is equally incontestable that there are situations in which the establishment of this normal relation is held up, in which the confirmation of the obedience of faith in baptism, though the obedience is actually there, is not, or not yet, practicable, in which the will, however earnest, cannot become the deed, because it is opposed by some external obstacle. There are abnormal situations in which that which should become an act-the obedience which is awakened in the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, the act of baptism-is not, or not yet, an act. Luther was right when he said that where the Gospel is, where it is known and acknowledged, there is everything that a Christian needs. Does it not sound as though he is spiritualising overmuch, however, when he says that where the Gospel is, a man has baptism? He obviously has in view baptism with the Holy Ghost. The question is, however, whether baptism with the Holy Ghost can replace water baptism and render it superfluous. If one cannot give a wholly negative answer to this question, one cannot give a wholly affirmative answer either. One can only say that there can and may be situations in which a man, to use Luther's words, "cannot have baptism," i.e., water baptism, even though means of salvation when two say the same thing, it is not the same thing EN427 by its very nature, then EN425 EN426
152
2. Baptism with Water the Gospel is there, even though he is baptised with the Holy Ghost. This may be because there is no community from which he may ask and receive it. It may be because the community, in the form in which he encounters it, is so little recognisable or convincing as the true Christian community that he cannot have the trust or confidence to seek its recognition or to associate himself with it. There may also be situations in which a community (perhaps a true Christian community) cannot recognise as a good Christian someone who requests baptism from it, cannot accept the responsibility of acknowledging him to be such, and thus believes it must refuse him baptism. In these and similar situations a man must be content with the witness which he can give in his own heart and conscience. But these are not normal situations. They are highly abnormal. They cry out for swift investigation and correction on either the one side or the other. We certainly have no business to count on their definitiveness or even their givenness as a general possibility. If one cannot deny in advance that in such abnormal situations a man may be a true Christian without baptism, one may not deduce from this the general principle that one can be just as good a Christian without baptism as with it, or that one may be baptised or not at will. A man who has truly come to the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, a real Christian, will never put up with this kind of situation. He will never be content with the affirmation of his obedience of faith which he may provisionally give in his own heart and conscience. In no circumstances will a true Christian cease to desire that his obedience of faith be publicly and bindingly declared and, that he be recognised and acknowledged as a true Christian by the true Christian community. He will be unable to refrain from longing for the community and hence for the common work of baptism. Nor will that be a true Christian community which is content to repulse him, which does not hold itself open for him in principle. Situations in which baptism, even though earnestly and justifiably desired, is impossible in practice, can arise only as deadlocks which cry out to be overcome. They are exceptions which have as such no fundamental worth, which do not imply release from the rule or permission to disregard it, which do not constitute a second rule, but which can only prove the one single rule, that the obedience of faith and baptism belong together. Even in possible exceptional circumstances of this kind, the freedom of the children of God is not freedom from baptism. Even in these circumstances it is always their freedom for baptism. This is the only answer which can be given on [158] the basis of the doctrine of baptism espoused here. 2. Presupposing what has been said about the meaning of baptism as the transition from an old way of human life to a new way, we now go on to affirm that in the act of baptism, as an act of obedience, a specific renunciation is made and a specific pledge is given. When a man is baptised and the commun ity baptises him, they place themselves together-this is the obedience of faith which is the meaning of baptism-under the justification and sanctification of sinful man which has been perfectly accomplished and perfectly revealed in God's work and word in Jesus Christ. Baptism may and should be administered with a direct look at Jesus Christ. g ut when there is this glance at Jesus Christ there is no place for ignorance of the fact that the justification of sinful man before God, and the sanctification of the same man for Him, has been accomplished and revealed in Jesus Christ. This cannot be contradicted or treated with nonchalance. It cannot be doubted or forgotten. There can only be alert, conscious and resolute gratitude for it. What it means must now be recalled in its specific bearing on the meaning of baptism. Man's justification before God 153
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life consists in the fact that in the history ofjesus Christ, completed in the crucifixion, he has become a man who in the judgment of God is cleansed from his sin and freed from his guilt. His sanctification for God consists in the fact that in the same history of Jesus Christ which was completed in His death he is a man who satisfies the holy claim of God, who is renewed in spite of his sins, who is called to the service of God and adapted for it. The resurrection ofjesus Christ is the revelation of the act of God which justifies and sanctifies each man before Him, and which took place in the history of Jesus Christ that was completed in His death. The look at Him, made possible by the gift and reception of the Holy Spirit, is a look at the risen and living Jesus Christ, at the presence and actuality of the history enacted in Him, at the validity and force both of the justification or cleansing of sinful man achieved by Him and also of the sanctification of sinful man effected in Him. Baptism can and should be administered on the basis of the gift and in reception of the Holy Spirit with a look at the living Christ. it can and should be administered as an act of obedience to God. For the participants, then, it is a specific renunciation and a specific pledge. Both renunciation and pledge are with equal strictness controlled by the fact that they are wholly and utterly related to the renunciation and pledge of God Himself in Jesus Christ. Confirmed in baptism are God's No and God's Yes to man: God's warfare victoriously conducted in Jesus Christ against an old, corrupt humanity under sentence of death; God's conclusion of peace with the new humanity which has come on the scene in Jesus Christ, [159] which serves God, and which is destined for eternal life. Baptism does not bring about this crisis. God Himself does that. Baptism, however, acknowledges and proclaims it. Though it does not establish, it bears witness to the boundary line which God has drawn between a passing age and a coming age, a passing personal life and a coming personal life. Ventured with a look at Jesus Christ and in obedience, it is man's tracing of the divine act of judgment, which is also as such the divine act of reconciliation. It is not, then, an autonomous decision. It is a free and responsible human act, but as such it simply follows the justification and sanctification, the cleansing an i renewal of sinful man which God has accomplished and revealed in Jesus Christ. Controlled my God's own renunciation and pledge, it receives and has in all its humanity the character of a valid and effective renunciation and pledge. it follows, then, that neither the Christian community nor the candidate has established or even discovered for itself the justification of sinful man before God. There is forgiveness for man. There is cleansing from his pride, sloth and falsehood. There is pardon from his guilt towards God, neighbour and self. There is release from condemnation. But God, not man, has spoken this gracious No which rejects the whole of man's prior being, declaring it to be outdated and past. This is always the truth of God's living word. God Himself has declared war in this cause, conducted the war, and led it to a successful issue. God has drawn for human sin, guilt and condemnation the line which cannot be crossed any more. The attempt at human selfjustification and self
'54
2.
Baptism with Water
sanctification, the very root of all evil and mischief, has itself been radically smitten and destroyed by this No, by this declaration of war, by the drawing of this line by the grace of God and His Word. Even the Christian community can only bear witness to this divine No in a human work an I word. Even it can only reflect and confirm this No. it does this, with the candidate, in baptism. Hence baptism has first the character of a renunciation. It is a confession of the sin and guilt which in the crucifixion ofjesus Christ man may know to be forgiven sin, pardoned guilt and remitted condemnation, but which, since Jesus Christ took his place there, he must also recognise as his own sin, guilt and condemnation, from which, looking to Jesus Christ, he is separated, from which he must now remain separated, whose continuation and increase are quite unthinkable, especially in the form of further efforts at self-justification and self-cleansing. In baptism, the candidate confesses with the community that all this has been rendered impossible by what Jesus Christ has done and is for him. They confess together that justification and cleansing have come to them only in the history of Jesus Christ, that they have done so totally in this history, that the man who wanted to sin, to justify and cleanse himself, and who could [160] only become guilty in so doing, has-in Paul's words-been put to death and done away in the crucifixion. We recall once more Rom. 64 and Col. 212 with their valid description of baptism as a solemn burial of the old man. Burial is a renunciation of the deceased. To bury a man is to part from him for ever. Baptism is the burial of a dead man by the community and the candidate. It is their parting from him. They themselves were the dead man when he was alive: they themselves as men who sinned, and who above all sought to justify and cleanse themselves; they themselves as men who incurred guilt and came under condemnation by so doing; they themselves as men who sought their righteousness either in doing the works of the Law or not doing them, either in arbitrary rearmament or disarmament, and who, in spite of their illusions, could not find it in these things. They themselves have not put to death this one who is now dead. He died when Jesus Christ died on the cross in place of the legalistic or libertine sinner. But he is now dead in both forms. He can only be buried. He can only be renounced. This is what has come about in baptism. Throughout the future they will have to remember that the old man is buried, that they have buried him, that they themselves, following the great decisive divine renunciation which took place and was revealed in Jesus Christ, have renounced him: "I renounce the devil and all his works," as the candidate says to-day in the Roman office, though represented, of course, by hisgodparents. Furthermore, it is to be said of man's sanctification for God as his entry into a new life that it can take place neither as a work of the community nor as a work of the candidate, nor can they in any way fashion or secure for themselves any knowledge of its reality. That there is for man a renewal of his life for the service of God and neighbour, the doing of good works, comforted bearing of the cross, and the faithful attestation of what God wills for the world and has 155
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life said and done to it-this forward liberation, like justification, can be only the content of the divine Yes which God has spoken and speaks to man, not the theme of an assertion which he himself may venture as he looks to Jesus Christ. in this positive sense, too, God has grasped and exercised the initiative of His grace. God has opened up man's existence in this forward direction, so that the barriers are down and it is no longer impossible for man to look and move forward into the future of his new humanity. God has freed and released him both from his being as an old man and also for his being as a new man. The Christian community and its candidates cannot speak this divine Yes themselves. But in their human work and word, in the baptism which they perform together, they can and should accept, answer, confirm and repeat it. As they do [161] so, baptism acquires and has, inseparably from its character as a renunciation, the character of a pledge. It is a confession of faith: a confession of the wonderful exaltation and integration which have come to man in the fact that God willed to become his 1 rather in the man Jesus, and that in Him, in the great act of obedience and service which was the meaning of His history and finally of His death, He has brought on the scene the new man who is pleasing to God, who may be used by Him, and who hastens towards eternal life. It is a confession of the fact that Jesus Christ, as this new man, has become his Lord and Head and Representative, has drawn him into a new life, and has called him to and after imself. The candidate, along with the community, confesses in baptism that when his old life has been put to death vicariously in Jesus Christ, this new life is vicariously lived for him by the same Jesus Christ, and is thus his own true and actual life, "hid with Christ in God" (Col. O. Candidate and community confess together that the total renewal of man which has taken place in Jesus Christ is their own renewal, their own sanctification for God, not as their work but as is, not as a self-sanctification which they have undertaken or are preparing to undertake, but as the sanctification for God which has come to them, as to all men, in Jesus Christ. They confess this in baptism. They there say Yes together, not to their own good will, not to their faith, but in great thankfulness to the divine conclusion of peace, to the valid, absolutely trustworthy and victorious Yes which God has spoken to man, and hence to them too. They say Yes to this Yes. How can their Yes, spoken to God's Yes, be an idle Yes? They set to work energetically to respond to this Yes. They join forces and swear together to do so, i.e., to render the service which quite undeservedly is entrusted to them and laid upon them by the divine Yes. Baptism is the oath which is taken by them in concert. if the original sense of the Latin sacramentum 428 is observed, it might be called a sacrament from this standpoint. In baptism they take up their posts in the ranks of the militia ChristiEN429 in which each, whether greater or smaller as a soldier, whether stronger or weaker, whether cleverer or more foolish, may be confident that EN428 EN429
sacrament army of Christ
156
2.
