Tag: Baptism

6 min read

Sacraments

Why Does the Church Baptize Babies?

John Salza

April 27, 2023 7:55 am April 27, 2023

6 min read

91107 views

Comments Off

6 min read

The Catholic Church has been baptizing babies ever since Christ commanded His apostles to baptize all people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Mt 28:18-20)….

The Catholic Church has been baptizing babies ever since Christ commanded His apostles to baptize all people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Mt 28:18-20). This has always been the practice of the Orthodox churches and of many Protestant denominations as well.

Parents bring their babies to the waters of baptism by professing a belief in Christ on behalf of the child, and promising to raise him or her in the faith. For adults who are to be baptized,the Church also requires them to profess their faith in Christ.

Because baptism confers saving grace, the earlier a person comes to baptism, the better.

In infant baptism, then, though the child is too young to have faith, the parents extend their faith on the child’s behalf.

On what basis does the Church believe that the faith of one person may be effective on behalf of someone else? The Scriptures are full of examples in which Jesus extends healing grace to people based on the faith of others.

For example, Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic based on the faith of those who brought him (see Mt 9:2; Mk 2:3-5).Jesus heals the centurion’s servant based on the faith of the centurion (Mt 8:5-13).Jesus exorcises the child’s unclean spirit based on the father’s faith (Mk 9:22-25).

We might also note that in the Old Testament, God spares the firstborn child’s life during the Passover based on the parent’s faith (see Ex 12:24-28).

Given these examples, then, we must ask ourselves: If God is willing to effect spiritual and physical cures for children based upon the faith of their parents, how much more will He give the grace of baptism to children based upon the faith of their parents?

Why Infants Need Baptism

Why do children need baptismal grace for salvation? Because they inherit original sin from the moment of conception.

The psalmist laments: “Indeed, in guilt was I born, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:7).

The Book of Job observes: “Man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble. … Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one” (Job 14:1,4, RSV).

The apostle Paul tells us that “through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death” (Rom 5:12). He does not say that this sin is manifested only when the person reaches the age of reason. Rather, he writes, before baptism “we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest” (Eph 2:3).

Because babies are born with original sin, they need baptism to cleanse them, so that they may become adopted sons and daughters of God and receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the kingdom of God also belongs to children (see Mt 18:4; Mk 10:14).He never put an age limit upon those eligible to receive His grace (Lk 18:15-17; Mt 18:2-5).

When St. Paul addresses the “holy ones” of the Church (see Eph 1:1; Col 1:2),these include the children, whom he addresses specifically in Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:20. Children become “holy ones” of the Church and members of the body of Christ only through baptism.

Infant Baptism in the Early Church

The Scriptures also demonstrate that the early Church baptized babies. In the Book of Acts, for example, St. Peter preached to the crowd:

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your childrenand to all that are far off, whomever the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38-39).

When St. Peter said the promise of baptism is for children, the word “children” (from the Greek teknon) also includes infants. This same word, teknon,is used later in Acts 21:21 to describe the circumcision of eight-day-old infants.

The Greek word for “household,” oikos, refers to all the members of a family, adults as well as infants and children. The Book of Acts speaks of whole households being baptized, so any infants and children who belonged to these households would have been included.

St. Paul baptizes Lydia with “her household” (16:15); the entire household of Cornelius (see 10:48; 11:14); the Philippian jailer “and all his family” (16:33); and the “household of Stephanus” (1 Cor 1:16). In none of these accounts is there ever any indication that infants and children are excluded from baptism.

Baptism and Circumcision

Finally, in any discussion of infant baptism we should remember the correlation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant, babies were circumcised when they were eight days old (see Gn 17:12; Lv 12:3). This was the sign by which they entered into the covenant.

St. Paul actually calls baptism the “new circumcision” when he writes:

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:11-12).

Since baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant, baptism is for babies as well as adults, just as circumcision in the Old Covenant was for babies as well as adults.

