This was written in answer to a post on the Puritan Board's "Wading Pool." The thread asked for a "Reader's Digest version" of "how it is seen that 'baptism' replaced 'circumcision'."
I think we ought to begin with Col. 1.21-23. I think it gives us a sense of one of the issues lying behind the baptism/circumcision passage. This was not an essentially Jewish congregation. It was primarily Gentile converts. These are those who have been grafted in (cf. Rom 11:17).
NAU Colossians 1:21-23 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
This is going to be significant when we come to discuss circumcision. So, for now bear in mind that the Colossians were Gentile believers who had been brought into covenant with God from outside. Col 2:8-11 is one of the those enigmatic sections within Paul’s writings. To deal with it, we have to discuss four things:
1. The meaning of “elementary principles”, 2. one grammatical point, 3. the meaning of circumcision, 4. and the meaning of baptism.
1. Elementary principles Col 2.8: See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
The translation “elementary principles” is about as good as we can hope for. It is a technical term, but it is useful in many different fields. In terms of grammar, it was used to designate “letters”, like ABC’s. It also had uses in philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy, which might appear to be significant here, but I’m going to argue that, by looking at Galatians and some of the things Paul says in Colossians, that Paul is talking about legal rules – the basics of the JEWISH faith.
When you teach children to read, you might use rules like, “when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking” but when the child begins to develop some maturity in reading, he’s going to find words like “break”, which seems to have the “a” doing the talking. I think this is a pretty good illustration of what is meant by “elementary principles.” They are the things that form a foundation upon which further development is facilitated.
I think the Colossians are facing Judaisers, people arguing that they have to be circumcised and obey the Jewish law to be real Christians. Most commentaries make it a bit more complicated than that – making it some sort of Judaistic Gnosticism or something. But I think my assessment is valid or has enough precision for our purposes.
I say that because Paul says things like
16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Paul says these things are a shadow of things to come, the substance of which is Christ. This is akin, I think, to something he said in Galatians:
NAU Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Right after that, he says,
NAU Galatians 4:1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.
Not only do we get the use of the term stoicheia (elementary principles) in this passage, its use is somewhat like that in my illustration (child learning to read) and therefore like my definition (things that form a foundation upon which further development is facilitated).
Galatians is unquestionably dealing with a group of people claiming that Gentile believers have to be circumcised before they can be full-fledged Christians. I think that is especially illuminating when we come to our verse, which speaks of circumcision, as we will see in a minute.
SUMMARY SO FAR: So what we have is a church made up of mostly Gentile converts. This will bring up issues of relation to covenant, etc. Furthermore, these gentile converts are being urged to be “good Jews” first (circumcision, law-keeping), then Christians. This, too, brings up issues of relation to covenant.
2. One grammatical issue: Finite verb vs. Participle (My very “wooden” translation) For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him Who is the Head of all rule and authority you have been made complete. In Whom also you were circumcised by a not-done-with-hands circumcision, in the putting off (like clothes) of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.
• “You were circumcised” is a finite verb, like “you ran” or “you were convicted” • “having been buried . . .” is a participle. It is used to coordinate two actions.
Imagine I said, having eaten, you got a cramp. Which came first? Eating.
It’s the same here. Having been baptized, you were circumcised.
It’s not quite so definite as my eating/cramp example, since being baptized and being circumcised could have taken place at the same time in our passage.
A better example might be, “having overslept, he was late to work.” He might have slept past the start of work, or his oversleeping might have preceded his being late, but was certainly associated with it.
What is important is that it CANNOT indicate subsequent action (like “you were late, and then overslept” or “you were circumcised and then baptized”).
Let’s lay out the verses a little differently, so that we can see a little of the grammatical associations
In Whom also you were circumcised by a not-done-with-hands circumcision, in the putting off of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.
So what? Well . . . now we need to consider the association between circumcision and baptism.
SUMMARY SO FAR: We noted that the issue of covenant-membership or belonging will be central to the discussion, as this is a primarily Gentile church that is facing challenges to their membership on the basis of their non-circumcision and non-law-keeping. Now we see that in this crucial passage, Paul conceives of the baptism they have undergone as prior to (or at least not subsequent to) their circumcision. The circumcision in view is not a physical circumcision of their foreskins. Rather, it is the renunciation of fleshly lusts. It is the work of the Spirit (Rom. 2:29), in which we (by the enabling power of the Spirit) participate by actually renouncing and turning away from fleshly lusts. The fact that circumcision does not precede baptism may be very significant. But let’s hold off on drawing conclusions yet.
3. Circumcision
In this section, I go into the nature and meaning of circumcision, because Paul’s use of it has to be grounded in this. While other cultures practiced circumcision, Paul’s use of circumcision in this crucial passage about covenant and baptism and repentance has to carry Old Testament or at least first century Jewish significance.
What it is: Removal of the foreskin of the penis When it was established: Genesis 17: 9-14 Who received it: All of Abraham’s household males (vv. 12-13) What it meant: It marked inclusion in the covenant (v. 11) When received: 8 days old or, if a convert, on the date of inclusion in covenant (v. 12)
NAU Genesis 17:9 God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
Circumcision is called a “sign of the covenant”. God gave a sign of a covenant after the flood:
NAU Genesis 9:11 "I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."
Who is the sign for?
On the one hand it is for God – “I will remember . . . I will look on it, to remember” On the other hand it is for Men – after all, God doesn’t need a reminder That is, when we see the bow, we remember that God promised, and that he promised to remember. Our confidence is bolstered by the sign.
