COVENANT SIGNS
Matthew 28:18-20. Just prior to his ascension, the resurrected Christ
commissioned his disciples to make disciples by baptizing them into the one name of the three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching these new disciples to obey all that he commanded.
26Jesus grounds his command in his reception of “all authority in heaven and on earth,” which he received from God the Father by virtue of his
resurrection from the dead on behalf of sinners (Rom 1:4).
27Jesus’ authority as the divine-human Messianic king entails that those who would enter his kingdom must become his disciples by baptism.
28Because baptism is the instrumental, outward, and
26 Make disciples is the command. Baptizing and teaching are subordinate participles to the command. See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 1992), 431–32. See also Köstenberger, “Baptism in the Gospels,” 22–24.
27 Similar to Dan 7:14, Matthew portrays Jesus as the “exalted eschatological ruler of the world’s kingdoms.” Köstenberger, “Baptism in the Gospels,” 22.
28 Although Doriani acknowledges that Jesus is referring to the conversion of adults in Matt 28:18-20, he still maintains that “baptism is a valuable means of discipling children.” Daniel Doriani,
“Matthew 28:18-20: And the Institution of Baptism,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed.
Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003), 41–42. Children, for Doriani, include infants who are not personally capable of submitting to and trusting in Christ as Savior and King. Strawbridge argues similarly from the grounds that children are included in the kingdom by virtue of their belonging to believing parents from Jesus’ statement that “to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:14). See Gregg Strawbridge, “The Polemics of Anabaptism from the Reformation Onward,” in Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, 284. So also Tim Gallant, “The Kingdom of God and Children,” in The Case for Covenant Communion, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2006), 42–43.
Paedobaptist Bryan Chappell finds unconvincing the argument for infant baptism based upon the love of Christ for children. Bryan Chappell, “A Pastoral View of Infant Baptism,” in Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, 27. Köstenberger makes four responses to this line of argument: (1) Jesus’
commission calls for personal responses of repentance and faith rather than reliance on the faith of another for baptism; (2) regeneration occurs in connection with repentance and faith in Scripture and should not be
165
public means by which one becomes a disciple, Jesus’ commission serves to officially institute baptism as the sign of entering his kingdom (saving rule) and joining his people (realm/sphere).
29Being baptized is a mark of becoming a disciple.
30As Beasley-Murray explains, baptism “into the Name” of the triune God entails setting a person in a new relation to God and demonstrates a new identity.
31Indeed, disciples must baptize new disciples until Christ returns (28:20), or else find themselves explicitly disobeying Christ.
Given the covenantal location of Jesus’ commission, baptism should also be understood as the sign of entry into the new covenant. Two cross-references within Matthew make this point clear. First, Jesus’ mention of the “blood of the (new) covenant”
at the Last Supper (1) signals the arrival of Jeremiah’s new covenant (26:28; cf. Jer 31:31-34) and (2) recalls the covenant ratifying shedding of blood in Exodus 24:8. The
assumed to occur in infants; (3) because baptism is a means of becoming a disciple of Jesus in Matt 28:18- 20, viewing baptism as a means of discipling children toward faith in Jesus runs counter to Jesus’ order and design of discipleship; and (4) while it is “true that nothing in Matthew excludes children from discipleship and baptism,” one must distinguish between children capable of understanding and believing the gospel and infants who are not, for “there is equally nothing in Matthew that suggests that infants ought to be baptized or are capable of conversion.” Köstenberger, “Baptism in the Gospels,” 24–25. Köstenberger also cites Carson. See Carson’s argument that Matthew is stressing child-like faith, not that children (of believers) are already apart of the kingdom by virtue of their parentage. D. A. Carson, Matthew, in vol. 8 of The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 420.
29 The statement that Jesus is given “all” authority “pertains to his mission, to be carried out through the disciples as his emissaries, on the basis of his word.” In this sense, by virtue of his cross-work, Jesus is reconstituting image bearers to extend his saving rule to the whole earth (Gen 1:28). Köstenberger,
“Baptism in the Gospels,” 22. For a helpful comparison of definitions of kingdom that includes the notion of saving reign and sphere, see Patrick Schreiner, The Kingdom of God and the Glory of the Cross, Short Studies in Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 18–23.
30 Beasley-Murray argues, “Disciples are made by means of baptism,” and the baptism is understood as being by faith in Jesus. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 89. So also Köstenberger, “Baptism in the Gospels,” 33.
