Church Fathers and Baptism

The available literature shows us that by the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century, only about forty years after the deaths of Paul and Peter, water baptism was deemed absolutely essential for eternal salvation, for the washing away of sins, and later, for the actual bestowal of the Holy Spirit. It was not considered either an ordinance or merely a sign of salvation.

Such being the case, should followers of Messiah simply accept the ideas of the Church Fathers uncritically? Some modern Christian expositors argue that they were "closer" to the sources of the faith and thus may reflect a more authentic expression of faith. But we should not forget that humans are frail and prone to error no matter how "close" they may have been. Judas Iscariot was as close to the true Source as anyone could get, yet no disciple of Messiah believes he is an example to emulate. Modern Protestants denominations have their origins in the sixteenth century specifically because of the belief that the mainstream "Church" was lost in significant error. Even the Catholic Church will admit it has erred at times–not long ago regarding Catholic anti-Semitism through the long ages. All this means we are not bound to anything the Church Fathers say simply because they are "closer" to the sources that we are. We must examine their beliefs in light of the canon of Scripture.  This chapter will show that error crept in among followers of Messiah swiftly regarding baptism.

The decades which followed the passing of the original Jewish apostles were a time of great tumult for Israel and the emerging gentile dominated Church. Of that time period Dan Juster writes in his booklet, Jewishness & Jesus, on pages 10-11, “Soon gentile followers of Yeshua outnumbered Jewish followers. However, the leadership of living disciples kept the movement in accord with the basic decision of Acts 15. Unfortunately this understanding was soon lost. The period from 60-90 C.E. has been designated by one scholar as the tunnel period of biblical history (S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church). When the dust of war and tragedy settled, the situation had drastically changed.”

Juster would have us know that the original Jewish following of Yeshua which proclaimed God’s open the door to the nations in Acts 15 was soon swallowed up by the much larger non-Jewish following, with an accompanying radical change in attitude against the original Jewishness of the message of Yeshua. We might certainly expect this change in attitude to have an impact on all aspects of the faith, including the understanding of baptism. Things which were understood in a particular way by the original Jewish disciples and authors of New Covenant Scripture were understood in a different way by non-Jewish followers a few decades later. For confirmation one only has to look at the modern Christian world to see the variety of conflicting interpretation of the original Jewish documents of the New Covenant.

In this light it would be easy to believe the end-time Messianic Jewish baptism of repentance for Israel was still being practiced by the multitudes of loyal Jews who came to see Yeshua as the long awaited Messiah of Israel. It is now estimated that about one-tenth of the seventy million in the Roman Empire was Jewish, and this does not include the large population of Jews in the east, outside the Roman rule. Certainly a significant number of these millions of Jews became disciples of Yeshua the Messiah. One estimate is as high as one million Jewish believers. But as the message of the Good News spread to more and more nations which were farther and farther from Israel, some things were not clearly understood. The example of Apollos in Acts 18 clearly shows that successful teachers might not present everything correctly, and Apollos preached his incomplete message with zeal. How many others preached a less than perfect message is impossible to know, but there are continuous warnings in the New Covenant about faulty teachings.

What follows is a brief review of the earliest non-canonical writings by those claiming allegiance to Messiah, I & II Clement, Epistle of Ignatius, Didache, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, works which make reference to baptism. Barnabas has a chapter on the topic while Hermas contains a short dialogue on it, Tertullian wrote an entire treatise. Eusebius (264-340 C.E.), a later historian of the Church classified some of the earlier writings known to him as follows,

1.      The universally accepted books.

2.      Disputed book; James, II Peter, Jude, II & III John.

3.      SPURIOUS BOOKS; Acts of Paul, SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, Apocalypse of Peter, BARNABAS, DIDACHE, and the Gospel to the Hebrews.