God did not make his New Covenant narrower than the Old Covenant. From the perspective of the first Christians — Jews who had been part of the Old Covenant — it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s New Covenant. The little ones had always been part of God’s covenant family.

A covenant that excluded children would have been inferior to the original covenant. In reality, the grace of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant surpassesthat of the Old Covenant (see Rom 5:15), to include not only infants, but Gentiles as well.

God continues to extend His covenantal grace through the generations, then — not only to adults but to children as well, through the Church who offers His sacrament of baptism.

John Salza is a lawyer and the creator of ScriptureCatholic.com, a popular Catholic apologetics website. This article is adapted from his book “The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith” (Our Sunday Visitor, 2005).

Comments Off

1 min read

Sacraments

Godparents and Sponsors: Who Qualifies?

Father Francis Hoffman

April 23, 2023 7:14 am April 23, 2023

1 min read

7993 views

Comments Off

1 min read

The answer is in the Code of Canon Law. Canon 874 tells us that a sponsor should be (1) at least 16, unless the bishop or pastor makes an exception;…

The answer is in the Code of Canon Law. Canon 874 tells us that a sponsor should be (1) at least 16, unless the bishop or pastor makes an exception; (2) a practicing Catholic who has already been confirmed and made his first Communion; (3) free of any canonical penalty; and (4) neither the father nor mother of the person to be baptized.

The same criteria apply for confirmation sponsors. In my opinion, the most important criterion is that the sponsor be a good practicing Catholic.

Comments Off

5 min read

Scripture

What We Believe, Part 35: What About Infant Baptism?

Father Joshua J. Whitfield

January 9, 2023 10:12 am January 9, 2023

5 min read

1034 views

Comments Off

5 min read

For all our talk about baptism previously, infant baptism remains, for some, a controversial practice. Why do Catholics and some other denominations baptize babies? Why not wait for the child…

For all our talk about baptism previously, infant baptism remains, for some, a controversial practice. Why do Catholics and some other denominations baptize babies? Why not wait for the child to choose baptism for him or herself? Here is what the tradition of the Church teaches us.

First, in the New Testament, there are references to entire “households” receiving baptism. When Lydia was baptized, for instance, Luke says “her household” was baptized too (Acts 16:15). Or, in Corinth, Paul said he baptized the “household of Stephanas” (1 Cor 1:16). This was thought, by many in the early Church, to include all people — those enslaved, children, parents. Now that, by no means, clinches the argument, nor was it the most important argument for the practice in the early Church. But it is significant.

In many parts of the early Church, adult baptism was clearly the norm, a practice also typically associated with intense moral rigor. Only after achieving a level of moral perfection would a person dare to receive baptism, which is why so many put it off until old age or just before death. Early Church Father Tertullian — a thoroughly rigorist Christian — represents this thinking: “If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay” (“On Baptism,” No.18).

Yet it’s clear that in many parts of the Christian world, the practice of infant baptism was accepted and even, in some places, the norm. “The Apostolic Tradition,” a manual of Church worship and practice like the Didache, but from the third century, lists both adults and children as candidates for baptism. “The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family,” it says (“The Apostolic Tradition,” No. 21.2-4). The growth of the practice of infant baptism likely had some connection to the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation — a theological claim that, whatever we may think of it now, would have been taken seriously in earlier eras of serious faith and high infant mortality.

But aside from evidence found in the tradition, what theological defense is there? Enter here, St. Augustine. He offers a theological defense for infant baptism, saying basically that a child becomes a believer through the sacrament. “Therefore an infant, although he is not yet a believer in the sense of having faith which includes the consenting will of those who exercise it, nevertheless becomes a believer through the sacrament of that faith. For as it is answered that he believes, so also he is called a believer, not because he assents to the truth by an act of his own judgment, but because he receives the sacrament of that truth” (Epistle, No. 98.10). Now what does this mean?

