Access Provided by Vanderbilt University Library at 10/17/12 9:34PM GMT

Baptism in the New Testament and Its Cultural Milieu: A Response to Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church
CARL R. HOLLADAY
This review focuses on the first 200 pages of Everett Fergusons Baptism in the Early Church: Part 1, Antecedents to Christian Baptism, and Part 2, Baptism in the New Testament. One critical question raised by Fergusons treatment is how historical and theological (doctrinal) perspectives should be related to each other. While Ferguson recognizes the pivotal role of the baptism John preached and administered, this essay further emphasizes Johns originality. Jesus baptism by John posed a problem for early Christians. Was it a unique event, an example for Jesus disciples to emulate, or a problem that had to be explained? The four gospels tend to portray Jesus baptism as sui generis, although Matthew portrays it as an exemplum for early Christians to follow. Fergusons treatment of Pauline texts relating to baptism underplays the significance of the mystical and corporate dimensions of his baptismal theology, especially as it relates to en Christo\. Greater nuance is needed to differentiate Pauls understanding of the baptismal benefit of death to sin as opposed to forgiveness of sins. In Fergusons treatment of baptism in Acts, his effort to distinguish sharply between baptism in the Holy Spirit, i.e. dramatic outpourings of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, 1011, 8.1718, and 19.6), and other believers reception of the Holy Spirit poses some difficulties. Rather than separating the treatment of baptism in Luke and Acts, some dimensions of Lukes baptismal theology can be seen more clearly by observing how literary thematic connections, e.g., between John the Baptist and Jesus, are developed in the two-volume work.

Journal of Early Christian Studies 20:3, 343369 2012 The Johns Hopkins University Press

344

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Everett Fergusons Baptism in the Early Church1 typifies what we have come to expect from our revered teacher, esteemed colleague, and friend: encyclopedic range (almost a thousand pages covering five centuries, or a millennium if we include the pre-Christian material), scrupulous attention to detail (over three thousand footnotes and almost one hundred pages of indices), comprehensive review of evidentiary material at all levels (literary texts, inscriptions, iconography, art, and archaeology), and subtle humor.2 His first two hundred pages include an introductory bibliographical survey (pp. 122),3 followed by Part 1, Antecedents to Christian Baptism (pp. 2596), with separate chapters on lustrations in Greco-Roman paganism (pp. 2537), philological analysis of the bapt- word family in classical and Hellenistic Greek (pp. 3859), Jewish washings, baptismal movements, and proselyte baptism (pp. 6082), and John the Baptizer (pp. 8396); and Part 2, Baptism in the New Testament, with two chapters on the baptism of Jesus (pp. 99131), and separate chapters on other references in the gospels (pp. 13245), the Pauline letters (pp. 14665), Acts (pp. 16685), and other NT writings (pp. 18698). Following the NT section, which covers the first century, the arrangement is chronological, with Parts 36 devoted respectively to the next four centuries, and Part 7 devoted to baptisteries in the East and West, with a brief concluding chapter. My review focuses on Parts 1 and 2.

1. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009). 2. We learn, for example, that Herod dyed his hair (Ferguson, Baptism, 47, noting Josephus, Jewish War 1.24.7 490); and that only a few (fringe) heretics of the ancient church tried to dehydrate the new birth (Ferguson, Baptism, 854). 3. Some additional items might include H. G. Marsh, The Origin and Significance of the New Testament Baptism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1941); Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis, Die Taufe Jesu nach den Synoptikern: Literarkritische und gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, Frankfurter Theologische Studien 4 (Frankfurt am Main: J. Knecht, 1970); Lars Hartmann, Baptism, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freeman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:58394; Gregory D. Alles et al., Taufe, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hans D. Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jngel (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 8:5095 [= Baptism, in Religion Past and Present, ed. Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jngel (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 1:57298]; Joan E. Taylor, Baptism, in New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006), 1:39095; and some recent literature cited in these encyclopedia articles.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

345

USING THE NT AS EVIDENCE The logic of Parts 1 and 2 is clear: first investigate antecedent (pre-Christian) texts and practices that might have influenced early Christian baptism, then examine the earliest Christian writings that mention or discuss baptism. Since the comparative material from non-Jewish (Greco-Roman pagan) and Jewish sources extends over several centuries, Ferguson gives careful attention to questions of dating. This becomes critical in deciding, for example, whether Christian baptism is a direct outgrowth of proselyte baptism. Ferguson thinks not. He sees fundamental differences between the two practices and finds no convincing evidence that proselyte baptism was early enough to influence Christian practice.4 Since John the Baptist features prominently in the NT and is mentioned by Josephus,5 he requires treatment. The question, however, is where to include himas part of the NT material or as one of the antecedents to Christian baptism? Most of what we know about John the Baptist is derived from NT sources, which, strictly speaking, would require him to be treated in Part 2. Moreover, by including the baptism of Jesus in Part 2, Ferguson aligns Jesus more closely with Christian baptism, thereby making it easier to see his baptism as a prototype for post-Easter Christian practice. Given the gospel reports, Jesus baptism technically belongs under the activity of John the Baptist. It is mainly from our reading of the NT that we want to distinguish three distinct stages: Johns baptizing activity, Jesus baptism by John, and Christian baptism. If the Fourth Gospels reports about the baptizing activity of Jesus and his disciples are historically accurate,6 that would constitute a third intermediate stage between Jesus baptism and early Christian baptism. Deciding how to arrange the (mostly) literary sources depends on how one wants to use the sources. If the investigation is primarily historical in the sense that one is trying to determine historical realia, e.g., the mode of baptism (immersion, pouring, or sprinkling), its subjects (adults, children, or infants), whether it was self-administered or performed by another person, or who actually engaged in baptizing ministries or activities (John the Baptist, Jesus and his disciples, Jesus early followers, or numerous people or groups who preceded all of them, e.g., the Essenes or other Jewish groups, mystery religions, etc.), then one might arrange the materials

4. Ferguson, Baptism, 7682. 5. Jewish Antiquities 18.5.2 11617. 6. John 3.22, 4.12.

346

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

chronologically (pre-first century c.e., first century c.e., etc.) or topically (non-Jewish [pagan], Jewish, and Christian practices) or in some combination of the two. With a historical focus, one would examine sources without any canonical bias or privileging. NT texts would be examined critically along with other pertinent texts such as Philo, Josephus, pagan authors, papyri, and similar texts. If, however, ones interest is primarily theological or doctrinal, one asks a different set of questions mostly having to do with what baptism means (to the person or group promoting it or to those who are baptized) or how it is understood by those who write or speak about it (the four evangelists, Paul, other NT writers, and post-NT Christian writers). Here, the investigator would be interested in the meaning or theological significance of baptism as it relates to religious and theological beliefs, values, or experiences such as repentance, forgiveness of sins, salvation, receiving the Holy Spirit, or particular views about Jesus, his death and resurrection. All of these questions might be historical if ones focus is the history of doctrinehow certain views or theological interpretations of baptism originated and developed over time. Even so, they can be distinguished from questions relating to the historical-social realia mentioned earlier. Fergusons book is described on the inside front cover as a comprehensive survey of the doctrine and practice of baptism in the first five centuries of Christian history, arranged geographically within chronological periods. Its bifocal purpose is carried out concurrently rather than separately. On any given text, he can discuss questions such as mode, subject, or frequency alongside questions of theological significance. What difference would it make to distinguish historical and doctrinal questions more sharply, or, at least, to pose the question of how these two perspectives should be related to each other? One might even ask if they are distinguishable. Fergusons approach suggests that he thinks they are not.7 Perhaps another question worth asking is whether it would make any difference to include in the antecedent materials all pre-NT sources, primarily to determine beliefs and practices among non-Jewish (pagan) and Jewish writers or groups (some of which admittedly would be concurrent with or even later than the NT) that might have influenced NT writers or that would be illuminating analogies (e.g., proselyte baptism) for understanding certain NT passages. This would mean, of course, that John the Baptist would be transferred into Part 2 and treated as part of the NTs understanding of baptism. If the latter move were made and all the NT evidence were treated from
7. See Ferguson, Baptism, xix, for brief comments about his approach.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