4.      Forgeries of the heretics; Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias, etc.

Other early commentators are generally in agreement. The spurious books were understood not to have the authority of the universally accepted books but they were read for whatever benefit they might produce, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, and Didache would have some influence on the second century disciples and would reflect ideas in vogue before the time of composition. The dates are estimated as;

1.      Didache; 80-120 C.E. or later.

2.      Shepherd of Hermas; 100 or 140 C.E.

3.      Barnabas; 90-120 C.E.

DIDACHE

FASTING AND BAPTISM

The Didache is supposed to be the teaching of the Twelve Apostles and appears to be one of the pseudepigrapha of early centuries of the era. It definitely enjoins water baptism with a formula reminiscent of Matthew 28:19 though certain factors in its teaching of baptism separate it from what was taught in New Covenant Scriptures.

“But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers.

Apparently of Jewish background, we see similarities in the desire to use living waters, just as the Rabbinic Sages prescribed for ritual purification. We also see the continuous expansion of the “fence” from what is thought to be the best baptism to what is merely acceptable. Pouring is acceptable as a form of Jewish purification baptism.

“Now therefore, why do you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor ourselves were able to bear. But through the grace of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah we exert faith⁸ to be saved in the same manner as (the gentiles) also.” (rendered from the Greek)

Observance of rituals could not please God. Peter knew the gentiles had been fully included in New Covenant salvation purely on the basis of faith in Messiah. Peter mentions nothing about water baptism, neither about fasting. There is no indication that anyone was ordered to fast before they were baptized with water, although after Paul was struck blind by Messiah he voluntarily fasted for three days, but with no command to do so. Since the author of Didache was convinced fasting was a requirement prior to baptism there is no reason to trust his beliefs about baptism. The work reflects what some people believed after the time of the original apostles. But as mentioned in Scripture, erroneous teachings circulated even during their lifetimes according to 2 Peter 3:16. If Didache is that early, then it may have been written by those who called themselves apostles but who had never been sent by Messiah, 2 Corinthians 11:13, Revelation 2:2.

“But as for that circumcision in which [the Jewish people] have confidence, it is abolished; for He spoke of a circumcision not being of flesh.”

Writers of the New Covenant clearly showed that circumcision of the flesh could not save nor guarantee a relationship with God. However it was never said to be abolished, even as marriage between males and females was not abolished. Paul admonished Corinthian Jews to abide in their Jewish calling. Thus Barnabas has made an extremely serious error in this assertion.

In ch. 10 (section 11 in others) the author explains things about the water of baptism and the cross. Various passages from the Hebrew Scriptures are used to support his view of the requirement of water baptism for salvation, again attacking Israel, who would not receive the water of baptism which brings the remission of sins, but would build their own. The initial baptism to Israel which brought remission of sins was John’s baptism to Israel. So if Barnabas said Israel rejected it he apparently is saying that disciples of Messiah have received it and practice it to achieve remission of sins. It is true the original apostles did believe this for some time, but eventually, in the house of Cornelius, their minds were changed. Barnabas goes on, quoting Jeremiah 2:12-13, Isaiah 16:1-2, 45:2, 33:16-17 and Psalm 1 in reference to what he believed about water baptism, and then, after discussion of the passage in Psalm 1 he concludes the discourse by saying,

“We go down into the water full of sins and filth, and rise up bearing fruit in our heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus by the Spirit. ‘And whoever, shall eat of these shall live forever.’ He means this, whoever shall hear these things spoken and shall believe shall live forever.”

Here water baptism is a requirement to wash away sins, again contradicting the salvation of the hundred and twenty on Shavu’ot when they received the Spirit without water baptism. Only the Sacrifice of Messiah has the power to take away sins and only the Holy Spirit can impart the reality of the blood of this Sacrifice to a disciple. Barnabas then ought not be used to explain what the Bible says about water baptism or salvation. It indicates what some people believed, as do Shepherd of Hermas and Didache.

