You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March, 2007.
Speaking of the corporate worship in modern day evangelicalism as a “spiritual whoredom” might not go over so well with most people. Yet sadly, evangelicals are completely blind to the regulative principle of worship, and are deceived into thinking that the “worship” they offer unto God on Sunday mornings, is the kind of worship God expects in the Bible. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. The Westminster Divines were correct when they labeled any kind of false worship as “spiritual whoredom.” And anyone who would call himself a true heir of the Reformation must join the divines in abhorring all forms of worship which are not strictly regulated by God’s Holy Word. The regulative principle simply states that true worship is limited to the explicit commands of the Scripture and that anything not commanded by God in the Bible, must never be incorporated into the corporate worship of the church. The normative principle on the other hand, states that if a specific practice isn’t forbidden, it is therefore allowable and can justly be incorporated into the worship of the church. True, pure, Biblical, unadulterated, and Christ-centered worship was most fully embodied in the corporate worship of the Reformers and Puritans. Idolatry was understood as any attempt to worship the true God in a false way. Idolatry was understood as a sin regularly committed by churches and professing believers, not only by pagans in distant lands. And idolatry was understood as being a serious affront to the majestic God who has graciously and clearly revealed the principles for corporate worship in His Holy Word. We must be on guard brethren. The God who struck Nadab and Abihu for worshiping Him falsely is the same God who is present amongst us when we worship. As believers under the New Covenant, we look to Jesus and glory in His propitiatory work for the church. We are confident that the wrath of God has been abated, and that we now can enter into his presence with joy. Yet our God is jealous for His own glory, and will not let idolaters corrupt the pure and beautiful pattern of worship which he Has revealed in the Scriptures. It’s scary to think about how many churches today worship God in a false and idolatrous way. Even more sad is the fact that I’ve been apart of many of them. Let this statement on the second commandment instill in us a desire to worship God in the way which He has commanded us to do so. May we flee idolatry and false religion, clinging to Christ and His gospel, worshiping Him in a pure and Biblical manner.
Question 107: Which is the second commandment?
Answer: The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Question 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.
Question 109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature: Whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense: Whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God has appointed.
Question 110: What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
Answer: The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God’s sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations.
Delighted by the widespread sweep of Reformed Theology throughout our country and especially among younger generations, I feel the need to emphasize one aspect of Reformed Theology which is often swept under the rug. This integral part of Reformed Theology, without which there is no Reformed theology, is the binding authority and abiding significance of the ten commandments as an objective standard which believers in Christ are to faithfully obey. Dispensationalism, with its twisted and unbiblical theory of “multiple programs in God’s redemptive plan”, has minimized the significance of God’s holy law to the point where morality and Christ like virtue really don’t matter any more. Their dichotomization of law and gospel as being contrary to one another, and mutually exlusive principles (law in the Old Testament, gospel in the New), has led to an antinomian celebration of carnality which is unashamedly proclaimed by prominent dispensationalists! A celebration of lawlessness, go figure! What we need in our day is a renewed commitment to the holy law of God as the abiding authority in the life of all Christians throughout all ages. I think that the Reformed of my generation have done a great job in understanding and defending the pedagogical use of the law (i.e. the law as the means of revealing our sin and driving us to Christ.) What I think is sometimes missing, or maybe just not emphasized enough, is the moral use of the law which reveals God’s holy character and teaches us to obey and glorify Him in all areas of life. The ten commandments are the starting point for Christian morality, and the foundation upon which the rest of God’s commands are built. Here is the Larger Catechism’s statement on the first commandment in question and answer form. I plan to post the Catechism’s statement’s on each commandment once every week, for my benefit and yours.
Q 103: Which is the first commandment?
A: The first commandment is, thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Q 104: What are the duties required in the first commandment?
A: The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; and to worship and glorify him accordingly, by thinking, meditating, remembering, highly esteeming, honoring, adoring, choosing, loving, desiring, fearing of him, believing him, trusting, hoping, delighting, rejoicing in him; being zealous for him; calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; being careful in all things to please him, and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; and walking humbly with him.