Baptism with Water
he will receive as much insight and strength as is needed to fulfil the task which is assigned to him and suitable for him. In baptism they say to God and to one another that they acquiesce in this, and that, thus equipped and led, they will do the best they can in their different functions. This is the pledge which the Christian has made in baptism in answer to God's pledge to him. This is the pledge which he must always think back on in the days ahead, and of which he must be reminded on specific occasions. In view of this, Christians are people who, in knowledge of their sanctification for God by God, have dared to make in obedience both that renunciation and also, in the same free responsibility, this pledge: Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Jesus Christum, [162] Filium eius et in Spiritum sanctumEN43° , according to the confession in our baptismal orders, though unfortunately said there over the candidate, not by him. Baptism, then, is the twofold answer of man to the divine justification and sanctification, cleansing and renewal, which have taken place for him and been revealed to him in Jesus Christ. It is the corresponding renunciation and, pledge. Hence water baptism, not in and for itself, but as a first model which is to be followed throughout the Christian life, is the human decision which follows the divine change effected for man, and which corresponds to the history of Jesus Christ and baptism with the Holy Ghost. Is it, then, what Hercules did at the cross-roads? Not at all. The decision taken by this profoundly pagan ideal figure, closely resembling in its character as such the decision of Paris between the gifts proffered him by the three goddesses, is a choice between two ways which are both equally open, i.e., between two possibilities. lut the decision of the Christian, executed in his baptism as pledge and renunciation, is not a choice between two possibilities available to him. The one reality which he encounters in God's work in Jesus Christ is that which in his pledge, sanctified and renewed by God for God, he prefers to the way which is now impossible and closed to him as one who is justified by the same work and word of God, so that it can be the object only of his rejection and renunciation. He chooses that which is alone actual and possible, and therewith he rejects eo ipsoEN431 that which is absolutely impossible in the light of what is alone actual and possible. To the impossible which he rejects and renounces there belongs also and indeed primarily the idea of the pagan liberum arbitrium 432, which is illusory because it contests the one true reality, and which, as foreseen already in Gen. 35, makes man equal to God, the judge between good and evil, a ercules at the cross-roads. justified by God before God, man will justify God, accepting the right which God has against and for and to him, not seeking to establish and execute right himself, resolutely rejecting the role of quasi-divine umpire. In the knowledge that God is his righteousness, he finds not merely an believe in one God, the Father almighty and in Jesus Christ, his Son and in the Holy Spirit EN431 by its very nature EN432 free will
EN43° I
157
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Lift admonition and warning against any such enterprise, but also cleansing from even the will or desire for it. Hence the object of his pledge, that which, sanctified by God for God, he affirms, chooses and grasps, cannot be the arbitrary or futile enterprise of self-sanctification for a service which he has sought out himself, which God has not required from him, with which he can only affront God. His Yes to his renewal becomes rather his will and desire for the freedom of a witness to the sanctification in which it has pleased God to call sinners, and himself in particular, to the service of His omnipotent mercy, to make them ready and capable in this service, to use them in it, to open up for them the [163] forward way beside which there is no other for them. At issue always in the Christian life are this renunciation and pledge which are not at all like the choice of Hercules. They are at issue already at the beginning of this life, in Christian baptism. Nevertheless, in this renunciation and pledge-this must not be undermined in relation to baptism-we do genuinely have a free and responsible choosing and rejecting, affirming and negating, a human decision. Those who participate in baptism are summoned, empowered and in the full sense ordered by God to take the decision as such. Hence they are not engulfed and covered as by a divine landslide or swept away as by a divine flood. They are taken seriously as God's partners. At issue is their own answer to His work and word, a joyful and confident answer which is to be given quite voluntarily and with full awareness of what is entailed. What is needed is a spontaneous response to the divine change effected for them and in their favour in the history ofjesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Confession of sin and of faith, of repentance and of gratitude, is to be made consciously and voluntarily in knowledge of God's cleansing and renewing action. How can one speak of this meaningfully or honestly if there is no reference to the decision of the children of God who are called into freedom, of the active human subjects, if these as such-baptism is a common work-are even partially passed over, left out, or absent, if their free decision is crowded out, replaced, or made irrelevant, a negligible quantity, by the overpowering work and word of God? Even, and indeed precisely, in that which takes place in the sphere of the covenant of grace, we find dialogue and dealings between two who stand in clear encounter, God on the one side and man on the other, God and all the men concerned, so that, while these men can only follow what God says and does, they are all active subjects for their part, and they can and should follow with their own speech and action on the basis of their own responsible decision. Matters are not decided over their heads. They are not just objects who are discussed, moved and pushed around. Precisely in the covenant of grace the house of the Father, the kingdom ofjesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, there can be no talk of divine omnicausality. One is attacking this house and kingdom at the very foundations if one fails to see that, even if in total subjection to the rule of Him who alone can rule here, there is given to men, to all the men concerned, not merely a place of their own and freedom of movement, but 158
2. Baptism with Water
also the freedom of decision, with the commission to exercise it. We may thus say that it is in wholly free, conscious and voluntary decision that there takes place in baptism that renunciation and pledge, that No on the basis of the justification of sinful man effected in Jesus Christ, that Yes on the basis of the sanctification accomplished in Him. If only it were enough merely to make what would seem to be so self-evident a statement! if only we could make this the conclusion to the second point in our description of the event of baptism! Unfortunately this is not so. For at this juncture a higher authority in the form of the actual course of Church history breaks into the theological discussion and forces us to make a special delimitation in defence of the statement. What is this factor? "The most momentous of all decisions in Church history" (H. U. von Balthasar, Sponsa Verbi, 1961, 16). On the early history cf. Joachim jeremias, Die Kindertauft in den ersten vier jahrhunderten, 1958 and the reply by Kurt Aland, Die Sauglingstauft im Neuen Testament und in der alten Kirche, 1961.