We get the same sort of thing when the Israelites crossed the Jordan
Josh 4.3-9 NAU Joshua 4:3 and command them, saying, 'Take up for yourselves twelve stones from here out of the middle of the Jordan, from the place where the priests' feet are standing firm, and carry them over with you and lay them down in the lodging place where you will lodge tonight.'" 4 So Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the sons of Israel, one man from each tribe; 5 and Joshua said to them, "Cross again to the ark of the LORD your God into the middle of the Jordan, and each of you take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Israel. 6 "Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?' 7 then you shall say to them, 'Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off.' So these stones shall become a memorial to the sons of Israel forever." 8 Thus the sons of Israel did as Joshua commanded, and took up twelve stones from the middle of the Jordan, just as the LORD spoke to Joshua, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Israel; and they carried them over with them to the lodging place and put them down there. 9 Then Joshua set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan at the place where the feet of the priests who carried the ark of the covenant were standing, and they are there to this day.
One set of stones are set up at Gilgal. These were to be a memorial for the people. But what about the stones at verse 9. The Jordan was at flood stage, but even when it is not at flood stage, you aren’t likely to see 12 stones standing in the middle. The stones of verse 9 are not for men, but for God. Well, they are for men, but they remind men that God has signs in place, so he won’t forget either – just like the rainbow.
And, it seems, just like circumcision. Yes, you could look down and see that you were circumcised, but it is just as powerful a sign for God. It certainly wasn’t a sign for others to see.
SUMMARY AND SIGNIFICANCE SO FAR:
We have in the Colossians a church that is having an identity crisis over their belonging to the covenant, as they are being urged to become circumcised and follow the Jewish law first and only then to add Jesus.
In this crucial passage, Paul views baptism as prior to or concurrent with, but not subsequent to circumcision.
Circumcision: Circumcision is a sign of the covenant. Sometimes signs are there for God to see. It marked inclusion in the covenant (Gen 17.11). Circumcision was the removal of the flesh (in more ways than one). It involved the literal removal of skin. But it was removed right where fleshly lusts are all-too-often concentrated. The sign is multi-faceted; I don’t mean to oversimplify it. It also pointed to descendants, and that from a man who couldn’t have any – a giving up of natural processes in hope of God supervening the natural. But I think we should not fail to see the removal of the (metaphorical) flesh in circumcision. Especially in light of Deut. 10:16 and 30:6.
So now we should look at baptism, so that we can understand the relation between circumcision and baptism in this passage, and how that relates to the Colossian situation particularly. Then we should be in a position to appreciate this passage more fully as it participates in the baptism question (paedo/credo).
4. Baptism Three Old Testament events are considered types of New Testament baptism. That is, they are events whose significance is fulfilled in the work of Christ:
The first of these OT baptisms is the flood
a) Flood (1Pe 3.18-22)
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
This passage is not easy. On the one hand, we cannot see our rite of baptism as the fulfillment of the type, since water baptism DOES NOT SAVE YOU. Rather, as I will emphasize below, it is the REAL baptism, the baptism that our rite of water baptism symbolizes and points to, the baptism of the Holy Spirit in which we are united with Christ -- it is this baptism that saves you. Failure to appreciate the distinction between the rite and what the rite symbolizes is very dangerous, and at the least very detrimental to any effort to sort through theological issues like paedo- vs. credo-baptism.
The second OT type is the Red Sea crossing during the exodus from Egypt.
b) Red Sea (1Co 10.1-12)
NAU 1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well- pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, "THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY." 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.
While the cloud and the sea can properly be called types here, the real use of baptism here is as an example. This is akin to when John tells the Pharisees and Sadducees not to take solace in the fact that they are children of Abraham. The fact that you belong to the covenant community is no guarantee of your election. Many who came out of Egypt, having experienced deliverance from slavery and inclusion in the chosen covenant people of God then turned away from Him. Similarly, many later Jews who were raised with a knowledge of the scriptures and of the temple were not true Jews (Romans 2). It stands to reason, then, especially given that this passage is written to the church, that the same danger holds for the Christian. We cannot take solace in the fact that we have been baptized, or that we were born into a Christian home, or that we go to church every Sunday. Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. Any theology that waters this warning down is a misunderstanding. Careful Reformed theology recognizes that we can never climb over God’s shoulder and see our name written in the book. We walk by faith -- moment by moment. I have confidence that He who began a good work in me will bring it to completion. But that good work involves my transformation. Should I cease to be being transformed, Reformed theology will simply see that as God demonstrating that, unless he carries us through the whole process, we will fall away.
And finally, the third type of OT baptism is the one in our passage,
c) Circumcision (Col 2.9-12)
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
The people’s baptism in the Red Sea can be seen as deliverance. In this way it corresponds to the ark as a type of baptism. On the other hand, the use of that type in 1 Corinthians suggests that it also be associated with belonging to the people of God. In this way it corresponds to circumcision.
In addition to the typological precursors of baptism, there are a number of images associated with baptism, images which should give us some insight into the meaning of baptism.
2. Images a) Washing (Tit 3.5) -- The washing is associated with regeneration
NAU Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
b) Initiation/adoption/regeneration (John 3.5) -- Here regeneration is associated with initiation or entry.
