RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH IN ACTS 2:38
RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH IN ACTS 2:38
Virgil Warren, PhD
Christian baptism is a self-expression of personal identification with Jesus Christ, and God gives consequences on the basis of that identity more than on the basis of the act itself: forgiveness of sin, gift of the Spirit, and fellowship in the body of Christ.
INTRODUCTION
Acts 2:38 connects with the thesis above by making the full threefold affirmation: baptism, in the name of Christ, and forgiveness of sins. It does not say, “(Let each one of you) repent and be baptized for the remission of sins,” as sometimes misquoted. Strictly speaking, scripture nowhere uses the phraseology “baptism for remission of sins.” The point, of course, is not to disconnect baptism from forgiveness in every way, but to conceptualize the connection exactly. Ananias does tell Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). Peter feels free even to say that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:21), salvation being reconciliation from alienation caused by sin. Evidently in referring to baptism, Titus 3:5 declares that God “saved us through the washing of regeneration.”1 Even John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance unto/for remission of sins (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4). Baptism texts include the forgiveness consequence, especially when sin figures prominently in the circumstance; hence, the deliberative question on Pentecost, “What are we going to do?” (Acts 2:37) and Ananias’ directive to “the chief of sinners,” distraught over having so severely persecuted Jesus’ disciples (Acts 22:16).
THE SHORT FORMULAS
Baptism statements without consequences call attention to its fundamental meaning when they include “into Christ” or a similar modifier. The mission statement for the Messianic age, according to Matthew, enjoins baptism without indication of consequences, and carries the expanded wording “into (the name of the Father and) the Son (and the Holy Spirit)” (Matthew 28:18-20). Everywhere else the formula shortens to “into the name of Christ” or simply “into Christ,” as in Galatians 3:27.
THE IN-BETWEEN FACTOR
In the target text, Jesus Christ stands between human act and divine consequence. There is some variety in stating this in-between factor. The Great Commission uses the so-called “trinitarian formula.” Acts 2:38 has “in the name of Jesus Christ,” identifying Jesus as Messiah. The baptism of the twelve disciples of John in Ephesus was “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). The Greek texts use three different sequential prepositions after baptize to introduce “the name of.”2 Although conceivable differences might correlate with the various prepositions, for the purposes of this study we consider all three to be approximate Greek equivalents of the Hebrew לשﬦ (le-šem) or perhaps בשם (be-šem), baptism “to the name of” or “baptism in/into the name of.” Instead of differences like authority, entrance, or means, the more general common element stresses identity, especially when name of appears in the pleonastic wording.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER BAPTISMS
The fundamental meaning of Christian baptism becomes clear in light of parallels with other baptisms. (a) Paul uses the expression “baptism unto Moses” to characterize the exodus (1 Corinthians 10:2). At the crossing of the Red Sea, the Jewish slave people cast their lot with Moses and left Egypt behind; they identified with Moses and the prospect of freedom he proffered. Preparatory to Jesus’ ministry, (b) Israelites were coming to John’s ministry for a “baptism of repentance.” In turn, the twelve disciples of John in Ephesus answered that they were “baptized to John’s baptism.” These different descriptors signify that people responding to John’s message were identifying with repentance as grounds for being God’s children in contrast to relying on physical descent from Abraham as grounds for it. Lastly, (c) Paul was grateful that he had done few baptizings at Corinth lest people should say he was “baptizing to Paul” (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). The element common to baptizing to Moses, to John’s baptism, and baptizing to Paul corresponds with the fundamental element in (d) baptizing to Christ. The consequences differ, but the preceding constant is identification.
BAPTISM OF THE SAVED
Baptism of those already saved likewise shows that remission is not the most basic meaning of the act. Surely God previously viewed as saved at least some Israelites baptized by John. Surely God previously viewed as saved at least some of those baptized by John who were later baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Even “he who knew no sin” came to John’s baptism “to fulfill all righteousness” (2 Corinthians 5:21; Matthew 3:13-15). Strictly speaking, baptism conveys some meaning more fundamental than salvation from sin and the alienation sin produces. Christian baptism identifies people with Christ, and on the basis of that identity God gives whatever he has not already given.
THE HISTORICALLY CONDITIONED DISCUSSION
Despite the above observations from scripture, historical circumstance has fostered deliberately advocating baptism for remission. Many Christian movements connect baptism only with (visible universal or local) institutional church membership in reaction to the Roman Catholic view and in aversion to ritualism. Hence, it has seemed important to show instead that water baptism belongs in the salvation process. As a result, the meaning of baptism gets formulated in terms of existential variables more than biblical fundamentals.