Our statement and description correspond to Christian baptism as it may be found in the New Testament period and for some time afterwards. They certainly correspond to its basis in the baptism which Jesus Himself desired and received from John in the Jordan. John baptised there in obedience both to the Word of God which came to him and also in obedience to his own free decision. Like all the rest who hurried to the jordan,jesus, too, was baptised by him most emphatically in accordance with His own will and resolve. These points are not in doubt. The same picture is presented by those who baptised or were baptised in the unanimous accounts of Acts and at least the dominant practice of the first four centuries. The baptised as well as the baptisers knew what they were doing when they had themselves baptised. They asked for baptism. hey received more or less exact instruction in the Christian faith. They confessed this faith, or the One who is the origin, theme and content of this faith. Confessing Him with uplifted heads, they were baptise s . From the end of the second century, however, the picture begins to become blurred and ambiguous with respect to those baptised by the community, and then in and from the 5th century it changes generally, and as a rule unequivocally; into ai very different picture. To be sure, many pagans are still baptised at first, and in such cases baptism retains the character of a free resolve and decision. In missionary work, in so far as this relates in part at least to those who truly come to Christian faith and to the community from without, from the sphere of open unbelief, superstition or error, it retains this character even to our own time. In addition, however, within the growing Church itself there opened up a. broad and broadening field of baptisms in which the original mutually receptive and spontaneous character, though it may be seen at a distance, though it is still discernible in certain substitute theological and liturgical constructions, is really without practical or factual significance. In baptism there now began to take place a separation between the baptising community or clergy on the 159
164]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life one side and the baptismal candidates on the other. The former now administered baptism on their own responsibility, without a presupposing or appeal [165 ] ing to the responsibility of the latter, without any decision on their part. Development in this direction increased, and ecclesiastical baptism came to resemble less and less the corresponding event at the Jordan and in the New Testament communities, as the candidates were recruited with decreasing frequency from the pagan world, which the Church assimilated (or assimilated itself to) , and more and more from the children of its own members, from so-called Christian families. There triumphed the idea of a specific circle of human beings who, as the physical progeny of people now called Christians, could and should be baptised unhesitatingly without asking concerning their desire or their own decision, as though it were simply a matter of disposing of them and marking them at will. The result is that theology to-day is confronted by the brute fact of a baptismal practice which has become the rule in churches in all countries and in almost all confessions, and in which that which ought to be regarded as self-evident is not only no longer self-evident but has been forgotten and even intentionally ignored. In this practice the baptised person has his place as an object of the community's action but there can be no question of any renunciation and pledge as the act of his own free decision. Hence he has no function, no active part. He is not a subject, and baptism cannot be understood seriously as a common work. We face the question whether it is theologically possible to regard the brute fact of this triumphant practice as justifiable or at any rate tolerable when considered in retrospect. Is theology able to share responsibility with the Church for that which it has ventured with this tolerated and desired development, with the official introduction of this practice? Can it give the Church a good conscience in the matter? his might well be. On the other hand, it might be that theology must tell the Church that it cannot do this because unfortunately it cannot regard a theological endorsement of the practice as feasible. Infant baptism (baptismus infantium, paedobaptismusEN433) is, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism (Qu. 74) the baptism of young children, usually the newly born infants of Christian parents, i.e., of those who in some way belong to the Church by their own confession. The possibility that baptism might include infant baptism, the baptism of those who have not reached years of discretion, is one which in our deliberations thus far we have come across only in certain historical excursuses. We have not encountered it in the biblical or material discussions, whether with regard to the basis of baptism, the goal of baptism, or what has been said up to this point about the meaning of baptism. We have not left it out artificially. There has been no place at which there could even be any question of thinking that the candidate to whom we have constantly referred as a partner of the community in baptism might be an EN433
baptism of infants, paedoba ism
16o
2.
Baptism with Water
infant, an unconscious child, who is qualified for the position by his Christian [166] parents. Indeed, we have thought it could be regarded as self-evident that in the work of baptism one has to presuppose, both on the side of the community and also on that of the candidates, human beings who are capable of thought and action and who may be summoned as such to conversion, obedience, hope, and the decision of faith. We could not even consider the possibility that infants might be baptised, and hence we have not even had occasion to dispute this. But this very thing which does not seem to arise is now very much to the fore. indeed, the claim is raised that it alone calls for practical consideration. We thought it had to be said that a man desires baptism, hastens towards it, comes to it. ut now we are told, with a claim to general and exclusive validity, that candidates must be brought and carried to baptism without enquiring as to their wishes. As a rule-and this rule is also held to be the ideal-baptism is to be administered without their conscious or voluntary participation. For in the later patristic and mediaeval Church, and, after some early and quickly suppressed hesitation, in all the Reformation churches with the exception of the Baptists (who are strong in America) and some smaller groups, the possibility of infant baptism has become in fact the general use, and it confronts us to-day as a practice which is recognised and followed almost everywhere. This is the possibility which we believed we could and should disregard in our discussion thus far. In our description of baptism, however, we are now at the point where we have to understand it as the renunciation and pledge which responds to God's cleansing and renewing work and word in the freedom which God has given for this purpose, and which is made in a free choice and rejection, affirmation and negation. At this point, then, it is urgent that consideration be given to the astonishing possibility of infant baptism. There can be no doubt that it is a powerful fact in Church history. Again, at least in the Reformation churches, there is recognition that no theological worth or validity can be ascribed to it as such (cf. the papacy, which is roughly of the same age) . Since it has not been rejected (as contrasted with the papacy), attempts have been made to explain, establish and justify it theologically (exegetically and dogmatically). Our task is to consider briefly the case which has been and is presented. Before going into detail, we may first ask the general question whether we have in the doctrine of infant baptism an original element which is integral to baptismal doctrine and Christian knowledge, which proceeds necessarily from this, and which may be integrated organically into the other elements. There is a genuine doctrine of infant baptism only from the time of the Reformation. For it was only then that there was any serious questioning or [167] disputing of what had become the venerable institution of infant baptism. All the Reformers (and after the briefest of consideration they particularly) victoriously dismissed the doubts with the greatest resolution and energy. The arguments which were discovered and advanced in refutation of those who questioned infant baptism constitute the special doctrine of infant baptism 161
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life which is relevant here. Their apologetic and polemical character shows that they are later explanations, reasons and vindications. They did not grow out of any inner necessity. They do not belong to the doctrine of baptism as such. They are presented because the critics of infant baptism exert an outer pressure which it is necessary to ward off. They are also characterised as secondary by the fact that the specific principle: "Infants, too, are to be baptised," was obviously accepted in advance after a certain hesitation which was quickly overcome. Indeed, it was recognised to be a valid principle, and the real concern was to find and develop arguments which would explain, establish and justify it. I his principle, which was published as the result of a doctrine of infant baptism that had become polemically necessary temporum ratione'', was proved prior to the proofs. It was the presupposition of the proofs. The presupposition, however, was a recognition of the validity of the powerful fact of Church history whereby infant baptism had long since become the rule in Christendom. Even the churches of the Reformation thought they must yield to the fact of Church history and accept its claim to validity. They could refuse to recognise the factuality of the papacy, but not that of infant baptism. They could not accept the factuality of infant baptism, however, without being able to see and demonstrate its theological legitimacy. Their attempt to reassure themselves on this point, i.e., their doctrine of infant baptism, follows their decision to recognise the fact at all costs. Since their recognition relates to the historical fact, and since the decision to recognise its claim to validity rests on the power of the fact, which weighed with the Reformation churches too, one can hardly deny that, although the thema probandumEN435 of their doctrine of infant baptism acquired a theological character and theological worth through the probatio'436, it did not have this in itself or originally. It was a new thing which came into their baptismal teaching and their theology later. Indeed, one might say that it was something alien, a foreign body, which they were not prepared to reject, and which, for good or evil, they thus had to live with, trying to assimilate it into the rest of their teaching. A historical conjecture may help to explain the power which this fact had for the eformation churches, and still has for them to-day. There is much to say in support of this conjecture. if it is correct, it sheds a distinctive light on the [168] originally non-theological character of the presuppositions which precede and underlie all the arguments for infant baptism. It displays clearly their novel character. Infant baptism might well have been practised relatively early-possibly even in the New Testament churches, as many investigators believe. Nevertheless, it became the general rule, which the Reformation churches also accepted, only in the course of the greatest historical transformation which Christianity had thus far undergone, namely, that associated with the name of Constantine I, when the Church entered into an ontological unity with people, by virtue of the times 'thesis to be proved' EN436 proving
EN434 EN435
162
2. Baptism with Water society, state and empire, which found its ripest form in the mediaeval Corpus Christianum"437 with its two distinct but not separated dominions. Whether this unity has really broken up to-day, or is in process of breaking up or crumbling away, is a question which need not concern us here. What is beyond dispute is that the continuity and existence of the Church within this unity stood or fell with the rule of infant baptism. The Church lived on, and was sustained, as the totality of men in the Roman Empire was identical, and had to remain identical, with the totality of its members. Apart from the Jews, to whom grudging toleration was extended, there were not to be in this empire any persons who did not belong to the Church just as naturally and necessarily as they did to the empire, so that everybody had to become a Christian, to be received into the Church, to be baptised, as quickly as possible. Now at the time of the Reformation the Evangelical churches were already threatened politically because of their separation from Rome. How, then, could they have any place, continuity or future in the world order which was then recognised iure divinoEN438 and iure humanoEN439 if they abandoned that closely knit unity of people, society, state, kingdom and church, the unity into which everyone, hardly born and without being asked for his consent, was integrated at once in infant baptism? Even to-day, in the form of the national or in some cases the state church, which has more or less successfully survived the collapse of the empire, the Church stands or falls with the general practice of infant baptism. There are some who think that this form of the Church must be maintained in all circumstances and at all costs. They fear that the eventual disappearance of this form will mean the destruction of the Church and of so-called Christendom. They cannot accustom themselves to the idea that it might be better for the cause and ministry of the Church in ()Ito the world if one day, without being able to rejoice in any acknowledged position or guaranteed continuity, it had to exist again in people, society and state as a small and unassuming group of aliens, though also, freed of much ballast, as a mobile brotherhood. To those who think thus, infant baptism is necessarily an inviolable and unchallengeable dogma, which it seems to have been as the presupposition of the Reformation doctrine of infant baptism. The fact that this argument of the horror vacui EN440, of agoraphobia, has never been used openly in defence of infant baptism, arouses the suspicion that it is perhaps the argument of all arguments. The originally political or ecclesiastico-political and consequently nontheological character of the concern which lies behind infant baptism and its defence is palpable if this conjecture is correct.