NAU John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
This one is very enigmatic. While it is not certain that the “born of water” refers to baptism, there is no question that the spirit birth refers to the regeneration which is the real Spirit baptism, in which we are united with Christ. It doesn’t matter what the born of water refers to. What matters is that the passage talks about initiation or entry into the Christian life -- an initiation that begins with baptism (whether or not a reference to the rite of water baptism is in view).
c) Death and Resurrection (Rom 6.3-4) – Here, baptism is associated with entry and transformation
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
In addition to three OT types and three images, baptism is also associated with 3 responses.
3. Actions (see contexts for association with baptism)
a) Initial response: Repentance and faith (Rom 6.6, 11) -- see vv. 3-4
NAU Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
b) Ongoing process: Mortification and renewal (Eph 4:20-24) -- see v. 5
20 But you did not learn Christ in this way, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, 22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, 23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
c) Final hope: Dissolution and resurrection of the body (1Co 15)
SUMMARY SO FAR: The Colossian church is having an identity crisis -- they are questioning their affiliation because they are being told they have to be circumcised first, and add Christ second. Paul associates baptism and circumcision, placing baptism prior to or concurrent with, but not subsequent to circumcision. Circumcision was the mark of belonging to the covenant people. It was a rite of initiation into the covenant. Hence, it is a very useful rite or sign to bring up as he addresses the Colossian problem. Baptism is multifaceted in its associations. It is a picture of deliverance (Flood, Red Sea) and of belonging or initiation (Red Sea, Circumcision). It is a picture of washing, which is closely associated with regeneration. It is a picture of rebirth (Regeneration), which has to do with entry into the kingdom. It is a picture of death and resurrection, which urges us toward transformation. Here again, the issue of entry (baptized INTO Christ Jesus) is at the forefront. So there are really two things to which baptism points. First, baptism points to redemption or deliverance. It is life from the dead. It is deliverance from slavery. It is a fresh start. Second, baptism, as a fresh start, and as a new life, points to a belonging. We are not just delivered from, we are delivered to . . . to the people of God. We are reborn into a community, the church. We are brought into the covenant.
Now I want to make one point with regard to baptism, and then two caveats.
One Point: This personal acceptance or entry is not independent of the once for all and substitutionary work of Christ, which is the true baptism.
In other words, whether we are credo- or paedo-, the fact remains that the rite is not constitutive of anything by itself. It is signifies and seals the true cleansing, the true burial and rebirth, the true deliverance and initiation that is provided in the work of Christ. The real baptism is the baptism into Christ, done by the Spirit. The rite only points to this real baptism in a symbolic way.
It is forgetfulness of this point which leads to misunderstanding of the so-called grace of baptism (my two caveats)
Two Caveats: There are two positions that should be avoided when we talk about baptism conveying grace:
The first is that no grace is conveyed in baptism. According to this position (which is a common evangelical error), baptism is primarily a sign of something we do -- I am testifying that I have recognized that I am a sinner, and I have given my life over to God, and I am willing to receive his forgiveness. (Yes, I know I over-did the “I” thing, I know many credo-baptists place much more emphasis on the work of Christ . . . but the no- grace guys make the rite a commemoration of our repentance, rather than a symbol of Christ’s work.)
The second position to be avoided is that of the Roman Catholic Church (and many others -- especially those that require baptism as necessary for salvation). In this position there is an exaggeration of the grace of baptism. In this position, baptism is constitutive of salvation. The rite itself accomplishes something necessary for salvation.
We must remember that behind the external action there lies the true baptism which is that of participation in the shed blood of Christ. Baptism is a means of grace, much like preaching or the Lord’s Supper. It is a visible sermon. It conveys by participation in the act, the truth that Christ’s death cleanses us, that we have died and now live a new life in Christ, that we are members of his family, heirs of his inheritance.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him Who is the Head of all rule and authority you have been made complete. In Whom also you were circumcised by a not-done-with-hands circumcision, in the putting off (like clothes) of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.
And now, we can begin to bring together circumcision and baptism as they are presented to us in verses 11 and 12 of Colossians 2. A paraphrase might be helpful at this point, to show my thinking on Colossians 2. As you read the paraphrase, bear in mind that both baptism and circumcision speak to the issue of inclusion in the covenant, an issue very pertinent to the Colossian situation.
Interpretive Paraphrase: For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him Who is the Head of all rule and authority you have been made complete. In Whom also you were brought into the community of the covenant people by the spiritual circumcision -- the one that matters -- the crucifixion of your fleshly body -- after all, Christ’s work is what the Old Testament circumcision pointed to anyway. Hand-done circumcision does not compare to the work that has actually been done in you, and therefore you don’t have to doubt your inclusion in the covenant -- this putting to death of your flesh was done in your baptism -- the real baptism by the spirit, not the rite which merely symbolized it (see note below paraphrase), in which Spirit-baptism you were also raised through the faith of the working of God who raised Him from the dead.
Aforementioned note: Here I think Paul is, however, establishing the link between baptism and circumcision, so that the significance of the one rite is associated with the significance of the other rite, just as the anti-type of the rite of circumcision is the death of Christ, so the anti-type of baptism is the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ
Note that the distinction between the rite and the thing symbolized by it is very significant. We are raised through faith. But the rite doesn’t symbolize the faith. The rite symbolizes the work of Christ, applied by the Spirit. Having been baptized, we were brought into membership or covenantal care. We symbolize that Spirit baptism with water baptism. Baptism, then, takes over the role that circumcision played in the OT. Perhaps it means more than circumcision, but it certainly includes the meaning of circumcision. And given the Colossian situation, and the association of baptism with circumcision in our passage, I believe it is very clear that this inclusion in the covenant is what is in view here.