347

the bifocal perspective of history and doctrine, for any given text or NT writing one could try to ascertain how it illuminates the actual practice of baptism and then as a separate move analyze how the text/author understands the practice and what significance is being attached to it. In one sense, the single question driving Fergusons investigation is, How can we explain the origin of Christian baptism and its early widespread practice?8 Formulated more sharply: although Jesus himself was baptized, he gave little, if any, attention to baptism in his teachings (at least in the Synoptic Gospels); yet, it appears (from Paul and Acts) that almost immediately after Jesus death, baptism became a normative practice among his disciples. How can we account for this? If the question is posed this way, then one might examine the main NT witnesses (gospels, Luke-Acts, Paul) and other NT passages from a slightly different angle, asking how each one thinks (or explains that) the practice of Christian baptism originated and what warrants the NT author/text offers for the practice. Since these questions of arrangement have already been decided, however, here are some observations in response to Fergusons treatment as we have it. JOHN THE BAPTIZER Assessing Johns baptism in relation to other forms of Jewish lustrations, Ferguson appropriates A. D. Nocks use of prophetic symbolism to characterize its distinctiveness.9 He properly accents the twofold aspect of Johns originality: both the practice (a unique administered rite rather than repeated self-immersions) and the meaning he gave the rite (forgiveness and repentance) as well as the eschatological context in which he put it.10 Given the discussion of antecedent and contemporary Jewish practices,11 we might ask whether Johns pioneering role is sufficiently emphasized. We might also press the question, What triggered Johns innovation?
8. Ferguson, Baptism, 83, 99, 13233. 9. Ferguson, Baptism, 85, citing A. D. Nock, Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian Sacraments, Mnemosyne 4 (1952): 177213 = Arthur Darby Nock: Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Zeph Stewart, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 2:791820, esp. 803. For additional recent discussion of John the Baptist, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 2: Mentor, Message, and Miracles, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 19233; David Catchpole, Jesus People: The Historical Jesus and the Beginnings of Community (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006); and Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Baptist, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7 (2009): 10325. 10. Ferguson, Baptism, 86. 11. Ferguson, Baptism, 6082. See Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 2002; rev. ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

348

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS: SUI GENERIS, EXEMPLUM, OR CRUX? Ferguson freely acknowledges the tension between seeing Jesus baptism, on the one hand, as a unique event, unrepeatable and thus inimitable, and, on the other hand, as a paradigmatic event that provides Christians either an example they should emulate or a useful analogy for understanding their own baptismal experience. Since the baptism of Jesus was later considered the foundation of Christian baptism, he writes, we treat it here in the unit on the beginning of Christian baptism, although it was properly sui generis.12 This creates a genuine dilemma for Ferguson. He knows that the NT tends to see Jesus baptism as sui generis but he wants to claim it as a warrant for early Christian practice:
Although the New Testament never asserts that the baptism of Jesus was the foundation of Christian baptism or a prototype for it, and indeed in the nature of its importance for Christology it was a unique event, the declaration of Jesus Sonship and the coming of the Holy Spirit on him at this time provide a parallel to the promises attached in a lesser sense to Christian baptism.13

Another way of reading the gospel accounts, however, is to see them as different ways of explaining the problem that Jesus baptism posed for early Christians. Recognizing that Jesus baptism was a cruxa problem that cried out for explanationthe four evangelists, when they report the event at all, tend to portray it as sui generis, even though we can detect some effort to interpret it as an exemplum for early Christians to follow. As Ferguson astutely remarks, even Mark, after noting that the crowds were confessing their sins (Mark 1.5), scrupulously avoids reporting the same thing about Jesus.14 Rather than signaling theological neutrality, or exhibiting unreflective historical realism as once thought,15 Marks brevity exposes the distinctive contours of his christological understanding. Ferguson succinctly rehearses them: the dove symbolism possibly echoing
12. Ferguson, Baptism, 99. 13. Ferguson, Baptism, 100. Discussing the Markan account of Jesus baptism, he similarly concludes: The same two ideas in a diminished sense were central to Christian baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and incorporation into (or adoption as) the sons of God (101). 14. Ferguson, Baptism, 100. 15. At least, prior to William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien: Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstndnis des Markusevangeliums (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901); published in English as The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. G. Greig (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971), esp. 1316.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

349

Gen 1.2 and 8.811; the heavenly voice as a pastiche of biblically loaded phrasing whose combined effect is to portray Jesus as the divinely begotten Son of Ps 2.7, Abrahams beloved Isaac of Gen 22.2, Gods chosen servant of Isa 42.1 and 44.2, and (we might add) the Lords beloved Ephraim (Jer 31.20 [Jer 38.20 LXX]). Also worth noting is the unusually graphic, even apocalyptic, image of the heavens being ripped open (schizomenous), possibly recalling Isa 64.1 (LXX [63.19 MT]),16 maybe even anticipating the ripping of the temple veil in Mark 15.38, or signaling the first dramatic scene in Marks unfolding apocalyptic drama. The overall effect of Marks carefully crafted theophany is to distinguish Jesus baptism from what the crowds experienced when they were baptized by John. It is a moment of private revelation that excludes even John. Jesus sees the Spirit like a dove descending into him (eis auton); that he alone hears the heavenly voice confirms the thesis of Marks gospel expressed in 1.1. For Mark, this is the beginning of Jesus messianic consciousness, which is, by definition, a unique, unrepeatable event. From that point forward, Marks Jesus is the Spirit-directed Son of God who takes on Satan and the demonic order. Lukes account of John the Baptist, as Ferguson rightly reports, is striking not only because of its length (compared with Mark) but also for the way it depicts certain details of Jesus baptism.17 Special Lukan touches include his amplified description of Johns preaching repentance18 and his mention of Johns possible messianic status vis--vis Jesus.19 Surely one of the most significant Lukan details, however, is his brief report of Johns imprisonment by Herod, which is inserted between his description of Johns preaching and his account of Jesus baptism.20 This crucial addition removes John from the scene of Jesus baptism that immediately follows.21 Jesus baptism is portrayed as part of a larger social phenomenon, as having
16. So Joel Marcus, Mark 18, Anchor Bible 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 159; also noting the striking parallel in Testament of Levi 18.612 (as does Ferguson, Baptism, 101 n. 6). Adela Y. Collins, Mark, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2007), 148, noting Marks unusual phrasing, adduces Joseph and Aseneth 14.2 (eschisthe\ ho ouranos). 17. Ferguson, Baptism, 1012. 18. This is achieved by addition of material from Q (Luke 3.79 || Matt 3.710) and L (Luke 3.1014). 19. Luke 3.1518. Worth noting is Lukes adoption of Q, He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (Luke 3.16 || Matt 3.11), rather than Marks he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1.8). Surprisingly, Lukes later report of the risen Lords recollection of this promise (Acts 1.5) conforms to the shorter Markan form. 20. Luke 3.1920. 21. Luke 3.2122.