Since, however, this is only a historical conjecture I will not press it. The claim of the historical fact may thus be left out of account. If we consider some of the striking general features in this doctrine of infant baptism we shall be able to bring out much better, because theologically, the probability that in this presupposition a new factor entered subsequently into the doctrine of baptism, and that the doctrine of infant baptism in particular is a subsequent [169] attempt to deal in some way with this new factor. We are surely not asking too much if (I) we postulate that a doctrine of infant baptism ought to give evidence of its inner necessity and therefore its theological credibility by the fact that one cannot speak of baptism at all without taking infant baptism into account. That which is truly important and Christian body by divine law by human law EN440 terror of the void
EN437
EN438
EN439
163
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Li e correct declares itself from afar. The doctrine of baptism in itself and as such— the exposition of its basis, goal and meaning, or however else one might handle it—ought to be implicitly and explicitly, inclusively if not exclusively, the doctrine of infant baptism. It ought to make it plain that there is such a thing as infant baptism; that it is perhaps the original, true and ideal rule, and should be respected as such; that infants should be baptised because their physical parents are Christians, and the renunciation and pledge made in their name by others are a provisional substitute for their own renunciation and pledge, and a ground on which they may later be claimed as Christians. This ought not to arise, nor should it be maintained or proved, merely as a supplement or appendix. It ought to be a visible part of the very foundations of the doctrine of baptism and of Christian doctrine in general. The proof that it is correct should not be conducted from other standpoints or by means of new and different arguments introduced for the purpose. It should be contained and introduced in that which is to be thought and said about baptism within the context of the whole of Christian knowledge. With no particular effort it should be plain to see in the light of this. If the doctrine of infant baptism is not grounded and anchored thus from the outset, it has to come after the doctrine of baptism as an independently contrived enterprise. This is in itself a sign that something is wrong in regard to its theological primacy and necessity.
[170]
When in the years after 152o Luther came to adopt a strongly sacramental view of baptism and the Lord's Supper, he managed with relative credibility, though not without some flaws, to integrate his doctrine of infant baptism into his doctrine of baptism (in the Greater Catechism, 1529) in an excursus on the receiving of the sacrament. Nevertheless, the main themes of his theology—Law and Gospel, justification by faith alone, the freedom of a Christian man etc.—hardly prepare us for the statement that a small child becomes a Christian in baptism. On the other hand, in Calvin's Institutes (IV, 15-16) , Melanclathon's Loci (1559, XIII), and the short chapter on baptism (XX) in Bullinger's Conf Hely. Post., the doctrines of baptism and infant baptism seem to present two different series of reflections and arguments, not just externally, but to a remarkable degree in matter also. They thus make the almost unavoidable impression that the doctrine of infant baptism is not an original element in the organism of theological knowledge but is contingent to it. A problem has apparently arisen from outside, has expanded, and has then had to be taken up and dealt with in the context, so that what is said is no intrinsic or distinctive part of the original train of thought. At most it might be argued that Calvin did speak specifically about Old Testament circumcision in his chapter on the sacraments in general (14, 18-26), and that circumcision then played the most important role in the chapter on infant baptism (16). ut this is all. And even in relation to Calvin, if one considers his theology as a whole, it might be asked who, having read the decisive third book of the Institutes, would expect to find in the fourth so forcible a defence of infant baptism. in such modern defences as I know we again seem to have post festumEN441 and ad hOCEN442 statements. Calvin, it is true, claims that the chapter on infant baptism (IV, 16, 1) will be a clearer exposition of baptism as such, and indeed of EN441
after the fact
EN442 off the cuff
164
2. Baptism with Water Christian doctrine as a whole. But this cannot be seriously maintained any more than in the case of Luther's presentation. On the contrary, there is usually confusion when the authors concerned come to speak of this matter. In respect of this first criterion the highest praise can be accorded to Zwingli, so long as one overlooks the fact that there is no problem here for him because his doctrine of baptism as such is not also, but originally and exclusively, the doctrine of infant baptism, baptism being no more than a sign of duty which has necessarily to be given to certain children.
An important sign that a defender of infant baptism is certain that his cause has a sound theological basis ought surely to be (2) that he is able to present and support it calmly. He can do this if he is not liable to be surprised by any counter-arguments, if he has himself considered and thought through these objections before they are ever expressed by his opponents, if he has foreseen what they will say and incorporated this into the development of his own positive insights. e can then meet them from a position which is superior because he has known long since what they have to say, he has perceived long since their exaggerations and possible errors, and he has appreciated long since the particula veri'443 which they possibly represent, or at least their intention, their wholly or partially justifiable concern. He can engage with them in a discussion which he has already had with himself and in which he understands them better than they understand themselves. He can do justice to them with the freedom, the peace, the relaxation and the humour of one who has a good conscience both in relation to his own cause and also in relation to them. He can still utter the sharpest negation. But he cannot become irritated in debating with his opponents. If anyone does become irritated, it is a sign that he feels he has been hit at a vulnerable and unprotected point in his position, that he does not have a good conscience in relation to his cause, that consequently he cannot have a good and quiet conscience in relation to his opponents, and that he has to lay about him all the more violently for this reason. Unfortunately one cannot say that the Reformation doctrine of infant baptism stands up too well by this criterion. It is easy enough to see that the champions of this doctrine found themselves caught unawares at an unforeseen and unprepared point by the objections which [171 some of their contemporaries raised against infant baptism, so that understandably their reaction could only be from the very outset one of irritation, exasperation and anger. Thus Luther is driven to begin that polemical excursus by saying at once that the question as to the justifiability of infant baptism is one "by which the devil through his hordes confuses the world." Again, those who raise the question are agitators and fanatics; they are "so bedazzled that they cannot see God's Word and commandment!' We have here "a secretly rebellious devil who is trying to wrest the crown from authority in order to tread it underfoot and thus to pervert and destroy for us all God's work and order." What is the reason for this violent and denunciatory accusation? What is the connexion between the rejection of infant baptism and revolt against authority? it is a pity that Luther does not speak out more plainly but is content merely to make this obscure allegation. Calvin especially was even more tense and irritable when he wrote his chapter in the Institutes. Originally it seems to have been an independent polemic, and it is more than twice as EN443
grain of truth 165
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life long as the preceding doctrine of baptism as such. How does it come about that the Reformer has more than twice as much to say about infant baptism than he has in exposition of baptism itself? For him, too, the opponents of infant baptism are phrenetici spiritus EN444 people who threaten the pax ecclesiaeEN445 and who cause rixaeEN446 and contentionesEN 447 sedition and strife. They are the victims of delirium and hallucination. They engage in tumult. They are dangerous wild beasts. According to Calvin it is again no less a one than Satan himself who attacks infant baptism. Even apart from these verbal insults, which are typical of the century, there is throughout the chapter a note of most impatient rejection a hmineEN448. Only once (16, 12) does Calvin concede to his opponents an exigua veritatis , and even here he adds at once that at no point is there any question of a solida cognitioEN45° among them. They are also summarily dismissed in the Conf Hely. Post., which is usually more restrained: Non sumus Anabaptistae, neque cum eis in ulla ipsorum re communicamus'451 . Why did the Reformers have to be in such a bad temper when they thought and spoke about this matter? Vous vous fa' chez, donc vous avez tort ? 452 No, not everyone who is angry and abusive is wrong for this reason. Nevertheless, anger and abuse are a fairly sure sign that a man is not certain that he is right. It thus seems as though the Reformers were not certain they were right in this matter. Furthermore, a suspicious degree of irritability is still typical of theological and especially ecclesiastical defences of infant baptism right up to our own day.
