Works of intrinsic merit
A common theory is that “works” means only actions having intrinsic merit before God. I’ve taught that one myself, and it’s partly true. Obviously there’s a heavy overlap between the Law of Moses (including the moral laws) and merit.
But circumcision, as argued by the Judaizing teachers in Galatia, was not so much about merit as appropriation of God’s grace. They considered it as essential to salvation as faith in Jesus. We know that because Paul contrasted it with faith over and over. He obviously considered them to teach circumcision as playing a role parallel to faith.
Circumcision is not morally right or wrong. There is no way that a Gentile with no knowledge of the Law might have discerned God’s will regarding circumcision. In fact, circumcision would seem to be contrary to nature — hardly something we might learn from the Creation or man’s moral nature. And so it’s no surprise that Paul did not criticize the Gentiles for being uncircumcised in Rom 1, even those this was a standard Jewish invective.
Hence, “works of the law” includes works of intrinsic merit, but is not limited to them.
Means of appropriating salvation
It’s also easy to figure that “works” means any means of appropriating salvation, as Paul accuses the Judaizing teachers in Galatia seeking to be justified by circumcision. But faith is indeed a means of appropriating salvation, and so “works” cannot mean any means of appropriating salvation.
Consider,
(Gal 3:10-11 ESV) 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Paul quotes Deu 27:26, which plainly refers to the entirety of the Law of Moses, ceremonial, sacrificial, and boundary marker provisions. And yet this is how he characterizes his opponents when they “rely on works of the law.”
In short, “works” includes all of the Law, not just those portions that were once elements of appropriating God’s grace. You see, you have to understand that the entire program of the Pharisees was to bring about the Kingdom and the Messiah by obeying God’s instructions so scrupulously that God would have to bring the new age.
And God did — and condemned the Pharisees in so doing. You see, God is not like the pagan gods, and he cannot be controlled by our actions. He’ll honor his promises, but he’ll do so when and how pleases him.
Today, we can’t be so obedient and do so much good that we accelerate the time of Jesus’ coming. That kind of thinking — which was common in the 19th Century Restoration Movement as part of Post-Millennial teaching — reduces religion to magic.
The Pharisees made the same mistake — a mistake we repeat when we think the solution to the world’s problems is to impose obedience to God within the church by threat of hellfire or outside the church by using the power of the state to make non-Christians act like Christians.
Not long before Jesus, the Hasmonean kings of Judea tried to please God by forcing the Edomites to convert to Judaism on threat of death. These men were heroes to the Jews in Jesus’ day because they made the world more like the world God wanted (sarcasm font). And our preachers who bully members and our members who bully non-Christians into a false obedience out of terror do them no good — and only cause God to be embarrassed.
In short, the legalism of the First Century Jews is very much like the legalism in some Churches of Christ — built on a very false understanding of God’s character — and the result will be the same.
The repealed portions of the Law of Moses
This is exactly what many Churches of Christ teach, preserving the Mosaic moral law and adding to it the pattern of worship, pattern of church organization, and most especially baptism, as the “law of Christ” (ripping Gal 6:2 out of context and showing an astonishing obtuseness to irony). We argue that baptism is commanded, and this is why we pretend that to “obey the gospel” is to be baptized. We desperately want to make baptism a law and hence a work. (It takes a special kind of training to read Romans and Galatian and conclude that it would be just great to prove baptism is a “work” so that it’s essential to salvation!)
To avoid Paul’s condemnation of reliance on “works of the law,” the conservative Churches then define “law” to mean “the ceremonial law,” that is, the sacrificial system and the boundary marker laws. It’s the “repealed” portions of the Law.
And this conveniently makes huge portions of Romans and Galatians irrelevant to the modern church, which feels no temptation toward circumcision, animal sacrifice, or kosher foods. And so we edit out huge portions of the Pauline corpus, and then take the rest and read it as statutory law.
And yet we look in vain for a passage declaring the “law” repealed. In fact, the scriptures say,
(Mat 5:17-18 NET) 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.”
It’s not all that easy to interpret, but obviously Jesus isn’t thinking in terms of repeal. He’s not a legislature. He does not legislate, amend, or repeal laws. Rather, he’s a fulfiller of the Law — which includes being a right interpreter of the Law. “Fulfill,” in Hebrew, can mean “rightly interpret.” Of course, Jesus also fulfills the Law in a deeper sense — in the sense of bringing history to the next age.
There is a sense in which the law continues — and that we who have the Spirit fulfill it.
(Rom 8:3-4 ESV) 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
And so, it’s not really repealed — but I’m getting a little off subject. We’ll come back to this.
Anything that’s not faith
Some take Paul’s frequent statement that we’re saved by faith, not law, to mean that everything in the Scriptures is one or the other. Hence, we prove that baptism is not law, then it must be faith. Others argue that because baptism is not faith, it must be law. But both are false dichotomies. Contrasting A with B does not mean that the world consists entirely of A or B.