31 Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 90–91. Significantly, while the convert confesses the name of the triune God in submitting to baptism, the Lord instructs his disciples to call that new convert by his own name as the existing disciple baptizes a new disciple. To state it differently, both divine and human action converge in baptism as the new convert, by divine grace, submits to baptism and as the existing disciple, by divine grace and authority, visibly gives the new disciple a new name and identity. Allison summarizes, “The pronouncement effects the association. Just as a pastor or justice of the peace communicates 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' to a man and a woman at a wedding ceremony and effects their marriage, so also the one baptizing pronounces the baptismal formula and effects the association of the new Christian with the triune God.”Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 354n144. Craig Keener helpfully suggests that the common formula of baptism “in Jesus’ name” in Acts is not intended to deny Matthew’s Trinitarian formula. Rather, “both function to identify baptism for
followers of Jesus as distinct from other kinds of baptism.” Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1-2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 1:983.
166
fact that Jesus claims his blood “is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins”
provides a second allusion to Jeremiah’s prophecy of forgiveness for every participant in the new covenant (31:34). Thus, when Jesus commands his disciples to make more disciples by baptizing them, the command comes after the cross and resurrection event, through which Jesus inaugurated the new covenant. Because this baptism begins when the new covenant begins, it is rightly called the sign of new covenant entry.
32Second, the command to baptize disciples recalls John the Baptist’s baptism for repentance and confession in light of the coming Messiah (Matt 3:6-11). Jesus’ inauguration of the new covenant and the association of baptism with cleansing from sin suggests that the baptism Jesus commands in Matthew 28 functions to initiate disciples into the new covenant, where, upon the merits of Christ’s work, they receive forgiveness of sins. In sum, baptism in Matthew is the sign of entry to the inaugurated kingdom and the new covenant.
The temporal sequence of events in the commission—making disciples, baptizing, and teaching—requires some hermeneutical care. That the requirement to proclaim the gospel is implicit in the commission is best attested by considering the way the apostolic church carried out the commission. Peter preached the identity and work of Jesus as the Messiah before calling for repentance and baptism, which was followed by church fellowship around the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:36-47). This explanation requires that the order of the participles following the command—baptizing then teaching—
should not be taken to mean that no teaching is allowed prior to baptism.
33Teaching about the good news, the meaning of baptism, and some expectations of what follows in discipleship appear to be a normal part of becoming a disciple.
34When the order of the
32 Bobby Jamieson, Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2015), 61.
33 So Ray Van Neste, “The Lord’s Supper in the Context of the Local Church,” in The Lord’s Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ until He Comes, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Matthew Crawford, NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, vol. 10 (Nashville: B & H, 2010), 382.
34 Consider the Ethiopian eunuch’s request “What prevents me from being baptized?” after
167
participles in Matthew 28:19-20 is combined with the practice of the early church, the notion that one might profess to follow Christ and experience church teaching and fellowship for a lengthy period of time without being baptized appears irregular and possibly sinful. “The New Testament does not present anyone as a disciple who is unbaptized.”
35Baptism in Acts
The narratives of the book of Acts consistently present baptism as the
expectation and/or reality for all who follow Christ; it is an assumed part of conversion.
Additionally, the examples of Acts reveal that baptism is the sign of entry into the new covenant and inaugurated kingdom. This section demonstrates both themes.
The assumption that all believers are baptized runs throughout Acts. In Acts 2:38, Peter commands those who would receive forgiveness of sins and the promised Holy Spirit to “repent and be baptized.”
36Luke presents repentance, faith, and baptism as
Philip explained the gospel to him (Acts 8:35-36). The text implies that Philip explained something of the meaning and purpose of baptism as he “told him the good news about Jesus” (v. 35).
35 Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 88. The interpretation given above tacitly admits that the order of the participles in Christ’s commission is not sufficient on its own to serve as a scriptural basis for close communion. See Van Neste, “The Lord’s Supper in the Context of the Local Church,” 382.
36 Stein argues convincingly that in the statement “repent and be baptized for (eis) the forgiveness of your sins,” eis is best understood as purposive. His two most helpful comparative examples are (1) “Repent therefore and turn back, that (eis) your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19) and (2) “my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for (eis) the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). For those concerned that this interpretation leads to baptismal regeneration, he adds, “The desire to refute a mechanistic understanding of baptism that leads to the error of baptismal regeneration need not cause us to divide and separate in time and intent these two components of the conversion experience that are
intimately associated by and the NT.” Robert H. Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts,” in Schreiner and Wright, Believer’s Baptism, 49–50. Stein provides thorough and careful exegesis to demonstrate that Luke presents baptism as one of the means of receiving multiple blessings of salvation (36-57), including (1) forgiveness of sins (22:16); reception of the Holy Spirit (9:17-18); and regeneration (11:15-17; 19:3-6). Stein does not endanger justification by faith by these observations, for he also demonstrates that Luke continually associates baptism with belief/faith (8:12-13; 10:43-48) and repentance (11:18). Thus, Luke presents baptism as part of the total conversion process, to the extent that “all these are interrelated and integral components in the experience of conversion in becoming a Christian, and all take place in Acts on the same day” (with the exception of Acts 8:4-24). For a similar, classic account of the same material, see Robert H.
