What Must I Do to be Saved?

The objective of this paper is to answer the question posed by the title, namely: "According to the Bible, what are necessary and sufficient conditions ensuring eternal life?" Temporarily, the assumption will be made that it is a Biblically sound doctrine that one must "repent" or leave one's life of sin in order to have eternal life. An important element of trust in God is involved in this reformation, which is known by a large number of terms: turn from sin, make Jesus Lord, put on Jesus, etc. Again, we will assume that this is necessary. The term "faith" is often used in place of "trust"; the words are to be understood here as synonyms.

This gives us some basic ground on which to stand. The question can now be restated, "How much, in addition to trust and repentance, is necessary to ensure eternal life?" Various Christian groups have weighed in on the subject, including such diverse organizations as the Catholic Church, the Churches of Christ, and the United Pentecostal Church. Their chief arguments are sketched out here.

Part One: The case for the Lord's supper.

We temporarily identify the terms Lord's supper, eucharist, communion, and "breaking of bread" with the loose definition given by Jesus on the day he was betrayed: "Do this in remembrance of me." (Lk 22:19; 1C 11:24-25). Since Jesus' institution is so loose as to have been interpreted legalistically enough to mean different things, we will pin this down somewhat by saying that the offering of the bread and wine are generally agreed on as the central parts of the Lord's supper. It is these which constitute a communion, with whatever surrounding circumstances.

The focus on blood in the 1st Testament is important to understanding the historical background under which Jesus administered the first eucharist. Therefore and first, we notice the First Covenant prohibitions on eating and drinking blood:

(Gen 9:4; Lev 17:14; Deut 12:23). Each of these references explains the reason for the prohibition: to induce respect for the blood "because the blood is the life" (Deut 12:23).

"Blood was associated with life, purity, and sanctity, but also with death and pollution. All of these meanings are present in the passover and the Lord's supper." (Feeley-Harnik, p. 156) To verify this statement, we consult (Ex 29:10-21; Lev 8:15, 23- 30; Heb 9).

Exodus 29 deals with the ordination of priests in the covenant. A bull was to be slaughtered and its blood was to be placed on the horns of the altar and at its base (v. 13). Then a ram's blood was to be scattered against the altar (v. 15). The blood of a second ram was to be dabbed on the ears of the current priest (Aaron, at the time) and on those of the would-be priests. More blood was dabbed on their toes and splashed about. Blood was then used to sprinkle the clothing of the current and future priests, which was said to dedicate them to God (v. 21).

In the Leviticus account, blood was used by Moses to ritually cleanse an altar for offering. Then Aaron and his sons were ritually cleansed in the manner described in Exodus. Most people associate blood with defilement, and it was certainly true that the eating of blood defiled a person. In fact, it was even true that the presence of blood could prevent someone from participating in feasts (consider, for example, a woman's monthly period, which was called unclean). However, blood was viewed as having a purifying effect, even from disease (Lev 14:52). The purification that took place on Yom Kippur was connected with blood (Lev 16:18), but blood could also defile. Therefore, blood was regarded very highly, and when it appeared in connection with ceremony, it was used carefully.

Wine was "a sign of richness and purity. (Gen 27:28; Psa 104:15; Isa 55:1; Hos 2:8-9,22; Amos 9:13-14; Jn 2:1-11; 1 Tim 5:23) On the other hand, there was danger in its abuse (Gen 9:21- 27; Prov 23:30-35; Isa 28:1-9; Eph 5:28; 1 Tim 3:3,8; 1 Pet 4:3). Wine represented both God's cup of salvation and His deadly cup of wrath." (ibid, p. 156)

In the quotations mentioned above, we see that blood was not the only emblem of communion that had more than one significance. Gen 27:28 indicates that "plenty of grain and wine" was a blessing. The psalm thanks God for having given wine to people. An abundance of wine was an analogy for a period of restoration that was coming to Israel, as the Amos quote notes.

Yet God has always frowned upon the misuse of wine or overindulgence and drunkenness. As the above "negative" passages clearly demonstrate, as much as wine was a blessing from God, it was also viewed as a possible source of his anger. Like blood, wine was to be handled carefully and responsibly.

Author Feeley-Harnik sees Peter's dinner with Cornelius as a parallel to the last supper, saying that the circumstances there "reproduce the last supper in a gentile context. The transformation is announced by the odd time of the meal:...only gentiles, the Romans, ate at midday (Harvey,1970,437). It is confirmed by the people and the place....But unlike the man with the water jar, Peter's guides are gentiles." (p. 159)

The author also points out the importance of Caesarea as a gentile city, calling it "the most important port on the coast of palestine." If this is indeed the case, then the intent was to extend the important institution of communion to gentiles, for the original last supper had been in the Jewish context of a Passover seder. This extension runs parallel to the Christians' acceptance of gentiles into the second covenant, a fact that is revealed explicitly in Acts 11.

The eucharist is an act of communion with God and with one another. (1 Cor 11:26-34) In the act of partaking in the Lord's supper, Christians should display love toward one another (v.29) and proclaim God (v.26). The act is therefore one which itself fulfills the great principles in the Torah and Prophets: "Love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your strength," (Deut 6:5; Mt 22:37; Lk 10:27) and "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev 19:18; Mt 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jms 2:8) Paul admonishes that the atmosphere during the Lord's supper be such that the Christians are mindful of one another's needs, also calling to mind Jn 13:34 -- "As I have loved you, you should love one another." So we see that participation in the Lord's supper is a representative participation in the whole teaching of Jesus, as indeed he summarized the whole duty of humanity in those principles.

Consider Jn 6:27-58, the Manna from Heaven narrative. The crowd stipulated that they were looking for a physical sign from Jesus (v.30). They reminded him of the manna that had been given by God to the Israelites for sustinence while they wandered. (Ex 16:15; Num 11:7; Neh 9:15; 1 Cor 10:3-4). Jesus then said that he too would give them bread: but this bread was Jesus' flesh (v. 32, 35, 48, 51, etc.). Jesus did not let them doubt. He told them this explicitly: "Now also, the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give on behalf of the life of creation." (v. 51). This likens Jesus to the OT sacrifices, many of which also involved the eating of the flesh of an animal. Verse 35 speaks also of thirst, as do v.53-55. "For my flesh is the true food, and my blood is the true drink." Jesus offers a "sacramental" flesh and blood in communion by simply saying: "This is my body, [which is given for you]." and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [which is being poured out on your behalf.]" (Lk 22:19-20MR; 1 Cor 11:24-25) We see that Jesus was speaking of the Lord's supper, but the words also go deeper, as Barth reveals:

"Verses 32-58 have spiritual as well as sacramental meaning, all of these speak of faith in Christ the bread and of the miraculous sacrament." (Barth, p. 83)

"Only in and by and for Christian faith does the sacrament contain life; if there is no faith, God's judgment (described in 1C 11:27-33) falls upon those who consume the elements." (ibid, p. 84)

Kilpatrick asks what the Lord's supper accomplishes, and he answers his own question:
"The Gospel is now expounding the eucharist, in particular the flesh and blood of the Lord as bestowing eternal life. Here we have the second answer to our question. The Eucharist gives eternal life." (Kilpatrick, p. 55) This is now quite clear. Jesus intended for the communion to be a participation in and reminder of his own self-sacrifice. The meal also symbolizes and summarizes Jesus' teachings, which in turn sum up everything that God has taught to people. It cannot be neglected.

Kilpatrick goes on to compare the Lord's supper to the ambrosia and nectar of the pagan gods and to the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22,24; Rv 2:7,22:2,14,19) in the Garden of Eden. Manna is also a representative food of life, according to Psa 78:25 and the Sirach 16:20. In both places, it is called the "food of angels". In John 6, Jesus posited that his bread (body) was stronger than the manna, which gave only physical life. "...manna seems to have given rise to the expression 'bread of life', which appears in the Hellenistic romance Joseph and Asenath before it recurs in John. "This theme of the bread of life explains 1C 10:1-11." (ibid, p. 56)

In the Corinthian passage, Paul makes a direct comparison between the manna (in vv.1-6), the Lord's supper (in vv.16-18), and the pagan food of the gods (bulk of chs. 8-10). Ignatius says, "breaking one loaf, which is the medicine of immortality," in reference to the Lord's supper (Eph 22:2). He is therefore an early witness that the notion of immortality was linked to the participation in the Eucharist. "This thought was echoed in various liturgies, some of which are still used by Christians." (Kilpatrick, p. 56)

Kilpatrick prefers the translation "Do this in proclamation of me", rather than "in remembrance". He cites examples where remembrance is clearly not the viable translation of the Greek term used, but proclamation is. He concludes, then, that in 1 Cor 11, Paul was making a triple reminder that the Lord's supper is a proclamation of Jesus.