But this connection leads to a controversy among faithful evangelical believers. Now I’m not talking about Roman Catholic doctrine, which makes the error that baptism is constitutive of salvation, that it washes away original sin, and then you’re on your own. There are faithful, earnest studiers of the Bible who come to two different positions on baptism. One of those views is that, since baptism replaces circumcision, we ought to baptize infants of believers.
A. Paedo-Baptism Those believers would ask, why was Abraham’s whole house (servants, etc.) circumcised? Why not just the sons? The answer, in this view, is to be found in the evangelistic impulse of redemptive history. The promise was for Abraham, but in him the whole world would be blessed. The servants of Abraham’s household would be blessed by their proximity to Abraham. They would, by this proximity, come to know the terms of the covenant, and its promises.
Similarly, the Temple of Solomon was for Hebrew worship, but Solomon’s prayer clearly points to an evangelistic function of the temple.
NAU 1 Kings 8:41 "Also concerning the foreigner who is not of Your people Israel, when he comes from a far country for Your name's sake 42 (for they will hear of Your great name and Your mighty hand, and of Your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house, 43 hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to You, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know Your name, to fear You, as do Your people Israel, and that they may know that this house which I have built is called by Your name.
Abraham is unique in all the world. God chose one man, out of all the nations of the world to accomplish a two-fold purpose. One, to bring about the family line that would lead to the Messiah, and two, to provide instruction and guidance about the salvation God was bringing.
The servants and sons of Abraham’s household had already been shown a measure of grace that was not extended to the servants of Nebuchadnezzar or Pharaoh. They were in close contact with Truth. They had access to salvific knowledge. They were included in the covenant community, which means that the promises of the covenant were held out to them, and they were EXPECTED to be obedient to the terms of the covenant.
That’s why it was so despicable when Simeon and Levi massacred the town of Shechem after persuading them to be circumcised. Circumcision was to be a sign of God’s blessing. They had been invited to share in the promises of God, only to be cut off before they could be led to the Lord. It would be like inviting the townsfolk of your town to a revival, only to slaughter them before preaching the gospel.
Paedobaptists also point out that the circumcised Israelite who did not enter the inner circle (heart circumcision) was considered a covenant breaker. He is not considered a heathen. Similarly, though 90% of Texans are baptized (or so I’ve been told), they aren’t all inner-circle believers. And though not every child of a faithful Presbyterian will be saved, every faithful Presbyterian parent has both the responsibility for evangelizing his child and the reasonable expectation that the Lord will bring his child into the inner circle – after all, God has already shown him a measure of grace by having him born to a believing home.
B. Credo-Baptism Those who would disagree with infant baptism, those who would insist that baptism is a rite that must follow a profession of faith, point to the fact that the removal of the flesh (circumcision) spoken of in this passage, seems to be salvation – on the order of Romans 2:28-29, not mere inclusion in an outer community of faith.
NAU Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
They would also point out that prior to circumcision, which marks inclusion in the family, you get language of resurrection with Christ. It is difficult to see this as indicating anything other than rebirth. The credo-baptist seizes, then upon the grammatical point noted above. Circumcision (inclusion in the covenant) follows or is at least correlated with baptism.
Before you jump on either bandwagon, though, you should recognize that what sounds definitive to you will certainly have a rebuttal. Let me emphasize again that the real baptism is that of Christ. Our activity with water is only a symbol of the real thing. And while, for example this last objection, about resurrection language, seems definitive, you should consider that Israelites were circumcised in the flesh as a symbol of what Christ would do in the future – whether or not they as individuals wound up participating in it. Similarly, the paedo-baptist will say that a child’s baptism speaks and testifies of the real baptism of Christ, whether or not the individual child becomes a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker.
While this is a very difficult issue, I have come down on the side of the paedo-baptist for a number of reasons.
First, it is inconceiveable to me that Abraham’s servants are part of the community of believers, but that my children aren’t. I think, too, that this would fly in the face of 1 Cor. 7:14. God has always worked with families and communities. While over the course of redemptive history, there seems to be an increasing interest in the internal life of the believer (culminating in the Sermon on the Mount), this increasing interest does not come at the expense of the corporate interest. We are still called to care for and manage our families as an extension of our faith. How can an elder be held accountable for his children’s behavior (1 Tim. 3:5), if his children are not seen to be impacted by the gospel? That is, if my children are simply wicked unbelievers until they come to an understanding of the gospel and their need of it, and until they accept it, how can I be held accountable for their actions? If I can expect nothing from them but selfishness, if I have no hope of eliciting from them the fruits of the spirit, then I had better not have children if I plan to be an elder. Surely the would-be elder is not at the mercy of common grace. Also, since baptism at least takes over circumcision (this much, I am convinced, is established by the passage we have been discussing) and since, even in the Old Testament, membership within the community did not necessarily indicate elect status, but only pointed to responsibility and expectation, I think the paedobaptistic view is a natural extension of the Old Testament. I am concerned about the risk the credobaptist runs of seeing baptism as an act of obedience or a celebration of our repentance, rather than a symbolic representation of Christ’s work on our behalf. I believe that a proper symbolic representation is relevant and poignant whether or not we become covenant keepers or covenant breakers. It’s a difficult issue. Whether or not I have convinced you of paedobaptism, I hope you will consider my treatment of both sides fair. And I hope you take away an attitude of charity toward those who come to different interpretations. They aren’t dumb or mischievous in their reading. The Spirit is the interpreter, and the Spirit has opted to have some understand the matter one way and others understand the matter differently. I think your approach will determine your answer. If you look to the flow of redemptive history, and to the covenantal approach of God’s redemptive work, you will probably come down on the side of infant baptism. That is, if you expect continuity, and only accept discontinuity when there is a clear indicator, you will probably be paedobaptistic. On the other hand, if you look at individual verses, with a smaller block of context in view for each, you may be persuaded to the credo-baptistic position. (This is, I hope, the first time I’ve presented a straw man ☺). Either way, I just hope the struggle gives you an appreciation for the complexity of the issue, and a charity toward others. It makes sense to worship among those who share your view of baptism, after all, it affects how they see your kids, but the division must stop there. If Jesus is your Lord and Savior, you are my brother -- even if you are wrong about baptism ☺.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Significance of Pentecost
I was recently working through my Seminary notes in preparation for our Session instructional time. I have reworked it considerably, but most of the content is attributable to Dr. Richard B. Gaffin. He has been more influential in structuring my thinking than any other scholar. I only hope that I have not lost or corrupted his teaching in what follows.