Another feature one may justly expect to find in a cogent defence of infant aptism is (3) that the premisses from which one starts should remain in force and in evidence in all that is said; they should not be forgotten, abandoned or replaced by others. Everything that has been said about baptism as such, and perhaps about the sacrament in general, and perhaps in explanation of the basic principles which are normative in this whole sphere, should be given its due in the doctrine of infant baptism. It should be possible to measure this by its premisses and to control it by the logic of the argumentation. It would be best if, in accordance with our first postulate, the doctrine of infant baptism were expressly prefigured, expounded and set forth in the premisses. But surely the minimal demand in this matter is one that can be met. The doctrine [172] of infant baptism should at least be stated without contradicting the premisses. The situation is most unsatisfactory if even this cannot be done. One of the clearly stated premisses in Luther's general doctrine of baptism is that the faith of the person baptised is indispensable to true reception. "Faith alone makes the person worthy to receive profitably the saving divine water." It is not merely that baptism would be a mere washing without the Word of God, as earlier in the Greater Catechism. No, "without faith it is of no profit even though it is in itself a divinely superabundant treasure .... What is not faith ... receives nothing." God's works, including His work in baptism, "do not exclude but spiritual fanatics peace of the church EN446 quarrels EN447 contentions EN448 at the outset EN449 small spark of truth EN45° definite understanding EN451 We are not Anabaptists, nor do we share with them in any of their affairs EN452 you are angry, therefore you must be wrong EN444
EN445
166
2. Baptism with Water demand faith, for without faith one cannot grasp them. For by letting it be poured over you, you have not received and held it that it may be of profit. it is of profit if you are baptised as by God's command and order, in God's name ... Do we not also read in the Short Catechism: "Water, of course, does nothing, but the Word of God as it is with and in the water, and faith as it trusts the Word of God in the water." It is worth noting that in the corresponding place in the Greater Catechism the reference to faith is abandoned and there is mention only of the Word of God in the water. And how are we to harmonise with this premise, which is still quite plain in the Greater Catechism, the later saying in the section dealing with infant baptism: "We thus say further that for us the greatest stress does not lie on whether the one baptised believes or not"? Baptism is valid, we are now told, even though there is no faith. it is not invalid because improperly received. "For gold is no less gold even though a wicked woman wears it with sin and shame." Baptism is valid, and remains so, even though only one man is baptise , and he without true faith. On the soil of sacramental objectivism which alone makes this argument possible for Luther-in close proximity to the Roman Catholic ex opere operatoEN453-is there still any room for the earlier statement that God's work in baptism demands faith? Does it not demand it any more in infant baptism? Luther was obviously aware of the problem. He had spoken earlier of a fides aliena'454 which would represent the faith of infants, namely, the faith of the congregation, parents or sponsors. Later, as in the Greater Catechism, he referred to a hidden but true and actual faith in the infants themselves. We bring the child in the belief and hope that it believes, and then-another possibility suggests itself-we pray that God may give it faith. Do we then baptise it in view of a faith which is secretly present or in view of a future faith? Having said earlier that God's work in baptism demands faith, Luther had now to say, with great seriousness, that even without faith it is a work of God, but a work of God which has taken place unpro tably. But why does he go on to say in the passage quoted above: "We do not baptise, however, by reason of this (his present or future faith) , but simply because God has commanded it"? Has not God also commanded that there be faith in the candidate? What does the candidate receive in baptism (whether profitably or not) if he does not receive in faith? Why did not Luther decide resolutely for either the one hypothesis or the other in his explanation of the faith of the infant? He had to give some answer to this question of faith in the infant. Why should not the greatest stress lie on whether the one who is baptised believes or not? Is the candidate dispensed from this demand so that in the question as to the meaning of baptism the problem of obedience may be set aside as a triviality (with an appeal either to the fact that God has commanded baptism or to its objective sacramental operation)? Is it not due to the inherent questionability of the thema probandumEN455 that even a Luther was involved in such selfcontradiction when he sought to establish it? In general Calvin is a stricter thinker than Luther. In this matter, however, his inconsistency is greater rather than less. It was more difficult for him to justify infant baptism, of course, because according to his view there is a work of grace in the sacrament only to the degree that it mediates knowledge-or, more accurately, assurance of the peculiar knowledge of God's work and word which has been given to the Christian by the Holy Spirit. According to Calvin the sacrament is like a seal which gives force to the contents of a letter. It is for the Christian an obsignatio'456 necessary ad sustinendam fidei nostrae imbecillitatemE 457 (IV , 4, 1) . The sacrament is a visible pledge (pignus) of grace. It makes the faith of those by the fact of the action being performed faith of another thesis to be proven EN456 sealing EN457 for the support of the weakness of our faith EN453
EN454 EN455
167
[173]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Iffe who have been taught by the Holy Ghost certior EN458 (14, 6) , robustior et auctiorEN459. It is a means to strengthen and increase faith (14, 9). Deus per sacramentum fidem alit EN460 , as He nourishes our bodies by bread and other foods, as He gives light to the world by the sun or warmth through fire (14, 12) . In the light of this strongly noetic understanding the question of a faith which may be presupposed in baptism naturally arose (and with greater force than in Luther) in relation to infant baptism. How could this be unimportant if there is supposed to be in baptism a nourishing etc. of faith? According to a very sharp expression which Calvin uses here, a sacrament received without faith will be the certain destruction of the Church: certissimum Eaksiae exitium EN461 (14, 14) . One has to speak, not incidentally but with the greatest emphasis, of the faith of those who receive baptism. Now already in the great chapter De fideEN462 at the beginning of the Third Book of the Institutes Calvin had stated very plainly—and without even hinting at possible exceptions—what he meant by faith, first more generally: it is divinae erga nos voluntatis notitiae ex eius verbo percepta'463 2, 4), then more precisely: it is divinae erga nos benevolentiae firma certaque cognitio, quae, gratuitae in Christ° promissionis veritate fundata, per Spiritum sanctum et relevatur mentibus nostris et kill , 2, 7) No matter how immature and imperfect it may be, it is not cordibus obsignaturEN464 iTTT a fides implicita'465 , not a blind faith, not a faith which does not claim the reason and heart of the believer. For non in ignoratione, sed in cognitione sita est fides EN466 (III, 2, 2). Again, do we not read already at the beginning of the First Book of the Institutes (I, 6, 2) that not only a ripe and perfect faith but omnis recta Dei cognitio ex oboedientia nascitur?EN467 In view of these premisses is it not surprising that in Calvin's doctrine of infant baptism we are suddenly told that the origin of faith in the hearing of God's Word (fides ex auditu EN468 , Rom. 10:17) is not the absolute but only the ordinaria Domini oeconomia et dispensatio'46° alongside which there may be other forms? Is it not surprising that Calvin suddenly goes on to speak, not of the vicarious faith of parents and sponsors, but (far more positively than Luther) of an aliqua pars gratiaeEN470 peculiar to baptised infants, of an exigua scintillaEN471 , of a semen of repentance and faith which is concealed in them by virtue of the arcana operatio SpiritusEN472 and out of which the mature form may then develop in the elect (IV, 16, 19-2o) ? Is Calvin really thinking of a character of knowledge and obedience which is proper to this infant faith and by reason of which it may receive God's Word and be nourished, increased and strengthened as faith? Calvin must have had something of this kind in view, yet surprisingly he does not say a single word which points in this direction. Perhaps this is not what he had in view. But if not, how can that seed, itself without knowledge or obedience, be the original form of a genuine later faith which is worked out in knowledge and as obedience? How can there EN458
more certain stronger and more flourishing God nourishes faith through the sacrament EN461 the most certain destruction of the Church EN462 On Faith EN463 knowledge, seen from his Word, of God's goodness towards us EN464 strong and certain knowledge of God's goodness towards us, which, based on the truth of his free promise in Christ is, by the Holy Spirit both refreshed, and sealed in our hearts and minds EN465 implicit faith EN466 faith is located not in ignorance, but in knowledge EN467 all right knowledge of God is born from obedience EN468 faith comes from hearing EN469 ordinary economy and dispensation of God EN470 some part of grace EN471 small spark EN472 secret operation of the Spirit EN459 EN460
168
2. Baptism with Water come forth from it a faith which according to his premisses can consist only in knowledge and obedience? There is here an unmistakable hiatus between the answer which he gives to the question of the faith of the baptised on the one side and the premisses which he lays down in his view of faith on the other. He also entangled himself in another and not inconsiderable difficulty by defining both the sacrament in general and also baptism in itself and as such as a two-sided event which involves an act of God on the one side and an act of man [174] (we are all ears) on the other. According to Calvin (IV, 14, 1) a sacrament is on the one side an attestation, confirmed by an external sign, of the grace of God to us, and on the other side a mutua tesOficatio nostrae erga eum ipsum pietatisEN473 made before God, angels and men. Baptism in particular serves (15, 1) primarily our own faith but also our confession before men. This second element is then explained in a special, short but very rich section (15, 12): Baptism is the nota, qua palam profitemur, nos populo Dei accensere velle, qua testamur nos in unius Dei cultum, in unam religionem cum Christianis omnibus consent-ire, qua demum fidem nostrum publice affirmamusEN474, so that not merely do our hearts breathe in praise of God but our tongues and all our members, each in its own way, also express this praise. This is indeed a conscious, energetic, but human action. Expounding i Cor. 113, Calvin adds: To be baptised in the name of Christ is eo ipso: sese ill° devovisse, in eius nomen iurasse et fidem illi suam apud homines obstrinxisse 475 , so that subsequently to confess some other as Christ is a denial of the confession made in baptism. Is there not here-at least alongside the distinctive cognitive sacramentalism of Calvin-the reminiscence of an originally very different meaning of baptism? If only this had been maintained! We are jolted at once, however, when in Calvin's proposals (15, 20) for the order of baptism we read that the child is to be brought and presented to God, the whole congregation acting as his witness and engaging in prayer for him; that the creed in which he will be instructed is to be recited; that the promises peculiar to baptism are to be declared; that the future catechumen is then to be baptised in the triune name; that he is then to be dismissed with intercession and thanksgiving. Already one may ask what is left of the PrOfiteri EN476 and testificareEN477 in a ceremony of this kind? What can remain when the child has obviously not been instructed, but is still to be instructed, in the faith confessed at his baptism? The twofold definition of the nature of baptism does, of course, appear once again (at the beginning of the chapter on infant baptism, 16, 2). Baptism is on the one side a sign of the promise given to the candidate, the promise of the remission of sins, of the mortificatio carnisEN478 which has taken place for him in the death of Jesus Christ, of his regeneration to reception into the societas Christi"' . On the other side it is the symbolum testandae apud homines religionis EN480. The French text of the 1541 edition is even plainer: Line marque, par laquelle nous advouons devant les hommes le Seigneur pour nostre Dieu et sommes enrollez en nombre de son peuple EN481 This is the last time we hear of this aspect, let alone find any material discussion of it. When Calvin moves on to the justification of mutual witness of our piety to him mark, by which we profess publicly that we wish to be counted in the people of God, by which we witness that we agree in the worship of the one God and in one religion with all Christians, and by which finally we affirm our faith publicly EN475 by definition: to devote oneself to him, to swear in his name, and to hold fast faith with him among men EN476 profession EN477 witness EN478 mortification of the flesh EN479 fellowship of Christ EN480 sign of the religion to be witnessed among men EMS' A mark by which we confess the Lord as our God before men, and are enrolled in the number of his people EN473 EN474
169
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life infant baptism, which consists decisively in something which is not even mentioned in Chapter 15, namely, the understanding of baptism in terms of Old Testament circumcision, he is successful-one can hardly put it otherwise-in obliterating completely this second element in baptism which seemed to be of some importance earlier, namely, the active human side of N the velle, baptism, all that he previously had to say about the testificare EN482 and profiteri E483 EN486 EN484, the iurareEN487 and the obstringere EN488 the affirmareEN485, the vovere the consentire of the person baptised. The reason is obvious enough. It would be too much to ascribe to the infant not only a hidden faith (with or without cognitio EN489 and oboedientia EN490) but also as it were a hidden witness and confession. Among the Reformed confessions (not to speak of the Lutheran), the Conf Gallicana, Scotica and Belgica (following Calvin's own example in the Geneva Catechism) , also the Heidelberg Catechism (the Helv. Post. is the only exception in this regard), were all wise enough not to mention this aspect of the matter at all, so that its omission in the doctrine of infant baptism is not conspicuous (as in the Institutes of the master) . If, however, Calvin was right at least to mention it in the Institutes, then how could, he fail either on the one side to be very much bolder than Luther and to speak not only [175] more definitely of a hidden infant faith but also no less definitely of a hidden infant confession, or on the other to raise at this point at the very latest the question whether infant baptism is right after all? It does not speak too well for the theological integrity of the cause that so great a theologian can aid himself at the decisive point only by forgetting, passing over, or at any rate keeping silence on his own presupposition.