The passage in John 6:53-54 makes a clear summary of the results of this section:

"Indeed I assure you: unless you should eat the Son of Man's flesh, and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day."

Whether or not the bread and wine are actually metamorphosed (transsubstantiated) into the literal body and blood of Jesus or whether they merely signify that body and blood, our conclusion regarding the efficacy of the eucharist is clear: we see that participation in the Lord's supper is essential for salvation.

Part Two: The case for spiritual gifts

When Jesus inaugurated the current era, he told the Eleven about the characteristics of the Second Covenant. "Go into all creation and herald the good message to all the creation.
"The one who trusts and is baptized will be saved; the one who
does not trust will be condemned.
"Now these signs will follow those who do trust: in my name they will cast out spirit beings; they will speak with new tongues; [and with their hands] they will pick up serpents; and if they should drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick, and they will have power to be well." (Mk 16:15-18)

In this, we see that Jesus expressed the life of a Christian as displaying clear physical evidence: baptism (to be discussed later) and certain miraculous signs, known as the gift(s) of the Holy Spirit or "holy breath." Clearly, if a group does not have the signs in verse 17-18 present among them, then that group is not a group of believers, since the signs are found with the believers. It is also clear from the wording that the purpose of Jesus' declaration was to provide a means of identification. Who are Jesus' followers? They are those who practice the gifts of holy breath.

In Acts 2 we see something similar. Verses 1-4 express the outpouring of the breath. Verses 5, 9-11 detail who was present. One purpose was to identify for the reader exactly to whom the breath had been given and to whom the promise (v. 39) extended. Verse 4 tells us that the Twelve were speaking with the power of holy breath. Some people clearly did not understand what the Twelve were saying, as they remarked that the disciples must be drunk (v.12-15). Yet the rest heard the message in their own languages (v.6-8, 11). The Twelve were talking about God (v.11).

This speech that cannot be clearly understood by the unenlightened but which is comprehended by the faithful in their own languages is one form of "tongues speech" that is practiced by the so-called pentecostal or charismatic religious groups. The Jewish philosopher Philo referred to this as the ecstatic utterance of prophecy.

Peter in turn explained that Joel foretold the tongues speaking, among other signs of the Spirit (v.16-21). He explained that Jesus had worked miracles and signs -- signs that were being granted to others as well, and Peter discussed Jesus' death and resurrection, according to prophecy (v.22-32). He related that Jesus was the Messiah (v.30-36), referring to "this, which you see and hear" ("tongues of fire", rushing winds, and tongues speaking) as "promise of the holy Spirit" which Jesus "from the Father" (v.33).

When Peter reacheed his conclusion (v.36), he had quoted the original promise (from Joel) predicting the miraculous signs and repeated that it was the fulfillment of that promise which is causing the Twelve to speak in tongues.

The Israelites respond by asking what to do. Peter replied, "Change your minds", he said, "and each of you be baptized on the name of Anointed Jesus into forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the holy breath, for to you is the promise--and to your children, and to all those who are far away--as many as Yahweh our god may call." (v.38-39)

Some persons have distorted verse 38 by reading it as though Peter were talking about what they call an "indwelling of the Holy Spirit." Yet it is clear from the context that Peter is telling them that the promise in Joel of miraculous signs through the Spirit has been made to all Christians. Furthermore, no "indwelling" of the sort envisioned by these people fits the criteria of the promise, which clearly calls for the miraculous:

"The Holy Spirit renews and indwells the life of every believer (cf Rom 8:9), but Peter promised 'the gift of the Holy Spirit' (cf Acts 8:20; 10:45; 11:17). This promise applies to the outpouring of the Spirit. Other expressions for the experience are `baptism', `immersion', in the spirit (1:5) or `filling' with the Spirit (Acts 2:4; 4:8; 4:31;6:3-5; (twice) 7:55; 9:17; 11:24). The initial work of the Spirit follows repentance and issues into regeneration, the life of Christ, but flowing from the baptism of the Spirit comes the `free gift' of power which equips the believer for bearing witness to Jesus Christ.

"The power that comes by the baptism in the Spirit is promised to all believers...." (Arrington, p. 32)

Some people also attempt to claim that Acts 2 was an isolated event -- that there were never other Christians empowered with the gifts in the same way that Peter and the others were. They would attempt to limit the gifts to the apostles. Yet a comparison of 2:38, "the gift of the holy breath", with Acts 8:20, "God's gift"; Acts 10:45, "the gift of holy breath"; and Acts 11:17, "God gave them the same gift" verify that 2:38 is talking about the same phenomenon as that which occurred later and frequently among the Christians. It is this same miraculous sign that Paul and the Corinthians were occupied with (1C 12-14).

Moreover, John's discussion of "witnesses" in his first letter (1 Jn 5:5-13) is also relevant. He says that there are three witnesses in this world of one's Christianity: "the breath and the water and the blood" (v.8). The blood is the event of Jesus' crucifixion. He died for us to make himself an atoning sacrifice for our sins. The water is baptism, a physical act which marks our entry into his Second Covenant.

The witness of the breath (spirit) is the visible sign of the outpouring of the gifts of the holy breath on the believer. So there are indeed three witnesses on earth: the event of the crucifixion (a fact of history), the event of the believer's baptism (a fact of history, witnessed by men), and the events of displaying miraculous signs of the Spirit (a continuous testimony from God). The three witnesses testify to the world "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his son." (v. 11)

He also says, "The one who trusts in God's son has the testimony in him," (v.10) meaning simply that all true Christians practice the spiritual gifts. This is another statement which makes it clear that the miraculous signs not only "follow" the believers, but that believers themselves have the signs.

Sometimes the gifts of the Spirit, notably tongues-speaking, are found in an individual as soon as he repents of his sins. At other times, the new disciple must purge his selfishness and truly give himself over to God, perhaps through prayer and fasting, in order to receive God's blessing.

This anointing which Christians receive from God is not something that the believer has no control over, for Paul says in 1 Cor 12:31 that the gifts can be sought. Also see Heb 11:6 -- God "will become a rewarder to those who seek him out". Several narratives in Acts show the obvious importance of the spiritual gifts. Acts 8:14-25 tells the story of Simon the Mage, which takes place in Samaria. After Philip proselytizes a good number of Samaritans, Peter and John are sent (v.14) to pray for the Samaritans "so that they might receive holy breath. For it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." (v.15-16) We see here that the gifts were so important that the apostles would walk around checking to make sure that every believer received them.

This is the only time on record that any of the Twelve took his ministry outside Jerusalem until the advent of the gentile dispensation in Acts 9-10. Even then, the Twelve appear to have left the area only sparingly. Yet the Twelve considered the absence of the miraculous gifts important enough that Peter and John were sent 30 miles in rugged terrain to insure that the proselytes received the gift of holy breath that had been promised to all believers.

In Acts 19, Paul was passing through Ephesus and asked some disciples, "Did you receive holy breath after trusting?" It is impossible by the nature of the question that Paul could have been talking about an indwelling of the Spirit. No, he is talking about the spiritual gifts, as v.6 confirms:
"...the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." The gifts were important enough that as Paul was traveling around, he was making sure that the believers he ran into had the spiritual gifts. Quite possibly, all of the apostles did this.

Even at Saul's conversion, we see that God told Ananias that He wanted Paul to "see again and be filled with holy breath." (Acts 9:17)

Furthermore, we get additional evidence from Titus 3:5-6 -- "But when God our savior's ease and love for humanity appeared, he saved us (not out of right deeds that we did, but according to his mercy) through the washing, regeneration, and renewing of the holy breath, which he poured out on us richly...."