Stein, “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (1998): 6–8. Similarly, see Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 102–22.
168
God’s means of internal and external appropriation of Christ’s saving work.
37Acts 2:41 claims that all who received Peter’s message were baptized.
38While it was the
responsibility of those who repented and believed to submit to baptism, it was the responsibility of the disciples to baptize.
39Acts 8:12-13 continues the pattern as the
37 Faith is included in this list because Luke identifies the group who responded positively as
“all who believed” in v. 44. Allison writes, “The efficient cause, or the only ground, of salvation, is God’s gracious, redemptive work in Jesus Christ; his death and resurrection accomplished salvation for sinful human beings. The instrumental cause, or the means, of salvation, is (according to this verse) repentance and baptism; turning from sin and expressing this act by submitting to baptism is the way of appropriating the salvation accomplished . . . by Jesus Christ. Accordingly, the immersion of a repentant woman in water does not save her; it is not and cannot be necessary as the grounds of her salvation. Rather, ‘repentance baptism’ is the means by which she embraces the forgiveness of sins that Christ has provided for her.”
Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 359. For “repentance baptism,” Allison cites Stein, “Baptism in Luke- Acts,” 49–50. Hammett, following Demarest, argues that “we interpret the baptism in Acts 2:38 as being for the forgiveness of sins only as it is the outward act reflecting the penitent heart.” See Hammett, Forty Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 127. The term “appropriation” above is intended to express this notion of an external reflective act that expresses faith from the heart. Hammett cites Bruce A.
Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, ed. John Feinberg, Foundations of
Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 296. Caneday explains that Baptists sometimes take issue with the exegetical connection between baptism and forgiveness in Acts 2:38 because they
misunderstand the distinction between an instrumental cause and efficient cause of salvation. Baptism in Acts 2:38 is neither an effectual cause (as in baptismal regeneration) nor an action separated from the reception of salvation. Repentance and baptism are distinguishable in the verse but not separable. Caneday,
“Baptism in the Stone-Cambell Restoration Movement,” 312-13.
38 Schnabel explains the plausibility of preaching to such a large crowd without amplification and baptizing them all in the same day. On the mass immersions, he claims, “The immersion of 3,000 Jews in the large public immersion pools of Jerusalem would not have been unique. Thousands of festival pilgrims who were in the city for Pentecost would all have immersed themselves before entering the gates of the temple complex in the Pool of Siloam or in the Pool of Bethesda.” Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 167–68. Keener adds to the case, claiming, “Even if only the apostles and a few of their colleagues, a total of perhaps thirty,
‘performed’ the baptisms . . . they could finish their task in a few hours.” Keener, Acts, 1:994–95.
39 Baptism in Acts 2 is given by the apostles because, “They take it as we must that the candidate is not either a liar or hypocrite and that the action is performed not for the automatic fulfillment of the predestined purpose, but as a meeting point for a penitent sinner and the merciful redeemer. If baptism is to be an instrument of surrender by one conquered by the love of Christ, it is equally the gracious welcome of the sinner by the Lord who has sought and found him.” Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 102. Keener claims that Luke does not present Matthew’s baptismal formula “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as a “phrase [to be] uttered by a supervisor over one receiving baptism.” He grounds this argument in the passive use of the verb baptizo (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:12, 16; 10:48;
19:5). And, he claims “this indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving . . . baptism.” In other words, the baptizand’s confession of the name of Christ fulfills the intention of Matthew’s baptismal formula apart from any statement of “I baptize you in the name of Jesus.” Keener goes on to speculate that early Christian baptisms were probably “self-dunkings.” Keener, Acts, 1:983–84. I do not follow Keener’s logic for two reasons. First, he claims that early Christian baptisms would have
“evoked” John’s baptism and simultaneously maintains that the baptism administrator is unimportant. The irony of this argument is that John’s baptism, when seen as a redemptive historical precedent for Christian baptism, gets its name and association from John who did the baptizing! This observation does not entail that other apostles were so known (but see 1 Cor 1:13-15). Yet, if Christian baptism evokes John’s baptism, the association suggests a level of functional importance for the ones doing the baptizing in the early churches. Second, the passive use of baptizo may refer to the baptizand’s being acted upon in baptism by a human baptizer. The passive voice, without further contextual evidence in the biblical text, is insufficient to ground either the lack of the administrator’s use of the Matthean formula or the practice of self-baptism.
