21. Church Fathers and BaptismThe 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 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 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. RELIGIOUS WORKS However, there is a
substantial gulf between the teaching of this document and the teaching of
New Covenant Scriptures. Here the candidate is to fast one or two days before
the baptism. This is a religious work to satisfy the writer’s beliefs about
God’s requirements for salvation. In the eyes of some perhaps fasting would
not seem to be such an important issue. But then in the eyes of others, maybe
circumcision would not be a problem. If it were believed God had commanded
either one then neither would be a great burden. Yet Paul vehemently opposed
the circumcision of gentile believers as a means of pleasing God. Fasting and
other religious works fall under the same ban. Contrary to this
document we do not find anyone in New Covenant Scripture who is ordered to
fast a day or two before a ceremony. Water baptisms were performed upon faith
not fasting, e.g. Acts “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. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS SAVED BY WATER Hermas tells
how indispensable water baptism had become to its author. In the third
vision, sections 2-3, Hermas saw a great tower
which was being built on water with various stones being used to build it. He
was told this great tower was the Church. When he asked the female guide of
the vision why the tower was built on water she replied, “It is because
your life is saved and shall be saved by water.” Hermas was
then given explanations as to why the various stones were used in the tower
and why some were cast away and others were broken. In 3:7 he was told that
stones which fall near water, yet cannot roll into the water were those
people who got to the point of considering being baptized unto the name of
the Lord, then they change their minds and go back after their evil desires
and were not used in the tower. From these statements we see the author
believed water was absolutely required to be able to join the body of
Messiah, the Church. Contrary to this, the hundred and twenty disciples
became the living body of Messiah on Shavu’ot
when they received the Holy Spirit. The only water baptism they would have
undergone was John’s baptism to BARNABAS The epistle
attributed to Barnabas contains a chapter on water baptism. Other passages
are clearly at fault, making the entire composition unreliable. For example,
in 8:6 (or section 9 in another system of numbering) we are told that God now
circumcises the ears so that people may hear and believe His word, adding a scathing
attack on the Jewish people; “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 “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. LETTERS The usual
dates for I & II Clement and the epistles of Ignatius are; 1.
I
Clement, 95 C.E. 2.
II
Clement, 120-140 C.E. 3.
Epistles
of Ignatius, about 110 C.E. I CLEMENT Eusebius tells us I
Clement was considered to have come from Clement, who wrote in the name of
believers in 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 Here is a bishop of
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 ( II CLEMENT This epistle was not well received and appears
doubtful that its author was the same as had written I
Clement. It was written in the form of a sermon and does have a reference to
baptism. The author spoke about maintaining a degree of holiness before the
Lord in 3:9, saying that if righteous men were not able by their
righteousness to save their children (Ezekiel 14:14 referring to Noah,
Daniel, and Job), how can believers hope to enter the kingdom of God, except
they “keep [their] baptism holy and undefiled?” In “Thus speaks
the prophet concerning those who keep not their seal, ‘Their worm shall not
die and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be a spectacle to
all flesh.’” In “This, therefore is what he says, ‘Keep your bodies pure,
and your seal without spot, that you may receive eternal life.” The result of ideas
like these, that water baptism was a revocable seal of salvation, eventually
led many to postpone this “sealing” for months or years. In this way the
purification achieved by baptism would not be ruined by sins they believed
they would probably commit later. This practice became widespread as time
went on. Constantine the Great was baptized on his deathbed in 337,
twenty-five years after he saw the sign of the cross in the cloud leading him
to the Christian belief of those days. Instead of receiving the new spiritual
life by faith and then concentrating on living in the resurrection power of
Messiah, disciples were eventually taught they had to strive to live a sinless
life after water baptism or else lose their salvation. Far from a promise of
freedom and power for a new life by the Spirit of Messiah, the Christian
message eventually became a proclamation of condemnation for failure to
perform a man-made legal code, the starting point being water baptism. It is
good to be diligent to put away sin, but water never changed the nature of a
person to be able to walk in newness of life. Only the Holy Spirit can purify
a person. IGNATIUS Though it is not
possible to be sure of the exact origin of the above teaching of keeping
one’s baptism pure, we can see a cause for such a teaching in the letters of
Ignatius. During his journey from “For our God,
Jesus Christ, was according to the dispensation of God conceived in the womb
of Mary, of the seed of David, by the Holy Spirit. He was born and baptized,
that through His passion He might purify water, to the washing away of sins.” This clearly seems
to have some relation to the idea of keeping one’s seal of baptism pure.
Ignatius believed that through Messiah’s death the waters of baptism were
infused with purifying power to wash away sins. His epistle to Polycarp in “Please Him
under whom you war, and from whom you receive your wages. Let none of you be
found a deserter, but let your baptism remain as your shield. Your faith as
your helmet, your charity as your spear, your patience as your whole armor.” By the time of
Ignatius in about 110 C.E. many supposed that the sufferings of Messiah had
purified water baptism through the supposed infused Spirit. Sins were washed
away in the water. In other words, baptismal regeneration. Those who believe
this teach a water baptism which does all the things that only the Holy
Spirit has the power to do. Once it was believed the Holy Spirit was infused
with the water of baptism it became necessary to restrict those who performed
the water baptism. Thus Ignatius told the Smyrneans
in 3:5, “It is not
lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love feast (eucharist); but whatever he shall approve, this is well
pleasing to God, that everything may be sure and valid.” 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 Multitudes of first
century disciples were Jewish or had been proselytes to Judaism. Neither had
the Messianic water baptism to 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 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 Ch. 6, The “Angel
of the waters” in Christian baptism is like the angel of the pool of “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. Endnote “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. |