Here again we have salvation through the "washing" of baptism "renewing of the breath, which he poured out on us richly". The expression "pouring out of the holy breath" is only used to signify the giving of the spiritual gifts.

Thus, we see that the gifts of the Spirit are to be in evidence in his church, that everyone who has faith in God is promised the gifts of the Spirit if he seeks them ("Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened to you." {Mt 7:7; Mk 11:24; Lk 11:9; Jn 15:16}). Consequently, there are no Christians except for those who possess the miraculous spiritual gifts as signs (1 Jn 5:10; Mk 16:17-8).

We see that the holy breath, spirit baptism, is essential for salvation.

Part Three: The case for water baptism.

Due to space considerations, the possibility of infant baptism will be ruled out in this section. Therefore, in this paper, "baptism" will refer only to baptism following repentance or conversion.

Many of the passages which support the necessity of the spiritual gifts also support baptism, such as John 3:5, "unless someone is born of water and of spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God," which was not used above but could easily be applied. The rebirth must contain a rebirth in water. Mark 16:16 makes it plain that this water is baptism: "Whoever trusts and is baptized will be saved." Acts 2:38, 1 Jn 5:5-13, and Titus 3:5-- mentioned above also clearly support baptism. What could be more plain than "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"?

We see that Jesus himself was baptized (Mt 3:15-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:29-34; 1 Jn 5:6), and that his disciples practiced baptism while he was on earth (Jn 3:22, 4:1-2). Also, conversions in Acts follow the pattern of baptism:

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized".
Acts 8:12, "they were baptized, both men and women."
Acts 8:13, "Simon himself also believed, and, having been baptized, he was constantly attending to Philip...."
Acts 8:36,38, "'Here is water! What hinders me from being baptized?'...and he baptized him."
Acts 9:18, "he arose and was baptized."
Acts 10:47, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized...?"
Acts 10:48, "And he ordered them to be baptized."
Acts 16:15, "And when she was baptized, and her family...."
Acts 16:33, "he washed their wounds and was immediately baptized, and all his family."
Acts 18:8, "Many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized."
Acts 19:3, "Into what, then, were you baptized?"
Acts 19:5, "When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
Acts 22:16, "And now, why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Each of these makes it clear that baptism was part of conversion. Some, like 22:16, surely imply that forgiveness of sins came from a believer being baptized.

Paul testifies further concerning the necessity of baptism when he writes, "...as many as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death? We have therefore been buried with him by baptism into the death, that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, certainly also we shall be in the resurrection." (Rom 6:3-5)

Elsewhere, he says, "Besides, as many of you as were baptized into Christ were clothed with Christ." (Gal 3:27)

"...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him, through faith in the work of that God who raised him from the dead." (Col 2:12)

"so that, having purified her in the washing of water, he might sanctify her by the word." (Eph 5:26)

Baptism was considered basic knowledge for all Christians, as the author of Hebrews attests with: "Therefore, leaving the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, we should progress toward maturity; not again laying down a foundation for repentance from works causing death, and of faith in God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of the laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of the eternal judgment." (Heb 6:1-3)

The clincher of all is 1 Pet 3:20-21, which makes it plain to those who think that baptism doesn't save us that it obviously does: "in [the ark] a few, that is eight lives were saved through water. In the same way, baptism (a representation of this) now saves us: not a removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God."

Baptism saves us through faith, through God's grace.

We see that the ritual washing of baptism is essential for salvation. Some groups accept this without regard to what is termed the "mode" of baptism. Other groups do not accept baptism when the method of administration is sprinkling or pouring. These prefer full immersion. In fact, some groups who do not believe baptism to be part of the salvation process nevertheless acknowledge only full immersion as its proper mode.

3A: Baptism must be by full immersion.

The argument that this holds stems from the facts that the basic meaning of the Greek word, baptizw is "dip" or "plunge" and from the language used in certain passages of the Bible.

"John was also baptizing at Aenon, because there was much water there." (Jn 3:23)

"And they went down into the water...." (Acts 8:38)

"They came up out of the water." (Acts 8:39)

"We are buried with him by baptism...." (Rom 6:4)

"we have been planted together in the likeness of his death." (Rom 6:5)

"And Jesus, being baptized, went up immediately out of the water" (Mt 3:16)

Pentecostal Publishing House's "Tract No.109" quotes several outside sources: "From the World Book Encyclopedia, Volume One, Page 651, we quote, `At first all baptism was by complete immersion.' And in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume Two, Page 263, we find, "In the early centuries, all were baptized by Immersion in streams, pools, and baptisteries.'" (p. 2)

It is not the intent of this paper to discuss in full the mode of baptism, so the argument here will be considered strong but not necessarily conclusive.

3B: Baptism must be performed "in Jesus' name".

While Jesus said in Mt 28:19 "baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", the NT tells us that no one was ever baptized using these words as a formula. This is because the Eleven understood that Jesus intended them to use his name in baptism, which is why he said "the name" and not "the names". The NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Jesus. Can evidence be found for this assertion?

From Acts 4:12, we get "There is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we can be saved." He is talking about Jesus' name. Jesus' name was important, and was chosen by God because of Jesus' function on earth (Mt 1:21). In Acts 2:38, Peter uses the expression "be baptized ON the name of Jesus Christ". This was to denote being baptized while the name of Jesus Christ is spoken. We never read of baptism using the terms in Mt 28, but baptism in Jesus' name appears in several places.

More strongly, everyone who was baptized in the NT received a "Jesus name" baptism. Read Acts 8:5-16 and Acts 19:1-5, where examples occur. No examples are mentioned anywhere where the wording is different. And since Paul wrote, "And whatsoever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus," and since Jesus spoke of prayers being offered in his name, why would anyone erroneously practice baptism with a different wording?

That was God speaking through Peter on Pentecost. The other Eleven heard him give the formula, and no one corrected him. Had the correct wording been the expression told to the Eleven only a few days earlier, the others should have corrected Peter if he had mistakenly said "Jesus' name" when he meant something else. But to the contrary, not only did they all acknowledge Jesus' name in Acts 2, but also every example of baptism in the NT follows the Jesus' name practice. Clearly, the Eleven had understood correctly that baptism "into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" meant baptism in Jesus' name. Encyclopedia Brittanica, Canney Encycl. of Religion, Hastings Encycl. of Religion, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the New International Encyclopedia are all quoted by the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ's pamphlet "Water Baptism in light of the New Testament" as supporting the "Jesus' name" view.

Therefore, it is conclusive that baptism without Jesus' name is not effective. Baptism must be performed in Jesus' name and NOT saying any other formula.

3C: Baptism must be in running water.

We will not take the time to fully develop this theme; however, we feel obligated to state that all baptisms were performed with running (living) water, which symbolized life. Stagnant (dead) water was representative of death and was never used for purification. Every baptism in the NT was performed in a spring or river, where running water could be found. Stagnant pools were rightly regarded as being full of filth, scum, and slime. Therefore, the ritual arose from an immersion not in stagnant water but in running water.

So baptism ought to be immersion in running water in the name of Jesus Christ. When performed this way, it confers forgiveness of sins. Otherwise, it is not Biblical baptism and therefore is not effective.

Part Four: Against the Lord's Supper

Those people who support the necessity of the Lord's supper do so by asserting that the "bread" in John 6 is the communion bread. For John, bread is a symbol of being spiritually enriched, just as hunger is a symbol of spiritual want. John also uses grain, food, and feasting to reflect the same idea. So John includes in his gospel scenes which contain this element. (See Jn 21:5-13 [Jesus asks them if they have food. He already has some.]; Jn 4:8, 31-38). Jesus, the bread, is life to all those who believe and accept His message. This is what he means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. (See 6:29,36,40,47,etc.)

It is arguably true that in partaking of the supper properly, love is shown toward God and toward fellow human beings. However, Christians are supposed to live their lives in that state of love, not doing one thing...but all things out of love (Rom 13:8; book of 1 Jn).

The testimony of Ignatius is to be discounted as his own viewpoint and not historical. The other "support" for the Lord's supper has nothing to do with its necessity for salvation.