Let’s use an analogy. Think of parents determined to give their children the best education possible. And understandably, they decide that the best school for, say, their teenage daughter, is the Catholic high school down the road. Thus, they make their daughter apply; they pay; they make her go to the Catholic school. Now, their daughter may not understand the value of the gift of such an education. She may not understand the good things her parents have done for her. She may even hate the school at first. But in time, she will have the opportunity to grow into the school and into all the benefits that the school offers. Of course, it’s up to her whether she succeeds or fails, but it was up to her parents to give her the opportunity. And why did they give her the opportunity? Because they knew it was the best thing for their daughter well before their daughter did. If they had waited for her to choose on her own, she may have not made a choice at all, or she may have made a bad choice.

This same sort of thinking is what’s behind the practice of infant baptism. That’s what St. Augustine meant, saying the infant becomes a believer through the sacrament of his or her parents’ faith. It doesn’t at all take away the freedom of the child to live his or her life any more than the parents sending their child to the school they know is best takes away their child’s freedom either to succeed or fail as a student. But that’s why parents have their infant children baptized because, by faith, they know the gift of the sacrament is what’s best for them.

Now we should be clear this is not uniquely Catholic thinking. John Calvin, for example, advocated infant baptism. His argument was in fact quite biblical. He pointed to Noah and to the covenant he made with God on behalf of the whole of creation. Calvin’s reasoning was that if Noah could enter all the dumb animals of creation into a covenant with God, then surely parents could enter their children into a covenant with God. “From this the ignorance of the Anabaptists may be refuted,” Calvin confidently asserted (“Commentary on Genesis,” No. 9:10). Only some Protestant groups reject infant baptism, we should remember, so this isn’t exclusively Catholic belief and practice.

There is, of course, much more that can be said or argued about infant baptism, but this brief look into the tradition is a start. What we believe about baptism — that it’s a sacrament of God’s desire for us — is clear; thus, why wouldn’t we baptize infants? For Christ bids the little ones come to him, too (Mk 10:13-16).

Father Joshua J. Whitfield is pastor of St. Rita Catholic Community in Dallas and author of “The Crisis of Bad Preaching” (Ave Maria Press, $17.95) and other books. Read more from the series here.

Comments Off

7 min read

Scripture

What We Believe, Part 34: Baptism in the Early Church

Father Joshua J. Whitfield

December 12, 2022 5:36 pm December 12, 2022

7 min read

996 views

Comments Off

7 min read

Baptism’s biblical themes remain salient in the theology and practice of the early Church. When we baptize an infant today, for instance, we don’t immediately identify it with the death…

Baptism’s biblical themes remain salient in the theology and practice of the early Church. When we baptize an infant today, for instance, we don’t immediately identify it with the death of Jesus. But in the early Church, they did. That’s why it’s worth our time exploring baptism as it was described and lived out in early Christianity. It helps us see better baptism’s biblical essence.

Baptism in the early Church was a richer experience — biblically, culturally, psychologically, sensually — than it commonly is today. Fonts, for instance, (that is when Christians began using things like fonts) were often cut into the ground, tomblike in shape, sometimes with black floors. Some fonts have even been shaped like coffins. Also, in the early Church people were often baptized in the nude, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem put it, imitating Christ who hung naked on the cross (“Mystagogical Catechesis,” No. II.1). Perhaps the young man leaving his clothes at the foot of the cross in Mark 14:52 alludes to this practice. In some places, the newly baptized were given a bit of honey and milk to taste after baptism, a symbol of entering the Promised Land.

The Didache, basically a first- or second-century manual on Christian worship and practice, describes the ritual of baptism. “[I]mmerse in running water ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’. If no running water is available, immerse in ordinary water. This should be cold if possible; otherwise warm. If neither is practicable, then pour water three times on the head ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’” (Didache, No. 7). Baptism, according to this text, was to be performed in “living water,” that is, in a stream or river. Requirements such as these were less emphasized over time, obviously, as Christianity spread into areas where “living water” was perhaps less available or desirable. However, that baptism should be performed in the name of the Trinity, either by sprinkling or immersion, remained essential — as it does to this day.