1.      I Clement, 95 C.E.

2.      II Clement, 120-140 C.E.

3.      Epistles of Ignatius, about 110 C.E.

1.      The epistle had authority concerning their faith.

2.      The author Clement was thus viewed as having the authority to speak about matters of faith.

Indeed, Clement was the bishop of Rome and later a martyr. He would certainly have received much respect concerning any epistle he might have written. The point to be made concerns a passage dealing with the resurrection. Chapter 12 (other versions, section 25) tells how the Phoenix bird is a type of the future resurrection of believers. The section was written in a way which leads the reader to conclude Clement actually believed there was a Phoenix bird in the land of Arabia which lived and died in a five hundred year cycle. At the death of the bird its decaying body would produce a worm which would grow into a new Phoenix bird. Once the new bird was strong enough it would take the casket it had died in and carry it from Arabia to a city in Egypt, Heliopolis, the City of the Sun. The bird would then lay the coffin on the Altar to the Sun in public. The priests would examine the records and confirm the five hundred year cycle had been completed.

Here is a bishop of Rome, whom some believe had been a companion of Paul, writing about the resurrection with the help of a myth he believed true. Because of his authority many disciples received this epistle and what they might have believed about the Phoenix bird legend would have been strongly influenced by it. If a sub-apostolic bishop of Rome could believe and write about this myth to other believers, is it also possible that by this time other un-Scriptural beliefs were promoted about salvation and water baptism which were widely received?

Clement did not make a direct statement about water baptism, however he did quote Psalm 51 in its entirety, in which David wrote of washing from iniquity and cleansing from sin, as well as being sprinkled by means of hyssop and being clean. On the other hand, Clement mentioned very early in the letter (1:10 in some versions) that at one point an abundant outpouring of the Holy Spirit had fallen on them all. Much later (20:16 in some versions) he asked, “Is not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us all?” Although there is no direct mention of water baptism there is explicit mention of the pouring out of the Spirit on each disciple who was reading his letter. No direct conclusions can be drawn one way or the other concerning baptism in this letter, however, the acceptance of the Phoenix legend as fact forces us to be critical toward non-canonical writings.

By the end of the first century the bishop carried extensive responsibility and authority. Yet we have seen that a bishop like Clement who believed the legend of the Phoenix might teach an erroneous doctrine that would have been widely received. The teaching that water baptism was required by Messiah as the source of regeneration was forcefully propagated. Not because the Lord commanded it but because certain leaders taught it.

Multitudes of first century disciples were Jewish or had been proselytes to Judaism. Neither had the Messianic water baptism to Israel been annulled. This situation set the stage for confusion to arise by those who were ill-informed as to how a writer of Scripture wanted his reference of baptism to be understood. Towards the beginning of the second century a growing consensus of disciples viewed water baptism as a requirement for salvation. This is by no means surprising since earlier Jewish disciples believed circumcision was required for the gentiles to be saved, Acts 15:4-5, and this belief was deep seated, Philippians 3:2. We could suspect that others might teach the requirement of being baptized with water, even during the time of the original apostles.

JUSTIN MARTYR

Justin Martyr took Matthew 28:19 to mean water baptism. He died about 165 C.E. so this passage is somewhat earlier.

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God the Father,...Jesus Christ,...and Holy Spirit they then receive the washing with water...And may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed...”

Justin also required a religious work of fasting before a person could be regenerated into his understanding of salvation. As such he put the new believer under rules which, in Acts 15, Peter had declared useless to please God. Repentance is a requirement. Turning from sin is a requirement. Turning to God is a requirement. But turning away from food is of no value to God for salvation. We also see that Justin believed remission of sins and regeneration were provided through water baptism, even as we read in his “Dialogue With Trypho the Jew,” ch. XLIII.

“And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism...”

This understanding, doubtless based on a faulty interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12, eventually led the Christian Church to believe that water baptism was the sign of the covenant with God that replaced the physical circumcison of Israel. In other words, the Christian Church said it was the beloved Spiritual Israel of God, over against the rejected Israel who observed physical circumcision. We have seen that Colossians actually speaks of Spirit baptism with no connection to water baptism. Nevertheless, we again repeat, for Justin water baptism was salvation and the means of receiving a new nature. It was not a sign or an ordinance.

TERTULLIAN

Tertullian (c.160 to c.220 C.E.) was the son of a Roman army officer, and was trained in Roman law. He became a Christian in middle age and wrote a treatise devoted to baptism which consolidated the sacramentalist belief by then long widespread. What follows are excerpts from De Baptismo in which we clearly see the state of baptism only a hundred years after the last of the twelve apostles.