In fact -- quite shockingly -- there is no evidence that Jesus ever instituted the eucharist as a ritual. John's account does not mention the eating of the Last Supper, instead focusing on the many important things that Jesus said about love. Mark and Matthew, likewise, completely ignore any "institution" of a ritual. They do mention the dinner, but all they say about the cup or bread is that Jesus will no longer eat with them. In that statement, "eat" is used metaphorically for the loving fellowship that they shared together, and nowhere in those two accounts do we read of the institution of any ritual.

Luke's account alone mentions what could possibly be the institution of a ritual, for he quotes Jesus as having said, "Do this for my remembrance." Luke's friend Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the event, indicating that he said that whenever the Christians should "eat it," they should do it "for my remembrance." My questions are: what did he mean by "for my remembrance", and what did he mean by "do this"?

As for the "remembrance" (or "proclamation") part, I am in full agreement that Jesus intended to signify "lovingly." As John indicates, the content of the discussion that last night focused on loving one another. If they showed love for one another, then they would be "doing it for Jesus' remembrance," for Jesus had both taught and shown them love. Also, this is exactly how Paul applied the statement to the Corinthian dinner. They were not treating one another lovingly, and so Paul reminded them that Jesus had urged them to love one another.

It is in the Corinthian account that we also see what Jesus intended by "do this". Taking the overall meal in the gospels in its context, we might come to believe that "do this" meant "share a meal." This is precisely the situation to which Paul applied the teaching: not to a ritual or set of rituals but to the meals that Christians lovingly shared with one another. Whenever Christians eat together, they should treat one another lovingly: "Do this for my remembrance."

After Jesus' departure, gentile Christians created a ritual surrounding Jesus' words to his students, but in the NT we do not read of such a ritual. However, we do read that the early Christians shared meals with one another. At some point in time, this was nicknamed the "love feast" (or simply, "love") and was part of the lifestyle of love known as "the sharing" (Ac 2; Ac 4). But there never was a ritual called the Lord's supper, communion, or eucharist; consequently, such a ritual is not essential for salvation.

Part Five: Against the Gifts; Against Baptism

Since these are so often linked, I will attempt to deal with them together, although the argument against baptism is longer and more involved.

Certainly, we must consider that the passages quoted earlier present these things as having been normal for Christians and thought of as highly important. But does that make them necessary? And is there reason to extend those things to all time? We shall see.

If we recognize that nearly all of the passages are laying importance upon baptism and the gifts, and that it was indeed normal for both to be found among Christians, most of the passages such as Deutero-Mk 16:17-8 and the examples in Acts are explained. But in the case of dMk 16, manuscript evidence discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries points to a later date of authorship for both the Long Ending (dMk 16:9-20) and Short Ending of Mark. Most likely, these date to the 2nd century, with the Long Ending having been written in order to support one group's belief that they had authentic spiritual gifts but others did not. We cannot accept a late second century document as a witness to the first half of the first century.

We do accept the exegesis of Acts 2--that Peter was promising spiritual gifts to "as many as the Lord our God will call". But certainly the promise here (quoted from Joel) is seen more as a reward for and sign of following Jesus than as a precondition. The wording in 2:38 states that the promise holds for those people and their decendants who changed their minds about Jesus being the Messiah and were baptized. While the gifts could apparently be "sought", they are still GIFTS. Christians saw them as important signs of the faith, but they were gifts from God and not something which is done to gain eternal life. 1 Cor 12-14 tried to stress this fact. People were regarding the gift highly, and esteeming themselves highly because of the gift...when it should have been the GIVER that they were glorifying. This is why he downplayed the importance of the gifts, saying that they were very little in comparison to love.

Furthermore, an examination of the context of the Joel prophecy shows that the signs described by Joel -- including the holy breath -- were limited in scope. They were to continue only until "the great and majestic day of Yahweh." While some argue that this date has not yet come, we can say this: that the context of the NT application of the passage involves the coming judgment on Israel after the remainder of the nation rejected their Messiah. That judgment took place during the First Revolt (c. 66 - 73 CE), when the temple was destroyed and their self-rule taken away by the Roman Empire. From John the Baptizer, to Jesus, to the NT letters, the coming judgment of Israel was always in scope. The signs of the new covenant created a distinction between Jesus' followers and the adherents of Priestly Judaism, but the scope of the passage ends with AD 70 because Priestly Judaism ceased to exist at that "great and majestic day."

We accept also the reading of 1 Jn 5: that John's witnesses include baptism and the spiritual gifts. But the testimony in v.10 is not the witnesses, but the eternal life itself (v.11), which the witnesses were testifying about. John does not say that these are the only witnesses to eternal life. Nor does he say that the "water and breath" were essential. Rather, he pointed out these things (which were normal for every Christian) so that his first century readers "would know you have eternal life." (v.13) John was trying to build their confidence (see v.14). He was comforting some of his readers, who had begun to doubt that Jesus' school of Judaism was correct. Therefore, his "witnesses" were points of distinction between Judaism and what would be called Christianity. But they were only witnesses of salvation, which came through following Jesus' teachings.

Does baptism show obedience to God? Does God know whether or not one has the attitude of obedience in him without baptism? (Psa 44:21; Psa 94:8-11; Psa 103:14; Mt 6:8; Lk 16:15; Acts 15:8; 2 Tim 2:19; etc) God knows our thoughts before we think them, knows what we want before we ask, and above all knows our hearts. Yet does he not know whether we will "be obedient to him in baptism"?

So what was the scope and purpose of baptism? It completed a covenant between God and the one being baptized, marking a separation between that person (in the first century) and the people who had chosen to remain within Priestly Judaism. Knowing that they had accepted their Messiah, baptism gave the baptized person an assurance of faith. As John points out in 1 Jn 5, it was a witness to the one being baptized that he was following the right path (1 Jn 5:13).

The idea of baptism as representing entry into a covenant is certainly present in the NT. It is this idea that is being expressed in some of the passages cited in support. Let's inspect Romans 2:

"he will give out to each one according to his deeds."
Indeed, he will give out eternal life to those who according to the endurance of a good deed are seeking glory and honor and incorruptibility. But to those who act out of bigotry and who are unpersuaded by the truth but are persuaded by wrong, he will give out anger and rage: affliction and times of hardship upon every human soul who works out wrong, both to the Jew first and to the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to all who work goodness, both to the Jew first and to the Greek. For there is no personal bias with God." (2:6-11)

In summary, Jews and gentiles alike will be rewarded or condemned according to what they have done--bad or good.

"For as many as sinned without a code, these will also be destroyed without a code, and as many as sinned with a code, they will be judged through a code. For the it is not the hearers of a code who are just before God, but it is the doers of the code who will be justified. For when those gentiles who have no code should do the things of the Torah by nature, since they do not have a code they are a code for themselves. They clearly show the work of the code written in their hearts, with their consciences testifying together with their hearts ...." (v.12-15)

In this case, the application is for those who stand up for the Anointed One and his teachings. They are seeking "glory, and honor, and incorruptibility." The corruptible thing (by comparison) is Priestly Judaism, which has been earmarked for destruction; on the other hand, internal Judaism (Christianity) is incorruptible, and those Christians who do not rely on legal codes but on trust are seeking that incorruptible, glorious thing.

Paul saw bigotry in judging and rejecting people because of their race or lineage. Those legalists who demanded circumcision of the gentile converts (something Paul mentions in detail later in Romans) were not only acting out of bigotry but were failing to adhere to "the truth." The Truth is the spiritual Torah, an internal code which is not bound to physical things like circumcision and the written code. The spiritual code both explains and fulfills the written one.

The "glory, and honor, and peace" are not physical, for Jesus had not promised earthly glory, earthly honor, or earthly peace to his followers. Just as Paul himself found contentment in all his circumstances, so also all of the readers could find similar spiritual peace if they remained with Jesus and did not degenerate into legalistic religion.

In vv.17-23, Paul says that it IS better to know the Torah than not to know it. But in knowing, one must also practice the love and trust that he knows about.

