Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Galatians 3:26-27: Water Baptism or Spirit Baptism

by

The majority of commentators throughout history understand 3:27 to refer to water baptism. But this results in some serious difficulties. Calvin states the difficulty well: “”But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement?”[1] In other words, it is obvious under anyone’s theology, that not all who are water baptized are united to Christ. But this verse says, ”For as many of you as were,” or “All who were . . . .”

There are a number of ways of handling this difficulty. Peter Lombard notes a view ascribed to Augustine indicated that those who were baptized under a false confession had their sins forgiven “at the very moment of baptism.” But those sins “return immediately after baptism.” Lombard rejects this view, and he says that Augustine only reported the view. He did not hold it.[2] Lombard himself suggested two resolutions. First, it may be that only “those who are baptized in Christ” have their sins forgiven. Or, Lombard suggested, it may be that the passage refers not to those who receive the sacrament alone but also the thing which it symbolizes.[3]

This latter explanation has remained popular. It was the explanation Calvin offered: “It is customary with Paul to treat of the sacrament in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites . . . he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol. . . . When, on the other hand, he addresses beleviers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connexion with the truth—which they represent.”[4]

Another approach is to argue that baptism is one part of “the complex of initiation events describing conversion.”[5] Some make baptism an essential part of receiving the benefit. Beasley-Murray claims, “If Paul were pressed to define the relationship of the two statements in v. 26-27, I cannot see how he could preserve the force of both sentences apart from affirming that baptism is the moment of faith in which the adoption is realized . . . which is the same as saying that in baptism faith receives Christ in whom the adoption is effected.”[6] Everett Ferguson similarly states, “If a distinction is to be made between the relation of faith and baptism to the blessings described, one might say that baptism is the time at which and faith is the reason why.”[7] F. F. Bruce notes the problem with this approach: “The question arises here: if Paul makes baptism the gateway to ‘being-in-Christ’, is he not attaching soteriological efficacy to a rite which in itself is as external or ‘material’ as circumcision?”[8] For this reason commentators often make qualifying comments such as these by Moo:

It was not, in and of itself, a means of salvation or incorporation into Christ (contra, e.g., Schlier 1989: 172; cf. Betz 1979: 187-88). Faith, which Paul repeatedly highlights in this passage and in his other letters, is the only means of coming into relationship with Jesus Christ. However, baptism is more than simply a symbol of that new relationship; it is the capstone of the process by which one is converted and initiated into the church. As such, Paul can appeal to baptism as ‘shorthand’ for the entire conversion experience.[9]

The difficulty with all of these qualifications is that they seem to evade what the words of the verse actually say. The verse says, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Moo says, “[Baptism] was not, in and of itself, a means of . . . incorporation into Christ (contra, e.g., Schlier . . .).” The verse says “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” But Lombard and Calvin say that is only true for those who receive the sacrament and the thing and not the sacrament alone. The qualifications are seeking to guard orthodox doctrine, but they seem to do so at the text’s expense.

But what if Paul is not referring to water baptism here? Bruce says, “It is difficult to suppose that readers would not have understood it as a statement about their initiatory baptism in water.” But is it so difficult? Both the Gospels and Acts anticipate and describe Spirit baptism.[10] The distinction between these two kinds of baptism is present in apostolic teaching. Distinction between the sacrament and the thing or the symbol and the reality, however, are later theological developments. It seems more likely for Paul’s original readers to have distinguished between water baptism and Spirit baptism than between the sacrament and the thing.

What is more, Spirit baptism makes good sense in this context. In this context baptism is the proof that “Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female” are one in Christ through faith. Water baptism cannot serve as such a proof because, as Hunn notes, “it proves only that the baptizer found [these distinctions] irrelevant.”[11] It does not provide a window into the mind of God. Spirit baptism, on the other hand, does provide such a proof. Indeed, this is Peter’s argument for accepting the Gentiles into the church. The Spirit baptized them just as he had baptized the Jews (Acts 11:15-17). Hunn also observes that Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:3-7 follow parallel lines of argumentation. In 3:27-28 the proof of sonship is baptism into Christ. In 4:6 the proof of sonship is the reception of the Spirit. This parallel indicates that Spirit baptism is in view in 3:27.[12] Finally, 1 Corinthians 12:13 forms a close parallel to Galatians 3:27. In both passages there is baptism into Christ. In both there is the indication that this the case whether the person is Jew or Gentile, slave or free. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 the baptism is clearly Spirit baptism: “For [in] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” This confirms that the baptism in view in Galatians 3:27 is Spirit baptism.