350

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

occurred when all the people were baptized (Luke 3.21: egeneto de en to\ baptisthe\nai hapanta ton laon). Each of the phrases reported in the rest of v. 21 is significant: it was after Jesus also had been baptized (kai Ie\sou baptisthentos), and while he was praying (proseuchomenou) that the heaven was opened (aneo\chthe\nai ton ouranon). Since his prayer occurred as a separate event following his baptism, Ferguson aptly notes that it was not the prayer of a penitent.22 Lukes way of reporting the event may reflect his special interest in prayer evident throughout Luke-Acts, but it also accomplishes something else. By reporting that John is in prison at the time of Jesus baptism, Luke erects a (prison) wall between Jesus baptismincluding his post-baptismal prayer and the Holy Spirits descentand Johns baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.23 Replicating Marks language of the divine voice, also expressed in the second person singular, Luke conveys the same multivalent christological significance, although he shifts this moment marking the beginning of Jesus messianic consciousness to a post-baptismal prayer. Luke supplies further interpretation in Acts 10.3738, when Peter also draws a line between the baptism John preached and Gods anointing Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power. The grammar is ambiguous. Readers of Luke-Acts would doubtless recall Luke 3.2122 and possibly the Nazareth Inaugural in Luke 4.1630, but Luke (through Peter) carefully avoids saying that Gods anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power occurred when he was baptized by John; indeed, it occurred after the baptism John preached (10.37: meta to baptisma ho eke\ruxen Io\anne\s).24 That Luke wanted to highlight this private, prayerful epiphany as the moment when Jesus received the Holy Spirit and heard God confirm his divine Sonship is quite evident; that he wanted to separate John the Baptist from this doubly powerful messianic anointing is equally evident. John is in prison, far removed from this revelatory event. No reader of Lukes account could possibly regard Jesus baptism as a ritual expression of his penitence or as an act performed to receive forgiveness of sins. These Lukan touches anticipate the sharp critique of Johns baptism in Acts 18.2419.7. For Luke, then, it is not so much Jesus baptism that is sui generis, but the anointing of Gods Spirit and the beginning of his messianic selfconsciousness that occur during his post-baptismal prayer. Here Luke
22. Ferguson, Baptism, 101. 23. Luke 3.3. 24. Luke 3.2122 anticipates Acts in which the two baptisms (water and Spirit) are distinguished as separate (e.g., Acts 8, 1011, 19).

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

351

agrees with Mark in reserving this messianic revelation exclusively for Jesus. If anything, he makes it even more private than Mark. More familiar is Matthews solution to the problem posed by Jesus baptism. By stating that Jesus traveled from Galilee to Judea for the express purpose of being baptized by John (Matt 3.13), Matthew supplies a stronger motive for Jesus action than Mark. This heightened motive explains Johns feisty protest in which he confesses Jesus superior status and Jesus authoritative insistence that John comply with his request (Matt 3.1415). Especially revealing is how Matthew reports Jesus emphatic yet enigmatic answer. Even if later readers were never quite sure what fulfill all righteousness (3.15: ple \ro\sai pasan dikaiosyne\n) means, they could be confident that Jesus knew. Since Jesus himself saw the theological problem and answered it publicly,25 his later followers could refute their critics by quoting Jesus own words. Like Mark, Matthew actually depicts Jesus baptismhis arising from the water, seeing the descent of Gods Spirit, feeling it alight on him, and hearing the heavenly voice assert his divine Sonship in the presence of witnesses. Matthews visual, audial, and tactile imagery gives his account an energetic liveliness that reinforces his explicit apologetic agenda. By including Jesus dialogue with John, Matthew further intensifies the heavenly voices christological claims: Jesus is not only submissive Isaac, whom Abraham loves, but also Abraham himself, exemplar of righteous obedience.26 What distinguishes Matthew from Mark and Luke is the way his editorial inclusion in vv. 1415 not only solves the crux but also changes Jesus baptism from sui generis into an exemplum. Here Ferguson is justified when he claims that Matthews redaction has made Jesus an example of obedience for others.27 By submitting to Johns baptism, Matthews Jesus does what he teaches his followers to do: he aligns himself fully with the purpose of God and, as one who embodies righteousness, is therefore qualified to demand it of his followers.28 The Fourth Gospel offers another solution. Unlike the Synoptics, it nowhere says that Jesus was baptized in water, much less that he was baptized by John. Consequently, the Fourth Gospel contains no account of Jesus baptism. It does, however, closely align Jesus with John, although
25. I remain convinced that the use of the third person by the heavenly voice includes John as a witness and probably the crowds mentioned in Matt 3.7. Similarly (I think), Ferguson, Baptism, 102, esp. n. 12. 26. Cf. Gen 15.6, 18.19, 20.5, 21.23. 27. Ferguson, Baptism, 102. 28. Matt 5.6, 5.10, 5.20, 6.33.

352

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

John claims not to have known him (1.31, 33). Already in the prologue John is featured as a God-appointed witness to Jesus, the light (1.69). But in sharp contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, the Fourth Gospels John is no preacher of repentance, nor does his baptism bestow forgiveness of sins. The purpose of his baptism, like the rest of his testimony throughout John 1, is to reveal [Jesus] to Israel (1.31). What the Synoptic Gospels report variously in relation to Jesus baptismthe Spirits descent on Jesus and his status as the Son of Godthe Fourth Gospel reports as Johns testimony (1.3234). The Spirits descent on Jesus is a revelatory moment not for Jesus but for John. It is not an event that marks the beginning of Jesus messianic consciousness as it is in the Synoptic Gospels. It is the moment, however, when God identifies Jesus as the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1.33).29 What also distinguishes the Fourth Gospel from the Synoptic Gospels is its description of Jesus as someone who teaches (Nicodemus) the necessity of baptism of water and Spirit as a requirement for entering the kingdom of God (3.5).30 Not only does Jesus teach about baptism, but he also baptizes others (3.22) and does so more successfully than John (4.12).31 Although Jesus uses water symbolism in his subsequent dialogues,32 he gives no further explicit instructions about baptism. He does, however, teach extensively about the Holy Spirit (e.g., in the Farewell Discourse, chaps. 1416), and after his resurrection imparts the Holy Spirit to his disciples (20.22), probably enacting his role as the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (1.33). The Fourth Gospel thus solves the problem of Jesus baptism by (a) omitting a description of the actual event, (b) presenting John as a witness to Jesus rather than as the one who baptized him, (c) portraying Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit in an epiphany seen by John and detached from his baptism and thereby qualifying him as the sole administrator of Holy Spirit baptism, and (d) describing Jesus in the double role of baptizer (at least through his disciples) and a teacher of baptism. With the latter move,
29. The Fourth Gospels formulation is actually closer to Mark 1.8 (with the Holy Spirit) than to Q (with the Holy Spirit and fire; Luke 3.16 || Matt 3.11). 30. Fergusons argument for seeing John 3 as a baptismal text (Ferguson, Baptism, 14245) is convincing. 31. Even though the Fourth Gospel includes an editorial clarification that it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who actually did the baptizing (4.2), it nevertheless portrays Jesus authorizing a mission program that entailed baptism. 32. Ferguson, Baptism, 142, lists the numerous passages in the Fourth Gospel that mention water or employ water symbolism, beginning with Jesus discourse with the Samaritan woman in John 4.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