Dissociating baptism from salvation altogether stems principally from the fear of (a) advocating salvation of works—particularly when combined with misdefining “works” in Paul. If “water” baptism constitutes a work, it obviously cannot operate as a precursor to forgiveness. Associating baptism with church membership gives the ordinance an apparently significant role without conflicting with salvation sola fide. As such it takes on another character as if “baptism has come in the room of circumcision.” Another alternative makes baptism a testimony to others. Both tacks avoid connecting it with forgiveness of sins.
Little direct New Testament testimony suggests these alternatives. Only 1 Corinthians 12:13—and that in but one way of reading the verse—puts baptism in the role of entrance into the one body. Church membership accords also with the third consequence, which logically follows forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2. No text seems specifically to describe baptism as a witness to others, although it obviously can have that effect. (A person does wonder whether that significance would invalidate private baptisms if that was its only significance.) If anything, baptism testifies, not to other people, but to God—a meaning fairly close to identifying with Messiah and to “calling on the name of the Lord” (Joel 2:32 < Acts 2:21; 22:16).
In response to these alternatives, insisting that baptism does indeed connect with forgiveness rests on texts like Acts 2:38. Consequently, one view—church membership—focuses attention on an alternative—forgiveness of sins, and the discussion proceeds at that level in terms of those contrasts. The trouble is that adopting a contrast between parallel options also adopts their shared larger category, which may then skew the issue—as in the idea that “baptism is not for church membership; it is for remission of sins.” To explain, institutional church membership belongs to the legal category; if baptism is put parallel to it, baptism tends to take on a legal character as well, and the discussion gets sidetracked before it gets started. Baptism is not a legal act; it is simply an interpersonal one by which one person “says” something to another. The relevant contrast is between identity with Christ and identity with some other deity, some other leader, some philosophy. It says, “I am with you, O Christ; I am not a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Taoist, a Druid, an atheist, or any other parallel possibility.” Thus, a more productive approach moves the discussion back to first principles.
Instead of discussing baptism relative to first principles, another tack could concentrate on clarifying what Paul means by works and seeking to distinguish cause from condition. Tackling those deeper issues may prove less effective, however, among typical Christians; hence, the interest in this study’s proposal for understanding the ordinance—identification with Christ. It offers a positive position rather than a reactive one, and so forestalls sliding off into an improper meaning for “baptism for remission of sins” that might be fostered by formulating its role over against other inadequate ones. Furthermore, it takes the initiative in setting the terms of discussion and starts on common ground. It moves baptism toward the front of the salvation process without giving it a questionable role there.
DOCTRINAL VALUES OF THIS HOLISTIC EMPHASIS
A surprising number of issues surface in connection with Christian baptism. A fair number of these “problems” disappear with baptism as personal identification with Christ. If baptism conveys something more basic than moving people from lost to saved, (1) we can see why saved disciples of John were baptized into Christ. A new dimension had become available through the Messiah, who brought the Spirit.
(2) It gives rationale to why presumably saved Jews were baptized by John. In the coming Kingdom of God, there was a clearer emphasis on the interpersonal character of things divine in contrast to physical lineage from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and identity with the political entity national Israel. In keeping with that sentiment, John had cried out that from rocks on the ground God could raise up children to Abraham.
(3) Baptism as identification explains why Jesus came to John’s baptism. He was identifying with the principle of relationship to God by personal repentance (motive, attitude, and behavior) rather than physical descent or national identity. If baptism is an act of identification, there is something left for Jesus’ baptism to mean besides forgiveness of sins in the Sinless One (Hebrews 4:15; e.g.). It has something meaningful to do with “fulfilling all righteousness.” Consequently, the baptism of Jesus clarifies the meaning of baptism, and at the same time the clarified meaning explains why he was baptized by John.
These three examples serve a valuable role. In the legal circumstance, “hard cases make bad law,” but unusual situations in an interpersonal setting force the issue back to first principles. In research generally, “stray data” should not be excluded necessarily as aberrations, bad data, false positives, and the like. They can point to something atypical that must figure into the complete, real conclusion.