Q 105: What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A: The sins forbidden in the first commandment , are, atheism, in denying or not having a God; idolatry, in having or worshiping more gods than one, or any with or instead of the true God; the not having and avouching him for God, and our God; the omission or neglect of any thing due to him, required in this commandment; ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him; bold and curious searching into his secrets; all profaneness, hatred of God, self-love, self-seeking, and all other inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off from him in whole or in part; vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief, distrust, despair, incorrigibleness under judgments, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of God; using unlawful means, and trusting in unlawful means; carnal delights and joys; corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal; lukewarmness, and deadness in the things of God; estranging ourselves, and apostatizing from God; praying or giving any religious worship, to saints, angels, or any other creatures; all compacts and consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his suggestions; making men the lords of our faith and conscience; slighting and despising God and his commands; resisting and grieving of His Spirit, discontent and impatience at his dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts on us; and ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can do, to fortune, idols, ourselves, or any other creature.
Q 106: What are we specially taught by these words [before me] in the first commandment?
A: These words [before me] or before my face, in the first commandment, teach us, that God, who seeth all things, taketh special notice of, and is much displeased with, the sin of having any other God: that so it may be an argument to dissuade from it, and to aggravate it as a most impudent provocation: as also to persuade us to do in his sight, whatever we do in his service.
Earlier today, I was reading an article by N.T. Wright wherein he describes dispensational pre-tribulationalism as a “pseudo theological version of home alone.” I thought this was quite accurate and funny.
In an attempt to better understand the New Perspective on Paul, and some of the writings put forth by its advocates, I’ve begun a study which I plan to engage in for some time. I’ve begun by listening to and reading some of the writings of N.T. Wright, by far the most well known advocate of New Perspective teachings, although he doesn’t claim to be an uncritical “New Perspective Person.” N.T. Wright has been inextricably linked to the New Perspective on Paul, and through the years, has attracted the attention of many theologians who either love him, hate him, or regard his writings as helpful but unbalanced. I feel as though we must first understand and see the nature of a particular person’s thought before we criticize them and try to debunk their position. I’ve heard many people, including myself, harshly criticize N.T. Wright and the New Perspective without first understanding the claims of N.T. Wright, and how they relate to God’s revelation in the Scriptures. This will probably be the first in a series of posts attempting to understand the NPP, giving particular attention to Wright and his writings. This post is going to deal with a lecture given by Wright concerning Romans 1-4. As a note of caution: I’m attempting to study the New Perspective objectively, therefore little commentary on my part will be added to these posts. Don’t think that I agree with everything Wright says simply because I’m not giving my own spin on his teachings. And also, this post is a revision of notes taken while listening to Wright’s lecture. Thus the brevity and terse wording of the article as a whole. If you’d like to listen to the lecture, it can be found at http://www.calvin.edu/worship/idis/theology/ntwright_romans_part1.mp3
Wright begins his lecture by stating some of the general and most basic themes found within the letter to the Romans. He continues by listing five propositions which help us to better understand the framework of Romans, and the foundation upon which Paul’s arguments are supported. First, Wright states that the gospel is pre-eminent within the epistle, and that this theme of the gospel dominates the Apostle’s thought. Yet this is a generality which is probably asserted by most Christian scholars. Wright narrows it down by asserting that the gospel, instead of being a system of salvation, is a royal announcement or proclamation of the Davidic Messiah, the Lord of the World. Throughout the lecture, Wright seems concerned about the commonly held assumption by most evangelicals that the gospel is a system of salvation, or a message about how a person “gets” to God. Although the gospel may indeed be some of these things, they are peripheral at best, and not to be recognized as the good news which Jesus heralded and Paul preached. The gospel is, “the announcement and unveiling of Jesus the Messiah, the Lord of the world.” The expectation of this reality was the primary eschatalogical hope of Israel and this hope was fulfilled in Jesus.