In Matthew and in the Didache, we still see the command to baptize in the name of the Trinity. Also as in the Didache, we see the communal aspect of baptismal preparation. In the Didache, both the “baptizer and the baptized” are to fast before baptism (Didache, No. 7). In an account from St. Justin Martyr, writing from second-century Rome, those already baptized are to pray and fast “with them,” that is, with those preparing for baptism. Here also we see the traditional description of baptism as “illumination,” the spiritual liberation of the intellect to see things as they are. In Pseudo-Dionysius’s description of baptismal illumination, he wrote that first, the candidate for baptism had to admit “his lack of the truth beautiful” (“The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,” No. 396). Baptism was thought, you see, to be an initiation into light and truth, for Christ is light and truth (cf. Jn 8:12; 14:6).

But what’s the effect of baptism? Following the African theologian, Tertullian, like St. Justin Martyr, the effects of baptism were described in terms of cleansing, consecration, illumination and strengthening. He writes that in baptism the flesh is “cleansed,” “anointed,” “consecrated” and “signed.” These are all biblical images. The soul also is “fortified” and “illuminated.” The flesh is fed the body and blood of Christ, and the soul is “fattened on its God.” That is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, baptism is a gateway and a door: it opens up for the baptized person new life in Christ and also life in the rest of the sacraments. Again, baptism is a kind of birth, after which that new life must be given the food necessary to grow — hence, the other sacraments.

We also learn a lot from St. Cyril of Jerusalem who clearly echoes Paul’s teaching, especially how the newly baptized are in Christ, taking on Christ, and sharing in his destiny. “Having been baptized into Christ and having put on Christ you have been conformed to the Son of God, for God predestined us to be adopted sons and made us to share in the likeness of Christ’s glorious body” (“Mystagogical Catechesis,” No. III.1). This is important because it makes clear that baptism was not considered some mere symbolic ritual, but something more significant, more indelible. This was regeneration — a rebirth into a truly new life.

It’s a new life, in fact, in God himself. St. Augustine teaches this when he talks about baptism as the gift of the Holy Spirit, the gift which makes us one with the Father and the Son in the Spirit. The Father and the Son “wished us to have communion both with them and among themselves,” he wrote. So “the Holy Spirit who is God and the gift of God” is given in baptism, and by that gift, believers are “reconciled to the Godhead” and “enjoy the Godhead” (Sermon, No. 71.18). That is, in baptism believers are given the gift of sharing in God’s own life, sharing in his divine nature (cf. 2 Pt 1:4). It’s beautiful also how Augustine sees baptism as the way God accomplishes his desire to draw us into communion with him — the Father and the Son wished us to have communion with them. One can’t help but recall Jesus’s desire for his disciples in John 17:24 — which we explored at the beginning of What We Believe. Baptism, in a sense, is the sacrament of God’s desire for us. I’ve said before, we can view the sacraments as sensual expressions of God’s love and desire for us. Isn’t that so beautiful?

These then are some of the themes salient in Catholic tradition regarding baptism. They’re the same as those found in the Bible. Baptism is no mere ritual. Rather, it’s truly a rebirth in Christ. In baptism, we’re forgiven. We’re also given hope in all our moral struggles. Our mind is opened. We’re sealed and set apart. We’re claimed by Christ, taken into his very life. As St. Thomas Aquinas said of it, Baptism “opens the gates of the heavenly kingdom” (“Summa Theologiae,” No. 3.69.7) Again, no mere ritual, we’re talking about something more real. The Church is no mere organization; it’s the body of Christ. The baptized Christian is no mere human being, but mystically and truly another Christ. We’re talking about something spiritually organic, to put it strangely. We’re not talking about some divine juridical act or some sinner’s acquittal, but about birth and growth in Christ as real children of God. We’re talking about a necessary rebirth, for how does one have life any other way? Which is why we Catholics have always insisted upon it. Because this is what baptism means.