Perhaps the most important doctrinal implication of the present thesis is that (4) baptism as personal identification with Christ more clearly avoids the taint of works; forgiveness, gift of the spirit, and “church membership” rest on the identity that baptism marks rather than on the human act itself. The approach sidesteps several misconceptions about “works.” “Works” in the typical Pauline3 sense does not mean doing something, doing something outward—as in James 2, doing something after salvation—as in Ephesians 2:9-10, or doing something formal. “Works” is not doing something, but producing something—works in the “scientific sense.” Romans 3:28 does not talk about “works” in just any sense, but about “works of law,” “works under law,” “works in the context of law,” “doing” relative to a standard for doing. The apostle makes that especially clear in Galatians 3:10-12 when he declares that in a legal setting “works” means personal (3:12) perfection (3:10 < Deuteronomy 27:26 [LXX] + Leviticus 18:5), theoretically then unto being viewed by God as righteous (and therefore in fellowship with him).
So “works” means the principle of personal perfection. That theoretical possibility is a practical impossibility—as everyone admits, “Nobody’s perfect.” The result would have to be “earned” rather than appealed for (1 Peter 3:20-21)—earned by works done by the self to produce rather than trust in another to give. This positive alternative Paul calls “faith” (< Habakkuk 2:4), trust in another to view people as righteous (in this case God’s willingness to view people as righteous on the basis of their willingness to identify with him who is righteous). Viewing people as righteous is what it means to speak of God’s giving people righteousness (unto salvation as reconciled relationship to himself). In the “faith” system, one person’s act is always done to another person rather than to maintain a standard, or law; it is done in love to a person rather than in pride to an achievement (Romans 4:1-5). Two things stand between the baptism act and the forthcoming consequences: (a) identity with Christ and (b) God’s choice to give.
Titus 3:4-7 offers a straightforward statement that baptism is not a work. Without explanation the text says both that we are not saved by works but by God’s love, mercy, and grace and, on the other, hand that our salvation is “through the water of regeneration.” It is difficult to imagine some meaning for “water of regeneration” other than as an allusion to baptism. If indeed it does serve as a label for baptism, there must be some significance to baptism that allows it not to be a work even while salvation is said to be “through” it. That significance can remain unspecified as far as this text is concerned, because the essential point is granted: baptism is connected with salvation. Acts 2:38 shows more exactly how it is connected.
Though studies of these sorts are appropriate, of course, achieving the desired results in ministry may not readily happen this way. Nevertheless, a person would expect unnecessary tension to disappear by stressing personal identity with Christ as the basis of divinely gifted consequences. Sometimes ministers do well to deal with issues pastorally, if they can, more than theologically—at least for the time being.
(5) Baptism as identification with Christ removes the impulse to find another place for the ordinance in the Christian economy—like the church membership or the testimony to others noted above.
So also (6) it should remove the inclination to read baptism statements as references to something besides this ordinance. One such interpretation takes baptism to mean Holy Spirit baptism; hence, the expression “water” baptism to distinguish the two baptisms. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is something that God does; so any context that commands human action cannot have that meaning. Passages with no implication regarding agency may contain other features that look away from reading it as baptism in the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves us”) loosely compares “baptism” to Noah’s flood. John 3:5 (“born of water and S/spirit”) is perhaps not completely clear, but it seems like a stretch to make “water” mean semen or amniotic fluid. Alternative proposals on any remaining texts need not be disproved (negative burden of proof); it need only be observed that there is no immediate, positive reason for them (positive burden of proof); the solution lies in finding a way to get behind alternate proposals by going elsewhere in scripture or invoking the nature of the subject as a whole. Biblical terminology does not speak of “water” baptism as in distinction to S/spirit baptism.
A similar point applies to the idea that salvation occurs at the time of baptism, but that God does not contemplate the human baptism act itself as part of his condition for remission. This distinction reflects the dictum that it is not the ordinance but the faith of the ordinance that serves as the condition for its validity. That raises the question about what saving faith is. As to kind, saving faith is not intellectual assent, but interpersonal trust; as to degree, saving faith is to the extent of active expression. Such a definition comes close to welding baptism to faith. After all, baptism in the New Testament sense is not an outward act anyway if it involves “the appeal of/for a good conscience toward God” (1 Peter 3:21; συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν, suneidēseōs agathēs eperōtēma eis theon). Faith has baptism as a subset under it; faith is not something simply before, and parallel to, baptism—as in intellectual assent.