Second, Wright discusses the theme of God’s righteousness and defines it as, “God’s saving justice and covenant faithfulness.” Wright points out that God’s promise to Abraham entailed the complete restoration of the world through God’s people. The means of accomplishing this restorative work is through the death, ressurection, and reign of Jesus Christ. By sending Christ into the world to die for sinners and conquer death, God was fulfilling his oath to Abraham, and thus revealing in a visible way, His “covenant faithulness.” One of the themes I’ve been picking up as I’ve listened to and read N.T. Wright is his insistence that the gospel cannot be separated from politics. In other words, the gospel in its very nature is a political proclamation of Jesus as King and Lord of all. By proclaiming that “Jesus is Lord”, Paul was refusing to acknowledge Ceasear’s claims of power. The gospel is a royal proclamation of Jesus as King and a sharp rebuke to rulers who would try to usurp that power. The reason this is significant is because the gospel, in its very nature, both has spiritual and political ramifications. If God’s promise to Abraham entailed the complete restoration of the world, and if God has chosen to solve the problem of corruption in the world through the death and ressurection of His Son, then the gospel and its salvific manifestations must not be strictly limited to “a spiritual realm.” The gospel affects both the spiritual and the earthly, the heart and the world. By divorcing the gospel from its strong political ramifications, we are in essence refusing to acknowledge God’s promise to bless the earth through His Son and those united to him.
Third, this worldwide family that God promised to Abraham, who are already in the present assured of forgiveness, are marked out by faith alone. Justification must be understood within the framework of this covenant theology and eschatology. Justification by faith looks ahead to the future judgment, and understands that this judgment has been announced in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. When the gospel is announced, people discover that the Spirit works in their hearts to believe. This belief is a sign already of their inclusion into the “people of God.” Covenant membership is what Paul means by righteousness. These are uniquely “New Perspective” assertions which have sparked ongoing controversy for decades now. Let me try to clarify what Wright is attempting to say. The traditional protestant understanding of justification by faith alone has usually understood this doctrine in terms of how a person is saved from the power of sin and death. In order for a person to be saved, they must believe and then be justified. Justification is usually defined as, “God’s declaration of a sinner righteous on the basis of faith alone.” Tom Wright and others, including J.D.G. Dunn, have opted for a different reading of Paul, teaching that for centuries, Protestants have misunderstood the main thrust of his writings. Instead of understanding justification in terms of how one is saved, Paul understood justification as a declaration by God that someone is saved. Faith is placed in Jesus Christ the Messiah, and justification is the consequent declaration that a person is now included in the family of God. This faith is the, “badge of membership”, which evinces in a very clear way the reality of a person’s identity in Christ. Therefore, justification must be placed within the realm of ecclesiology rather than soteriology. Faith is more about entrance into the New Israel, justification is more about the recognition by God that a person is indeed a member of the true Israel. There is also the issue of future justification which is important in Wright’s understanding of Paul, but I won’t go into that now.
Fourthly, Wright asserts that this ecclesiological understanding of justification by faith alone provides a framework through which we can better understand passages like Rom. 9-11. Rom. 9-11 is not a paranthesis within the book of Romans, but rather a section which explicitly recognizes the “oneness” of the people of God, and the reality of this new creation (both Jew and Gentile) in Christ.
Fifth, this gospel is counter imperial and contradicted the claims of Caesar to be Lord, King, and Messiah. The gospel cannot be separated from politics because the gospel is itself a political declaration which states that Jesus Christ, and no other, is the true King, Lord, Messiah, and Judge. I’ve touched on this before, so I’ll suffice it to say that this point and its ramifications play an important role within the thought of N.T. Wright.
After making these five general assertions concerning the first four chapters of Romans, Wright discusses some of the pastoral implications of this understanding. First, Wright sees a need re-evaluate our understanding of the gospel as a system of salvation, rather than a royal proclamation of Jesus’ Lordship and reign. This has implications for evangelism, and how we present this gospel to others. This understanding of the gospel would fly in the face of “Romans Road” type presentations which reduce the gospel into a series of points to be followed and assented to. As Christians, we are royal heralds of Jesus Christ, and its our responsibility to represent Him as He truly is, the King and Lord of all the earth by virtue of His resurrection from the dead.