Luke structures the Acts narrative in terms of the promise Jesus gives in 1:8. The narrative has to do with the witness-bearing of the apostles, a witness activity that begins in Jerusalem, and expanding outwards from there. He documents the apostolic spread of the Gospel (and therefore the church) from Israel to the nations. So Luke is concerned to document the spread of the apostolic church from Jew to Gentile. This spread, geographically is to be understood ethnically. It has an ethnic qualification. It is a movement from Jew to the half-Jew (the Samaritan) to the non-Jew (the Gentiles). A sub-theme is the Jewish unbelief and rejection that contributes to this movement of the gospel to the nations. See 13:46-47.
1:8 is not a task given to the church indiscriminately, but one give to the apostles. And they completed the task. Now the completion, I think is on the order of the conquest under Joshua. Sure, there is still some mopping up to do. But the gospel has gone forth to the ends of the earth. I’m not suggesting that we stop missionary activity. Quite the contrary. But Col. 1:6, 23 clearly indicate that the program of Acts 1:8 is completed. Missions are not an extension of the apostolic task, but a filling in of the circle already established by the apostles. In terms of Redemptive History, Christ could have returned at any point following the completion of Acts. Why didn’t he? The only thing we are told is that the delay is related to his electing purpose. When all His elect are gathered, then the final end will come.
Acts 1:1 makes it evident that, whereas Luke was about what Jesus “began to do and teach”, Acts is about what the exalted Christ continued to do and teach. Pentecost is the hinge between the two. To see this, a little discussion of the Kingdom of God is in order. The kingdom proclaimed by jesus, is both present and future. We see it presented as the remote future in Matt. 8:11,12. This correlates with the final judgment (see Matt. 13:37-42; 49-50). It is difficult to reconcile the preterist position (correlating this only with A.D. 70) with this. The weeping and gnashing of teeth here are at the final judgment. (cf. Matt. 25:31-34; 41). It is presented as the near or immediate future in Matt. 16:28. The transfituration is a preview of the resurrection glory of Christ. For the time being it was secret (17:9), but after the resurrection, it will be the content of the gospel proclamation. There is also a present aspect to the kingdom in Jesus’ teaching. In Matt. 13:10-17, we see that the disciples have been privileged to experience the revelation of kingdom mystery. The contrast with the Old Testament prophets demonstrates the present reality of the kingdom. However we understand the difficult language of Matt 11:11-13, we can see that Jesus refers to a time subsequent to John the Baptist (the greatest of those outside, as in prior to, the kingdom) and including the present, the Kingdom is forcefully present. John represents the end of the Old Covenant, but they are included in the Kingdom. The least one presently in the Kingdom is in that respect greater than John, because John is outside of the Kingdom. Even though no one greater has been born than John. John has been granted the highest Redemptive Historical function a person can exercise -- he has the privilege of serving as the forerunner to the Messiah. That is his greatness. But in the exercise of that function, John is outside and prior to the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus is not saying that John is unsaved. He’s making a Redemptive Historical point. Probably the clearest indication of the presence of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus is found in Matt. 12:28. More importantly, it links the kingdom with the Holy Spirit, the dynamic power of it.
So we have to see that the kingdom comes in installments. There are three stages: 1) The period culminating in His death and resurrection,
2) The period after -- between ascension and Pentecost and the parousia, 3) The period after the parousia.
The important thing to see is that the era in which we live is not in any sense a postponement of eschatological considerations, but is a distinct phase of the eschatology. (Mt. 16:18, 19; 28:18-20). “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.” We so focus on imperative here that we miss the indicative – our focus should be on the “therefore”.
With this background, let’s explore further the connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom (a connection introduced at Matt. 12:28). We want to bring out here the connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom, particularly as seen in Luke. We’ve already seen that connection in Mt. 12:28. Already in Luke 1:32-35, we see a strong connection between the Holy Spirit and the King(dom). We see it, too, in the baptism scene (Luk. 3:21-22). At the affirmation and appointment of Jesus to this kingdom task, he is given the Holy Spirit as his equipping endowment.
After the temptation – itself very much concerned with the kingdom, we see the beginning of Jesus’ ministry introduced with these words, “Jesus returned in the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord was upon him. So what did he teach? The present reality of the kingdom (Luk 4:14, 15, 18).