"For circumcision indeed profits, if you practice a code, but if you should be a transgressor of the code, your circumcision has become a foreskin. Therefore, if the foreskinned should guard the tenets of the Torah, isn't his foreskin considered as circumcision? And the one who is foreskinned from nature and who completes the Torah will judge you, who through writing and circumcision are a transgressor of a code. For the one who is a Jew in appearance is not a Jew, neither is that which is circumcision in physical appearance circumcision. On the contrary, the one who is a Jew in the hidden place is a Jew, and circumcision is spiritual circumcision of the heart--not literal. This one's praise is not from people but from God." (v.25-29)

Paul suggests to the Jewish audience that it is not essential for a person to know the Torah and be circumcised in order to be justified (saved). He goes on to explain that the true circumcision is in the heart and that the Torah justifies no one, but is there to point out sin. Elsewhere, he calls the Torah a schoolmaster, a teaching tool that was necessary until Jesus summarized the Torah in the principles of trust and love. Those principles are necessary, but not the covenant.

Notice that the gentiles were performing the things of the Torah "naturally". They "do not possess a code". He is not saying that we can teach the gentiles something which will save them, but that these gentiles (unlike those in ch.1) are righteous already before God.

Circumcision marked a covenant between God and people. These gentiles lack the covenant, but are still justified because an unseen covenant was made in their hearts. Has God changed? Or are those outside the Second Covenant justified in the same way?

Let us regard the expression baptizw eiV (baptize into), as used in the NT. Said expression is found in the following verses:

MT 3:11; MT 28:19; MK 1:4; MK 1:9; AC 2:38; AC 8:16; AC 19:3 (implied a second time); AC 19:5; RM 6:3 (twice); 1C 1:13; 1C 1:15; 1C 10:2; 1C 12:13; GA 3:27.

Our first observation is that the language used in Acts 2:38 "baptized into remission of sins" is the same as that in Mk 1:4. If one says that "into" means "conferring" (as is applied by saying "for the remission...," then John's baptism also conferred forgiveness of sins. But we see from Acts 19 that it was necessary for the recipients of John's baptism to be baptized into Jesus' name. Also, when Apollos is first encountered, we are told (Acts 18:25) of the imperfection of John's teachings.

If you still believe that baptizw eiV could mean "baptize with result", compare Mt 3:11, where John is baptizing "into repentance". Does John's baptism bestow repentance? Obviously not, but the passage in Matthew indicates that John's students practiced this mental change, and they acknowledged their sins (Mt 3:1-12).

Let's look at the other instances: Mk 1:9 is a literal baptism into the Jordan river. 1 Cor 12:13 is talking about the so-called "spirit baptism", saying "you were all baptized in one spirit into one body". Yet this is NOT the gifts of the spirit he is talking about. In this sense, Paul is connecting the concepts of one and many, and the concepts of spirit and body. He says that they all have been cleansed, purified etc in the spirit. His point in all of 12:4-13 is that one Spirit is behind all of the action of each of the members of his church, collectively and individually (12:4,5,6,7,8,9,11,13). Anyway, his point is metaphorical, just as he follows it by saying "we were all made to drink one spirit." We were purified as one body and made partakers of one spirit.

The other instances of baptizw eiV are all examples where the notion of covenant is present Let's examine each of them:

Look at "baptized ... into Moses" in 1 Cor 10:2.
For, brothers, I don't want you to be ignorant that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and they all passed through the sea, and they all baptized themselves into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. And they all ate the spiritual food and drank the spiritual drink. For they drank from a spiritual rock which followed them. (Now the rock was the Anointed One.)

For those who were with Moses, being baptized into Moses was not a water immersion at all (like 1 Cor 12:13 is not a literal immersion), since the Israelites never contacted the sea (Ex 11:34-38). They were not immersed in the cloud (Ex 13:21-22); it guided them as they travelled. Yet how were they "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea?" Because by following the cloud and passing through the sea, they covenanted with Moses and with the God he represented! This is how they were baptized into Moses without being immersed in anything. Baptism speaks of covenant.

Being "baptized into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit" in Mt 28:19 also indicates a covenant. In performing the ritual act, one entered a covenant that separated Jesus' followers from Priestly Judaism. Instead of following its tenets of sacrifices, Christians would follow Jesus' spiritual Torah: the principles of love and trust.

The term "name" was often synonymous with "power" (see Deut 7:24,9:14; Ruth 3:5; 2 Sam 7:9;2 Sam 7:23; 2 Kgs 14:27; Psa 83:4; Isa 56:5; etc), for one's name represented one's very being. This is why Jesus and John the Baptizer were named specially and why Peter and Paul were "renamed." A name was a symbol of oneself and one's glory, thus "power". To be baptized into the name of Anointed Jesus or the name of the Father, son, and holy Spirit was to be ritually cleansed, entering into a covenant of the power of the Messiah and his God. In short, it was a means of public identification with the Messianic movement.

Baptizw eiV should be read as "baptize into (a covenant of)" or "(a covenant involving)" or "(a covenant with)." This would not be a proper translation per se, since the additional words are not found, but the idea should be present in the mind of someone who reads baptizw eiV in the text.

Baptism was not "a sign of repentance" or "a sign of forgiveness of sins". It was an agreement, a pact, between the individual and his God. It was both important and serious, for it separated someone from the Judaism of their forefathers -- the Priestly Judaism that was all around them. It was as serious as circumcision, which separated Jew from gentile. Yet as serious as the first covenant was, it was not essential. Neither is the second covenant essential, but it is necessary to live by the teachings of Jesus.

Consider Acts 19:1-7:
Now it happened while Apollos was in Korinth that Paulus was passing through the upper parts and came into Ephesus. And when he found some students, he said to them, "Did you receive holy breath after trusting?"

Now they said to him, "We haven't heard if there is holy breath." And he said, "Into what were you baptized?" Now they said, "Into John's baptism."

Now Paulus said, "John baptized with a baptism of mental change, telling the people that they should trust in the one who was coming after him...that is, in Jesus."
Now after hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paulus placed his hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Now the entire number of the men was about twelve.

In verse 1, the people met by Saul had not been introduced into the covenant (v.3-5) but were still called maqhtaV (students, disciples) without further qualification. They had made a covenant with John the Baptist -- a pledge to reform their minds since the Messiah was coming -- but they had not entered the covenant that carried with it the Joel promise from Acts 2 (v.3-5).

"Disciples in the writings of Luke always means Christians. The disciples that Paul met at Ephesus were not half-believers or merely disciples of John the Baptist, but Christian believers...Whether with or without an article ["the"], Luke consistently uses maqhtai in Acts to refer to Christians (6:1,7; 9:1,19,26; 11:1,26; 14:21-22). Moreover, the indefinite pronoun "some" (tineV) should not be pressed to distinguish between the regular group of disciples and this group. Luke uses the same pronoun in the singular to describe Ananias as a "certain disciple" (9:10). He also describes Timothy as a "certain disciple" (16:1). Therefore, whether singular or plural this indefinite pronoun describes followers of Christ." (Arrington, p.191)

The people Paul met were Christians without having been baptized into Jesus. Similarly, we do not have it on record that the Twelve were ever baptized by anyone other than John the Baptizer. They had no need of the Joel promise for themselves, since Jesus had blessed them with the holy breath prior to his departure. Yet they were certainly Christians.

The people who support the necessity of baptism will be quick to point out that there examples in Acts where people were baptized. But there are also examples wherein the readers are not shown that someone was baptized. In Acts 4:4, 5:14, 12:24, 13:43, 13:48-9, and 16:5 people became Christians without a mention of baptism. Given the emphasis on the Joel promise, they probably were baptized, but baptism was not so important that it was always mentioned, as baptism supporters would have one believe. And baptism was not called "necessary" in any of the accounts of conversion.

Now we examine John 3:5. "If anyone is not born of water and spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Many people interpret this as "born of water and born of spirit" (2 births). Such was the idea first popularized by Fairfield (1893), who said, "It is simply natural birth that is being spoken of." His argument revolves around the idea of a second birth; the first must be the physical one. Fairfield provided no support for his view, other than that modern medicos refer to the fluid of the womb colloquially as "water". There was a Greek term for this fluid, however, to which Jesus had access if he so desired. Also, why would he have confuse the issue? Everyone is born physically. The only modicum of support left for this view is the line "that which has been born of the flesh is flesh", which is not a reference to the act of physical birth necessarily -- but probably a simple contrast explaining that just as one has a physical birth, one requires a spiritual one, as Jesus tries to explain to Nicodemus why he "must be born from above" (v.7). It would not have made sense for Jesus to introduce his discussion by bringing in something else -- something obscure -- and yet still expecting Nicodemus to understand him.