Second, The gospel is rooted and grounded in the fact of Jesus’ resurrection. In Pauline theology, the resurrection is the basis of Jesus’ Lordship over the whole world. A post enlightenment liberalism rejects the idea of Christ’s resurrection, not only because it dislikes the idea of the miraculous, but because the resurrection is God’s declaration that Jesus Himself is Lord over all. This runs right against the grain of modernity’s quest for self autonomy and power. The resurrection declares that Jesus is the Lord over the whole world, not only of a spiritual realm. This fact maddens and frustrates the typical modern entrenched in his own quest for power and autonomy.
Third, the gospel has immediate relevance to the whole of life, not just to a spiritual sphere. There is no square inch of space that is not claimed by God in Christ. Wright asks the question, “what does that mean politically?”
Fourth, since the gospel is a message primarily concerned with God, and His declaration that Jesus is Messiah and Lord, our preaching must be centered around this concept. In other words, instead of appealing to the “felt needs” of sinful human beings, our preaching must be radically God centered in orientation. A new perspective on Paul’s doctrine of justification would also change the way we understand evangelism. Instead of understanding faith in terms of the Reformation categories of imputation, a new perspective would enable us to understand faith as radically ecclesiological. Faith is directed towards God’s action in Jesus, and a sign of our membership into the covenant. Justification is the declaration by God that we are indeed members of this covenant family. Effectual calling is what “gets us in” per se, not justification. Effectual calling is primarily soteriological in nature. Justification is not, regardless of its close connection to soteriology.
Fifth, the gospel is about God’s plan for God’s people. One thing which I appreciate about N.T. Wright is his strong emphasis upon the church as the new and redeemed Israel of God united around Christ, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophetic expectation. He asserts that there is an irreducable “Israel-ness” to the gospel which we ignore to our own peril. The gospel message declares that the eschatalogical expectation of the nation of Israel is fulfilled and summed up in Christ and His people. For far too long, the church has suffered because of its low view of ecclesiology, especially in this realm. You see this most clearly in dispensational circles where the doctrine of ecclesiology is essentially unbiblical and the exact antithesis of Paul’s teaching regarding the church.
Sixth, the question of God’s justice addresses the problem of evil which is reemerging in our world as a question of serious discourse.
Seventh, for Paul it is axiomatic that world history came to its climax in Jesus. Jesus’ death and resurrection is the one point at which all history turns. I found it interesting that Wright describes the Enlightment understanding of the world and progress as essentially a “rival eschatology” which dismisses this Christian claim. For enlightenment thinkers, the enlightenment was the period in time at which history turned for the better. Hence the name, “enlightenment” as opposed to, “the dark ages.” Wright asserts that, “if we live in a world which embraces this rival eschatology, we must speak of Jesus as the one who was sent to do what Israel and the world couldn’t do for themselves.” Definitely food for thought.
Eighth, Paul’s teaching in the book of Romans enables us to confront the errors of both modernism and postmodernism. Wright says that post-modernity has rightly taught us to distrust the claims of enlightenment modernity. Yet postmodernity is inherently suspicious, and suspicion and questioning alone will never sustain itself. It only gives rise to a philosophy which, “eats its own tail” until there is nothing left. Paul teaches us that God has provided an answer in Jesus Christ and in His messianic work. Distrust is good to an extent. Yet distrust, suspicion, and questioning cannot be ultimate. Distrust, suspicion, and questioning imply the existence of reality, truth, and answers. Jesus is the embodiment of this truth, and the one to whom we must look after we’ve been rightly dissatisfied with everything else.
