[Index] [Previous] [Next]
2.2.4 - A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age
Primitive Jewish Christianity
Pentecost and the Earliest Evangelism - Baptism
The baptism which Peter connects with repentance, in Acts 2:38, was not essentially novel.. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was, of course, a new thing to the Jews whom he addressed; but baptism as such was entirely in line with the common Jewish rites of purification, and as a symbolical representation of cleansing from the sins or crime of which they repented, it must seem the most natural thing in the world to them, just as John's baptism seemed quite natural, and was never thought of as involving any disloyalty to Judaism, or any departure from its traditional principles.
The connection of the rite with the name of Jesus Christ did not alter its essential character, nor make it an un-Jewish thing. It meant only that the repentance to which it gave expression was based upon and due to the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; and it may well be that baptism in his name was demanded by Peter of the Jews whom he addressed at Pentecost, just because the great crime which they had committed was the crucifixion of that Messiah, and because they could thus best give voice to their repentance for that crime.
Administered on this occasion in the name of Jesus Christ, the rite would naturally take that form on other occasions, even when administered to those that had had no part in the crucifixion. It might thus in time come to be everywhere regarded not merely as an expression of repentance, but also as an assertion of the Messiahship of the crucified Jesus.
We have no record in our Synoptic Gospels that Jesus himself ever baptized anyone, or that baptism was practiced by his disciples during his lifetime. But it is distinctly stated in John 4:2, that though Jesus himself did not baptize, his disciples did, and the entire naturalness of the rite, in the light of John's baptism, and its general prevalence in the apostolic church, confirm the report, and make it practically certain that the rite was not introduced as an innovation after Jesus' death.
But if practised during his lifetime, by his disciples, it is altogether probable, in view of his uniform policy touching the announcement of his Messiahship, that baptism had the simple Johannine form, and that it was not a baptism into or in his own name.
The name of Jesus is mentioned by Peter in connection with the rite only in Acts 2:38, in his reply to the questioners at Pentecost. [Peter refers to baptism only in one other passage (10:47), and then does not connect it with the name of Jesus; though Luke tells us in the following verses that he "commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
This might suggest a doubt as to whether the formula wsa really used even on that occasion. And the doubt might seem to be confirmed by the fact that only in three other passages in the Book of Acts, and then only in the narrative portions, is baptism connected with the name of Jesus. [Acts 8:16, 10:48; 19:5. But compare also the address of Paul, Acts 22:16.]
It is not impossible that, even after Pentecost, the rite was sometimes administered in the Johannine form, but the common use of the Christian formula in the time of Paul makes it altogether probable that that formula was introduced at a very early day; and the conditions at Pentecost were such as to make its introduction at that time most natural.
Of the trinitarian formula, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which later became universal in the church, we have no trace in the New Testament, except in the single passage, Matthew 28:19. [It is difficult in the light of all we know of Jesus' principles and practice, and in the light also of the fact that the early disciples, and Paul as well, baptized into the name of Christ alone, to suppose that Jesus himself uttered the words: "Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," which are quoted in Matthew 29:19. But it may be that he directed his apostles not simply to make disciples of all the nations but also to baptize them, as they had, perhaps, been in the habit already of baptizing those that joined their company. If, then, he simply gave the general direction to baptize (cf. the appendix of Mark 16:16), it would be very natural for a scribe to add the formula, "Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," which was in common use in his day. On the other hand, the fact must be recognized that Paul's indifference about performing the rite of baptism (see 1 Cor. 1:14, sq.) is hardly what we should expect if the eleven apostles received from Christ a direct command to baptize; and it is not impossible that the entire passage (Matt. 28:19 b) is a later addition, as maintained by some scholars.]
It is difficult to suppose that it was employed in the earl days with which we are concerned; for it involves a conception of the nature of the rite which was entirely foreign to the thought of these primitive Christians, and indeed no less foreign to the thought of Paul. When and how the formula arose, we do not know. We find it expressly enjoined in the Teaching of the Apostles, [Didace, 7. But baptism into the name of the Lord is also spoken of in the later chapter as if it were synonymous. Hermas (Vis 3:7,3) speaks only of baptism into the name of the Lord. Other apostolic fathers give us no light.], and that it was in common use in the middle of the second century is clear form the old Roman symbol which was based upon it, and also from Justin Martyr's Apology [1:6].
It may have had its origin in the prophecy of the Baptist recorded in all the Gospels, that the Messiah would baptize with the Holy Ghost, and in Jesus' own promise, that he would send the Holy Spirit as another advocate in his place, and that he and the Father and te Spirit would abide with his disciples. The formula of benediction employed by Paul in 2 Cor 13:14 may also have contributed to its use.
Used by permission of the publisher.
[Index] [Previous] [Next]