Hence, it’s actually possible that baptism is neither.
Baptism
In short, Paul never bothers to explain why baptism isn’t a work because, to him, it must have seemed obvious. The law is the Law of Moses, whether learned from the Law itself or from God’s general revelation.
Baptism is just not part of the Law of Moses. Circumcision is. Hence, his lengthy, extensive polemics against “works of the law” just don’t apply to baptism.
But that doesn’t make baptism exempt from what Paul teaches about the law. After all, it’s not faith either.
Since Jesus commands that every NEW believer in Jesus as Lord MUST BE BAPTIZED, then we are wise to baptize every new believer and not quibble about why Jesus commands the act. Matthew heard the commission (command) and records it for our edification. The Lord Jesus calls for us to tell others about Him and to baptize those who believe.
Some want to ignore it and pretend that baptism is all right but not necessary. Obeying JESUS is necessary. It’s not optional. Why do some who claim to love Jesus seek excuses to not obey Him? He thinks baptism is necessary. They say it’s optional. That’s what I hear Jay saying. I hope the fault is in my hearing.
Being baptized is no work. And no convert is commanded to BE baptized. The command is to us who make converts. WE are told to baptize each NEW believer. It is indeed a work. It requires going to a body of water (or a pond or pool or baptistery) and there lowering a person into the water and then raising them up out of the water. There’s no question but that there is work involved in a baptizing. Who is to do the work? Is it the one being baptized?
Jesus said in Matthew 5:18-20 that the law was awesome and that our righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees, that not until the heavens and earth pass away that not one not if tittle will pass away. Ray, baptism will open itself up to you if you will let it. Watch what happens when the tabernacle is built, priests purify themselves. Look at the Temple even Harrods’ and see the way baptism rites were used, that’s what made the Eunich so stoked that he could finally be a part of the real temple. On and on, Ray. It is the power of God that saves, it is faith in that power which drives us to the responses that follow. Not the responses that save us.
It seems that water immersion, although it may have not be called or translated baptism, was part of the law. There were many ceremonial purification acts using water required under the law. In fact, it seems that the Mikveh is a historical witness to the use of water in symbolic cleansing required. John TB’s use of water as a symbolic cleansing and purification in anticipation of the coming Messiah would have been fairly consistent with the normal application of water required by the Law. It seems to me to have been more than just washing your hands before dinner but rather a moment to appreciate the inward cleansing taking place… So, while “baptism” as a symbolic identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus wasn’t something specifically stated in the Law, the practice of using water to “cleanse” one of impurity was. Was it not ?
As Jay has said circumcision was not a natural thing done world wide by all humans, but, what was is castration. Wonder why that was a natural thing to do among peoples world wide?
Circumcision and baptism are set aside by God. Seems as important as both are, God would of chosen some mark or sign to be seem easily on both sexes. That has been thought by many peoples worldwide so face scaring, fingers cut off, and other marks visible has been done world wide. Many today are only a short distance from laws of coverings, shaped note fa so la singing and foot washing. so misunderstandings of baptism among us is not surprising.
The question is: what difference in how we see or do baptism will it make in our next life?
Jay,
With utmost respect I’m trying desperately to understand what you actually believe regarding baptism. I’m sure this sounds like an odd thing to question since you have written so much on it, but it’s as clear as mud to me thus far. I think the problem is you’ve painted yourself into a corner. I’ll use two examples to illustrate what I understand you to believe.
A sinner named Joe hears the good news about Jesus. He repents and believes but is NOT taught about baptism, or not taught about “proper baptism” (whatever that is..), but he is saved. He is saved because salvation is by grace though faith and he has, based on what he knows, put his trust in Jesus.
A sinner named John hears the good news about Jesus. He repents and believes and IS taught about baptism, even “proper baptism” (whatever that is..). John wants to be baptized but can’t until Wednesday. John remains lost because he has not been immersed. His faith is null and void until he is immersed and then he is saved.
What did I miss?
I know Ray Downen’s position well. I know Al Maxey’s position well. It seems to me that you are trying to be somewhere in the middle and that place doesn’t exist.
Also, I have one question of you and the others who read here. God specifically sent Peter to the Gentiles, thus the story of the sheet let down and Peter’s going to preach Christ to Cornelius and his folks. And, all of us have our views of what happened none-the-less we also know what the Bible records about what happened and each narrative of Peter’s defense of baptizing Gentiles. Every church of Christ teacher/preacher I know ( and most all theologians of all stripes for that matter) believes the episode with Cornelius was an aboration and not the norm. I want to think that to but I can’t find a reason to do so. For years I just went along with the crowd on this. But I am a Gentile and I doubt there is one Jew who is reading your blog posts. My question is, if when God took the gospel to the Gentiles why would he not continue follow the same pattern? That is people hear the good news preached, they believe, they receive the Holy Spirit and they are baptized. This seems to comply with Matt 28’s command to baptize disciples.