Unlikely views on baptism arise because of presuppositions about works and ritualism imported from elsewhere. While counter-responses may satisfy us, they do not usually satisfy those who adopt other positions for theological reasons. If remission, and so on, are divinely bestowed on the basis of the identity indicated by obedience in baptism, such attempts should disappear, because they are no longer needed.
(7) Baptism as identification with Christ should relieve the inclination to create a new special act in place of baptism. The custom of “asking Jesus into your heart” fills the void that baptism leaves when extracted from the series. Actually, that idea comes close in meaning to an “appeal of/for a good conscience,” but in 1 Peter 3:21 that value is associated with baptism, not invoked aside from it.
As with processes generally, people want to specify a point they can regard as the “time when” of their salvation. Obviously in some ways salvation is a process, but the propensity for collapsing process to a point involves contrasting before and after—much as a handshake establishes a point in time that finalizes an agreement. In this respect, identifying a “point when” in a process is more for the person’s benefit than God’s; but that does not give the right to institute a new ritual for that purpose, particularly since one already exists in part, we take it, for that very reason.4
(8) Speaking of baptism as identification with Messiah eliminates the need to find places where εἰς means “in” so as to circumvent Acts 2:38 as evidence for associating baptism with forgiveness. The expression baptism for [εἰς, eis, “into/unto”] remission grates on evangelical sensitivities because, as discussed above, it puts a formal human act logically before remission whereas salvation has to be by “faith.” Something must be done. For systematic reasons, the Matthew 26:28 parallel cannot be allowed to justify a purpose value for the same phrase here. (Jesus’ pouring out his blood “for remission of sins [εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, eis aphesin hamartιōn]” must be a purpose/result construction.) Any other observations from elsewhere likewise cannot suffice.
One counter claim is that εἰς in our passage is a synonym for ἐν (en, “in”). Baptism done “in” the remission of sins would then come logically after the remitting and so would fit with being an “outward sign of a (previous) inward grace,” with being a “testimony to others,” or with baptism for visible “church membership.” In some places, admittedly, εἰς could mean “in.”5 We can also agree that εἰς is derived from ἐν and so may reflect its origins occasionally. An interpreter should be cautious, however, taking a minority meaning for a word in order to bring a particular text into conformity with a general belief. Additionally, usage more than derivation determines meaning—usage in the immediate context, the context of subject matter (nature of the case), and the context of contemporary usage on other subjects. In short, it is less satisfying to base interpretation on fine distinctions between terms and phrases. A safer, more cogent method appeals to flow of thought as primary proof and invokes fine distinctions as confirmatory evidence.
As it turns out, baptism in the name of Christ “on account of” the forgiveness of sins could be taken to mean that forgiveness happens before being in Christ: “be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Messiah in/because-of remission of sins.” The crucial element (“in the name of Jesus Christ”) gets blurred in the picture, because concern is focused forward to the next phrase. In the layout of the text, “in the name of Christ” precedes “unto/in remission of sins”; so the “into-in” distinction not only becomes irrelevant, it gets settled in favor of “unto”; otherwise, the remission would be irrespective of Christ. Highlighting the more basic value of Christian baptism affords a practical solution to evaluating some arguments most people on both sides of this issue are not especially well-equipped to handle, because discussing them calls for a fairly mature awareness of Greek usage and literature in addition to other hermeneutical niceties and theological distinctions.
(9) Baptism into Christ stands more clearly at odds with salvation flowing through the institutional church. The present construct recognizes that baptism is an interpersonal act between candidate and Christ, with consequences given directly by God himself rather than through grace somehow dispensed indirectly by delegated authority operating as agents of an institution. By their very nature, grace, love, and faith-trust are interpersonal acts on two sides of a personal relationship, which means they cannot be dispensed by legal authority or by proxies. That is the point of Paul’s appeal to Habakkuk 2:4: “The just shall have life by trust/faith” (Romans 1:17-5:5; Galatians 3).
(10) Baptism as personal identification with Christ means that unimmersed believers and those baptized as infants need not be regarded as lost in order to legitimize baptizing them “for remission of sins.” If baptism were directly for remission of sins and such believers should choose not to accept “believer’s baptism,” their easy inference would be that we must be considering them lost and that they should agree. So the inference would seemingly apply both to the administrator’s and the candidate’s take on the matter. Stressing the more basic approach to the meaning of baptism removes us from feeling obligated for consistency’s sake to form even unvoiced conclusions about someone else’s status before God—particularly about someone whose life quality and devotion to God may be better than ours. We are unqualified to render verdict and have no adequate scriptural basis for doing it. But the situation is such that we can still present them with the need to personally identify themselves with Jesus in Christian baptism. (Note the similar issue regarding age of accountability below.)