The simplest request one can make of a credible doctrine of infant baptism is finally (4) that it should prove what it has to prove as such. It should not prove something else which, though true and theologically demonstrable, does not prove in the very least the legitimacy and necessity of infant baptism. Thus it must explain, establish and justify the fact that we are commanded and permitted, and that it is necessary, to baptise young children, to do so on the ground that they are the children of Christian parents, to do so without asking about their own decision, about their wish to be baptised and thus to become Christians, to do so at a time and in a situation in which by human judgmentand the question who should be baptised is a matter of human judgment-it is quite impossible that they should have any knowledge or will concerning what they are supposed to be deciding, to claim and proclaim them, then, without waiting for any knowledge, desire or decision of their own, as members of the community of Jesus Christ and the people of God, as companions in its faith, as beginners in the life of this faith, in short, as Christians. it must prove that this is in conformity with the general dealings of God with man established and initiated in Jesus Christ, and that in particular it is in keeping with the witness profession EN484 agreeing EN485 aff irming EN482
EN483
EN486 vowing
swearing holding fast EN489 knowledge ' 49' obedience EN487 EN488
170
2.
Baptism with Water
divine KaAEIv EN491 to the j.KKAnaia EN492 . It must prove that it is a legitimate form of the fishing for men which is the task of the apostles (Lk. 510) . it must prove that the community is commanded and permitted to discharge thus its mission to the world, to maintain and increase itself thus, to make men into disciples in this way. It must prove that it is genuinely carrying out in this way its task of bearing witness to the work and word and kingdom of God, to the crucified and risen Mediator, to the Holy Spirit who liberates the spirits of men. A doctrine of infant baptism whose champions are sure of the theological soundness of their cause, and can thus pursue it with a good conscience, must be able to answer the questions which arise in this definite if by no means tiny circle. This doctrine has not to prove-it simply obscures its thema probandumEN493 and evades its appointed task if it tries to do so-that all things are possible with God, that what He commands is always good and meaningful, that His covenant of grace embraces young children too, since in His eternal counsel it was made on their behalf and in the history of Jesus Christ it has been fulfilled, and is now valid and in force, for them. It has not to prove that the promises and admonitions of this covenant are the horizon within which every child lives, not merely from birth, but even in its mother's worn • . It has not to prove that in the children of Mark lo"fjesus promised in [176] advance to all children access to Himself and therewith to the kingdom of God, and that as the Saviour of all He blessed and embraced all childrencertainly the children of Christian parents, but not these alone. It has not to prove that it is the destiny of every man, and therefore of every child, to come to faith, to belong to God's special people in the world, and as a member of this people to lead the life of a witness ofjesus Christ. It has not to prove that it is a high privilege, unmerited but also binding, to be born and brought up the child of Christian (and perhaps very seriously Christian) parents in the sphere of the Christian community, to hear from youth up their more or less vital and genuine witness, to have a share from the very first in their more or less strong and pure life. It has not to prove that a child like this is not the same as a pagan child who does not enjoy such a privilege. It has not to prove that it is a comfort for parents to know about this grace which is addressed to the child in Jesus Christ and also about this historico-sociological refuge. It has not to prove that they owe their Christian witness very particularly to those who are closest to them. It has not to prove that they have a duty to give them Christian instruction, i.e., to lead, attract and bring them to Christian faith. All these things are clear and true, if not self-evident. Again, they can all be said and understood only in faith, love and hope. They are all Christian presuppositions of the problem what is to become of children. But they none of them demand that these children can and should be baptised. These things prove neither the calling church EN493 thesis to be proved EN491 EN492
171
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian 4fe legitimacy nor the necessity of infant baptism. For they do not answer any of the questions which a proper doctrine of infant baptism must answer. They simply show that little children have before them a way on which they later might come, rather than be brought, to faith and obedience, to knowledge and confession, and hence to a desire for baptism, nd to baptism itself as their own renunciation and pledge. If a doctrine of infant baptism, instead of sticking to the thema probandum 494, becomes a presentation of various Christian truths which may be greater but which are irrelevant to the discussion because they do not form a basis for infant baptism, one is bound to suspect that it is fundamentally incapable of accomplishing its proper task.
[177]
This may be objected not only against many a later defence of infant baptism but also against that of the Reformation period. What is the heart of Luther's proof? It is undoubtedly the powerful and very true thought that where God's work is done and His command is uttered, the question of the completeness of the answering faith and obedience of man, indeed, the question whether there is any such faith or obedience, is of secondary importance, and even an uncertain or indeed a negative response cannot alter the objective reality of the divine work or the objective validity of the divine command. On another occasion Luther said: Fides creatrix divinitatis in nobis' 495 . Here he says the direct opposite. And who, apart from a few theological existentialists, would argue that he is mistaken? But if this intrinsically true thesis is to have any force here, it has to be granted that not merely in baptism generally, but also in infant baptism, we may count on a divine work and a divine command which relativise the question of the faith of the recipient. Luther, however, does not even touch on the problem of this minor proposition on which everything depends, though the reader, affected by the power with which Luther presents and plays upon the excellent major proposition, may not notice this at first. But if the minor is not compelling, how can the conclusion be drawn that human beings can and should be baptised concerning whose faith all kinds of things may be conjectured but no radical questions are to be asked? Or could it be that Luther was presupposing and even desiring readers who would need no proof for the minor principle because, like Luther himself, they believed for the most part a priori that a divine work is done and a divine command may be heard in baptism, and hence also in infant baptism? Could it be that he had in view readers for whom he had only to make the minor proposition more secure, not by proving it, but by setting it in the light of the major premiss? If the minor principle stood firm in any case, the conclusion was unavoidable and the legitimacy and necessity of infant baptism, underlined by the finely presented major, were crystal clear. The only trouble is that what had to be proved was not proved. The argument of Luther shows that he either did not regard its specific proof as necessary or that he was unable to offer such a proof. Turning once again to Calvin, we might think at a first glance that this charge could not be brought against his doctrine. He was in fact more keenly aware of the specific thema probandum"6 , and he addressed himself to it more seriously than Luther. He looked for a particular argument in favour of the baptism of new-born infants, and he found it in the theologoumenon which dominates Instit. IV, 16 and which was later taken up vigorously by his whole church and school. This is the theologoumenon of the identity between Christian baptism and the circumcision which was administered to Israelite boys on the eighth day of thesis to be proved Faith is the creator of the divine in us EN496 thesis to be proved
EN494 EN495
172
2. Baptism with Water their lives. According to the argument, circumcision was already the sacrament (i.e., the sign, seal and pledge) of regeneratio EN497 and ingressus in ealesiam EN498 namely, membership of the covenant which God made with His people (16, 4). When God instituted it, did He not show clearly and from the very first that He is also the God of the progeny of His people (16, 9) ? Does not their circumcision make it plain that there is a hereditary existence in this covenant (16, 9) , a haereditarium EN499 to the reception of His promises (16, 24) ? Does not this apply also, and for the first time with full force, to Christian children? If so, can the sign of the promise, in this instance the sacrament of baptism, be refused them (16, 6)? If a reason is sought for infant baptism, God should be asked why He instituted circumcision (16, 20)—God who undoubtedly knows and treads a path which is concealed from us and on which He leads His elect to regeneration even as new-born babes (16, 17). The force of this argument, which is not to be denied, rests on an insight which is developed expressly in instit. II, 9-11 and which is intrinsically correct and important. This is the insight into the material unity of the old and new covenants in spite of their formal distinction. It is the recognition of Christ as Lord of both economies or dispensations, and therefore without question as Lord of both circumcision and baptism. Fundamentally this is the thesis which, intimated in IV, 14, is taken up in IV, 16, and is seen there to be a basic pillar in his whole thinking. Even earlier, however, there was also a chapter (II, ii) De differentia unius testamenti ab altero 5oo. Recognition of the unity, since it is recognition of the unity of the covenant in its distinction, does not include an immediate transfer of what is said about Old Testament circumcision to what must be said about New Testament baptism, as though the definitions and meaning of the two were interchangeable. This is where Calvin's argument breaks down, as in its own way Luther's does. What Calvin proves does not prove what he had to prove and had set out to prove. The people of the covenant of grace in its Old Testament form was the nation of the twelve tribes of Israel, elected and called by God to serve Him. The physical descendant of this nation was as such a member of the covenant, a recipient of the promise. New-born male members received the sign of circumcision as active bearers of the propagation of this nation—and they alone, as Calvin should have taken note instead of going beyond this as he did in 16, 16. They received this sign to differentiate their progeny from that of other nations. Through circumcision proselytes also became a "holy seed" in so far as they hereby received the same distinguishing mark as the members of this nation. The people of the new covenant, however, is not a nation. It is a people freely and newly called and assembled out of Israel and all nations. It is not made up of succeeding generations. it is not recruited through procreation and birth. Those who join it are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" Gm 112-13\) In this sense they are without father, mother, or descent, like Melchisedec (Heb. 73 ). By this parallel with Israelite boys Calvin has not proved, and could not prove, that their baptism can and should be infant baptism. At this point the differences between the two economies had to be considered within the unity of the old and new covenants. Christian baptism, as distinct from Israelite circumcision, cannot be on the basis of the physical descent of the candidate. That it can and should be, is what had to be proved. But Calvin has not proved it. He, too, has evaded or skipped proving the decisive minor premiss, which is in his case that everything which applies to circumcision applies also to baptism. Thus his conclusion that Christians are also to be baptised as infants is left hanging in the air. The equation of baptism and infant baptism obviously had for him, too, a different basis. With his argument, his equation of baptism regeneration entry into the church EN499 hereditary right EN500 On the difference of one Testament from the other EN497
EN498
173
[178]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life and circumcision, he tried to give it a subsequent theological lustre and solidity which it did not really have.