Ninth and lastly, justification by faith occurs within this overarching setting. Wright asserts that justification is, “not at all about how a person is saved.” For centuries we’ve imagined we are hearing Paul when in fact, we are hearing “other voices.” These other cultural influences include the Enlightenment which elevated reason over against the contingent truths of history. This could give rise to a world view which understands salvation as something completely divorced from history itself, and the reailty of the New Israel called out in time and space. Again, Wright emphasizes the need for an understanding of the gospel as a force which powerfully works within history, to the detriment of Caesar and all other earthly powers.
Another cultural influence which has influenced our understanding of salvation is Romanticism. For the Romantics, what really matters is what “happens in the heart.” Feeling, experience, imagination, etc. This influence has sometimes led us to overemphasize the subjective. For Wright, this might include understanding justification as a means through which one finds favor with God. The last cultural influence Wright mentions is existentialism which teaches that what truly matters is simply your decision of what you want to be. Essence precedes existence. In a word, evangelicals have bought into an individual soteriological amalgamation of these three influences.
In closing, I’d like to reemphasize the fact that I’m not agreeing with everything Wright teaches. I’m simply an objective spectator whose desire is nothing more than to rightly understand the NPP, and its staunchest advocates. N.T. Wright has a lot of good things to say. He’s a scholar of the first rank, and is genuinely convinced that a new perspective on Paul and [in this lecture], a new perspective on Romans, is needed in our day. I look forward to studying these things more, and chronicling my journey through Wright’s teachings. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
“If the Reformed faith parts ways with Roman Catholicism over the little word “alone” (grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone), it parts company with premillennial-dispensationalism over the word “one.” That little word, all by itself, is the difference between Reformed amillennialism and the premillennial-dispensational teaching that is at odds with Reformed amillennialism. The Reformed amillennialist teaches one people of God in both the Old and New Testaments, one coming of Jesus Christ, one resurrection, one final judgment.
Both the Heidelberg Catechism, Question and Answer 52, and Article 37 of the Belgic Confession speak of the (in the singular) final judgment. There is no mention anywhere in these creeds of another judgment than this judgment. In the same places, these creeds speak of the coming of Christ, not of comings of Christ. And absolutely no notion of a secret rapture.
Consistently the creeds identify the church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament. They are fundamentally one.
It will suffice to refer in this connection to the Heidelberg Catechism. According to Question and Answer 19 of the Catechism, the same gospel that is preached in the Reformed church today was the gospel first revealed by God in Paradise, afterwards published by the patriarchs and prophets, and represented by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the Old Testament law. Question and Answer 31 make Christ our King, that is, the King of New Testament believers. According to Question and Answer 54, the church, the one church, is gathered by the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world. Question and Answer 74 deal with infant baptism. In the 74th Answer there is identification made between the old and the new covenant. Essentially there is one covenant of God, so that baptism replaces circumcision. And Question and Answer 123 identify the church and the kingdom of God.
Article 25 of the Belgic Confession is a very decisive article in repudiating premillennial-dispensationalism. The article is entitled, ‘Of the abolishing of the Ceremonial Law.’ With regard to the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Old Testament, it is the teaching of the article that the use of them must be abolished amongst Christians. That is significant! The creedal Reformed position is that the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Old Testament have been abolished, abolished once and for all, abolished forever. They have not been temporarily set aside in order after the present hiatus to be restored in some future millennial kingdom, as is the teaching of premillennial-dispensationalism. They have been abolished!
Amillennialism is the creedal Reformed position. To embrace the Reformed confessions is to embrace amillennial eschatology. To reject amillennialism, whether for postmillennialism or premillennial-dispensationalism, is necessarily to reject the Reformed creeds.
But the Reformed creeds, in this critical matter of the doctrine of the last things and the return of Christ, are biblical.”
