Yes, two baptisms in Matthew. John and Jesus weren't up to the same thing.
Just read it.
Did I mention?
In the Gospel of Matthew, John the Baptist proclaims "I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." In this moment, Matthew establishes a theological difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus. Furthermore, after his resurrection, Matthew's Jesus commands his disciples to "make disciple of all nations" through a baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to bring about obedience to Jesus' commands and teachings. Through this statement, Matthew further clarifies his understanding of baptism as Jesus taught it to be something different from what John proclaimed. Matthew redefines a familiar Jewish ritual in the light of his understanding of the Risen Christ. It is a radical theological shift within a Jewish framework. Jesus has given us is a new baptism. This is not the baptism of John.
In Matthew?s Gospel, John is a prophet who appears in the wilderness of Judea proclaiming repentance. When those who came to him confessed their sins, he would baptize them in water of the Jordan River. This baptism was ?for repentance.? It served no other function than that. This baptism is unremarkable except for one reason: John baptized Jesus.
According to Daniel Harrington, Matthew has to deal with the problem of the social ranking of John and Jesus. If Jesus was to be sinless, blameless, the Son of God, then his being baptized by John for repentance is an embarrassment and a theological impossibility. So, the question of who is the greater must be addressed. Matthew does so in 3:13-15.
This dialogue between John and Jesus very clearly states that in all ways Jesus exceeds John. Jesus? baptism by John is to ?fulfill all righteousness? and is not related to Jesus? state of sinfulness. This is not an act of repentance on Jesus? part. John at first challenges Jesus. John does not wish to baptize the one whom he has been proclaiming. He even suggests that their roles be reversed (3:14). Instead, Jesus insists and John obeys.
John?s initial denial and eventual obedience both serve to place Jesus above John. Not only does John recognize his own need of baptism in the presence of Christ, but he also obeys the will of Jesus by following his wishes. This is the proof of John?s recognition of Jesus? place in the story.
In verses 16 and 17, Matthew gives further clarification. The Spirit itself appears. The voice of God is heard from heaven. To remove all doubt, Jesus? identity is proclaimed by the One True Source. The place of Jesus is above John. John may precede Jesus. His proclamation of the present messiah, however, only shows that in a more profound way, he follows Jesus.
Including this narrative in the gospel of Matthew serves multiple purposes. It proclaims Jesus as the Christ. It does so in a dramatic and irrefutable way. It also serves to distinguish Jesus from John. Yes, their connection is a strong one, but in Matthew?s Gospel John proclaims Jesus as the Messiah. The ranking is clear. The narrative also serves to distinguish one baptism from another.
?I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing-fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.?
John baptizes in water. Jesus baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fire. John?s baptism is for repentance. John does not tell us what Jesus? baptism is for. It may be that it too is for repentance. One could extrapolate that conclusion from John?s omission. Matthew, however, may be telling us something else.
In this passage, we read a little more about the baptism of Jesus.
And Jesus came and said to them, ?All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.?(28:18-20)
We are assured that God is present. Jesus has been granted all authority. This has echoes of 3:17. Jesus? position is assured. His son-ship is established and brought to fruition. We can also see that Jesus? baptism has the Trinitarian formula of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not baptizing in the Spirit and the fire, but in the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Still it is uncertain what Jesus baptizes us into (repentance? Forgiveness of sins?) unless we can follow Matthew?s logic. There is a teaching component to the baptism. Jesus asks his current disciples to teach obedience to everything that Jesus taught them to his new disciples. Obedience to Jesus? teachings is the parallel for repentance for the new disciples.
Matthew believes that Jesus ?fulfills all righteousness.? In Jesus is the whole of the Law. He comes to fulfill it, not to replace it. He orders the Law for us, placing love of God and neighbor above all other commandments. This is his teaching. Jesus? baptism asks for obedience to this. This is discipleship.
He asks the same of the rich young man (19:16-22). Give up all you have. Come. Follow me. Bring the law to fruition. Jesus asks for the man, not just his wealth and possessions, nor for his repentance. In this example, following Christ, discipleship, means obedience.
The difficulty of this discipleship is the prevailing theme in Matthew?s gospel. ?You have heard it said that?? always leads to something more difficult, more profound . Following Jesus is a crucible. It is a baptism of its own. It is a fiery life. It leads to the cross. Jesus knew this. In 20:17-23, he spells this out to all who would follow him. It is a bitter cup. To serve Christ is to partake in all of his struggle. This is what loving God is like. This is what baptism in Christ leads to. These are the teachings to which the new disciple must be obedient.
This parallel suggests a rigor beyond the baptism of John. Matthew is suggesting something more profound. As Jesus stands above John in social order, so too does the baptism of Jesus stand above the baptism of John. This is John?s proclamation in Matthew 3.