These, then, are some general features of the Reformation doctrine of infant baptism. Our starting-point has been that the presupposition and concrete occasion of the doctrine is (a) the historical fact of infant baptism as the norm, (b) the problematical nature of the fact, (c) the recognition which the Reformers could not deny it but had to accord it in all circumstances, and (d) their unwillingness to do this without bringing to light its theological significance. Our next question must be whether one may gather from their attempt to do this that they were themselves certain that the fact had this significance. Is it apparent from this procedure that infant baptism was for them more than a historical fact, that they did not accept it merely as such? Were they sure that it was administered according to God's word and command, as they asserted and tried to prove? Were they sure that it was grounded in the original institution? Were they as sure of this as they were of the true deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, or of the freedom of the justifying and sanctifying grace of God, or of the authority of Holy Scripture? In this matter of the legitimacy and [179] necessity of infant baptism were they confronted by a compelling self proof in Holy Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit, which they themselves had simply to follow with their own proofs, as they could and did elsewhere? Did they have here, too, an insight of faith which they had simply to confess as such? Quite soberly, were they convinced themselves of the very thing of which they sought to convince others, the Church, in this matter? According to our previous findings we cannot give an affirmative answer to this question. We have found (1) that the introduction of infant baptism was not prepared for or anchored in their general doctrine of baptism, or indeed their theology as a whole, (2) that they could present their thesis only with suspicious heat and irritation, (3) that they were easily entangled in contradictions of their own premisses, and (4) that in what they proved they strangely omitted what had to be proved. These symptoms do not preclude a bitter earnestness in their defence of infant baptism but they do preclude any real certainty as to their cause, namely, its theological basis and the cogency of its proof These symptoms indicate that the bitter earnestness with which they defended infant baptism was first and last only the earnestness of a resolve to endorse the historical fact in all circumstances. To put our findings in a single phrase, the theology practised by the Reformers in their doctrine of infant baptism, and still practised even to our own time by those who follow them, is theologia ex eventu: stat pro ratione voluntasEN5°' With comparative freedom both in general and to some degree in detail, we can now take up the task of testing the most common arguments adduced in defence of infant baptism. Of the New Testament passages to which appeal is made it may first be said EN5°1 theology
after the fact, will stands in the place of reason
174
.
Baptism with Water
quite generally that it is true that nowhere in the New Testament is there any express prohibition of infant baptism. it is also true, however, that nowhere in the New Testament is infant baptism either permitted or commanded. From this silence on both sides it may be concluded that infant baptism was so common that there could be no question of prohibition and that no particular order or command or permission was needed. ut this is a hazardous conjecture, since one might equally well conclude that in the New Testament period no one even considered baptism of this kind, and that no one even thought of permitting, commanding, or forbidding it because the few but clear accounts of baptisms at the time, all handed down in the admittedly early catholic historical work of Luke, definitely do not refer to baptism of this kind, but point with some force in the direction of the second of the two conclusions. With some variations in detail, but general agreement in substance, the process as described in Ac. 2 37f., 812 38, , 044f., ,614f. 32f., also 2216 is as follows. Individuals or groups have been reached by the Word of God, i.e., the apostolic preaching. Having heard it, they face the question: What shall we do? They want to obey the demand for confession of sins, for [180] faith, for conversion. They do obey it. in keeping with this, in visible execution of this act of obedience, they ask for baptism and have themselves baptised. In all these accounts baptism has the character of an action in which there is a common affirmation by the candidates of the Gospel preached and received, which involves their conscious and voluntary partici-. pation, and which rests upon and takes place in an act of free decision. In these accounts it is not even conceivable that infants might be the recipients of baptism. This is certainly possible in other passages to which appeal is often made, namely, Ac. 16'5 33 , 188; 1 Cor. 116 These verses speak of the baptism of whole houses or households, in which there might have been infants. This is, however, a slender rope, for it should be noted that even in these verses we have the sequence preaching-faith-baptism. Nor is one faithful to the true sense of the verses if one deduces from them that there could have been baptisms of a different kind, for there is no hint that they were trying to say this or even to indicate it.
There is, of course, a whole series of passages in the New Testament in which children, even small children and infants, are thought of in a very positive, hopeful and special way. This is in the first instance connected with the fact that in the New Testament the beginning of a man's new Christian life (cf. John 33') is so emphatically understood and described as his new begetting and birth. As a "new creation" (2 Cor. 517) the Christian begins his life as one who is quite different, who starts again from the very first, who is in fact a little child in this sense. This is the meaning when in Mt. 181', replying to the question of the disciples about the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus sets a little child in the midst of them and says: "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." This has nothing whatever to do with a childlike mind and character, with childlike simplicity and innocence, as sentimentally suggested by many expositors. cbg ra Trat8ta EN5°2 means in the absolute novitiate which characterises the existence of children. EN502
as children
75
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life In Mk. lo15 and Lk. 1817 the saying is connected with the short account of the blessing of the children, and it is preceded by the positive statement: "Of such (Totamov = those engaged in an absolute beginning of this kind) is the kingdom of God." As new-born babes Christians are to drink the rational or unadulterated milk (of the word of the Lord preached to them, I Pet. 125), that they may grow thereby to their future salvation ( I Pet. 22).
The reference to the child, indeed, to the little child, in these passages is, however, an obvious figure of speech which is not to be taken literally nor to be pressed as though it were not metaphorical. In what is said about this absolute new beginning as the commencement of the Christian life the meaning is very definitely not that an infant in the direct physical sense can and should drink the milk of the word, or that an infant in this sense enters into the kingdom of God. Hence infant baptism cannot be based on sayings of this kind. In this new beginning there can be no question of returning to the mother's womb and [181] being born again physically. According to jn. 34 this is how Nicodemus foolishly interprets the saying about the new birth which is necessary for seeing the kingdom of God. When it is explained to him that what is meant is birth of water and the Spirit, the water, or baptism, cannot be regarded as an act which merely happens to a man without reference to his own decision (as in the case of infants). It is true indeed that the Spirit, who is the origin and creator of the new beginning which is confirmed in baptism, is the mystery of the free God ("he moves where he wills"). Nevertheless-man hears his voice On. 38)-He is not a numinosumEN503 which destroys a man's spontaneity and simply bursts in upon him. Otherwise what would it mean that a man must see the kingdom of God, that he must enter and receive it, that the disciples must be converted and live cbs- Ta 7Tat8taEN504? And what would be the point of summoning Christians, as new-born babes, to drink the milk of the Word of God which is described as rational?
Now it is undoubtedly true that this figure of speech does not exhaust the interest of the New Testament in children. The reach of God's work an is word in Jesus Christ is not restricted to those with whom He could act and speak in is own day as contemporaries who had come to years of discretion. Alongside and behind these do we not see others, the men of to-morrow, children who are still men to-day even though they have not reached the age of discretion? yen though they cannot know it, or take up any attitude towards it, He has come into the world for them too, and is also their Lord and Deliverer. His light, even though they do not see it, already shines upon them. Before they can hear, they are already recipients of the word of God's coup d'etat which is spoken of in His history. The grace of God which has appeared in im, even before they can respond thereto with gratitude or ingratitude, has already embraced them with high objective reality as gratia praeveniensEN505 There is thus a second chapter which has not yet opened in and with this first chapter. When these children are no longer children, when they hear and see, when they come to years of discretion, will they for their part see and confess that e ivinity as children prevenient grace
EN503 d EN504 EN505
176
2.