353

the Fourth Gospel provides an explicit warrant for Jesus disciples in the post-Easter period.33 By administering Christian baptism, Jesus disciples comply with his instruction that baptism is required for entry into the kingdom of God; they also follow Jesus own examplenot the example of Jesus baptism but the example of his baptizing ministry.34 To summarize, all four gospel accounts of Jesus baptism are theologically weighted interpretations of a historical event.35 Early Christians could neither deny nor avoid an event that was so deeply embedded in multiple memories. They had to give compelling theological explanations for it. Of the four evangelists, Matthew is the notable exception who presents Jesus baptism as an exemplum for Christians to follow. For all their differences, however, the four evangelists, when reporting Jesus baptism and his relationship with John the Baptist, take special care to disassociate Jesus from repentance and forgiveness of sins. In their respective narratives, the four evangelists depict what Hebrews states explicitly: Jesus is sinless (Heb 4.15). PAUL Ferguson rightly sees Paul as a central figure for the study of Christian baptism and his understanding of its significance as profound.36 He treats the key Pauline texts: Gal 3.2629; 1 Cor 1.1217, 12.13, 15.29; Rom 6.111; Col 2.1113; Eph 4.46; Tit 3.47. Of these, Rom 6 is considered
33. Here the Fourth Gospel is making a move comparable to Matthews Great Commission (Matt 28.1920), which authorizes (commands) his readers (and other Christians) to engage in teaching and baptizing missions. What is different, of course, is that the Fourth Gospels rationale is pre-Easter, whereas Matthews is post-Easter. 34. The Johannine letters provide indirect evidence that the Johannine community practiced baptism and probably conceived of it in terms that resonated with Jesus teaching in the Fourth Gospel. Being born of God (1 John 3.9; 5.1, 18) probably expresses the Johannine understanding of baptism and may represent an extension of the birth metaphor Jesus uses in John 3. The natural corollary would be for those baptized in the Johannine community to be called children of God (1 John 3.10, 5.2, 5.19). Water, blood, and Spirit (1 John 5.67) also sounds like baptismal language. 35. Ferguson, Baptism, 99100, adduces the relevant supporting arguments. Also worth noting is A. D. Nocks observation (in opposition to Loisy and Bultmann), . . . whatever significance we (or the early Christians) attach to [Jesus baptism], there can be little doubt that it is a historical fact, that it is something which meant very much to Jesus Himself, and that it was treated as in some sense the beginning of the Gospel. See A. D. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 59 = Stewart, Essays, 1:97 (also n. 200, with the reference to Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 18.2). 36. Ferguson, Baptism, 146.

354

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the key, indeed distinctive, baptismal passage in Paul.37 Pauls innovative insight is to connect baptism with Christs death and resurrection.38 Fergusons exegetical treatment here, as elsewhere, is context-sensitive and nuanced. His repeated caution against spiritualizing interpretations that tend to downplay or ignore the concrete act of a ritual initiation involving water is in order.39 He notices some of the remarkable features of Pauls baptismal theology, such as his use of circumcision imagery in Col 2.1113.40 Even so, some of the most distinctive, if not unique, Pauline accents might have been highlighted even more. Noticed41 but underemphasized is the theological significance of en Christo\ as perhaps the most distinctive element not only of Pauls baptismal theology but also of his theology as a whole (so Deissmann and numerous subsequent interpreters).42 Ferguson grapples with how best to understand the Pauline formulation being baptized into Christ (eis Christon) in Galatians 3 and Romans 6. But reading this as a derivation of (or even in relation to) being baptized in/into the name of (the Lord Jesus) Christ tends to divert attention from this unusually sharp-edged Pauline formulation. As 1 Cor 1.1214 implies, Paul well understands the problematic nature of being baptized in/into someones name and how easily our identity can be shaped by our personal relationship with the one who baptized us.43 Pauls use of in the name of [Christ] phraseology in
37. Ferguson, Baptism, 155. 38. Ferguson, Baptism, 155. 39. E.g., J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (London: A & C Black, 1993), 2024 (on Gal 3.2627); similarly Dunns Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1970), 12731 (on 1 Cor 12.13). See Fergusons reply in The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 19195. 40. Ferguson, Baptism, 159. 41. Ferguson, Baptism, 147. 42. Notably Adolf Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo Jesu (Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1892); see Fritz Neugebauer, In Christus: Eine Untersuchung zum paulinischen Glaubensverstndnis (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961); for a brief review of the main interpretive positions, see Margaret E. Thrall, II Corinthians, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 1:42428; for a succinct review of the relevant linguistic evidence, see C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 80. En Christo\ occurs seventy-three times in the thirteen-letter Pauline corpus (cf. 1 Thess 1.1), three times in 1 Pet, and nowhere else in the NT. Also worth noting is the discussion of Pauls ecstasy and his use of mystical vocabulary in Alan Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 3471. 43. On the relationship between baptizer and the one baptized, see A. D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933; repr. 1965), 147 n. 294, com-

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

355

1 Cor 6.911 is remarkable for its relative rarity. Simply put, Paul tends not to think in these terms. Being baptized in/into the name of Christ is more distinctively Lukan than Pauline.44 Pauls sensitivity to the possible misconstrual of such language as reflected in 1 Cor 1.1214 may explain why he rarely uses it. By contrast, en Christo\ and eis Christon characterize Pauls thought. No other NT writer speaks of being baptized into Christ (eis Christon). For that matter, the prepositional phrase eis Christon itself is distinctively Pauline.45 What is truly distinctive, if not unique, about Pauls baptismal theology is how he relates this act of ritual initiation, which, qua initiation rite, has parallels in the Graeco-Roman world,46 to certain aspects of his Christology. What distinguishes Paul from Luke, for example, is the depth, scope, and texture of his Christology. This, as much as anything else, accounts for the theological richness of Galatians 2 and Romans 6. Pauls insistence on Christs death as more than an exclusively historical event locatable in time and space but rather a trans-historical event that shattered temporal, spatial, and anthropological categoriesan event best captured by the metaphor new creation (2 Cor 5.1421)drives his baptismal theology. Whether one characterizes Pauls conceptual framework as primarily cosmic, apocalyptic, eschatological, mystical, or mythicalor some combination or variation of theseis debated. What cannot be missed, however, is the vast scope of the grand narrative with which he operates. Integral to this narrative is the Christ-storywhat God has accomplished through Christs death and resurrection. Pauls highly realistic and thoroughly personalistic language, however, reaches beyond the category of story, narrative, or even myth. For Paul, the Christ who died and was raised is an extension of the historical Christ, and is therefore identifiably continuous with that historical figure. But in his resurrected form, Christ occupies a newly constituted space that cannot be conceived or experienced apart from the living reality that is uniquely his. Pauls image of Christ as the Second Adam (1 Cor 15; Rom 5) captures this
menting on Luciuss embrace of the priest who initiated him and who was now his father, and adducing inscriptional evidence of a cemetery to be shared by the priest, his initiates, and their descendants. 44. Acts 2.38, 8.16, 10.48, 19.5. 45. Ten of its twelve occurrences in the NT are Pauline: Rom 6.3, 16.5; 1 Cor 8.12; 2 Cor 1.21; Gal 2.16, 3.24, 3.27; Eph 5.32; Col 2.5; Phlm 6. Outside of Paul it occurs in Acts 24.24 and 1 Pet 1.11, neither time with reference to baptism. 46. Ferguson rehearses the evidence for non-Jewish (Greco-Roman pagan) washings (Baptism, 2537) and Jewish washings (Baptism, 6082).