A comparison of Luk 11:13 and 12:32 will show that Jesus identifies, or at least correlates the kingdom and the giving of the Spirit. “The promise of the Father” (Luk 24:49; Acts 1:4) further demonstrates that Pentecost is a Kingdom installment. Being given the Spirit is the same as being in the Kingdom. In this sense, John the Baptist was not given the Spirit. We’re considering this from the perspective of historia salutis, not ordo salutis.
What happens between the resurrection and the ascension is a 40 day period of transition, an unstable period, redemptive historically (hence John 20:17). It is an important period, though. It is a period of teaching. (Luk 24:43-47). And the content of that instruction is the kingdom (v. 44 – what he taught while he was with them can be nothing else, as I hope we’ve seen). Explicit confirmation of this is found in Acts 1:3. What Jesus teaches them is that, if they are to understand their Bibles (our OT) correctly, they’ll have to see in it (“it is written”, v. 46) three things: Death, resurrection and church. The preaching of the Gospel to the nations is a kingdom phenomenon. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is to be seen as the manifestation of the Kingdom. Pentecost is a decisive juncture in the coming of the kingdom of God. Acts 1:4 refers to what we saw in Luk 24:49. Here, we have an explicit association of the Spirit and the Kingdom.
In Acts 1:6-8, Jesus doesn’t ignore their question. He does refocus it. They asked a question of “when”, and he gave them an answer of “what”. It is not as if the apostles ask a legitimate question about a future millennium, which Jesus implicitly affirms, but then goes on to talk about the church. This is not what is happening; He is not evading or changing the subject but is answering the question. What the disciples need is a present focus. If they are concerned about the kingdom, then they are to be interested in their task of world-wide gospel witness. And we can see that that is precisely what Paul was about (see Acts 28:23,31 as a summary of Paul’s preaching the whole counsel of God). Notice that he’s preaching the kingdom and teaching Jesus/gospel. He’s not preaching Jesus and giving eschatological lectures on the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the subject matter of preaching, and that involves teaching the things of Jesus.
As we continue to consider the significance of Pentecost, we should step back to the Jordan River. Acts 1:5 points forward to Pentecost by looking back to the ministry of John the Baptist (Luk 3:15-17). The crowd wants to know if John is the Christ. John’s answer is in effect a summary in one sentence of the Kingdom significance of himself and Jesus. It provides a contrast between himself and Jesus, capturing the respective significance of each for the Kingdom. To draw that summary comparison, John makes a contrast in which baptism is the common element. John sees baptizing activity to be central to each ministry; baptism is a basic index, and indicator, for the ministry of each. (cf. Luk 20:4 – assess John’s baptism and you assess his whole miistry). His baptism, with water, is anticipatory. But the messiah will come with Holy Spirit and fire baptism. Just as John’s baptism summarized his ministry, so he summarizes the ministry of the Christ in terms of Holy Spirit and fire baptism. John’s sign pointed to the reality of judgment. The crowds submitted to John’s baptism in hopes of having a favorable outcome at the judicial ordeal that is Christ-baptism.
So, as Acts 1:5 points to Pentecost as the fulfillment of this judicial, harvest baptism of Jesus, we can see that, whatever may be the full significance of Pentecost, what we must recognize is that Pentecost is basically a matter of judgment, a forensic reality. Pentecost is a part of God’s eschatological adjudication. Holy Spirit and fire do not refer to two different things, but to one and the same baptism. Luk 3:17 gives us a metaphor that illustrates v. 16. There is one threshing floor. There are two possible outcomes, grain and chaff. It is one harvesting activity. The same group is subject to both (“you”). Mark 1:8 omits “fire”. There is one messianic judgment that is experienced as blessing or destruction. It saves and destroys. In the prophets, fire is about judgment, but it purifies as well as destroys. Similarly, Isa. 11:4 shows that the Spirit is not always about blessing.
So we’ve been pointed back to the baptism scene. But why was Jesus baptized? It was not personal. He had no need of repentance. His baptism, rather, was an ordination, so to speak. We see that this is the case in the words from heaven (Luk 3:21-22). As the representative sin-bearer, Jesus’ baptism is an identification with those for whom he is the Christ. But it was also his commissioning, and so he is endowed with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:38 provides a lens for viewing Jesus’ ministry: As anointed by the Holy Spirit with power, so He went about opposing Satan because God was with Him. That is what the anointing of the Holy Spirit means. For the Messianic Spirit and fire baptism to be a saving baptism, the Messiah must first be endowed with the Spirit in order to bear away the wrath and condemnation that their sins deserve. Luke is wanting to make clear that if they, the Messianic people, are going to receive the Spirit as gift, as blessing, then the Messiah Himself must receive it first in order to remove their just condemnation from the curse.
This is a coming together at the Jordan of the Incarnate Christ and the Holy Spirit. And so the eschatological climax of history begins. Here the Messiah begins that final Kingdom struggle. He officially and publicly steps forward. He is to pass through the ordeal of eschatological judgment and wrath. A baptism of fire that will eventually bring Him to the Cross and to His death. That is an ordeal from which He will emerge in His resurrection, vindicated and in eschatological triumph. (cf. Luk 12:49-51; Mark 10:36-40, among other things, these references reinforce the fact that baptisms are about judgment).
Lk. 12:50 connects the Jordan baptism at the beginning with the Cross baptism at the end. This brackets the entire ministry of Jesus. His entire ministry from baptism to resurrection is to be understood as a trial ordeal. In that sense it is a judgment, a baptism.