Ch. 1, The reason for his treatise was to combat the Cainite heresy which denied the importance of water baptism.

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life.”

“Like little fishes we are born in water.”

Ch. 4, After describing water as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit in view of Genesis 1:2 he begins his argument to distinguish baptismal water from all water on earth.

“(There is no) distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber. All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying.”

Ch. 6, The “Angel of the waters” in Christian baptism is like the angel of the pool of Bethesda which foreshadowed spiritual healing. (Angels)...who used to work temporal salvation, now renew eternal.

“Not that in the water we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit...Thus too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, ‘make the paths straight’ for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains.”

(Beasley-Murray comments, “Tertullian unwittingly links the saving efficacy of baptismal water with downright animism...there can be little doubt that Tertullian thought of a real angel-spirit present to make the baptismal waters effective, as the angel-spirit was held to give healing power to the pool in Bethesda.” (Baptism, p 4.))

 Ch. 7, The “unction” is described, after baptism the candidate is lavishly smeared with fragrant ointment.

“Thus too, in our case, the unction runs carnally, (i.e. on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal,...but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.”

Ch. 8, Hands are laid, inviting the Holy Spirit. He comes to those who are water baptized and profusely anointed.

“After baptism the hand is imposed, by blessing, calling and inviting the Holy Spirit; then that most Holy Spirit willingly descends from the Father upon the bodies that are cleansed and blessed.”

Ch. 11, Tertullian explains that when the apostles of the Lord performed water baptism in John 3 they performed John’s baptism.

“Let none think it was some other, because no other exists,”...(at that point).

Ch. 12, The apostles were only baptized with John’s baptism, but in the company of Messiah they were supplied what they lacked in not being baptized with the “sacramental” post-resurrection baptism “commanded by the Lord.” All must be baptized with water because of what was written in John 3, “unless a man is born of water...”

“Without (water) baptism, salvation is attainable by none.”

Ch. 13, The need for extra laws after faith.

“Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He said, ‘Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’...and ‘unless a man be born of water and Spirit’...(Christ) tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” cf. Latin Christianity, Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1963.

So for Tertullian, instead of understanding the true purification accomplished through the Holy Spirit poured out directly from Messiah, water was deemed the vehicle for washing away sins, after the appropriate “invocation” had been offered to charge the water with sanctifying power. Once a candidate was cleansed with baptismal water and then anointed, he was fit for the Spirit to come and dwell in him. And “bare faith” in God supposedly needed this “extra clothing” of religious works because of all the extra graces of God’s work in Messiah. The “law” of baptism is imposed, the command of Matthew 28:19.

All this sounds reasonable, and persuasive, especially coming from a lawyer who knows how to argue to the jury. But with any measure of discernment it obviously falls under Paul’s curses of works for righteousness at the beginning of Galatians. This is not grace. Otherwise circumcision should be practiced as well, the special “grace” added to the “bare faith” of Abraham because his faith was enlarged. Water baptism, sacramental anointing and laying on of hands were acts which supposedly rouse God to open the door to His storehouse of grace.

These beliefs set the stage for many centuries of an enslaved faith, Judaized in the worst sense, but now by misguided gentiles. The ideas hardly coincide with the glorious New Covenant revelation of salvation declared six times, “John baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

To summarize this chapter, please remember, there simply are no other better sources than what have been presented above of "Christian tradition" of the decades and early centuries that followed the original apostles. These passages are the sources of post-biblical Christian tradition, and they show a flawed belief regarding water baptism. In short, we will do well to rely on Scripture alone to find God's will regarding baptism.

“We exert faith to be saved,” which indicates faith pleases God, not works of laws and regulations. F.F. Bruce’s commentary on Acts 15:11 explains why “exerting faith” is much more appropriate than the usual translations of “believe,” which is often found. Instead of surmising they may be saved through the grace of Messiah, in reality they actually understood that by exerting faith, by believing, they please God and know they are saved.

Next