Benadam74′s Blog

The Conclusion of Matthew by Hans Kosmala 4-5

IV

It was John the Baptist who introduced the “baptism of repentance” (Mt. 3, 11; Mk. 1, 4; Lk. 3, 3; Acts 13, 24; 19, 4; Mark and Luke have in addition: “for the remission of sins”). Even Jesus was baptized with this baptism (Mt. 3, 13ff.) “to fulfil all righteousness” 6). Jesus himself “baptized with the baptism of John” those who followed him (Lk. 7, 29f; John 3, 22; 4, 1; according to 4, 2 Jesus himself did not baptize, but the disciples did it in his place). At an early stage, however, evidently not long after Jesus’ death and resurrection, the baptism of John was replaced by the “baptism in the name of Jesus Christ”…Rom. 6, 3-5 gives us a full explanation of the meaning of this “baptism into Christ Jesus”: it is a “baptism into his death”, being a symbol of the “newness of life” now here on earth and, implicitly, in the resurrection (cf. also verses 8f. and 22f; Col. 2, 12; 1Peter 3.21). But the main element in John’s baptism of repentance was by no means lost in the new baptism (Rom. 6, 6-23): we are dead to the old life of sin from which we are freed, and the end is eternal life (22f.). Although repentance still remained the indispensable condition of baptism (Acts 2, 38) and the new life (numerous passages) 8), John’s “baptism of repentance” had now become insufficient, for the present Kairos which had come to a climax required a new baptism, namely that “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19,1-7;cf. also 2, 28 ;8, 12and 16 ;10, 48 ; 19, 5; Rom. 6, 3 ;1 Cor. 1, 13-17 implies baptism in the name Jesus Christ ; Did. 9, 5).

The New Testament records know only of two kinds of baptism, the baptism of John the Baptist and the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which replaced the former. “The “Way” which Jesus had taught his disciples in the time of the end began to lose its urgency and its meaning when the End delayed in coming. A new era set in requiring new thought, a new orientation of the Church and its teaching. The Kingdom of God failed to appear. No explanation of the delay was given or could be given. The leaders of the Church could only from time to time affirm the promise that the “day of the Lord” would finally come (2 Peter 3; 1 Clem. 23; 2 Clem. 11). But as decade after decade passed by and nothing happened, the delay of the Kingdom had at last seriously to be taken into account. It was then that the Church itself as the unique Heilsanstalt (the only divine institute of salvation) with its means of grace began to fill the vacuum step by step and to assume the place of the Kingdom of God so far as its earthly aspects were concerned. The rest had to wait till the coming of the Lord in his glory, but even that was occasionally lost sight of.

Jesus who had shown the Way of God was assigned a definite place as the second person of the Trinity. After that step it was only natural that the baptism in his name which was preeminently a baptism into his death could no longer adequately express the present status of Christ who was now sitting at the right hand of God for all eternity. Neither did it express the faith of the Church in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was a need for the full recognition and expression of that faith in a Trinitarian baptism formula since baptism had become the symbol of admission to the Church.

It cannot be our task here to demonstrate this development in detail and to show the gradual shift of emphasis in the baptism ritual from John’s baptism of repentance to the baptism in the name of the triune Godhead. May it suffice to say that this development did take place, though not yet during the time of the New Testament writings, as no trace of a Trinitarian baptism formula can be discovered in any part of the NT, On the other hand it must be stated at once that the faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as it found expression later in the Creed of the Church has its roots in the New Testament 9). We find the three divine manifestations clearly stated in an epistolary salutation (2 Cor.13, 14), which means that the belief in the three hypostases of God had already established itself at that time in a formula. The other passages, we omit those which mention only two persons, such as 1 Cor. 2, 10-12 (God, the Spirit), 1Cor. 8, 6 (God, Jesus), and Acts19, 5f.(Jesus, the Spirit)-1Cor.  12,2-6, Eph. 3, 14-21, and 4, 4-6 show how the need for this teaching about the three divine powers arose as a result of the early Christian mission among the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor. 12, 2; Eph. 2, 11f.; 3, 2; 4, 17).