This point has been picked up within the Confessional tradition of the Church. See Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 37 Consider also Calvin’s Inst. (3:8:1), “His whole life was nothing but a sort of perpetual cross.”
According to Luke then, what John prophecies, what he intimates, is nothing less than the sum and substance of the manifestation of the coming of the Kingdom. What John intimated in his prophecy is all realized in the out-pouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. As Luke sees things, nothing less than the central redemptive purpose of the Messiah’s activity is realized in the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The heart, the core of the Redemptive purpose in the Messianic activity of Jesus -- that is what is realized in Holy Spirit baptism at Pentecost.
Luke structures the Acts narrative in terms of the promise Jesus gives in 1:8. The narrative has to do with the witness-bearing of the apostles, a witness activity that begins in Jerusalem, and expanding outwards from there. He documents the apostolic spread of the Gospel (and therefore the church) from Israel to the nations. So Luke is concerned to document the spread of the apostolic church from Jew to Gentile. This spread, geographically is to be understood ethnically. It has an ethnic qualification. It is a movement from Jew to the half-Jew (the Samaritan) to the non-Jew (the Gentiles). A sub-theme is the Jewish unbelief and rejection that contributes to this movement of the gospel to the nations. See 13:46-47.
1:8 is not a task given to the church indiscriminately, but one give to the apostles. And they completed the task. Now the completion, I think is on the order of the conquest under Joshua. Sure, there is still some mopping up to do. But the gospel has gone forth to the ends of the earth. I’m not suggesting that we stop missionary activity. Quite the contrary. But Col. 1:6, 23 clearly indicate that the program of Acts 1:8 is completed. Missions are not an extension of the apostolic task, but a filling in of the circle already established by the apostles. In terms of Redemptive History, Christ could have returned at any point following the completion of Acts. Why didn’t he? The only thing we are told is that the delay is related to his electing purpose. When all His elect are gathered, then the final end will come.
Acts 1:1 makes it evident that, whereas Luke was about what Jesus “began to do and teach”, Acts is about what the exalted Christ continued to do and teach. Pentecost is the hinge between the two. To see this, a little discussion of the Kingdom of God is in order. The kingdom proclaimed by jesus, is both present and future. We see it presented as the remote future in Matt. 8:11,12. This correlates with the final judgment (see Matt. 13:37-42; 49-50). It is difficult to reconcile the preterist position (correlating this only with A.D. 70) with this. The weeping and gnashing of teeth here are at the final judgment. (cf. Matt. 25:31-34; 41). It is presented as the near or immediate future in Matt. 16:28. The transfituration is a preview of the resurrection glory of Christ. For the time being it was secret (17:9), but after the resurrection, it will be the content of the gospel proclamation. There is also a present aspect to the kingdom in Jesus’ teaching. In Matt. 13:10-17, we see that the disciples have been privileged to experience the revelation of kingdom mystery. The contrast with the Old Testament prophets demonstrates the present reality of the kingdom. However we understand the difficult language of Matt 11:11-13, we can see that Jesus refers to a time subsequent to John the Baptist (the greatest of those outside, as in prior to, the kingdom) and including the present, the Kingdom is forcefully present. John represents the end of the Old Covenant, but they are included in the Kingdom. The least one presently in the Kingdom is in that respect greater than John, because John is outside of the Kingdom. Even though no one greater has been born than John. John has been granted the highest Redemptive Historical function a person can exercise -- he has the privilege of serving as the forerunner to the Messiah. That is his greatness. But in the exercise of that function, John is outside and prior to the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus is not saying that John is unsaved. He’s making a Redemptive Historical point. Probably the clearest indication of the presence of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus is found in Matt. 12:28. More importantly, it links the kingdom with the Holy Spirit, the dynamic power of it.
So we have to see that the kingdom comes in installments. There are three stages: 1) The period culminating in His death and resurrection,
2) The period after -- between ascension and Pentecost and the parousia, 3) The period after the parousia.
The important thing to see is that the era in which we live is not in any sense a postponement of eschatological considerations, but is a distinct phase of the eschatology. (Mt. 16:18, 19; 28:18-20). “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.” We so focus on imperative here that we miss the indicative – our focus should be on the “therefore”.
With this background, let’s explore further the connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom (a connection introduced at Matt. 12:28). We want to bring out here the connection between the Holy Spirit and the Kingdom, particularly as seen in Luke. We’ve already seen that connection in Mt. 12:28. Already in Luke 1:32-35, we see a strong connection between the Holy Spirit and the King(dom). We see it, too, in the baptism scene (Luk. 3:21-22). At the affirmation and appointment of Jesus to this kingdom task, he is given the Holy Spirit as his equipping endowment.
After the temptation – itself very much concerned with the kingdom, we see the beginning of Jesus’ ministry introduced with these words, “Jesus returned in the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord was upon him. So what did he teach? The present reality of the kingdom (Luk 4:14, 15, 18).
A comparison of Luk 11:13 and 12:32 will show that Jesus identifies, or at least correlates the kingdom and the giving of the Spirit. “The promise of the Father” (Luk 24:49; Acts 1:4) further demonstrates that Pentecost is a Kingdom installment. Being given the Spirit is the same as being in the Kingdom. In this sense, John the Baptist was not given the Spirit. We’re considering this from the perspective of historia salutis, not ordo salutis.