The passage also does not say "born of water and of spirit" (one birth containing "water" and "spirit" elements). Rather it says, "born of water and spirit". This is very probably an identification of the water and spirit by the word "and" (kai).

Look at Gal 1:4, "the will of God our Father"; 1 Thes 1:3, "in the presence of God our Father"; Eph 4:6, "one God, Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."; etc. In each of these cases, the things are actually linked together by "and" and yet are one in the same. For example, the Thessalonian passage literally says "God and our Father," but the Greek word for "and" was intended for people to consider this as a reiteration: God is our Father. When and why does this happen?

In certain cases, especially after prepositions, kai is used to reiterate. It has been wrongly made by people who read English to be a separator. After prepositions, if the idea of the author is to identify, the preposition will not be repeated after kai. Otherwise, it is, such as in Mt 28:19. Jesus' intent was not to identify the Father, son, and holy Spirit in this passage but to inaugurate a covenant featuring baptism into a covenant of the F, S, HS. So the preposition is repeated.

In John, the author quotes Jesus as saying that one must be "born of water, that is, spirit." Water is being used metaphorically, and Jesus reiterates that being born of water is the same as being born spiritually. To John, the idea of water as a witness was important, and so he did not omit instances of water being mentioned anywhere. This is the "living water" (which also means "running water", a play on words) in Jn 4:10. In Jn 7:37-39, the topic recurs, with John specifying that the "living water" IS the Spirit. John uses the word water to mean spirit in metaphor. If we look on John 3:8 with the "running water" metaphor in mind, we can see that the passage in Jn 3 is indeed inaugurating for the reader the concept of water as spirit. This is why Jesus never explains to Nicodemus about a "water" element in the "birth"...because he IS explaining it, since the water and the spirit are the same! As an additional note, since God's second covenant had not yet been inaugurated yet (Heb 9:20-22), Jesus would not have told the truth if he had said in the present tense that salvation depended on baptism. Jesus says that his covenant is a covenant in blood in the Lord's supper passages, and Hebrews indicates that the covenant is ratified with the shedding of blood.

In regarding Acts 22, we see that Paul's account to the Jews of his conversion differs in language and in emphasis from that which Luke gives in Acts 9. In fact, the language and emphasis also differ in Acts 26. These are not "contradictions"; rather, Paul is tailoring the language that he uses in telling his story to the audience, as he does in his letters. When Paul speaks to Jews, he begins, "I am a Jew...brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel...." (v.3) This helps him to connect with his audience. They would have been concerned with his lineage and training, and so he presents it to them -- something that was unnecessary in Paul's defense before Agrippa.

Also, Paul spoke to them in Aramaic (v.2), calling them brothers and fathers (v.1). Not only did his use of Aramaic assist his cause, but also he labeled his audience with traditional terms of respect among the Jewish people. He speaks of his training in the Torah and of his jealousy for God (v.3). He points out the high priest and "all the older people" as witnesses to his having been sent to Damascus (v.5). The concept of witness testimony was strong in Jewish law, and with some of the most respected Jews among his witnesses, he added credibility to his story.

When discussing the aftermath of the conversion, Paul builds up Ananias' reputation as a pious Jew (v.12). It is Ananias who sends Paul out; therefore, Paul was following the instructions of a good Jew. But more than that, it is God -- "the God of our fathers" (v.14) -- whose instructions Paul followed then and would continue to follow. Jesus was called the "Just One" (v.14), indicating his role as the promised Anointed One and the fact that he had been innocent of any charges brought against him. The gentiles are not mentioned (v.15) when the commission is given to Saul by Ananias. Finally, baptism is mentioned in the language of the Jews, who saw it as a ceremonial washing, a purification rite.

Compare Acts 26, when he speaks to Agrippa and emphasizes his obedience and subservience. Here, the gentiles are mentioned at length, but Ananias and baptism are not. Paul placed emphasis in his conversation on those elements that might most logically appeal to his listeners. While a Jewish purification ritual would have meant nothing to Agrippa, an emphasis on the gentile mission would not have assisted his case with the Jewish people. Therefore, Paul emphasized whatever might help him in each case and downplayed other events. Baptism was mentioned here not as a point of salvation but as a means of connecting his listeners to his own Jewishness. As to the Jewish usage of ritual cleansing:

"The idea of cleansing is certainly applied to liberation from moral defects, but only figuratively. Nowhere do the classical proponents of OT religion think that disobedience to the moral will of Yahweh can be expiated by external washing. The call is always for repentance and effective amendment." (Oepke, p. 301)

"In the NT there is a close connection between water baptism and forgiveness of sins, but this does not mean that baptism is a means of salvation...In obeying the command to be baptized the apostle was to call upon Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, as the Messiah. His submission of the divine ordinance of baptism was a declaration of his faith in the Lord Jesus." (Arrington p. 222)

"It was important to stress on the present occasion that the commission which Paul received from the risen Christ was to a large extent communicated through the lips of the pious and believing Jew.
"The Jewish style of Ananias' announcement contributes to the general presentation of his role in the narrative: the initiative in Paul's call is taken by `the God of our fathers' (contrast `the Lord--that is, Jesus' in 9:17), and Jesus himself is identified as the Righteous One." (Bruce, p.417)

Bruce describes Paul's baptism (p.418) as "the outward and visible sign of his inward and spiritual cleansing from sin. And in the act of being baptized his invocation of Jesus as Lord would declare the dominant power in his life henceforth." This is the traditional Protestant view, although it is my belief that baptism was a cleansing ritual that showed everyone that the Christian was leaving behind his previous religious ways and was attaching himself to Yahweh through the Messiah -- as distinct from any attachment through Priestly Judaism.

"For as many as have been baptized into the Anointed One have been clothed with the Anointed One. (Gal 3:27)

Paulus uses "baptism" as a symbol here. Being "baptized into the Anointed One" signifies covenanting with the Messiah. Given the things just written to the Galatians, Paulus has in mind the concept of living by trust. Whoever lives in the trust that Jesus brought has been "clothed with the Anointed One," and having publically declared this trust (by being baptized) presumed that trust was present. This means that when God looks at a Christian, he sees Jesus in them. He sees that they are following the Messianic teachings, and that is enough. God does not see physical distinctions of any kind. Circumcision is certainly one kind of physical distinction, but society had and has other such distinctions (v. 28), such as those between the classes and genders. God sees none of those things when he looks at a Christian -- he sees the teachings of his Anointed One being acted out.

You were buried together with him in baptism, in which also you were raised up with him through the trust in the working of God who raised him up from among dead people. (Cl 2:12)

Paul wants to separate his readers from the Judaizers, so as to illustrate that whether they are Jews by birth or not, they do not belong with those who advocate a physical religion. After mentioning that Jesus and the Judaizers promoted different kinds of circumcision, he reminds his readers that when they were baptized, they made a concious effort to separate themselves from the non-Christian Jewish world.

"You were buried" does not refer to the mode of baptism -- to what it looks like -- but to the significance of separating themselves out as part of a separate covenant, the covenant inaugurated with Jesus' blood sacrifice. When they were baptized, they had been making a public statement that they knew that justification came not from adherence to various rituals but through trust. If baptism symbolizes entry into a covenant involving Jesus' death, then aren't they "resurrected" because of their trust? And it is indeed trust that is the basis for salvation.

"And when you were dead" (v. 13) refers to the situation that they had known in Priestly Judaism when they had been slaves to what Paulus calls elsewhere (Rom 7-8) the "code of sin and death." The "flesh" is physical religion, and just as the author has called the true circumcision spiritual (not literal), so also the physical religion is "foreskinned," that is, those who pursue justification that way are not "circumcised" to God, but the Messiah came, and when we realized that, he "made us alive" through his teachings.

Consider 1 Pet 3:20-21. Peter says that baptism saves us in the same way that the flood saved Noah's life. Building the ark saved Noah's life! Ah, but Noah's having built the ark was his part of a covenant with God, just as the flood was God's. It is Noah's trust in God that caused him to make and keep the covenant. This is what saved him. So Peter tells us in v.21 that the physical act of baptism (ceremonial washing) does nothing. Rather, if they persevered and kept their covenant with God, then they were assured salvation.