To this position Schreiner objects, “Robert H. Stein shows that the attempt to separate water baptism from Spirit baptism fails to understand that water baptism is part of the complex of initiation events describing conversion.”[13] But in taking this view there is no denial that water baptism was part of “the complex of initiation events.” Nor does this view dispute that water baptism is the symbol of Spirit baptism.[14] This view simply recognizes that as many as are baptized in the Spirit are united to Christ but that not all who are baptized in water are so united.

[1] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. Willaim Pringle (1854; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 111.

[2] Peter Lombard, The Sentences, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2010), 19-20 (bk. 4, dist. 4, ch. 2, n. 4-5).

[3] Ibid., 21 (bk. 4, dist. 4, ch. 3).

[4] Calvin, 111.

[5] Thomas Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT, 257, n. 8; cf. Douglas Moo, Galatians, BECNT, 251.

[6] G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 151.

[7] Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 147.

[8] F. F. Bruce, Galatians, NIGTC, 185.

[9] Moo,  251.

[10] Debbie Hunn, “The Baptism of Galatians 3:27: A Contextual Approach,” ExpTim 115 (2005): 373-74.

[11] Ibid, 373.

[12] Ibid., 374-75.

[13] Schreiner, 257, n. 8.

[14] I would dispute, however, that Spirit baptism happens at the time of water baptism. I would argue the reality precedes the symbol.

Accommodating Evolution and the Problem of Evil

by

I recently provided a guest post at the BJU School of Religion blog about Evolution and the Problem of evil. My main point was that evangelicals often seek to harmonize Scripture with Evolution for apologetic reasons. But the consequences of the proposed harmonizations create further theological and apologetic problems. 

Read the whole thing here.

The Mindset of a Theologian

by

The point to be observed for our present purpose is the position given Exegetical Theology as the first among these four [departments of theology]. The precedence is due to the instinctive recognition that at the beginning of all Theology lies a passive, receptive attitude on the part of the one who engages in its study. . . . It is eminently a process in which God speaks and man listens.

Vos, Biblical Theology, 4.

Theology based on Revelation

by

According to its etymology, Theology is the science concerning God. Other definitions either are misleading, or, when closely examined, are found to lead to the same result. . . . From this definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation. In scientifically dealing with impersonal objects we ourselves take the first step; they are passive, we are active; we handle them, examine them, experiment with them. But in regard to a spiritual, personal being this is different. Only in so far as such a being choose to open up itself can we come to know it. All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man. The principle involved has been strikingly formulated by Paul: ‘For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God’ [1 Cor. 2.11].

Vos, Biblical Theology, 3.

Critique of Paul Seely’s Hermeneutical Approach to Genesis 1:10

by

Seely, Paul H. "The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10," Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 231-55.

The upshot of this article is that truly grammatical-historical exegesis of Genesis 1:10 must recognize that the earth spoken of there is a flat disc that floats on the single sea that surrounds the land since this is the view of all ancient peoples.

In a very brief postscript Seely raises the question of whether interpreting these verses "according to their historico-grammatical meaning impinge negatively on the biblical doctrine of inspiration?" (155). He appeals to Warfield to argue that it does not: "A presumption may be held to lie also that [Paul] shared the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption" (Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," in Works, 1:197).

It is important to note that Warfield makes two points in this quotation. Before the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul thought apart from what he wrote in Scripture. Warfield is clear in the preceding context that Paul can err in his thinking in any number of ways , including his view of "the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun." After the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul wrote in Scripture. Here he makes the more limited claim that Paul’s erroneous views could affect the wording of Scripture. Warfield does not say that Paul introduces error into Scripture on this account (since that is precisely what he is arguing against). Rather Warfield is saying the wording could be understood in harmony with the error while not actually being in error itself (this is the import of the phrase "play into the hands of such a presumption"). In other words Warfield is teaching that God did not correct all the popularly-held (but erroneous) opinions of the day held by the biblical writers and that some of the wording of Scripture could fit some of those views, while not affirming those views and thus remaining free from error. (It is important in this regard to remember that the Bible teaches that the text of Scripture is inspired and not that the authors were inspired.)

This reading is substantiated by Warfield’s earlier discussion of accommodation in the same article. There he notes, "It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God" (ibid., 1:194).

In this article Seely argues for the latter: he argues that the errors of the time are taught by the text when interpreted in a grammatical-historical manner. For this reason alone Seely’s interpretation must be rejected as inconsistent with the Bible’s own teaching regarding its inspiration. Seely’s interpretation should also be rejected for limiting grammatical historical interpretation to the human plane. The words of Genesis 1:9-10 are not merely the words of Moses written within his own cultural milieu. These are also the words of God. This is an especially relevant factor in interpreting Genesis 1 since the events of this chapter lie beyond human observation; God alone could reveal these truths to Moses. There is little reason therefore to insist that these words can only be rightly interpreted when understood strictly as someone of Moses’s time would have understood them. If the prophets did not always understand the spiritual import of what they wrote (1 Peter 1:10-12), must we insist that they always understood the physical import? Their words may "play into the hands" of an erroneous understanding from their time (though I think that would be an overstatement in this case), but they do not demand of the reader to be read in light of such an understanding.