Another, less satisfactory tack on this matter says that unimmersed believers may not be lost, but they do become responsible for new light. (a) There is no reason, however, for them to believe that the “new light” we are shedding is any better than what they received from devout parents and ministers who loved them as much or more than they have any reason to believe we do—parents and ministers committed to Christ as much or more than they have any reason to believe we are. Instead of recognizing us as teaching the way of the Lord more perfectly, we may look more like divisive, narrow-minded competitors than like people giving greater light. Besides, (b) if they do not respond to our teaching, they are now in that condition of greater light without response to it. Does that leave them lost in our minds and leave them supposing that we must think so too? The ramifications for Christian unity start coming to the fore; they signal concern for the adverse effect.
(11) Baptism as identification with Christ does not even require thinking of the previously unevangelized as necessarily always lost in order to legitimize baptizing them into Christ. We simply have them identify with Christ in this fashion without comment on their concerns about unevangelized ancestors. We do not know how God plans to deal with the vast majority of mankind in history and in our own day; we can say that however he decides to deal with them will be appropriate. Even we can imagine scenarios on how that might occur. For purposes of self-consistency, we may gain help from Romans 2 and the cases of saved people in the patriarchal (1 Peter 4:6) and Mosaic ages (Hebrews 9:15), but we do not, and do not need to, understand specifically how, as regards salvation, God regards those who can only “feel after him and find him” (Acts 17:27; cp. 14:16-17). Sanctified imagination comes in tentatively to get through the issue well enough that uncertainty does not stifle obedience (cp. faithful Abraham regarding the sacrifice of Isaac as per Genesis 22:5 [“we will return to you”] and Hebrews 11:17-19). All we need declare is that God figures all salvation relative to Christ—whether before or after him, whether known or not by people God might decide to save—and that it makes sense so to affirm while identifying people with God through Christ in Christian baptism here and now.
PRACTICAL VALUES OF THIS HOLISTIC EMPHASIS
No sharp distinction lies between doctrinal and practical values of this baseline approach to baptism, but the values noted below certainly illustrate practical considerations. Perhaps most importantly (12) baptism as identification with Christ stresses what we are giving more than what we are getting. Because of who Jesus is, identification with him entails much more than a sense of association, appreciation, and kinship. Since this personal relationship pertains to One who loves us, identification involves commitment to him as a person—in addition to what he stands for or any agenda he carries forward. Besides, this is not a relationship between equals. His being superior calls for deference to him. Since he is leader, it requires allegiance to him. Since this leader calls for ultimate allegiance, identification involves self-sacrifice—giving that last measure of devotion for him if need be—as in taking up our own cross and following him (Matthew 16:24). So baptism is a performative act, an act by which we say something, an act that in this case signifies identification, commitment, and ultimate allegiance to Christ—something total, permanent, and exclusive. By prioritizing identification over consequences, we reflect the attitude of Job, “Though he slay me, I will trust him” (13:15). By emphasizing self-giving over receiving, we embrace the new birth with its higher frame of reference (John 3:3-7), the resurrected lifestyle in pursuit of Christ (Romans 6:1-11), and transcendent living above this-worldly interests (Colossians 3:1-4).
(13) Baptism as identification with Christ guarantees the validity of baptism even on the basis of initial levels of faith. Having room for growth does not vitiate the preliminary degrees of perception in interpersonal matters. When a person identifies with another person, the identity is real and valid at all levels and degrees. It allows as real and acceptable a child’s sense of belonging to parents despite not knowing what will come into the picture later. On the analogy of New Testament baptisms performed soon after initial proclamation, we need not worry about achieving advanced understanding before entering into Christ. The Philippian jailor and his family could not have known more than the basics (Acts 16:23-34). It does not take a lot to grasp the essential message of the Christian faith.