Baptism with Water
is for them? Will they, summoned and awakened to faith in Him, affirm therewith that they also want to be for Him? The beginning of their Christian life, and hence their baptism, cannot belong to the first chapter. The children (ratSta, or i8p471, infants, according to Lk. 181-5) who were brought to Jesus
(Mk. io13 par.) were not figurative children but real children of flesh and blood. it may be assumed that their mothers brought them, though we are not actually told this. What did they want from Him? According to Mark and Luke they wanted Him to touch the children, and according to Matthew they wanted Him openly to pray for them-probably the original signification of the laying on of hands. They wanted Him to make it manifest that He was for them too, that He represented them too before His Father. They wanted Him to show that as He came to all adults, good or bad, healthy or sick, satisfied or needy, so He came to these non-adults too. Those who came with this request, the disciples wanted to "drive away" (hrericturiaav). Why? Bengel can hardly be right when he suggests that they were mostly young men who had no time for children or infants. It is more likely that they regarded the request as the product of non-existential thinking, and the object of the request-the confirmation of the grace of Jesus Christ as a grace which applied to infants too as gTatia praeveniensEN5°6-as a mythological affair which was quite unworthy of their Master. Jesus, however, was displeased-not at those who came to Him with this concern, but at His disciples. They were not to hinder kcoA6EtvEN5°7 ) the women any more than they were to hinder the strange exorcist of Mk. 939 par. in his work. Remembering that the kingdom of God belongs to such, and only to such, as become like children, they were to allow these children-these real children-to come now to Him, just as the man sick of the palsy was brought to Him, "borne of four" (Mk. 23). Jesus thus did what He was asked to do, acknowledging that it was right. Mark gives a vivid description: "He took them up in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them." He is already the Saviour of these children who are not yet called to decision for Him or capable of it. He already prays for them, takes them in His arms and blesses them. He has already laid His hands on them. The text is a very intimate but for that reason all the more powerful witness to the universal scope of the work and word of Jesus Christ. But it is not a baptismal text. O. Cullmann, recalling that the verb Kw At,,Etv EN508 plays a certain part in the accounts of baptism in Ac. 836, i o47, 1117, has made the it.o) KtoA6€7-€ EN509 (which occurs in all three Gospels) the basis of a conjecture that this is indirectly a story of infant baptism. But surely this is a slender thread! Nor is the view of Bengel very illuminating: si baptismum petissent, sine dubio etiam baptismus eis datus fueritEN51° (Bengel was not at his best with this passage generally) . Baptising, though no better than suffering to come, blessing and touching, is certainly quite different. Blessing and touching was all that was asked for, and the children received no more than this from Him. They were not asked concerning their relation to Him. They did not have to answer questions of this kind. They were not given the gift of faith in Him. They were not instructed by Him nor summoned to obedience. There did not take place any ii,a0T-Eimtv EN51" (Mt. 28'9). ow, then, could there be any question of their baptism? The text refers to that which precedes faith, knowledge, obedience, discipleship, and consequently baptism. Jesus has come and is ready for those who do not yet know, recognise, or confess Him, and who cannot as yet be baptised. prevenient grace hindering EN508 hindering EN509 do not hinder EN510 if they had sought baptism, doubtless aptism would have been granted to them EN51 1 making disciples EN506 EN507
'77
[182]
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Life The fact that children, having not yet come to an age of discretion and decision, cannot believe and obey, does not mean that they may not have certain childlike reactions to the appearance of Jesus-reactions which are to be evaluated in their childlikeness. It would be strange indeed if this were ruled out, if for the time being Jesus meant nothing to them in practice, if His coming and existence merely stood over them objectively like a glass cover, if it did not set them in any spontaneous movement. This movement might well be instinctive rather than reflective. In it they might not know what they are doing, or, better, they might do more than they intend or know. Nevertheless, within these limits it might still be stronger than the movements of many who have reached years of discretion and decision. It might put these to shame. In its own way and within its limits it might take on and have very high significance. It must not be confused, however, with the movement of faith and, [183] obedience, which is new in relation to it. It must not be construed as such. It must not be regarded as the beginning of the Christian life. Hence this possibility, though it is certainly not to be estimated too lightly, provides no basis for infant baptism. There is one passage in the New Testament where this extraordinary possibility may be seen quite unmistakably. The incident, recorded only in Matthew ( 2114-17) , takes place in the temple during the last days. The blind and the lame come to Jesus and He heals them. The chief priests and scribes see these Oavp,dateN512. But they do not merely see the healings. To their displeasure they see something else which the Evangelist probably wanted to be understood as a OaviacitatovEN513 too. They see children crying in the temple, crying Hosanna to the Son of David, hailing Jesus as the Messiah. "Hearest thou what these say?" They are not asking the children, for what do they know what they are saying? They are asking Jesus, who tacitly approves what they are saying. These ecclesiastics and theologians think that Be is to blame. They are accusing Him. But He is pleased with what the children say. Be gives His approval even though those who cry thus are not independent or responsible, even though at best this is only their childlike or even childish reaction to the healings, even though it is possibly their childish imitation of what they had heard the people cry out on His entry into the city. Though neither independent nor responsible, though childlike and childish, it was an echo of the truth which was spoken for them and to them. Jesus confessed Himself in confessing the children who cry thus. "If these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out" (Lk. 1940), He had already told the Pharisees when they were angry at the same cry on His entry into the city. But now it is actually sounded forth on the lips of children too. The complainants should have read the saying in Ps. 82 (v. it 6) and should realise that it is now being fulfilled: "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise." There is also-as an event sui generis'514-this reaction to the work and word of Jesus which is not independent or responsible, but which is supremely real and significant. The Evangelist certainly cannot have imagined, however, that it should be understood as faith, obedience, confession and discipleship, or that babes and sucklings ought to be baptised because they can be deemed worthy to participate in this praise of God. EN512 EN513 EN514
marvels marvel in a category of its own
178
2.
Baptism with Water
The New Testament undoubtedly does provide for the singling out of children who are born and brought up in the community of Jesus Christ which is gathered, built up and sent out by the Holy Spirit. Since they live from the very first with parents who are summoned to this people, who live with some degree of truth and power in its faith, who take part in its prayer and witness, their situation is certainly very different from that of children who do not have this privilege. The fact that the promise which is given to this people and the claim to which it is subjected are from the very first (to varying degrees) presented to them and brought to their attention, means that they enjoy a very special praevenireEN515 of the grace of God. Even for these children, however, it cannot be cheap grace. They have still to enter in at the strait gate and tread the narrow way. No one is a true and living member of this people, to be taken seriously as such, merely by living in its midst. A man can be this only when he is awakened to be such a member by the Holy Spirit who is the power of the [184] work and word of Jesus Christ, only when he is born again, created anew. The Christian life cannot be inherited as blood, gifts, characteristics and inclinations are inherited. No Christian environment, however genuine or sincere, can transfer this life to those who are in this environment. For these, too, the Christian life will and can begin only on the basis of their own liberation by God, their own decision. Its beginning-this is no part of their distinction but would run contrary to it-cannot be made for them by others through the fact that, without being asked about their own decision, they receive baptism. How can one expect any growth of the living community of the living Lord Jesus Christ in this way? What support is there for infant baptism in a verse to which appeal is often made, namely, Ac. 239: "This promise is unto you, and to your children"? It occurs in the epilogue to Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost. Those who, when they hear the sermon, are "pricked in their heart," ask: "What shall we do?" (v. 37), and Peter answers: "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." They will then receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Of this promise, whose first fulfilment was before them in the outpouring of the Spirit on the disciples and its consequences, Peter then says that it is to them too, and not only to them but also to their children, nor to these alone, but beyond that "to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Thus it is to them first, i.e., to the Jews and those who live in Jerusalem (v. 14). It is now solemnly declared to apply to them. The continuation in v. 40 should be noted: "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." They specifically are now to grasp the promise which applies to them and aims at their salvation. They specifically are to repent, and in public confirmation thereof to be baptised in the name of Jesus, thus sharing in the fulfilment with the disciples, and receiving remission of sins and the Holy Ghost. This promise applies to their children, since it is for all Israel. It applies also to those who are afar off, whom God has not yet called but whom He is about to call. It is a universal promise. At the right time and place their children and those who are afar off will come to receive and grasp it as they have done; they will thus repent and have themselves baptised. Their history will be in outline the history of their children and of those who are EN5 5
coming-before
179
§ 75. The Foundation of the Christian Iffe afar off as well. The event of Golgotha, Easter Day and Pentecost, its proclamation by the apostles, the accompanying summons to conversion, faith and baptism, goes forth with the generation of to-day to all future generations, to men both near and distant, as God call them in due season. It is hare to see where, in this clear train of thought, there is any place even for the idea of infant baptism, let alone for any permission or command to administer it. Finally, reference should be made at this point to the much cited verse i Cor. 714 in the discussion of mixed marriages: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife, and the unbelieving wife is sancti ed by the brother: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy." This is incidentally a reason why the Christian does not have to separate from a non-Christian spouse (v. 12), though in v. 15 f. Paul does not object to a separation initiated by the non-Christian partner. He refers to a sanctification of the [185] unbelieving partner by the believing partner. in distinction from their clear use elsewhere, the terms dyt €tv EN 516 and aytog EN517 have here a predominantly objective sense. Primarily and intrinsically the fact that a Christian sanctifies his non-Christian spouse has nothing whatever to do with the fact that he hopes for and may perhaps bring about a conversion; nor does it serve this end. In some instances it may not lead to this. "For what knowest thou, 0 wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" This is the basis (v. 16) of Paul's second principle, namely, that if a mixed marriage is not to be unconditionally dissolved it is also not to be unconditionally maintained. What is beyond question, however, is that the existence of a Christian in a marriage of this kind cannot be without real and factual significance for the non-Christian spouse even though it does not lead to knowledge, conversion, faith and baptism, even though the non-Christian remains a non-Christian. In a marriage of this kind the non-Christian is at all events set in immediate and unavoidable contact with a member of the .1