What then of the Christian practice of baptism in water? Whatever Matthew?s Gospel may say about the theological import of Jesus? baptism, the form is still an issue for early and contemporary Christians alike. Did Matthew?s community practice a different baptism, one without water? No. It is most likely that Matthew?s community baptized in water. This is the clear practical paradigm of the time. Maxwell Johnson presents a strong argument to support this claim. To refute the claims that John?s baptism was either an Essene or ?prostelyte? baptism, he reveals a multiplicity of communities that practiced a baptism or washing of some variety or another. The community of John was hardly unique in its use of baptism as a ritual. By extrapolation, neither were the followers of Jesus. ?Ancient Jewish sources of at least the second century list a variety of groups who seem to be identified by their accent on repeated and central washings: the daily baptizers, the Masbotheans, the Sabaeans, the Banaim, the morning bathers.?
This is not to suggest that baptism was a first century, near eastern fad either. Baptism was simply a common cultural expression used by several communities to express unity, to initiate, or to demonstrate spiritual cleansing and purity. Maxwell thus suggests that it is impossible to locate John?s baptism within any one of these traditions. It is also unnecessary to do so. It is satisfactory to know that John?s community was in good company ritually. Thus, it is possible to suggest that Matthew would adopt the form if not the meaning. Why would he not? Jesus was baptized in the manner of John?s baptism. Does Matthew suggest that Jesus? disciples should be baptized in the same way?
About this, Johnson says the following:
To say that Jesus? baptism by John at the Jordan was an historical event is not to say that the Gospel accounts of this event constitute an objective record of what actually took place. Rather, the evangelists have painted here a rather biased theological portrait which reflects, of course, their own Easter faith in the identity of the crucified and risen Christ. It is from this faith perspective that the evangelists proclaim this identity of Christ, the beloved Son of God, as revealed now already at the Jordan and, hence, draw attention to the significance of this event for Christian faith, life and practice.
Paul Bradshaw is not as willing to make this broad a claim.
Whether the Christian adoption of baptism began with Jesus himself or only in the church after his resurrection cannot easily be resolved. All three synoptic gospels record Jesus? own baptism by John but say nothing of him baptizing his own followers. Then Gospel of John, on the other hand, does not mention Jesus being baptized but does speak of him baptizing others (John 3:22, 26; 4:1; but cf. 4:2). Matt. 28:19-20 contains a command to baptize all nations, but there are difficulties in accepting this as an authentic saying of the risen Lord.
Bradshaw says that the source of Christian baptism is an irreconcilable issue, so know that communities baptized and move on. He is unconvinced that we can find the answer to this question within the Gospels themselves. This may be true. As Johnson states clearly, the gospels are not an historical narrative. They are not textbooks. They are ?portraits.? Johnson proclaims a single vision gleaned from a plurality of sources that leads to the adoption of a rite by the community. As insightful and helpful as both of these interpretations are, neither answers the question of whether or not Matthew?s community would engage in a re-defined Johanine baptismal practice from Matthew?s own narrative. They both simply suggest that the issue is a complicated one.
This suggests something true about the Gospel of Matthew. It is not a liturgical document. Other than Jesus? suggestions about how one should participate in Temple and synagogue worship, Matthew does not concern himself with liturgy. Johnson and Bradshaw are correct. This is not the best source for an answer to the questions about ritual. Matthew?s concern is discipleship.
Ulrich Luz speaks of ?patterning? when he explores Matthean discipleship. ?Discipleship means life in Christ?s pattern.? To be a follower of Christ was to follow in his very difficult footsteps.
Matthew tells the story of Jesus as a basic model of life. He is the obedient Son of God who fulfills all justice (3:15) and the Law of the Prophets (5:17). This obedient Son of God endured hostility and persecution and finally he suffered and died (27:43,54). The Matthean missionary discourse transfers the model of Jesus to the disciples.
The disciples are the light of the world, which shines in their works and for the sake of which people praise the heavenly Father (5:14-16). Not only what the disciples say but what they do and what they suffer ? what they are - has proclamatory character.
This is why a redefining of baptism within this community is necessary. Matthew is concerned with far more than simple repentance. In the first mission in Matthew?s gospel (Chapter 9), missionary discipleship is described in detail. Matthew implies this same discipleship in 28:19-20. In this second commissioning, Matthew includes baptism in his formula. Matthew has come to a new understanding of baptism. Baptism leads to discipleship, Matthew?s radical and difficult discipleship.
Does this liturgical theology lead to a change in liturgical praxis? Clearly, there is the very strong possibility that Christians adopted a form of baptism similar to that of John?s. It is possible that they adopted John?s baptism outright, redefining it to include Matthew?s baptismal theology. Perhaps, as Bradshaw suggests, this is a bit of a goose chase and not worth our time. In either case, it is clear that Matthew meant something far more by ?baptism? than what John was offering. Whether the Christian model is the same or similar to John?s model is unimportant to Matthew. It is the content, the radical change in life that matters to Matthew.
Bibliography
Bradshaw, Paul Early Christian Worship The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1996
Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1991
Johnson, Maxwell, Rites of Christian Initiation, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1999
Luz, Ulrich Matthew in History. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN 1994
Posted by tripp at December 16, 2003 08:18 PM