(14) Baptism into Christ reduces the concern about determining the age of accountability and consequently the age of candidacy for baptism. Strictly speaking, God does not have to view a child as lost before it makes sense to us to baptize him into Christ. The young person identifies with Christ regardless of whether (theoretically) he has done any sin against or has any sin imputed by God. The situation compares to Jesus’ identifying via John’s baptism with remission based on repentance even though he had no sin to repent of. With the young person, this line of thought is a major gain since we cannot know God’s mind on this matter in this person’s case. As with Christ so also with young people, the young person theoretically does not have to be lost before he can identify with Christ. Under the typical reconstruction of the situation, baptizing too soon is pointless; baptizing too late is risky. Removing a hard-wired connection between baptism and salvation (by understanding that baptism more basically means identification with Christ) should ease the urgency that pushes baptism too early. Practical considerations can let age of candidacy vary, especially since what a person lacks in “birth” may be made up for in growth, and what is later than necessary is retroactive.
(15) Identification with Christ eliminates the concern over postbaptismal sins. In this case there is an impulse to push baptism too late. That concern operates as if remission of sins were a legal process that the worshipper has to redo from time to time to produce the result needed again from time to time. There is no reason to delay baptism as long as possible (as the ancients were wont to do) in order to reduce the concern for sins committed afterwards. As the Hebrew writer observes, the lack of efficacy in certain procedures is evident from the fact that they have to be repeated (10:2). By their very nature, however, personal relationships are intended to be permanent so that their origination need not be re-enacted periodically. What happens is essentially timeless. As John puts it, “The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Remission rests on Christ’s continuously being who he is and God’s continuously being who he is. We are called on to be continually what we are—identified with Christ—with its implications. Baptism expresses unity with Christ; it does not per se erase sins. Baptism ties into a continuous relationship; it does not remove individual sins as they arise. So to speak, identity with Christ saves from sin, not from sins. And baptized believers do not have to remain sinless to remain in relationship with God. That would be the Galatianism that Paul fought so hard against early on. We would be operating as if we were back under law—which would re-activate the principle of personal perfection, and Christ would profit us nothing (Galatians 2:21; 5:2).
(16) Baptism as identification with Christ should foster Christian unity with evangelicals generally. A sizable portion of the believing community has held at arm’s length those who associate “water baptism” with remission of sins. Those who characteristically speak of baptism for remission of sins bear partial responsibility for false impressions and subsequent attitudes. And it is not just hearers who get misled; the speakers may mislead themselves into something beyond their right to declare.
(17) This emphasis may actually bring clarification and correction to advocates of baptism as having soteriological significance, and help avoid misconception, misstatement, and overstatement. Theological drift and crystallization over time can accompany a slogan. Making “baptism for remission of sins” the standard expression may make the talk the father to the thought. Spin-off expressions like “necessary for salvation” and “essential to salvation” increase the chance of misunderstanding in speaker and hearer alike. “Essential to salvation” means that baptism belongs in the saving process rather than after it or aside from it, but the ambiguous term essential sounds like salvation cannot exist without it. Similarly, “necessary for salvation” easily says too much—like disallowing the validity of death-bed repentance or the lack of salvation because of death on the way to the river or some other exceptional circumstance. When people want to talk about such seemingly impertinent contingencies, they are simply trying to determine what these unbiblical expressions are meant to say.
(18) Baptism as identification with Christ forestalls legalistic inferences that go with baptism into the church—the idea that there is no salvation outside the church, the clerical efficacy of ordinances/sacraments, or certain reasons given for paedobaptism. The richer formulation partakes of the interpersonal character and concerns of Christianity as a worldview. Consequently, baptism says something to Christ: in it people truly “call on the name of the Lord” like Paul of old (Joel 2:32 = Acts 2:21; 22:16).
SOME GENERAL VALUES OF THIS HOLISTIC APPROACH
With Acts 2:38 read in its completeness, (19) we need not get so bogged down in complex issues. It combines “baptized into Christ” with God’s giving whatever he deems appropriate. Moreover, “the wayfaring masses” are not so likely to “err” in this simple “way of the Lord” as they are when drawn into involved theological and linguistic distinctions (Isaiah 35:8). People make better sense of matters that follow closely from general principles, and they are more likely to respond to the God’s call when the message makes sense to them.
With Acts 2:38 read in its completeness, (20) we are afforded a framework of theory for dealing with issues on which scripture does not speak: age of baptizing young people, baptism of the physically or mentally impaired, of young people with disbelieving parents, of the terminally ill, of the criminally incarcerated, of Eskimos and desert dwellers, of a former Christian after a long-time apostasy, requests for re-baptisms, and so on. Interpersonal relationship naturally involves a flexibility that legal, hypostatic, and metaphysical constructs do not.