169
Samaritans and Simon the magician are baptized “when they believe” Philip’s gospel message.
40This is an unusual case given that the apostles had to pray and lay hands on the Samaritans before they received the Holy Spirit (vv. 15-16).
41Other examples of baptism occurring with or following belief abound: the Ethiopian eunuch (v. 36);
42Saul/Paul (9:18; cf. 22:16);
43Cornelius’ household (10:47-48; cf. 11:15-18; 15:7-11);
4440 Luke presents the Samaritans’ and Simon’s belief and baptism as genuine conversions.
However, Peter’s subsequent rebuke of Simon (8:22-23), upon the latter’s attempt to purchase the power to dispense the Holy Spirit suggests the possibility that Simon was not actually converted when he was baptized. Scholars are divided over how conclusive one can be regarding Simon’s spiritual state.
Nevertheless, if Simon was baptized upon his profession of faith as a supposed believer when in fact he was not converted, this narrative illustrates the fallibility of human judgment regarding the genuineness of one’s profession. See Schnabel, Acts, 415; John B. Polhill, Acts, New American Commentary, vol. 26 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 220.
41 Allison notes the way Luke himself portrays the delay in the Samaritan’s reception of the Holy Spirit as unusual in 8:16 (“for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”). Gregg R. Allison, “Baptism with and Filling of the Holy Spirit,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16 (2012): 12. The best explanation of the delay in the reception of the Holy Spirit is the transitional nature of the movement of the gospel message to non-Jews. Whereas baptism and reception of the Spirit normally belong together in Acts (cf. 2:38; 10:44-48), the conversion of Samaritans needed apostolic affirmation, in order for the Jewish Christians to see it as legitimate. More significant is the “divine approval” evident in the sending of the Spirit to the Samaritans, given to the early missionary movement by the Lord. See Polhill, Acts, 217–19; Schnabel, Acts, 410–11.
42 The eunuch’s faith in Jesus is assumed in his request for baptism. The eunuch's faith is confirmed “by the narrative's emphasis on the eunuch's 'rejoicing,' which is a Lucan hint of salvation (e.g., Luke 19:1-10, esp. v. 6; Acts 8:4-25, esp. v. 8).” Thanks to Gregg Allison for this observation. Schnabel explains, “Philip’s explanation of the good news of Jesus included instruction about repentance and faith in Jesus as Messiah and Savior, expressed in immersion in water" in the name of Jesus the Messiah (Acts 2:38). The official’s request to be baptized implies that he wants to express his faith in Jesus and become a follower of Jesus.” Schnabel, Acts, 428. So also Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 122. Both Keener and Parsons note that although a God-fearing Gentile, the eunuch was biologically incapable of becoming a Jew. However, through baptism, he was initiated into the company that followed the promised Jewish Messiah. By using the plural verb (descend) in 8:38, Luke emphatically affirms Philip’s presence in the water with the eunuch as the administrator. The text indicates immersion as the mode of baptism here, by referring to “much water,” “they both went down into the water,” “he baptized him,” and “they came up out of the water.” Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary:
3:1-14:28 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013) 2:595. On Philip as administrator and immersion as the mode, see also C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,
International Critical Commentary 34 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 2:434.
43 In Saul’s case, he does not appear to have been converted to Jesus initially, upon receiving the revelation of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Rather, Saul was likely converted after hearing Ananias explain what happened to Saul and God’s purpose that Saul be filled with the Spirit (9:17-18). This timing is appropriate because it locates Saul’s conversion alongside Saul’s filling with the Spirit, physical removal of scales from Saul’s eyes (symbolizing the removal of spiritual blindness (cf. Luke 19:35-43; 9:45; 24:11), and baptism. On the timing of Saul’s conversion, see Allison, “Baptism with and Filling of the Holy Spirit,” 13. Saul’s baptism is clearly a baptism pursued by faith in Jesus, because Paul was baptized
“calling on his name.” Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts,” 44. Keener draws more from Saul’s initial (passive) reactions to the revelation of Christ than does Allison. Keener, Acts, 2:662–63.
44 In Cornelius’ case, belief is assumed based on three factors: (1) Peter preaches that all who believe receive forgiveness of sins (10:43); (2) Peter explains the need to baptize the household based on the whole household’s receiving of the Holy Spirit (11:15; cf. 10:45-46) and belief in Jesus akin to the