356

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

inescapably personal dimension. Whether Paul imagines the risen Christ as a gigantic cosmic figure that pervades the universe47 or envisions him in less grandiose terms, what can scarcely be contested is Pauls firm belief in a risen Christ who transcends all human categories even while enabling (and inviting) all human beings to enter the realm that he uniquely occupies and, in doing so, to participate in his being and presence. Only within such a grandly conceived framework can Pauls provocative formulations be understood. For all of their differences, Gal 3 and Rom 6 presuppose this framework. Common to both is Pauls assertion that we are baptized into Christ (Gal 3.27; Rom 6.3). Ferguson rightly insists that such explanatory phrases as with reference to Christ, with regard to Christ, or in relation to Christ fail to grasp Pauls point.48 We are better served when we read such language realistically rather than metaphorically or even spiritually. By being immersed in water, Paul insists, we reenact Christs death. The formulation we are buried with Christ suggests more than ritual initiation; it signifies ritual union with our central cultic figure. Christs death is an experience (or event) that one can enter: we are baptized into his death. But death in what sense? Not a reenactment of his physical expiration, of course, but reliving his existential death, understood comprehensively as death to ones self, which takes the form of death to Sin (2 Cor 5.1415). As the coordinate of Christs death, Christs resurrection is also an event or experience we can enter. Rising from baptismal water, one rises to new life. This life has a qualitatively different texture since it is uniquely linked with the resurrected Christ and defined by the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. It is lived en Christo\. What Paul sees that no other NT writer sees as clearly, or in quite the same way, is that baptism creates a uniquely personal bond between the believer and the resurrected Christ that has both individual and corporate dimensions. His use of the clothing metaphor in Gal 3.27 signals this: the baptized believer is fully engulfed by the resurrected Christ. And yet, being en Christo\ is also the great leveler of humanity. Through this newly constituted domain, ethnic, social, and gender distinctions are transcendednot obliterated but transcended. As John A. T. Robinson insists, the body of Christ is Pauls realistic rather than metaphorical way of capturing this.49 According to Robinson, Paul
47. E.g., as some version of the heavenly man; see J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 18, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988), 27678 (on Rom 5.14). 48. The same applies to Pauls claim that the Israelites were baptized into Moses (1 Cor 10.2). 49. John A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, Studies in Biblical Theology 5 (Chicago: Regnery, 1952).

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

357

affirms that baptized believers are the body of Christnot a body of Christians but the body of Christ. As the ritual act through which believers experience what the Passion Narrative depicts visually or what the kerygma proclaims, baptism is the believers point of entry into Christ. Some slippage occurs when Ferguson connects Pauline baptism with the forgiveness of sins.50 Such language is actually more Lukan, even Johannine, than Pauline.51 Pauls tendency to speak of sin in the singular rather than the plural reflects his distinctive angle of vision.52 His instinctive move is to speak of Sin as a personified, cosmic force comparable to Law and Death (1 Cor 15.56). Death to sin (Rom 6.2) is not the same as forgiveness of sins. Linking the filial identity of believers with baptism (Gal 3.2627) is also a distinctively Pauline notion. Nowhere in Acts are those who are baptized ever said to become sons/children of God. They experience many benefits, such as forgiveness of sins and reception of the Holy Spirit, but divine childhood is not one of them. By contrast, Paul sees baptism as the ritual act that seals the relationship in which we become children of God through faith. Elsewhere he characterizes this relationship as adoption (Gal 4.57; Rom 8.15) and as one in which filial obediencethe capacity to say Abba, Fatheris the defining expectation. This Pauline conception resonates with the Johannine notion of becoming children of God, which occurs primarily through faith in Jesus Christ (John 1.1213; 1 John 2.293.3, 3.910, 5.13). In the Nicodemus story (John 3.121), baptismbeing born of the water and Spiritis linked more directly
50. Ferguson, Baptism, 150, 15657. 51. See Luke 1.77, 3.3, 24.47; Acts 2.38, 5.31, 10.43, 13.38, 26.18; also 1 John 1.9, 2.12. The only time he\ aphesis to\n hamartio\n occurs in the Pauline corpus is Col 1.14. The idea of sins being forgiven is found in Rom 4.7, but in a quotation of Ps 32.12. Sometimes Paul uses the plural sins, especially when citing earlier Christian material (1 Cor 15.3; Gal 1.4), but occasionally to express his own views (1 Cor 15.17; and in the disputed 1 Thess 2.16). See Carl R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ, CDROM ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 554. 52. Hamartia occurs fifty-nine times in the seven undisputed Pauline letters; once in Ephesians, once in Colossians, four times in 1 and 2 Timothy. In the six disputed letters, the plural form is always used. In the undisputed letters, the plural form occurs eight times; of these, two occur in OT quotations (Rom 4.7 quoting Ps 31.12; Rom 1.17 quoting Isa 59.2021, 27.9). Two of them occur in traditional material (1 Cor 15.3; Gal 1.4). One of them occurs in a disputed passage (1 Thess 2.16). Only three times does Paul use the plural form in his own right (Rom 3.25, 5.14; 1 Cor 15.17). The vast majority of his uses of hamartia are in the singular. Most of these occur in Romans (forty-five times, with a heavy concentration in Rom 58); also 1 Cor 15.56; 2 Cor 5.21, 11.7; Gal 2.17, 3.22.

358

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

with seeing or entering the kingdom of God (John 3.3, 5). The linkage between divine begetting and becoming children of God becomes clearer in the Johannine letters. One question worth asking is whether Pauls linkage of baptism with divine sonship derives from, or is somehow related to, the Synoptic traditions portrayal of Jesus baptismthe one other place in the NT in which baptism is the moment or event in which one is pronounced Son of God.53 Even so, baptism as the event in which one becomes Gods son/ child is a distinctive Pauline notion. His logic is clear: the believer who ritually reenacts the sacred drama of the Son of God thereby becomes Gods adopted son/child. Hence Paul characterizes believers as joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8.17). In his discussion of Rom 6, Ferguson observes that one of Pauls special contributions is drawing out the moral implications of baptism into the death of Christ.54 It is worth asking whether this applies to all of the Pauline passages, perhaps not as explicitly as in Rom 6 but certainly broadly understood. What typifies Pauls discussion of baptism is its role in leveraging his paraenesis. He is less interested in thinking about baptism as it relates to Christs life and teachings than in probing its meaning, given his unique understanding of Christs death and resurrection. His baptismal theology is eminently practical, driven by his own experience of the risen Lord and his reflections on that event. ACTS Here Ferguson acknowledges the prominence and frequency of baptismal language in Acts and then treats the relevant passages: Acts 12, 8.425, 8.2640, 9.119, 10.111.18, 16.1215, 16.1634, 18.8, 18.2419.7, and 22.321. He then discusses two recurrent features, Baptism in(to) the Name of Jesus55 and The Holy Spirit and Baptism,56 and concludes with a Summary on Baptism in Acts.57 Let me begin with some observations and questions: (1) Explaining how the pouring out of Gods Spirit at Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel 2.2832, Ferguson observes, God poured out the Spirit, but that pouring (a figure for Gods action in sending the Spirit) was not
53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Ferguson, Ferguson, Ferguson, Ferguson, Ferguson, Baptism, Baptism, Baptism, Baptism, Baptism, 101, is inclined to see such linkage. 158. 18283. 18384. 18485.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

359

itself the baptism of the Holy Spirit but made the baptism possible.58 Why not? What is at stake in this distinction? (2) With respect to the Samaritans conversion,59 what strikes us as inconsistentthe Samaritans exceptional mode of receiving the Holy Spirit vis-vis the Jews at Pentecost and no mention of baptismal benefits for the eunuchposed no problem for Luke, especially if his point lay elsewhere.60 (3) The discussion of the textual variant in 8.3761 surfaces the interpretive issues related to the complex textual history of Acts, especially as it relates to the D-text. Recent work on the D-text proposing that it predates the Alexandrian text now makes it more difficult to dismiss D-text readings as secondary and late.62 Ferguson rightly notes the importance of Irenaeuss inclusion of v. 37 as important historical testimony to Christian practice at least as early as the second century.63 (4) Concerning Sauls conversion, Fergusons summary accurately captures the Lukan perspective: The accounts of Pauls baptism include a calling on the name of Jesus, the removal of sins, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and reception into a local communityall characteristic of