I read a short narrative concerning the life and death of Ulrich Zwingli, and found it both encouraging and inspiring. Here’s a prime example of the grace of God at work in the life of one of His sheep. Like Zwingli, may we all with confidence defend those precious truths of our faith and shake our heads in the midst of apostasy, refusing to embrace that which is offensive to God. I hope you enjoy…
“…Before long the Swiss brethren formed a new religious organization which they called the Reformed Church, in distinction from what came to be called the Lutheran Church. Reformation now made rapid progress. Switzerland is a country divided into cantons and many of these accepted the new doctrine; others, however, remained strictly Catholic, and even formed a league with Catholic Austria to suppress the Reformation. This made the enemies of Zwingli overbearing, and political troubles were added to doctrinal disputes. Protestants were persecuted, and some were murdered. Four cantons took up arms, and it appeared probable that the Reformation would gain a military victory, but before the decisive battle was fought a compromise was arranged. The league with Austria was nullified and the Catholics promised toleration to the Protestants who lived in the Catholic cantons. When the Catholics did not give effect to their promise but continued the old policy of persecution, another civil war broke out, and soon an army of 8000 Catholics invaded the canton of Zurich. The Zwinglians at once raised a small army of 2700, the reformer himself joining the forces, not as a combatant but as a chaplain. In 1531 a battle was fought at Kappel in deadly earnest and with great bitterness. Zwingli cared for the wounded and the dying, many of his own relations being among them, including his brother in law, stepson, and son in law. With hardly an exception, prominent Zurich families had to mourn their dead. About 500 were slain. Zwingli was among the slain. Wounded in the legs by a spear, and his helmet battered by a stone, he had fallen down. One of the enemy, acting in a kindly fashion, offered to call a Catholic priest to hear his dying confession. Unable to speak, Zwingli shook his head. ‘Then pray to the Mother of God, and call upon the saints, that God in his grace may accept you,’ said the foe. Again Zwingli shook his head, an action marking him as a Protestant. More of the enemy then arrived and one of them, reviling Zwingli for holding the Reformed faith, struck him with his sword and killed him. His body was next quartered by a hangman who was brought, and according to the law of the Empire, its various parts were mixed with dung and burned, his ashes being scattered to the winds. ” (Sketches from Church History, SM Houghton)
It’s been a while since I’ve last written, and I’m eager to start writing again. I’m picking up where I last left off on Christian Baptism, and in this post I’d like to examine chapter 2 of John Murray’s book Christian Baptism, which deals specifically with the mode of baptism. You’ve probably heard it before. I know I have. The reason why baptist’s place so much of an emphasis on immersion as the only legitimate mode of baptism is because the Greek word from which the English word baptism derives itself (baptizo), means to immerse! A book I’m reading for my baptist distinctives class goes so far as to say that the none of the translators of the English Bible have ever translated the word baptizo correctly. Instead of using the word immerse when baptizo is used, they’ve opted for the word baptize, and in doing so, have missed the original intent of the word . Is this true? Does this dogmatic claim have any hint of legitimacy? Or is this claim merely an incorrect supposition made by theologians who are willfully ignorant of the Biblical data ? According to John Murray, the Baptist claim that baptizo means only to immerse is both incorrect and ignorant of the Biblical facts. I should point out that Murray is not arguing that baptizo cannot refer to immersion. Murray’s thesis is that baptizo and its cognates are not stringently limited to one specific mode, process, or action. Murray is arguing that baptizo is a word with a broad range of meaning and can refer to a variety of modes or processes, all dependent upon the context of each individual verse. On the other hand, Murray is also arguing that baptizo does not mean to immerse, and that the typical Baptist position on this issue is fundamentally flawed.