Just like Noah's, the covenant had in it the "pledge of a good conscience toward God." Throughout his letter, Peter is urging his readers to remain faithful to the covenant they made with God. He assures and reminds them that if they continue, they will be saved and rewarded (4:13, 5:4, etc.).

It remains for us to examine Ep 5:26 and Ti 3:5, both of which use the term loutron (a washing, cleansing, or bath). In Eph 5, Paul used the metaphor of the preparing of a bride for a future wedding. In their culture, the new wife was to be ritually cleansed, sanctified (made holy, set aside for holy [God's personal] use), and presented to her groom as a chaste virgin. This is the image that Paul presented. The Greek reads: "ina authn agiazh kaqarisaV tw loutrw tou udatoV en rhmati", literally, "so that he might make her holy after cleansing [her] with the bath of the water in a declaration." The use of "in a declaration" most readily means that Paul has been using the whole scene as a metaphor. Thus, we translate:

...so that he might make her holy, after cleansing her with the bath of water (so to speak)...

Paul nowhere says that literal water is meant, and clearly the cleansing is spiritual. It is through following the teachings of trust and love that Jesus' people are cleansed to be by his side There is no reason to suspect that the water is anything but part of the metaphor.

Schonfield also has for Eph 5:26 -- "...that he might consecrate her, having been cleansed by the ritual bath of water, so to speak, that he might take the Community to himself...."

Schonfield has as a footnote to Eph 5:26, that we have indeed "the figure of the ritual bath of purification taken by Jewish women, here prior to the marriage ceremony, kiddushin (consecration)."

Since rhma (declaration, word) is not used of writing but of some form of speech, action (Dt 15:10), event (Dt 4:32), or thought (Dt 15:9) or legal matter (Dt 19:15) in the OT and seldom breaks out of the basic concept of "declaration" in the NT (perhaps Mt 18:16 and even here, spoken testimony) -- although the word is used 147 times in the Torah alone and 67 times in the NT, this instance cannot be referring to the Torah and Prophets. It is never used that way. Schonfield, as seen above, indicates that "in a word" is a way of saying "so to speak", which in this case would be indicating that Paul's "water" is symbolic, in keeping with his metaphor. This then is consistent with the traditional Jewish use of louein. As Oepke says earlier, the cleansing is always spoken of figuratively -- in a spiritual sense.

In Ti 3:5, the action is certainly spiritual, but the fact that loutrou, paliggenesiaV, and anakainwsewV are all genitive creates an ambiguity in the text which we must address.

But when God our savior's ease and love for humanity appeared, he saved us (not out of right deeds that we did, but according to his mercy) through the washing, regeneration, and renewing of the holy breath, which he poured out on us richly on account of Anointed Jesus our savior, so that we would become heirs according to a hope of eternal life, being justified by that one's generosity.

Regard the sentence: "After the sun went down, the boys would spend time carefully cleaning and eating fish." Are they washing themselves and eating the fish, or are they cleaning the fish before eating them? This is the sort of problem above. It can be read that the "washing of regeneration" and "renewing of the holy breath, etc." are the elements through which God saves Christians or that he saves through a cleansing. The cleansing is regenerative and renovative by nature...and spiritual. Is the word for cleansing used in the spiritual sense?

Here Paul lays out exactly how God "saved us." First of all, he did not save us through legalistic obedience to the Torah ("right deeds that we did"). On the contrary, it was God's own merciful generosity that saved. This is evidenced in the holy breath, the accompanying sign of God's people under the new covenant (as to distinguish them from the physical nation of Israel). The holy breath was poured out because of the Messiah, and those Judaizers who knew Joel 2-3 would realize this. Thus, because of Jesus, his students are "heirs" not of a physical land but of "eternal life" and are justified not by deeds but by God's generosity.

Although Oepke believes that loutrou in Titus 3:5 referred to baptism, he acknowledges that both genitives which follow it belong with it and not with dia. (p. 304)

Returning to Oepke's analysis of the OT uses of cleansing -- and to the fact that physical cleansing was always only a metaphor that represented genuine spiritual cleansing, we observe the following passages:

"Sprinkle me with hyssop, so that I may be cleansed; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (Psa 51:7, REB)

"When the Lord washes away the filth of the women of Zion and cleanses Jerusalem from bloodstains by a spirit of judgement burning like fire," (Isa 4:4, REB).

"I shall sprinkle pure water over you, and you will be purified from everything that defiles you; I shall purify you from the taint of all your idols." (Ezek 36:25, REB)

"On that day a fountain will be opened for the line of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to remove their sin and iniquity." (Zech 13:1, REB)

Oepke comments, "Without falling into superficial moralising, the prophets thus keep constantly alive the sense that external washing cannot undo the wrong." (Oepke, p.301)

"Though you wash with soda and use soap lavishly, the stain of your sin is still there for me to see. This is the word of the Lord GOD." (Jer 2:22, REB)

Schonfield translates Titus 3:5 as "by the washing and the renovating power of the holy Spirit..." which he means to indicate that the washing is not a baptism but the same kind of spiritual washing mentioned elsewhere when the term loutron is used.

"...there is blood on your hands. Wash and be clean; put away your evil deeds far from my sight; cease to do evil, learn to do good." (Isa 1:16-7, REB)

"Jerusalem, cleanse the wrongdoing from your heart and you may yet be saved. How long will you harbour within you your evil schemes?" (Jer 4:14, REB)

"There are people who are pure in their own estimation, yet are not cleansed of their filth." (Prov 30:12)

The cleansing comes in the heart by following God.

Further, peripheral, evidence comes from the document known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (or Didache), which makes a distinction between baptized believers and unbaptized. For example, it allows only those Christians who have been baptized to partake in the Lord's supper. Early estimates on the date of composition of this document place it at 60 C.E., although more likely it was completed in the 2nd century. While the Didache certainly makes deviations from first century teaching, the document is early enough to verify that Christians did recognize unbaptized believers as belonging to the Christian community.

Consequently, the passages that are read so as to favor baptism as part of the salvation process actually connote something else when read in their original contexts. Furthermore, given the connection made between baptism and the Joel promise and that the purpose of baptism was to create a distinction between Jesus' school of thought and mainstream Priestly Judaism, it is quite likely that baptism should not have been practiced after 70 CE, although later gentile Christians continued the practice.

5A: Against Necessary Immersion

It is true that I have used the transliteration "baptize" instead of "immerse". Fairfield does have a point when he says that it may not be the mode -- but rather the action -- which is being expressed in baptizw. Baptism is a cleansing rite, a purification. Is it the immersion or the purification that is trying to be conveyed? Fairfield also points out that in Hebrews, particularly in 9:1-14, a characterization of the first covenant is given along with a contrast to the second covenant. Verse 10 refers to "various ceremonial washings" as belonging to the ordinances of the first covenant. The NIV (and others) chose that translation of baptismoiV here because there were no ceremonial immersions practiced by the Jews as part of the first covenant. Not one! However, many purification rites were performed by sprinkling (usually via a hyssop stalk. It is also likely that it is these rites and not Christian baptism that the author refers to in Heb 6 as being part of the basic teachings, along with the laying on of hands. The word being in the plural is strong support for this, since Christian baptism is not referred to that way.

Yeshua Ben Sira, author of Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), also refers to "baptisms" under the first covenant. Yet again, there were no immersion rites. Therefore, the Jewish usage of the word could not have been "immerse."

The Hebrew word for "dip" or "immerse" is used 16 times in the OT. Only once does this remotely resemble a rite, and that is in the case of Naaman the Syrian who dipped himself in the Jordan river 7 times. Furthermore, the LXX uses baptizw for various Hebrew words, always with a purifying sense. The word is generally not used to translate "tawbal", the Hebrew word found in the Naaman account.

Mk 7:2-4 speaks of the disciples eating with unclean hands. A tradition is mentioned, which Jesus' followers were violating, that before eating it was necessary to "wash the hands with the fist". Furthermore, v.4 continues: "and coming from a market, unless they baptize themselves, they do not eat. And there are many other things which they have received to maintain: baptisms of cups, and of pots, and of copper vessels."