What happens between the resurrection and the ascension is a 40 day period of transition, an unstable period, redemptive historically (hence John 20:17). It is an important period, though. It is a period of teaching. (Luk 24:43-47). And the content of that instruction is the kingdom (v. 44 – what he taught while he was with them can be nothing else, as I hope we’ve seen). Explicit confirmation of this is found in Acts 1:3. What Jesus teaches them is that, if they are to understand their Bibles (our OT) correctly, they’ll have to see in it (“it is written”, v. 46) three things: Death, resurrection and church. The preaching of the Gospel to the nations is a kingdom phenomenon. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is to be seen as the manifestation of the Kingdom. Pentecost is a decisive juncture in the coming of the kingdom of God. Acts 1:4 refers to what we saw in Luk 24:49. Here, we have an explicit association of the Spirit and the Kingdom.
In Acts 1:6-8, Jesus doesn’t ignore their question. He does refocus it. They asked a question of “when”, and he gave them an answer of “what”. It is not as if the apostles ask a legitimate question about a future millennium, which Jesus implicitly affirms, but then goes on to talk about the church. This is not what is happening; He is not evading or changing the subject but is answering the question. What the disciples need is a present focus. If they are concerned about the kingdom, then they are to be interested in their task of world-wide gospel witness. And we can see that that is precisely what Paul was about (see Acts 28:23,31 as a summary of Paul’s preaching the whole counsel of God). Notice that he’s preaching the kingdom and teaching Jesus/gospel. He’s not preaching Jesus and giving eschatological lectures on the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the subject matter of preaching, and that involves teaching the things of Jesus.
As we continue to consider the significance of Pentecost, we should step back to the Jordan River. Acts 1:5 points forward to Pentecost by looking back to the ministry of John the Baptist (Luk 3:15-17). The crowd wants to know if John is the Christ. John’s answer is in effect a summary in one sentence of the Kingdom significance of himself and Jesus. It provides a contrast between himself and Jesus, capturing the respective significance of each for the Kingdom. To draw that summary comparison, John makes a contrast in which baptism is the common element. John sees baptizing activity to be central to each ministry; baptism is a basic index, and indicator, for the ministry of each. (cf. Luk 20:4 – assess John’s baptism and you assess his whole miistry). His baptism, with water, is anticipatory. But the messiah will come with Holy Spirit and fire baptism. Just as John’s baptism summarized his ministry, so he summarizes the ministry of the Christ in terms of Holy Spirit and fire baptism. John’s sign pointed to the reality of judgment. The crowds submitted to John’s baptism in hopes of having a favorable outcome at the judicial ordeal that is Christ-baptism.
So, as Acts 1:5 points to Pentecost as the fulfillment of this judicial, harvest baptism of Jesus, we can see that, whatever may be the full significance of Pentecost, what we must recognize is that Pentecost is basically a matter of judgment, a forensic reality. Pentecost is a part of God’s eschatological adjudication. Holy Spirit and fire do not refer to two different things, but to one and the same baptism. Luk 3:17 gives us a metaphor that illustrates v. 16. There is one threshing floor. There are two possible outcomes, grain and chaff. It is one harvesting activity. The same group is subject to both (“you”). Mark 1:8 omits “fire”. There is one messianic judgment that is experienced as blessing or destruction. It saves and destroys. In the prophets, fire is about judgment, but it purifies as well as destroys. Similarly, Isa. 11:4 shows that the Spirit is not always about blessing.
So we’ve been pointed back to the baptism scene. But why was Jesus baptized? It was not personal. He had no need of repentance. His baptism, rather, was an ordination, so to speak. We see that this is the case in the words from heaven (Luk 3:21-22). As the representative sin-bearer, Jesus’ baptism is an identification with those for whom he is the Christ. But it was also his commissioning, and so he is endowed with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:38 provides a lens for viewing Jesus’ ministry: As anointed by the Holy Spirit with power, so He went about opposing Satan because God was with Him. That is what the anointing of the Holy Spirit means. For the Messianic Spirit and fire baptism to be a saving baptism, the Messiah must first be endowed with the Spirit in order to bear away the wrath and condemnation that their sins deserve. Luke is wanting to make clear that if they, the Messianic people, are going to receive the Spirit as gift, as blessing, then the Messiah Himself must receive it first in order to remove their just condemnation from the curse.
This is a coming together at the Jordan of the Incarnate Christ and the Holy Spirit. And so the eschatological climax of history begins. Here the Messiah begins that final Kingdom struggle. He officially and publicly steps forward. He is to pass through the ordeal of eschatological judgment and wrath. A baptism of fire that will eventually bring Him to the Cross and to His death. That is an ordeal from which He will emerge in His resurrection, vindicated and in eschatological triumph. (cf. Luk 12:49-51; Mark 10:36-40, among other things, these references reinforce the fact that baptisms are about judgment).
Lk. 12:50 connects the Jordan baptism at the beginning with the Cross baptism at the end. This brackets the entire ministry of Jesus. His entire ministry from baptism to resurrection is to be understood as a trial ordeal. In that sense it is a judgment, a baptism.
This point has been picked up within the Confessional tradition of the Church. See Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 37 Consider also Calvin’s Inst. (3:8:1), “His whole life was nothing but a sort of perpetual cross.”
According to Luke then, what John prophecies, what he intimates, is nothing less than the sum and substance of the manifestation of the coming of the Kingdom. What John intimated in his prophecy is all realized in the out-pouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. As Luke sees things, nothing less than the central redemptive purpose of the Messiah’s activity is realized in the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The heart, the core of the Redemptive purpose in the Messianic activity of Jesus -- that is what is realized in Holy Spirit baptism at Pentecost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)