I’m not going to disfellowship anyone over any of this. LOL I’m just trying to get my feet firmly planted in Scriptural reasons rather than tradition or popular opinion.
Thank you.
Price wrote,
Yes and no. There’s a great analysis of the Jewish history of baptism in Beasley-Murray’s book on baptism called “Baptism.”
Baptism had at least these differences from ceremonial cleansings, although both were by water immersion —
* Baptism is about washing away sins; the mikveh is about ceremonial uncleanness — which has little to do with sin. There was nothing sinful about touching a dead body or menstruating, but these things made a Jew unclean and required an immersion. Sin was dealt with by sacrifice not immersion. However, the Essenes evidently practiced a ceremonial washing for atonement, likely because they rejected the temple in Jerusalem as too corrupt. And that’s very interesting to me.
* The mikveh is a solo act, doable in your own home if you were wealthy enough to afford a private mikveh (archaeologists have found one). Baptist is conducted by a Christian for a non-Christian. It takes two.
* Baptism is associated with receipt of the Spirit, repentance, and the DBR of Jesus. There is no such association in the mikveh.
So the Jews certainly practiced immersions for religious reasons, but it was because of the ministry of John that they could see baptism as being about repentance and forgiveness. Pentecost added the name of Jesus and the Spirit. Hence, John prepared the way.
Jay said: “Baptist is conducted by a Christian for a non-Christian. It takes two.”
Jay said in his post, “Baptism: Is Baptism a “Work”? Part 1”: “those with a genuine, penitent faith in Jesus (hereafter, simply “faith”) who fail to be baptized correctly due to being wrongly instructed as new converts (“convert” meaning someone with faith, whether or not yet baptized, with no implication intended as to their saved status).”
Jay says those with faith are converts, a convert is a person who has been converted, a person’s heart and mind has been changed, there has been an inward regeneration. A lost person cannot be a convert, no conversion has happened, there has been no change to the person’s existing state.
@ Jay.. and yet both baptisms are symbolic… as the Hebrew writer indicates there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood so water immersion under the new covenant could no more remove sin that a mikvah bath could literally remove a transgression under the Law. So, the similarities are striking…at least to me.. None of the Apostles or Paul would have been taught to believe that water immersion was a source of forgiveness of sin…It was symbolic under the Law and yet required… same under the New Covenant… IMHO
Price,
I don’t disagree. It seems likely that the mikveh washings were a precursor of Christian baptism. John the Baptist transferred the meaning from ceremonial uncleanness to the uncleanness of sin and unbelief and began the two-man process. In a sense, this was the beginning of the end of the Temple — as John showed that God was now forgiving sins by other means in other places — a prelude to Jesus coming to replace the Temple.
Now, a Jew could not go to the Temple without a washing, and so it fits.
Thanks for helping me make the connection.
The Ethiopian Eunuch, Acts 8: 26-40 is a good one as it has a Gentile with faith in God, who is also a eunuch, a Spirit filled evangelist, and Isiah. This eunuch traveled vast distances to go to place he could not enter, he was seeking God. The HS directs Phillip to the exact place and time to help him understand who the Messiah is and that the eunuch needs to know Him. Phillip used the OT to show Jesus as Messiah connecting the faith of the EE. What a joy it was for the EE to be baptized to join with Jesus’ by submitting to His Lordship and being made a part of the Way completely just as he was, in spite of his incompleteness. No explanations are needed because the people who first read/ heard these words knew what was going on. The whole world was being brought to serve Messiah just as they were. Awesome.
The CofC can take a passage and contort it to make it fit their theology. The eunuch came to a spot where there was some water. What about people who traveled through the desert who didn’t come across a water spot and through the reading of Scripture believed with all their heart, would they have been a lost soul in the desert until they searched for days for a pond of magical water so that God would save them? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who forgave them, the God who saved David a man after God’s own heart who understood that it’s not a ritual done that saves a person, but that it’s a person of a broken spirit toward God, it’s the heart of a person that looks upon Him to save them God desires. Christ alone saves, we don’t need another man to mediate to get us salvation, God saves all who have faith in Him, His sacrifice is sufficient. Jesus can save us just as we are anywhere we are at.
Psalm 34:18 The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart. And He saves those who are broken in spirit.
Psalm 40:6 “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require.”
God wants our heart, His desire is that we know Him, our Lord and Savior whom we will love, serve and honor.
Although purifications in the old testament was ceremonial, it had a much deeper spiritual significance.
1>They pictorially demonstrated the need for inner cleansing.
2>They foreshadowed The One who would ultimately would do just that.
The same thing can be said about unclean food, clothing, and disease. Let’s try to keep Plato out of this lol.