Importantly, Seely’s argument is not that Genesis 1:10 necessitates this reading on the textual level, but rather that given that all ancient cultures held to belief that the earth was a flat disc surrounded by an ocean, modern interpreters must read the Bible through this ancient lens. To the contrary, historical background must play an ancillary role to the Scripture; it is the servant of the text rather than its master. Otherwise the sufficiency of Scripture is undermined just as surely as when tradition moves from an ancillary role to that of master. The historical background that Seely introduces provides a helpful window into the worldview of ancient peoples, but it does not determine the meaning the divine Author intended for Genesis 1:10. To say otherwise undermines both the doctrines of the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.

Hodge on the sinfulness of sin

by

It is obvious that no severity of mere human suffering ; no destroying deluge ; no final con flagration, not hell itself can present such a manifestation of the evil of sin and of the jus tice of God as the cross of his incarnate Son. It declares in language which is heard by the whole intelligent universe, that sin deserves God’s wrath and curse.

Charles Hodge, The Way of Life, 81.

Hodge on the Gravity and Consequences of Sin

by

Men flatter themselves that they will escape the evil consequences of their transgressions by appealing to the mercy of God, and obtaining a suspension of this law in their behalf. They might as reasonably expect the law of gravitation to be suspended for their convenience. He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption, as certainly as he who sows tares shall reap tares. The only link which binds together causes and effects in nature, is the will of God; and the same will, no less clearly revealed, connects suffering with sin. And this is a connexion absolutely indissoluble save by the mystery of redemption. To suspend the operation of a law of nature, (as to stop the sun in his course,) is merely an exercise of power. But to save sinners from the curse of the law required that Christ should be made a curse for us ; that he should bear our sins in his own body on the tree ; that he should be made sin for us and die the just for the unjust.

Charles Hodge, The Way of Life, 78-79.

Origins of Allegorical Interpretation and Christian Theology

by

To spin the straw of traditional religious narrative into the gold of philosophically coherent and elevating theology, Hellenistic intellectuals availed themselves of allegory. . . . Allegory enabled the enlightened reader to see through the surface level of a text to its spiritual message, to understand what the text truly meant in contrast to what it merely said. Grammar, rhetoric, philological finesse: all these tools of classical paideia might be brought to bear on an ancient story to turn it into a philosophically lucid statement of timeless truth.

Paula Fredriksen and Judith Lieu, "Christian Theology and Judaism," in The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church, ed. G. R. Evans (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 86.

From Fredriksen and Lieu’s description, it seems the purpose of allegory is to evade the original meaning and worldview of a text so that it can be conformed to an alien worldview. If this is so, allegorical readings of the OT are singularly unfit for Christian theologians, for the resort to allegory is an implicit confession that the NT and Christian theology are alien to the theology and worldview of the OT. For those who see the problems with Enlightenment hermeneutics and wish to return to pre-critical approaches, the Reformers are better models than the Fathers.

Ignatius: Bishops and Elders

by

The fact that Ignatius refers to bishops, a council of elders, and deacons does not necessarily mean that the bishop presides over several churches in a region [see Smyr. 8.1 and many other places in Ignatius]. It may just mean that he is the lead elder. He is an elder, and the elders are bishops, but he is called bishop because he is singled out from the rest. This would parallel a contemporary situation in which some churches speak of their pastor and their elders, even though the elders are pastors and the pastor is an elder.

The Gospels More Reliable than Historical Reconstructions

by

All the Gospels are talking about events that actually happened; they are not “making it up. ” But they are telling about the events in ways that help us to grasp their significance and their theological implications. We do not need to feel as if we have to “roll back” the significance and the implications in order to get to “bare” events. The Gospels, since they are written with God’s authority, deserve our ultimate allegiance and trust. They are therefore more ultimate and more reliable accounts of the events of the life of Christ than is any humanly constructed harmonization, which would try to figure out “what really happened. ” It is legitimate for us to try to see how the various Gospel accounts fit together into a larger picture. But this larger picture should include everything that the Gospels give us, rather than only a minimum core in the form of our modern human reconstruction of what happened. Human reconstructions can help, but when reconstructions of the events go into all the details, they often contain a certain amount of guesswork. The guesswork means that our own fallibility and the incompleteness of our information come into play. If we are honest, we have to admit that we cannot be sure about everything in our reconstruction. By contrast, we can be sure about the Gospels themselves.

Vern Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization, 32.