Murray begins his chapter by analyzing the Septuigant. He states that baptizo occurs very infrequently and that instead, the word bapto is employed more frequently. Murray admits that in a number of passages, bapto is used to denote the process of immersion. This is seen in Lev. 11:32 where the specific articles being discussed are immersed into water. Yet the question we must face at the outset is, “Does the Greek word bapto, specifically mean to immerse?” Murray replies with a robust negative, asserting that the Greek word indeed can refer to immersion, but most commonly is used to denote “dipping”, which is very different than immersion. “The question is whether Bapto necessarily refers to immersion and that it therefore means to immerse. It can be readily shown that Bapto does not mean to immerse.” (paraphrase) The first test of his hypothesis is found in Lev. 14:6, 51, where the ritual prescribed for the cleansing of a leper and the house which has been contaminated by the leprosy, is described in detail. Murray states that, “the priest was to take the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop and the living bird and dip them in the blood of the bird that was slain. It is obvious that a living bird cannot be immersed in the blood of another bird. It may be dipped in such blood but such a dipping could not be immersion.” The significance of this passage lies in the fact that the word bapto is specifically used to denote an action which cannot and does not refer to immersion. It’s also worth noticing that when the bird is described as being dipped into the blood, the Greek rendering literally states that the bird was to be baptized into (bapto eis) the blood of the slain bird. Here is an instance where bapto is used to denote an action which is entirely different from that of immersion. The second biblical text which Murray analyzes is Lev. 14:16, where the priest is commanded to, “dip his right finger in the oil that [is] in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD.” Obviously, the word for dip is bapto, and although Murray states that this passage isn’t as conclusive as the previous one, it still lends support to the fact that bapto can be used in a sense which does not mean, “to immerse.” Concerning this passage, Murray states that, “it may be possible to pour into the cupped left hand enough oil so that the right finger may be immersed in this oil. But it is not an easy performance. The passage concerned does not indicate any such requirement. All that is prescribed is dipping of the right finger in the oil which is in the palm of the left hand, and it is quite unreasonable to suppose that immersion of that right finger in the oil was all that was requisite for the sprinkling which followed, and dipping without the necessity of immersion is rather plainly indicated to be the action in view.” Is it even possible for someone to maintain enough oil in their palm for the purpose of immersing their finger in it? Maybe, but highly unlikely. A natural reading of the text seems to imply that the priest merely dipped his finger in the oil. The third passage which Murray cites is Ruth 2:14 in which Boaz says to Ruth, “Dip they morsel in they vinegar.” Murray’s conclusion is that this passage could, quite possibly, refer to immersion. Yet like the last passage, the natural reading of the text seems to imply an entirely different action. “It would be quite unreasonable to insist that the custom to which Boaz referred was to immerse one’s morsel in the vinegar. On the other hand the idea of dipping something in vinegar is reasonable and natural. No doubt that was what Boaz had in mind.” The fourth passage Murray cites is found in Daniel 4:30 where the word bapto is used in connection with Nebuchadnezzar whose body was bathed with the dew of heaven. Murray states that this passage could mean a variety of things. It’s possible that Nebuchadnezzar’s body was dipped in the dew of heaven, or that his body was drenched or bathed with the dew of heaven. “On the other hand, the meaning may be as weak as that his body was simply moist or wet with the dew of heaven. In any case the thought cannot be adjusted to the notion that his body was immersed in the dew of heaven.” According to Murray, this would require an arbitrary and un-natural reading of the Biblical text.
Murray’s analysis is not meant to be a comprehensive survey of every single passage in which bapto or baptizo is used in the Greek Septuigant. Instead, Murray only desires to show that the word bapto, which is closely associated with the word baptizo, can denote a number of different modes or actions. In some cases, immersion is the intended meaning. Yet in many cases, the word bapto cannot and does not denote the process of immersion. To insist that bapto means immersion, is to insist upon an arbitrary, random, and unnatural reading of the Biblical data.
In my next post, I’ll cover Murray’s analysis of the New Testament testimony regarding the mode of baptism. There are a number of passages which plainly reveal that the word baptizo, from which the English word baptism is derived, carries an entirely different meaning than that of immersion. This is important because some Christians have become so entrenched in their presuppositions regarding this issue, making it difficult or nearly impossible for them to examine the Biblical evidence with an unbiased mind. I’ve carried a number of assumptions about baptism around most of my Christian life, and am just now being confronted with the Biblical testimony regarding this issue. The Scriptures must conquer all of our erroneous assumptions, even if that means abandoning cherished positions which we’ve contented ourselves with our entire lives. May God be glorified in our studying, thinking, and living.
Soli Deo Gloria
Jordan