58. Ferguson, Baptism, 167. Ferguson also adds the following remark: The baptism was the result of the coming (the pouring out) of the Holy Spirit, who filled the house (surrounding each), rested upon each, and filled each. How a medium (in this case the Holy Spirit) comes to be in a container (in this case the room) is distinct from what is done to a person in the medium (the baptism). I find this statement puzzling. 59. Ferguson, Baptism, 171. 60. Ferguson, Baptism, 173 n. 26, rightly contests Friedrich Avemarie, Die Tauferzhlungen der Apostelgeschichte: Theologie und Geschichte (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 26872, who concludes from the absence of the Ethiopians reception of the Holy Spirit that Philips form of baptism lay midway between Johns baptism and full Christian baptism. Ferguson also includes the reading of Codex Alexandrinus (more precisely, its corrector) in v. 39, [T]he Holy Spirit fell upon the eunuch, and the angel of the Lord took Philip away. 61. Ferguson, Baptism, 17273. 62. Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Bezan Text of Acts: A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism, Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 236 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), esp. 355: . . . a considerable number of factors . . . emerge from an application of the tools of discourse analysis to a comparison of the texts of Acts . . . [and] all point to the same conclusionnamely, that the form of the book of Acts attested by Codex Bezae predates that of the Alexandrian MSS examined. Also see Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition: Volume 2: Acts 6.112.25: From Judaea and Samaria to the Church in Antioch (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 16163, objecting to the view that v. 37 is a later addition. 63. Ferguson, Baptism, 172; see Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 3.12.8.

360

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Lukes understanding of Christian conversion baptism.64 This has the effect, however, of aligning Sauls conversion/baptism with the other nonexceptional cases in Acts. But since it is reported three times and is especially portrayed as a prophetic callthe originating event in which God summons Paul as a chosen instrument to appear before Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel (Acts 9.15)is it not more exceptional than typical?65 (5) In the discussion of Cornelius,66 Ferguson acknowledges that the details and sequence of the events . . . are somewhat different (from Acts 2).67 In keeping with his earlier discussion of Acts 2,68 he characterizes both Acts 2 and 10 as events in which the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is described as resulting in the baptism in the Holy Spirit.69 Again, what is at stake in this distinction? His final verdict on Acts 1011 is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit (in Corneliuss case) was a special circumstance with a special purpose and not part of the usual pattern of conversion in Acts.70 Fergusons analysis of Acts 1011 understandably prompts him to ask whether Luke presents a consistent baptismal theology. He addresses this question in his concluding summary The Holy Spirit and Baptism,71 in which he argues that baptism in the Holy Spirit, by which he means dramatic outpourings of the Holy Spirit, occurs on four special occasions: Pentecost (Acts 2), Cornelius (Acts 1011), the Samaritans (Acts 8.1718), and the twelve disciples of John (Acts 19.6). In each case, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by observable phenomena, usually speaking in tongues. Each of these events was noteworthy because it represented an important stage or significant transition in the progress of the gospel: All four incidents represent important stages in the spread of the gospel of Christ: its first proclamation to Jews, its offer to Samaritans, its extension to Gentiles, and its replacement of the preparatory work of
64. Ferguson, Baptism, 175. 65. To characterize Acts 9.119 and 22.321 as Lukes descriptions of Pauls call as an apostle or an apostle to the Gentiles (Ferguson, Baptism, 17375) is technically correct, since Luke twice uses apostolos to refer to Paul (Acts 14.4, 14.14). Since both usages include Barnabas, they are non-technical designations. Although apostolos is Pauls preferred self-designation in his letters, especially in depicting his call (Galatians 12), Luke, when describing the same event, uses other language, e.g., chosen instrument (9.15: skeuos ekloge\s) or witness (22.15 and 26.16: martys). 66. Ferguson, Baptism, 17578. 67. Ferguson, Baptism, 176. 68. Ferguson, Baptism, 167. 69. Ferguson, Baptism, 177. 70. Ferguson, Baptism, 178. 71. Ferguson, Baptism, 18384.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

361

John the Baptist.72 By contrast, other believers who receive the Holy Spirit through their baptism should be viewed differently. Instances of this occur in Acts 2.38, 5.32, 8.16, 9.12, 9.1718, and 19.23.73 This twolevel understanding of baptism as it relates to the Holy Spirit is one way of finding coherence in Lukes baptismal theology, but does it adequately account for the narrative complexity of Acts? (6) In his discussion of Apollos and the twelve disciples at Ephesus, Ferguson acknowledges the truly problematic character of these stories.74 Seeing Acts 19.6 as a parallel to Acts 8 is an understandable move, although Paul is not an apostle in the same sense that Peter and John are.75 Rather than using Acts 8 as the primary lens through which we read Acts 18.24 19.7, does it not make more sense to see the latter in relation to Lukes overall depiction of Pauls Ephesian ministry in Acts 1920? Now let me make some more general observations. Ferguson clearly recognizes the challenge facing any interpreter wishing to ascertain Lukes baptismal theology in Acts. Given the prominence and frequency of baptismal language in Acts, it constitutes a major NT source for understanding baptism during the apostolic period. Acts reports both mass and individual conversions in which baptism figures as a central, recurrent element. The difficulty is that some cases of conversion are replete with details, especially concerning the benefits of baptism. Pentecost believers who are baptized receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (2.38). The Ethiopian eunuch is simply baptized and goes on his way rejoicing, with no mention of having his sins forgiven or receiving the Holy Spirit. Saul/Paul presents a special case as the archopponent who experiences a vision of the risen Lord that brings him to his knees both literally and spiritually, who is then assisted by Ananias in receiving his sight back, and who is finally filled with the Holy Spirit and is baptized to wash away his sins (Acts 9.1719a and 22.16). Lydia and her household are simply baptized, with no attendant benefits mentioned; her counterpart on the other end of the social scale, the Philippian jailer, is baptized, along with his household, and receives salvation of body and soul. Cornelius and his household are baptized, but, unlike the Pentecost believers, they receive the Holy Spirit before baptism. Apollos knows only
72. Ferguson, Baptism, 184. 73. Ferguson, Baptism, 184. This point is made earlier: If the gift of the Spirit promised to (sic) baptism in Acts 2.38 is different from the baptism in (or with) the Holy Spirit in 2.15 and 10.4446, then several problems are avoided (Ferguson, Baptism, 169). 74. Ferguson, Baptism, 18081. 75. See n. 65 above.