At the beginning, however, so long as the Gospel was preached to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, there was no need to proclaim the triune Godhead. The Jews knew and believed in God, their Father in Heaven; they also knew of the Holy Spirit who, emanating from God, had inspired the prophets. What the apostles announced was the end of the days, the advent of the Kingdom of God through the Messiah. The God of Israel had his personal name; it was YHWH. But the name of the Messiah was not known. Now the Messiah had come. His name was Jesus. He lived, he worked through the Holy Spirit which was in him, he died, he was resurrected by God, his Father, he left his spiritual power to his apostles and would soon re-appear in his glory. We must not wonder, therefore, that in the centre of the earliest Christian message to the house of Israel was not God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit, although both had their definite functions, but “the name Jesus”, Jesus as Christ.

It was only later when the gospel of Jesus Christ was preached in the Hellenistic world that it became necessary to make his name known together with the Father and Creator who had planned everything, and the Holy Spirit, the active divine power.

V

It is, therefore, not surprising that in the early stages of the spreading of the gospel we find only the expression…(or with the prepositions &&, sts, Ev, Evexev, Berri) in all vital connexions. The following list is by no means complete:

The name of Jesus is spread abroad (Mk. 6, 14); Christ is being preached where his name is not named (Rom. 15, 19f.); one cannot name his name unless one departs from iniquity, (2 Tim. 2, 19); the apostles speak, preach, and teach in his name (Acts 4, 17f.; 5, 28. 40; 9,27.29) or about his name (8, 12); one prays (John 14, 13.14;16,23. 24. 26), one thanks God in his name (Eph. 5, 29; Col. 3, 17), one calls upon his name (Acts9,15;1Cor.1,2); one drives out evil spirits (Mk. 9, 28;16,17;Luke 10,17;Acts16,18), heals diseases (Acts 3,6.16;4,7.10), and does signs and wonders in his name (4,30); one gives judgment in his name (1 Cor. 5, 3-5) and exhorts by his name (1 Cor. 1, 10); one suffers, is reproached, and hazards one’s life for his name (Acts 5, 41; 9, 14. 16; 15, 26; 1 Peter 4, 14); one must believe in his name (John 1, 12; 2, 23; 3,18;1John 3, 23; 5,13; Acts 3, 16) and confess to his name (Rom. 15, 16), but it must not be misused (Acts 19, 13); his name must be magnified (19, 17) and glorified in us (2 Thess.1,12), every knee should bow at his name (Phil.2,10), for his name is above every name (2, 9). In fact, everything one does in word and deed should be done in his name (Col. 3, 17; cf. e.g. Mk. 9, 41). It goes without saying that one has remission of sins through his name (Luke 24, 47; Acts 10, 43; 1 John 2, 12), is justified in his name (1 Cor. 6, 11) and has life through his name (John 20, 31) ; there is no other name whereby we must be saved (Acts 4, 12).

Naturally, in those times, baptism was also performed in the name of Jesus Christ (see above p. 134). No such baptism, however, is recorded in the gospels; they only speak of the baptism of John or the baptism of repentance. With other words, they are a record of the earliest stage of evangelism during the life of Christ. This makes it very difficult for us to accept the Trinitarian baptism formula as an original part of the Gospel of Matthew. The gospels were written as straightforward records of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus with the ensuing charge to the disciples to bring Christ’s message to all nations. This exactly, and no more, Luke has pointed out at the end of his gospel (24, 46-48) as the quintessence of his record. No baptism is mentioned, though it may, however, be assumed that baptism accompanied the acceptance of the gospel as its visible demonstration. Even the spurious ending of Mark stresses the charge in the simplest possible words (16, 15). It mentions in the following verse a baptism which should supplement the acceptance of the gospel, but it does not say in whose name the believer should be baptized. One might expect a baptism in the name of Jesus, for verse 17 at once continues recounting the deeds which the disciples will do “in my name”.

The reason for the later inclusion of the Trinitarian baptism formula in the final verses of Matthew may be a very simple one. Matthew became the favourite gospel in the Greek Church. It was put to an extensive liturgical use, as research of the past few decades has shown. No gospel lent itself so readily for any additions which the Church felt obliged to make than the Gospel of Matthew 10). This would also explain why the Trinitarian and not any other baptism formula was inserted, for the baptism “in the name of Jesus” was by that time no longer in use.