Comments Off

8 min read

Scripture

What We Believe, Part 33: Baptism and Our Life in Christ

Father Joshua J. Whitfield

December 5, 2022 11:49 am December 5, 2022

8 min read

875 views

Comments Off

8 min read

In chapters 5 through 8 of his Letter to the Romans, St. Paul offers a beautiful description of baptized life. Reading through those chapters will teach you all you need…

In chapters 5 through 8 of his Letter to the Romans, St. Paul offers a beautiful description of baptized life. Reading through those chapters will teach you all you need to know about baptism. Here are the salient points.

After Paul talks about faith in Christ — how when we have faith in Christ, hope is given and the Holy Spirit is “poured into our hearts” (Rom 5:5) — he talks about baptism. And the first thing he does, echoing the Gospels, is to identify baptism with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He writes, “We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). This means, quite simply, that the believer’s death is bound to Jesus’s death, and Jesus’ resurrection is, in turn, shared with the believer. “For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection” (Rom 6:5). By faith and by baptism, we unite ourselves to Christ. In this way, his death becomes ours and his resurrection becomes ours, too. In other words: Jesus’s destiny becomes our destiny. His trajectory becomes our trajectory, so to speak. Thus, when we come to our death, it’ll be Jesus’ death, too. And his resurrection becomes ours. To quote the Eucharistic Preface prayed at funerals, for the faithful, “life is changed not ended” (Roman Missal, Preface I for the Dead). And that’s because, having died with Christ in baptism, we live with him in resurrection.

But this attachment to Jesus begun in baptism is also moral. This means that not only is the believer’s death united with Christ’s death, and not only is his resurrection shared with the believer, but the morality of Jesus becomes the believer’s morality. Forgiven of their sins, believers take on Jesus’ values and vision (Col 2:12-13). Very quickly after Paul talks about the theological reality of baptism, he begins to talk about the moral reality of baptism, about what “newness of life” means (Rom 6:4). For the baptized, “sin must not reign.” The baptized must not “obey their desires.” The bodies of the baptized are no longer to be “weapons for wickedness” but “weapons for righteousness,” because sin should no longer have any power over believers (Rom 6:12-14).

This doesn’t mean believers know nothing of moral struggle. Baptism allows for moral struggle — one need only read Romans 7 to see this. What Paul is saying in this passage has been interpreted in various ways. However, one way to read it — as St. Augustine and also the Catholic Church came to read it — is to read Paul’s words autobiographically. That is, it’s likely Paul here is speaking about what we call “concupiscence,” about the internal conflict between the law of God and the law of flesh — two laws at war in each of us, a battle fought within us even after baptism. “I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand. For I take delight in the law of the God, in my inner self, but I see in my members another principle as war with the law of my mind” (Rom 7:22-23). It’s a war each of us knows, a war that goes on our whole life long, but which has an end in Christ’s eternal mercy. Baptism doesn’t remove this war from believers, nor does it magically remove our freedom. Rather, this passage explains how baptism offers hope to the moral struggle, reminding us who will ultimately win the believer’s moral battles — not the believer, but Christ in the believer. “Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Paul cried out (Rom 7:24-25).

What we’re talking about here is what the Church calls “original sin,” which is only sin in an analogous sense. Original sin names simply the just state of affairs pertaining to humankind after the first sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. It simply refers to the fact that because of human sin we are justly incapable of holiness — incapable of heaven, so to speak. Through baptism, Christ, however, removes that incapacity. But it doesn’t remove either our weakness or freedom. Concupiscence remains; the moral battle still rages — but now with hope. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle” (No. 405).