The manuscripts A D W Q f^1.13 M latt sy^p.h, sa^mss and Origen include "and of dining couches". This is a large and valuable enough portion of the tradition that NA26-7 includes the fragment in brackets. This list of manuscripts includes important Alexandrian witnesses, the major D-type witnesses such as the Old Latin and Vulgate, the Peshitta (Syriac), and the Majority Text. This fragment is not unquestionably admitted to the text mainly because it is omitted by Aleph and B, two relatively important manuscripts.

Yet the mere notion that there might be a ritual of immersing the large, heavy dining couches is ridiculous! If the sense of the word baptizw had been "immerse", only an idiot with no knowledge of the Greek language would have included "and dining couches" as an object. Nevertheless, it is there (in most manuscripts). So runs Fairfield's argument.

What about some of the wording in the NT concerning baptism? The phrase "in the river Jordan" which is used once is actually "at the river Jordan". They didn't go "down into" the river. They went "at" it, which doesn't need to mean anything more than going onto the riverbank. Similarly, the phrase often translated, "they came up out of the water" is literally "they came up from the water". The Greek word means "from", not "out of," and does not mean they were down under the water at all, necessarily. They could have been on the riverbank, coming "away from" the water (Mt 3). Even in Acts 8, both Philip and the Eunuch go into (eiV) the water. There is no need to view this as their having gone under (upo) the water. Rather, they simply stepped into the river's waters and performed the ceremonial washing.

The phrase "I baptize you in water" is literally "I water baptize you". No preposition is found. The passage again refers not to the mode, but to the cleansing, since this is usually found (like in Acts 1:5) followed by the statement "but you will be baptized with holy breath". Nowhere in Acts 2 does it say that they were immersed in holy breath, although they were "filled with" it.

In Mt 3:11, John says "I indeed baptize you with water into repentance, but the one who is coming after me...will baptize you with holy breath and in fire."

This is the prophecy recalled in Acts 1:5 concerning Pentecost. Yet the 12 were not immersed in fire. Something that looked like a tongue of fire appeared over each one's head, but they were in no sense immersed in fire. Verse 12 continues: "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clean out his threshing floor. And he will gather the wheat into the storehouse, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." The concept of purification is present in these verses, but the concept of a mode of immersion is not. John was saying that the Pentecost event represents a purifying. It was not an immersion.

John 3:22-26 says that John was baptizing disciples near Saleim "because there were many waters there". This is not "much water", but "many waters". Fairfield contends (p.135) that the reason John chose this spot had nothing to do with the baptism rite, but with the fact that the people who went out to see John had to have a place to stay where there was ample drinking water. This place was chosen because of its abundant springs. The name used to describe the place has a name that indicates springs.

We have already mentioned "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" in 1 Cor 10:2. The idea of this being a covenanting with Moses and signifying a ritual cleansing is relatively easy to see. But as also mentioned before, there was no immersion in either the cloud or the sea.

The fact that "living" or running water was prescribed in the purification rites that were by sprinkling (see Lev 14:5-7, 51,52; 15:13; Num 19:17) and the fact that Jesus refers to the Spirit as living water (John 7:39, e.g.) could only do further to connect the Christian purification with the first covenant purification rites that were performed by sprinkling (Heb 10:22, e.g.).

There are several figures used, like that in Rom 6 (baptism signifying Christ's burial). "Therefore, we were buried together with him through baptism into the death, so that just as the Anointed One was raised up from among the dead (through the Father's glory), in the same way also we should walk in newness of life."

Paulus does NOT mean that baptism "looks like a burial." On the contrary, he is simply extending the "death" analogy. If we have entered Jesus' death, then the public act of separating from legalistic Judaism and uniting with the Messiah is like a burial -- it is what happens after we die. But just as Jesus was resurrected, the Christian must live a "resurrected" life. In Paulus' analogy, the covenant with Jesus' death is also a covenant with his resurrection. Consequently, no one may live in sin. Baptism represents an affirmation of God and their burial of the previous life in Judaism.

Fairfield points out something important: that even if it could be shown that all of the examples we have of second covenant baptism were done by immersion, this does not mean that it was prescribed this way as a necessity. We have seen that the word itself does not imply immersion. Since the culture Jesus was drawing from had sprinkling purification rites, it is in fact more natural that the ritual cleansing of baptism was most often performed by sprinkling, using running water (which signified life just as stagnant water signified death).

So not only was immersion not important, but also baptism may not have been intended to extend beyond the first century. I refer the reader who is interested in seeing a further development of the argument against necessary immersion to Fairfield's book. This author believes that not all of Fairfield's data and exegesis are correct, however, so that the reader is asked to double-check the things that he says.

5B: Many Things Unsaid

This paper has left open the question of whether one can renounce God and "lose one's salvation." These may possibly be addressed as I study more about them. Even though this issue has been necessarily sidestepped, I have attempted to provide an accurate answer to the title of this paper, as I currently view it.

Part Six: Answering the Title

There is little responsibility with ignorance, but also little understanding.

I think salvation doctrine boils down to this: do what you know God wants you to do. In particular, live by love and trust.

Since we live in an era when the Bible is generally available to all, in some form or another, one can read it to gain spiritual insight, but even it is not essential. The Bible contains useful information and deep spiritual truths. The more one prays, studies the Bible, and puts God's teachings into practice, the closer to God one becomes. This is much more than "live a good life", because a consciousness of God demands the direction of one's life toward him. You cannot be part of God's kingdom unless you live by his principles of trust and love.

The things which God tells us (collectively and individually) should not be seen as "requirements" if we are already directed toward God. These are maxims which he has given us for our benefit. The laws governing clean and unclean meats provided the Jews with protection from the diseases and parasitic infestations carried in non-Kosher meat. Trust and love are wonderful and special things. They must and should permeate the lifestyle of the Christian. It is these things that distinguish God's true followers from everyone else, but we cannot truly trust or love if we're only interested in doing the minimum necessary to save ourselves from destruction.

I do not believe that it has been stipulated what the minimum necessary to be done in order to be saved IS. The paralyzed man in Mt 9:2 (and Mk 2:1-12) has his sins forgiven without so much as anyone asking! The thief on the cross was not saved as either covenant reckons, but he was forgiven nonetheless. He had turned to trust and love, even if only for a moment. But these are not things that we humans can instantly observe. God's greater foresight and plan saw that man as justified because of his heart.

Therefore, what should we do? We should all live our lives trusting God and our fellow Christians. We ought to love one another -- placing others' needs ahead of our own. In this manner we show that we also love God, seeking his kingdom and what is right instead of prioritizing ourselves first. God's kingdom is characterized by loving, trusting relationships. These are the things that "save," but we need not be concerned about salvation if only we trust.

Abbreviations:

OT is the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, called the Old Testament.
NT are the Christian writings, called the New Testament.
C.E. is the Common Era or Christian Era.

Translation is generally the Revised English Bible in the OT and the Non-Ecclesiastical New Testament in the NT. However, various NT sources have been compared to the NET, notably Schonfield's Original New Testament.

This paper has been prepared using the Gramcord computerized search system.

SOURCES AND INFORMATION

Arrington, French L., The Acts of the Apostles, Peabody Massachusetts, Hendrickson Pub., 1988.

Barth, Markus, Rediscovering the Lord's Supper, Atlanta, John Knox Press, 1988.

Burchel, "paliggenesia", TDNT, Vol 1, Grand Rapids, Eerdman's, 1965.

Bruce, F.F., The Book of Acts, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids, Eerdman's, 1988.

Fairfield, Edmund B., Letters on Baptism, Boston and Chicago, Congregational Sunday School and Publ. Society, 1893.

Feeley-Harnik, Gillian, Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity, Philadelphia, Univ. of Phil. Press, 1981.

Kilpatrick, G.D., The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy, Cambridge, 1983.

Oepke, "louw", TDNT, Vol 4, Grand Rapids, Eerdman's, 1967.

Smith, William, ed., Smith's Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition, Philadelphia, A.J. Holman, 1897?.

Contents © 1990, 2001 Frank Daniels