362

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

the baptism of John, but simply receives fuller instruction from Priscilla and Aquila. The twelve disciples (of John?) at Ephesus, by contrast, who also know only the baptism of John, must be told about Jesus by Paul. In addition, they must be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, after which Paul lays his hands on them, and then they receive a strong infusion of the Holy Spirit that enables them to speak in tongues and prophesy (19.56). The Corinthians simply hear, believe, and are baptized (18.8). Coupled with this seeming patchwork of baptismal examples is Lukes recurrent mention of the Holy Spirit, beginning with the risen Lords promise that, in contrast to Johns baptism, the followers of Jesus would very soon be baptized in the Holy Spirit. Two major outpourings of the Holy Spirit fulfill this promise: Acts 2 and Acts 1011, both of which include baptismal events as central elements of the narrative. Other eruptions of the Holy Spirit occur in connection with baptisms: Simon Magus and the Samaritans (Acts 8), Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9 and 22), and the twelve Ephesian disciples (Acts 19.16). In some cases, for instance, the Pentecost believers, the Holy Spirit is a gift that comes through baptism (Acts 2.38). In other cases, the Holy Spirit is mentioned as a benefit believers receive (Acts 5.32) or as a distinguishing characteristic of highly important figures, for example, the Seven (Acts 6.3), Stephen (Acts 6.5, 6.10, 7.55), Philip (Acts 8.39), Peter (Acts 10.19, 11.12), Barnabas (Acts 11.24), Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13.2, 13.4), Paul and Silas (Acts 16.6), and Paul (Acts 19.21, 20.2223). Are there discernible patterns within this apparent disparity of presentations? If so, what are they? Fergusons main interpretive move is to distinguish the four dramatic outpourings of the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 1011, and 19 as instances of baptism in/of the Holy Spirit and to see all (or most) of the other references to the Holy Spirit, e.g., Acts 2.38, as a manifestation or gift of a different order, which comes as a natural consequence of water baptism.76 As he notes, this distinction has certain advantages. For one thing, the inconsistent timing of the Spirits arrival or the different modes of transfer pose less of a problem. The Spirit can come at the outset of one of these dramatic events (Pentecost, Cornelius) or after the laying on of hands (Samaritans, the twelve Ephesian disciples). Receiving the Spirit prior to baptism is also less problematic, since these four instances are exceptional moments that mark distinct stages in the progress of the gospel. This way of interpreting the material also assigns tongue-speaking to exceptional rather than typical moments of Christian experience.
76. Ferguson, Baptism, 269.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

363

But this distinction also creates problems. Since Luke specifically links Acts 2 and 1011 with the risen Lords promise in Acts 1.5, he clearly sees Pentecost and Cornelius as narrative fulfillments of that promise. But is this also true (in Lukes mind) of the Samaritans and the twelve Ephesian disciples? This distinction may also allow Acts 2.38 and comparable passages that link baptism with the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to be read as presenting a consistent baptismal theology. But what about the many other instances in Acts in which the Holy Spirit appears as the motivating impulse of certain people or events, e.g., Stephen (Acts 7.55), Philip (Acts 8.39), or Paul and his companions (Acts 13.24, 20.22 23)? The main interpretive question is whether the risen Lords promise in 1.5 can be understood to include not only Acts 2 and 1011 (and even Acts 8 and 19) but also the many manifestations of the Spirit, in all their bewildering complexity and variety, that are reported in Acts. A major question is whether Luke is operating with a consistent, coherent baptismal theology, which can be ascertained by pulling together the various strands from different episodes and synthesizing them into a summary description; or, is Friedrich Avemarie correct to conclude that the kaleidoscopic picture we find in Acts suggests considerable variety rather than uniformity in baptismal practice in the early decades of the Christian movement?77 LUKE-ACTS Separating the respective treatments of baptism by the Gospel of Luke and Acts reflects the standard canonical distinction, but if the testimony of Luke-Acts is considered as a single theological perspective on baptism, some things appear in a slightly different light. Like Matthew and Mark, Luke knows about the ministry of John the Baptist. Unlike his Synoptic counterparts, however, Luke reports the Spirits descent on Jesus and the heavenly voice in a post-baptismal theophany. Still, the event remains for Luke a defining moment in which Jesus true identity is affirmed by God. This identity is reinforced by the genealogy (Luke 3.2338) and tested by Satan (Luke 4.113), whereupon the full impact of his reception of the Spirit begins to be spelled out narratively (Luke 4.14), beginning with the Nazareth Inaugural (Luke 4.2630). From that point forward, Luke presents Jesus as the unique bearer of the Holy Spirit, the empowering force of Jesus two-pronged ministry of preaching/
77. Avemarie, Die Tauferzhlungen, 41340.

364

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

teaching and healing. Jesus neither imparts the Spirit to the disciples nor does he share it with those who experience the benefits of his teaching and healing. He is the Spirits sole agent in bringing about Gods heavenly reign. Lukes innovative interpretive move (compared with the other evangelists) is in the way he develops John the Baptists prediction that contrasted his own baptism in water with that of his successor, Jesus, who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire (Luke 3.16). Luke seizes on this as a promise that remains unfulfilled not only in the life and ministry of Jesus but also in the post-Easter period. Lukes gospel concludes with this promise still unfulfilled. Acts, however, begins with a variation of John the Baptists promise, reported as the very first saying of the risen Lord in Acts 1.45. The risen Lord lays claim to what John the Baptist had earlier promised, now giving it his definitive interpretation: Johns water baptism will soon be surpassed by a baptism with the Holy Spirit not many days from now (Acts 1.5). Two things have changed: John the Baptist had predicted that Jesus himself would baptize with the Holy Spirit; he had also coupled it with a baptism of fire. Jesus reformulation renders the promise in the passive voice with the subject unstatednot that Jesus himself will be the administrator of this baptism with the Holy Spirit, but that it would occur from some unknown source; and the medium will be the Holy Spirit exclusively, not the Holy Spirit and fire. Everyone acknowledges that the risen Lords promise in Acts 1.5 begins to be fulfilled in the events of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. An outpouring of the Holy Spirit on those assembled, along with fiery tongues and a mighty wind, actualizes Joel 2.2832 within this inaugural gathering of Jesus followers in Jerusalem. Luke constructs the narrative to convince even the most superficial reader (or hearer) that the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. The surefire proof was their ability to speak in tongues (Acts 2.4). The critical interpretive question is whether, and if so how, the risen Lords promise of Acts 1.5 continues to be fulfilled. Is Peters promise in Acts 2.38 that repentance and baptism would bring forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit a continuation of the risen Lords promise in Acts 1.5, or is the common reception of the Holy Spirit by baptized believers of a different order?78 The most revealing literary clue occurs in connection with Corneliuss conversion (Acts 1011). In Peters rehearsal of the Cornelius events before his Judean critics, he recalls that as he began speaking to Cornelius and his
78. Fergusons position (Baptism, 169).

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

365

household the Holy Spirit fell upon them (Cornelius and his household, as Gentiles) just as it had upon us (the apostles) at the beginning (Pentecost), which prompted him to remember the word of the (risen) Lord (as reported in Acts 1.5), that John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 11.1516). Peter concludes from this experience and his recollection of the risen Lords words that these Gentiles had received the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11.17). The clear implication from Lukes insertion of this explicit literary connection with Acts 1.5 is that Cornelius and his household, as representative Gentiles, indeed the prototypical Gentiles, like Peter and the apostles at Pentecost, had been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Since the risen Lords promise had clearly extended to Cornelius and his household, how, Peter asks, could he refuse to baptize them? At the literary level, then, Luke identifies two eventsPentecost and Corneliuss conversionas explicit instances of baptism with the Holy Spirit. As such, they have symbolic significance that distinguishes them from all other episodes in Acts. Pentecost marks the outpouring of Gods Spirit on believing Jews, Corneliuss conversion does so for believing Gentiles. By constructing his two-volume narrative this way, Luke establishes continuity from the point at which early Christian preaching beginsJohn the Baptist (Acts 10.37)through Jesus ministry, through his death, resurrection, and the interim between the resurrection and ascension, but even further through the two defining moments of the early churchPentecost and Corneliuss conversion. In this way Luke shows how John the Baptists prophetic promise, uttered at the very beginning of the Jesus story (Luke 3.16), comes to fulfillment in the post-Easter period in the earliest decades of the churchs existence. Lukes distinctive perspective is his insistence that what Jesus experienced uniquely as the bearer of Gods Spirit, and as narrated in the gospel, is extended more broadly in Acts, first to the apostles, but subsequently to a wide range of other recipients. Acts, in other words, reports the democratization of the Holy Spirit, which is poured out most visibly and dramatically in connection with two symbolically significant events: the conversion of Jews at Pentecost and of Gentiles at Caesarea. The distribution of the Holy Spirit occurs, however, in numerous other ways, at different places and times, and in different circumstances. The other episodes in Acts can be read as events in which the residual effects of these two representative episodes are felt. In reporting the events of Pentecost and Cornelius, Luke establishes water baptism as the normative initiation rite for early ChristiansJews and Gentiles. It is consistently associated with faith in Jesus Christ and