Baptism gives the believer the grace — that is, the Spirit — necessary for real moral growth. With baptism, the believer is given both the opportunity and the grace to win the moral fight; that is, the condemnation of original sin is removed, and the Spirit is given. “Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” Paul writes. He’s talking about the baptized, those “in Christ.” Christ condemned “sinful flesh” by assuming its likeness, by means of his death and resurrection. And, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, those who are baptized can “live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit” (Rom 8:1-5). What baptism does for the believer is it opens a new spiritual and moral horizon. It doesn’t eliminate from the believer’s moral struggle at all, but it offers the believer hope, the promise that sin won’t win in the end. For me, I’ve always been comforted by this, and by the fact that this was written by an apostle. I’ve also always found comfort in the Church’s teaching about original sin and concupiscence because it’s realistic, yet hopeful. If Paul can struggle morally yet still hope and still go on, then so can I. And so can you.

To summarize the basic theology of baptism: In baptism, we are united to Christ; we are in Christ. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, “no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). We share in Christ’s life; we become sons and daughters of the Father, each of us in the Son. As the writer to the Hebrews put it, that’s why Jesus is not ashamed to call us “brothers,” because we have been consecrated in Christ and now share his “origin” (Heb 2:11). This explains Paul’s beautiful words in the letter to the Romans, at the end of his chapters on baptism, about believers’ unbreakable union with Christ. “Who will separate us from the love of Christ?” Paul asks. Anguish? Distress? Persecution? No, nothing will. Not even an angel nor any other power “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:35-39). This is not sentimental gibberish but pure theology. What makes it possible for Paul to say that nothing will separate us from the love of Christ is baptism. These are not empty feel-good words. Only in faith and baptism is this passage made real for the Christian. This is the truth that made martyrs brave and fearless of death. Fearless, because they knew they couldn’t be separated from Christ. Which also, as a rather significant aside, is why a Christian is baptized once because the union made in baptism is so perfect and unbreakable (cf. Eph 4:5).

This is why the Catechism says that baptism is “the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit.” Because it’s very much a birth into new life. It’s a true spiritual regeneration and the “door to the other sacraments,” which we’ll explore as this series progresses (Catechism, No. 1213). For now, it suffices here to say simply that this is how the Christ who through his body, the Church, and through the Scripture and Tradition not only speaks to us but now touches us — through water and Holy Spirit.

Father Joshua J. Whitfield is pastor of St. Rita Catholic Community in Dallas and author of “The Crisis of Bad Preaching” (Ave Maria Press, $17.95) and other books. Read more from the series here.

Comments Off

7 min read

Scripture

What We Believe, Part 32: What is Different about Jesus’ Baptism?

Father Joshua J. Whitfield

November 28, 2022 10:17 am November 28, 2022

7 min read

2474 views

Comments Off

7 min read

From Peter’s sermon in Acts of the Apostles, we learned that baptism has always mattered. It has been commanded by Jesus himself since the beginning. The command that believers should…

From Peter’s sermon in Acts of the Apostles, we learned that baptism has always mattered. It has been commanded by Jesus himself since the beginning. The command that believers should receive baptism goes back not to Pentecost but at least to Easter.

We see this at the end of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew: after Jesus’s resurrection, in his instruction to the disciples. “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16). It’s a command given to all, to “every creature.” But notice here that although Jesus says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, he doesn’t say whoever is not baptized will not be saved. Only those who do not believe will be condemned. This is an important point. The natural and normal logic of belief is that if one believes, then one will be baptized.

Jesus’s command in Matthew’s Gospel is slightly different. “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, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:19-20). Here we see a few things. First, again, we see — considering Mark’s “every creature” is Matthew’s “all nations” — that it’s a command for everyone. It’s a command to baptize in the name of the Trinity — the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Such is the form of baptism still mandated today. And we see here that the command to baptize precedes the command to teach. This is a significant detail, especially as we’ll come later to consider how the Church justifies infant baptism. But, more importantly, we learn from Matthew that baptism is how God remains with us, “until the end of the age.” This, for Matthew, is how the prophecy of Emmanuel, with which he began his Gospel, is fulfilled (Mt 1:23): by baptizing believers and making them disciples.