CONCLUSION
As it turns out, Acts 2:38 serves as a prime text about baptism for a different reason than the conventional one. On the one hand, the Great Commission and Galatians 3:27 connect baptism with Christ while Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Titus 3:5 (Ephesians 5:26? Hebrews 10:22) connect it with salvation from sin. (“Baptism saves us” serves as a short for the full idea.) Acts 2:38 offers the clearest statement of the combination, not only because it gives all three aspects of the process, but because it gives such a crisp statement about their relative places in the process. As the first proclamation of the gospel in accomplished reality, that clarity offers a particularly useful starting point for an understanding of baptism and of salvation itself.
Salvation rests on identity with Christ.
END NOTES
1Translations provided are those of the author.
2Εἰς τὸ ὄνομα occurs in Matthew 28:19 [לשﬦ]; Acts 8:16 [בשם]; 19:5 [לשﬦ]; Romans 6:3; and Galatians 3:27 (cp. Acts 19:32; 1 Corinthians 1:13, 15; 10:2; 12:13).
Ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι comes up once in connection with baptism: Acts 10:48 [בשם, bšm] (cp. Matthew 21:9 [בשם]; Mark 16:17 [בשם]; Luke 10:17 [בשם]; John 14:26 [בשם]; Acts 3:6 [בשם]; 9:27 [בשם] for other “in the name” occurrences not associated with baptism). The term לשם in the baptism context is reminiscent of למלך (l-mlch), which archaeologists find stamped on the handles of ancient pottery: “for the king,” “belonging to the king.”
Ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι appears only in the target text (Acts 2:38 [בשם]; cp. Matthew 18:5 [receive + dat]; 24:5 [come + dat]; Mark 9:37 [receive + dat], 39 [do + dat]; 13:6 [come + dat]; Luke 9:48 [receive + dat]; 21:8 [come + dat]; 24:47 [preach + dat]; Acts 4:17 [speak + dat], 18 [teach + dat]; 5:28 [teach + dat], 40 [speak + dat]; 11:17 [believe + acc]; 16:31 [believe + acc]).
So we find receive, come, do, preach, speak, and teach with ἐπί τῷ ὀνόματι, and we find believe (and baptize) with εἰς τὸ ὄνομα.
Hebrew entries above come from הברית החדש. Yanetz, Ltd. Jerusalem, 1983 [The United Bible Societies].
3Crucial to the proper understanding of “works” is seeing that the word does not carry the same significance in all cases, because different formal relationships with “faith” adjust its specific meaning. In Paul we are justified by faith without works (Romans 3:27-28; 4:5-8; 9:30-32a; 11:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:2-5; Ephesians 2:8-9); in James 2:14-26 we are justified by faith and works; in John 6:29 faith is regarded as a work. Three formal relationships require different contents. The reader has to adjust meaning to fit context.
4At this point, we may also note that “confirmation” represents another non-scriptural institution brought in to fill the felt need, not necessarily as a time-when of salvation, but as a time-when for personalizing commitment to Christ. The issue here more specifically stems from the practice of infant baptism in which concepts like surrogate faith (of parents or God parents), anticipatory faith, or even infant faith are replaced or realized by personal, contentful faith in the rite of confirmation. Suffice it to say, the personalness of identity with Christ is already present as the most basic meaning of baptism. Moving baptism back to infancy disconnects it from personal identity with Christ; doing so creates a need to bring it in later when personal, contentful faith becomes possible. (We have coined the expression “contentful faith” here to label the kind of faith a young person can have in contrast to Luther’s concept of infant faith.)
5Matthews 2:23; 4:13; 12:41; Mark 13:3, 16; Luke 9:61; 11:17, 32; John 1:18; Acts 2:27, 39; 8:40; 19:22; 21:13; 23:11; 25:4; Hebrews 11:9; 1 Peter 5:12; 1 John 5:8. Some of these are not particularly good examples. Saying that Philip was εἰς Ἄzωτον (eis Azōton, Acts 8:40) may be merely a difference in idiom between Greek and English—“he was into Azotus” vs. “he was in/at Azotus” (cp. the English idiomatic expression, “He is really into jazz.”) Other places speak of going from, say, “Jerusalem into Damascus,” where English says “going to Damascus.”
It is useful to note that Jerome always uses in plus accusative when translating εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: with Christ’s blood (Matthew 26:28); with Christian baptism (Acts 2:38); with repentance (Mark 1:4 [= Luke 3:3]; Luke 24:47). Standard usage is in plus dative for “in/among” and in plus accusative for “into.”
christir.org