366

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

repentance as prerequisites or at least accompanying qualities. The effects and benefits of baptism are variously reported, but they typically include the forgiveness of sins, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and salvation understood in different ways. Not every report of baptism mentions these benefits. Luke is literarily sensitive enough to know that early episodes can be understood representatively and that mindless repetition can have a numbing effect. For those who have sinned egregiously (Pentecost Jews, Saul of Tarsus, the Philippian jailor), baptism has a purgative effect: it washes sins away. More exemplary citizens (the Ethiopian eunuch, Lydia, the Corinthians) simply receive baptism as a way of being identified as disciples of Jesus. For them, baptism is a rite of entry rather than a rite of purification.79 Problematic cases surface now and then. When the Samaritans accept Philips preaching about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8.12, 16), and yet they do not receive the Holy Spirit until Peter and John personally transfer it through the laying on of hands (Acts 8.1517). The Samaritans receive the Holy Spirit but no palpable effects, such as speaking in tongues, are reported. What power Simon envies remains unspecified, possibly the power to perform signs and wonders. Does this episode reflect the inadequacy of Philips preaching? Does it underscore the apostles exclusive authority and the need for the Jerusalem church to validate conversions in disputed Samaritan territory? Possibly some of both. But given the way in which the Simon Magus story is interwoven with the story of the Samaritans conversion, a more likely explanation is that Luke wants to feature a seriously flawed baptized believer (Simon Magus) who stands in sharp contrast to a fully exemplary onePhilips other convert, the Ethiopian eunuch. The twin cases of Apollos (Acts 18.2428) and the twelve Ephesian disciples (Acts 19.16) also illustrate exceptional cases. One way of reading these episodes is as a diptych introducing Pauls Ephesian ministry intended to show how people who exhibit different levels of attachment to John the Baptist need to be mainstreamed into the Pauline tradition, either by Pauls duly appointed co-workers or by Paul himself. The cumulative effect of both episodes is to show that disciples of John need to
79. See the encyclopedic treatment of baptism as it relates to initiation and purification in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, eds. David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, yvind Norderval, and Christer Hellholm, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 176.13, 3 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011).

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

367

receive more complete and more accurate teaching relating to Jesus; they also need to be baptized in the name of Jesus, even if that means being baptized again; and that baptism in the name of Jesus is incomplete until the recipient has also experienced the gift of the Holy Spirit, even if this requires a special bestowal by a duly appointed agent such as Paul; and that such an experience can be demonstrated visibly and audibly through such manifestations as speaking in tongues and prophesying. Another thing that Luke achieves in these two episodes is to demonstrate the geographical universalization of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. He has reported the Spirits outpouring in Jerusalem (the symbolic center of Judaism [Acts 2]), in Caesarea (the Judean center of Roman government [Acts 1011]), but also in Samaria (the center of the old Israelite kingdom [Acts 8]), and now in Asia (the major urban center in the Aegean [Acts 19]).80 Lukes major contribution to NT baptismal theology is twofold: (1) reporting baptism as the normative initiation practice among early Christians immediately after Jesus death and resurrection; and (2) providing a theological rationale that sees baptism not as an emulation of Jesus baptism but as a ritual initiation that symbolized penitence, one of the main requirements of Jesus preaching,81 and thereby conveyed forgiveness of sins, but also as a way of accessing what was uniquely his: the Holy Spirit. Jesus post-baptismal prayer marks the moment when the Spirit infuses Jesus himself, signals his true identity as Gods Son, and prepares him for his inaugural address at Nazareth, when he claims the promise of Isaiah 61. So equipped, Jesus is in the position to fulfill John the Baptists promise of the Coming One who would eventually baptize his disciples with the Holy Spirit and fire. Lukes distinctive angle on the death and resurrection is that through these events Gods Spirit, solely localized in Jesus himself, remained alive, and that the risen Lord, still in possession of the Spirit, envisions the fulfillment of John the Baptists earlier promise, and that after his ascension, the risen Lord carries out this promise by dispensing the Spirit at Pentecost. By reporting the two archetypal baptisms in the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and Caesarea, Luke explains how Gods Spirit becomes the churchs common possession. Individual acts of baptism become the primary means of
80. Another possible explanation is that Luke wants to show that dramatic outpourings of the Holy Spirit occur in the ministries of his three main preachers: Peter, in preaching to Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10), Philip in Samaria (Acts 8), and Paul in the Diaspora (Acts 19). 81. Luke 5.32, 10.13, 11.32, 13.3, 13.5, 15.7, 15.10, 16.30, 17.34, 24.47.

368

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

accessing the Spirit, whether in the normal course of events or in exceptional cases. For such baptisms to be authentic, they must be predicated on faith in Jesus as the Christ. For this to occur, they must be administered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This may mean that some confessional formulation appropriating the name of Jesus was uttered in connection with the baptism, either by the baptizer or the one being baptized. The cumulative effect of Lukes narrative descriptions also shows the Holy Spirit to be an equally critical component of authentic baptism, whether experienced in highly dramatic moments or in less conspicuous ways. The Holy Spirit is an indispensable element in Lukes baptismal theology because of its primacy in his Christology. Luke does not report the baptism of disciples as the replication of Jesus baptism. But he does insist on the indispensability of the Holy Spirit as an element of baptism because the believers experience of the Spirit links him or her not only with the pre-Easter Jesus, who possessed the Spirit uniquely, and in abundance, but with the post-Easter Jesus who carries forward the promise of the Father and actually envisions the church as part of his own prophetic vision. Believers who are baptized, whose stories are narrated throughout Acts, are not so much replicating Jesus baptismal example as they are connecting with the Spirit that God kept alive when he raised Jesus from the dead. Lukes justification for Christian baptism is that it fulfills the expectations originally articulated by John the Baptist and reiterated by the post-Easter Jesus. In this respect, Luke adopts a strategy similar to the Matthean Great Commission in locating the warrant for Christian baptism in words of the risen Lord.82 What distinguishes them, however, is that Luke links the risen Lords words with an expectation voiced at the very beginning of Jesus ministry, whereas Matthew does not. What remains only a future vision in Matthewa church that actively enlists, teaches, and baptizes disciplesbecomes an accomplished reality in Acts. CONCLUSION Rather than seeing these points as strong counterarguments to Fergusons presentation, I offer them as ways of opening and furthering the discussion. By no means do they attempt to present a comprehensive review of this extraordinarily rich, highly provocative treatment of a topic with complex historical roots and profound theological and liturgical implications. If

82. Matt 28.1820. The longer ending of Mark also reports a similar commission by the risen Lord (16.16), but it is clearly a late addition probably motivated by Matthew.

HOLLADAY / BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

369

the mark of a seminal book is the way it prompts us to re-think our own positions and to re-read familiar textstexts that we think we know so wellFergusons Baptism in the Early Church certainly achieves that, as well as teaches us at so many levels. In reflecting on this monumental achievement, one is reminded of A. D. Nocks characterization of Martin P. Nilssons Geschichte der griechischen Religion as that masterpiece of patient brilliance.83 Carl R. Holladay is Charles Howard Candler Professor of New Testament in the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia

83. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity, xiii, and included as the dedication in Stewarts edition of Nocks Essays, 1:vii.