But, of course, Jesus didn’t invent baptism out of thin air. The origins of baptism can be traced even before Pentecost and even before Easter. When Jesus talked about baptism, when he commanded it, he was speaking from within a Jewish context, a context of prophetic hope. People in Jesus’ day did have a sense of the ritual of baptism.

Consider, for instance, John the Baptist, the cousin of Jesus. As all the Gospels relate, he too baptized people. Mark tells us John was baptizing people in the wilderness “for the forgiveness of sins.” His was a baptism, John himself said, of water and repentance. It was a baptism that was preparatory, in some sense, preceding another different baptism which is “with the holy Spirit” (Mk 1:4-8). John’s baptism makes sense in light of earlier Jewish practices, in light of ritual purifications done in preparation for acts of worship or encountering God. To understand what John was doing, we need to return to passages like this one from Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you” (Ez 36:25-26). Ezekiel here is speaking prophetically about the salvation of Israel, about the ethical conversion demanded of those preparing to encounter the saving God of Israel. Ezekiel’s exhortation is like Isaiah’s command to Israel and Judah: “Wash yourselves clean!” (Is 1:16). John is doing something like that — certainly dramatic but in no way foreign to Jewish religious imagination or experience. To anyone who’d listen, John was preparing them to meet God, preparing the way of the Lord, just like the prophets of old (Mk 1:3; Is 40:3).

And, of course, Christians picked up on the images of sprinkling and washing, reading them in some sense as metaphorical descriptions of baptism — bapto in Greek, meaning “to dip” or “to immerse.” At the very least, Christian baptism was similar to John’s baptism and these other prophetic washings in its mechanics. But yet it was different. John the Baptist himself said as much (cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8). But how?

In John’s Gospel, we get a brief indication of Jesus’s practice of baptism, but it’s somewhat mysterious. First, we hear that after his midnight conversation with Nicodemus, “Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing” (Jn 3:22). However, a few verses later, John wants to make clear that it was “only his disciples,” not Jesus, actually doing the baptizing (cf. Jn 4:2).

But still, how is the baptism of Jesus different from that of John? To answer this question, we should turn to that famous chapter in John’s Gospel — John 3 — detailing Jesus’ midnight conversation with Nicodemus. In that conversation, Jesus tells Nicodemus that to see and to enter the kingdom of God, one must be born anōthen, which can mean either “again” or “from above.” Nicodemus thinks Jesus is talking about being physically reborn — again — but that’s not what he’s saying. Jesus means anōthen in a more spiritual sense. The rebirth Jesus is talking about is “of water and Spirit.” That’s how a person may “enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3-5). The baptism of Jesus, therefore, is about a rebirth from above, allowing the one reborn to see and enter the kingdom.

But it’s not just about seeing and entering the kingdom of God. In Mark, we see Jesus identify baptism with his death. When James and John foolishly ask to sit beside Jesus in glory, he asks them, “Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mk 10:38). It’s a figure of speech we don’t use much anymore. The cup here calls to mind the cup of his suffering and death, an image Jesus himself used (cf. Mt 26:39; Mk 14:36; Lk 22:42; Jn 18:11). It’s the same in Luke and John. “There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!” Jesus says in Luke (12:50). Notice the words “it is accomplished.” In John, Jesus repeats these same words from the cross (cf. Jn 19:30). The earliest Christian readers of the Gospels would’ve picked up on that; they would’ve made that connection. For our purpose, though, it simply uncovers yet another layer to the meaning of Christian baptism: that it’s also somehow a participation in the death of Jesus.

So the baptism of Jesus is different from John’s baptism. It’s a rebirth in water and Spirit, which is also seeing and entering the kingdom of God, which is also mysteriously somehow identified with the death of Jesus. And also Jesus commands it; all believers are to receive baptism. It doesn’t appear to be optional. But there is a lot more to learn. For that, however, we’ll need to turn to Paul.

Comments Off