[17]. Baptism
John, who from baptizing got the name Baptist, has disclosed in his own words what baptism is: namely, an initiation
! i 186 The Works of Huldreich Zwingli by which those marked themselves out who were going to mend their lives. I am speaking now of baptism pure and simple, in which those who are going to enter upon a new life are dipped in water; not of baptism as embracing the whole matter of preaching as well as dipping. Those who today battle so stoutly against the baptism of infants—not seeing this distinetion, namely, that baptism is used sometimes for the whole procedure of both teaching and sacrament, sometimes only for the sacrament, that is, the sign—fight blindfolded, as gladiators sometimes did. Thus, then, the divine Baptist speaks in Matt. 3:11: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” What else is this than to say: “I dip you in water, that you may repent of your old life, that is, be so ashamed of your former life that you will utterly cast it off and begin a new one? By this sign I am simply teaching you, who are ignorant of heavenly things, that henceforth, if you wish to be saved at all, you must put on an entirely different life. As those who are washed come out new, as it were, so I first bring you by a visible act to the wiping out of your past life” Mark, 1: 4, keeps the same sequence when he says: “John was in the desert baptizing and preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Not that I mean that John began to baptize before he taught, but that he readily baptized any who came to him, although he did not know how honestly they had received the word, and did not demand to know. But when he saw that many of the Pharisees and Sadducees had come to his baptism, and knew through the Holy Spirit that their hearts were not right and whole with the Lord, he upbraided them sharply, saying: “Ye offspring of vipers, etc.” He meant: “Ye have come, indeed, to baptism, not in order to lay aside your old life, but that you may seem to men to belong to the number of those who by the sign of baptism bind themselves, as by an earnest or an oath, to a change of life, while within ye are not a whit better and make no change in your bad life. Since ye wish to be counted in the company of the repentant, show the fruits of repentance! Do as becomes the repentant!” From all this it is plain that baptism is an initiatory sacrament by which those who were going to change their life and ways marked themselves out and were enrolled among the repentant. And
this was a preparation for the coming of Christ, as Luke, 4: 17, proves from Isaiah [61:1-2]. For when everybody, having reviewed his whole life, not only found nothing in it on which he could rely for salvation, but also saw at the same time that he lacked the strength to tear loose from his former life and steadfastly to prosecute a new one, he needed someone to lend a hand in this wretehed state of things. Such a one is pointed out not only by the divine Baptist, but also by the Evangelist, as was highly necessary. For, knowing that repentance begets despair, he immediately shows that one had come who should raise up again the fallen hopes. He says, John 1: 26: “I baptize with water; but in the midst of you is and was born, yea even here among you stands, one whom nevertheless ye know not; he it is who will come after me, who yet was before me; the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose.” “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,” Matt. 3:11. John, therefore, at the same time taught repentance, and said that He who should destroy sin was at hand.
But before we go further I must speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, since some men not rightly taught concerning it have put forward in consequence wrong views of baptism.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit, then, is twofold. First, there is the baptism by which all are flooded within who trust in Christ, “for no man cometh to him, except the Father draw him,” John 6: 44. “And all shall be taught of God,” Isa. 54:13. Second, there is the external baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as there is the baptism of water. - Drenched with this, pious men once began at once to speak in foreign tongues [Acts 2: 4-11]. This was a sign to others rather than to the speakers, for the speakers felt within themselves faith and enlightenment of soul, but the others did not know this of them. It, therefore, turned their tongues into foreign speech, that others might know that what was taking place was done by the divine Spirit. And this latter baptism of the Holy Spirit is not necessary, but the former is so very necessary that no one can be saved without it; for no one is saved except by faith, and faith is not born save at the instance of the Holy Spirit. John said that both baptisms were to come, when he said [Lk. 3:16]: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with
fire.” Now, we are not all imbued with the sign of tongues, but all of us who are pious have been made faithful by the enlightenment and drawing of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of John, therefore, preceded both baptisms of the Holy Spirit, as far as Christ is concerned; for otherwise it is evident that repentance cannot begin without the Holy Spirit. Yea, the baptism of John even antedated repentance, as has been made plain in the case of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and in Luke 3:7. The first is plain from the fact that John sent those whom he had frightened to Christ, of whom they were still ignorant, and promised that they would find salvation in Him. For thus is it recorded in John 1: 28-31: “These things were done in Bethabara where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said to you, After me will come a man who was before me, because he was first in regard to me, and I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing with water.” Behold how John baptized with water those whom he sent to Christ, and baptized them in order to send them to Christ! The second point, namely, that Pharisees and Sadducees also were baptized by John is made manifest thus. In Luke 3:7 we read: “He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” And the same thing that Luke says here of the multitudes that went out to be baptized of John, Matthew, 3:5, expressed thus: “Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were baptized of him in Jordan.” It is, therefore, logical for us to understand the words, “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said, ete.,” in the sense that both Pharisees and Sadducees were baptized. For as Luke says those went out to be baptized who Matthew explicitly writes were baptized, so also Matthew said “came to his baptism” for “were baptized.” This view will be plainer if one considers closely the words that follow: “Ye offspring of vipers.” But what is written in Luke 7: 29-31 took place on another occasion and had to do with other persons, as Matt.
11: 7-19 clearly shows.
How the baptism of John and that of Christ differ is a question much mooted both in the past and today; but it is an unprofitable question, for there really is no difference at all as far as the reason and purpose are concerned, although as far as the procedure or form is concerned there is some slight difference. Yet the latter is not, properly speaking, a difference, for we can employ the same thing in various ways without detriment to faith. John’s dipping effected nothing—I am speaking here of the baptism of water, not of the inward flooding wrought through the Holy Spirit. Christ’s dipping effeets nothing; for Christ was satisfied with the baptism of John as well in His own case as in that of His disciples. But if His baptism had had anything richer and fuller in it, He would no doubt have given His disciples a supplementary baptism, and not have suffered Himself to be baptized according to John’s way. That Christ was not baptized by any other baptism than John’s, as far as the dipping is concerned (for I want to reiterate that constantly, lest I should seem to hold that Christ imparted nothing further through His Spirit than John did), is quite evident in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where we see Jesus coming to baptism like the rest, though He had no need of repentance. Hence, also, it is manifest that John made no express requirement, as some maintain. But clearest of all is what John wrote, 1:32-34, where he makes the Baptist say: “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” Since, therefore, John would not have known Him unless he had afterwards seen the Spirit descending upon Him from heaven, he baptized Him just as he did any others whatsoever; although this seems to be contradicted by what is written a little before, where, as Jesus was coming to him, John called Him the Lamb of God that atoneth for the sin of the world. But here we must eonsider that the Evangelist is not looking so much at the sequence as at the essential point of the matter. The
earlier of the two events he describes after the other. Having pointed out the Lamb that destroys the sins of the world, he then, in order not to seem to anyone to have spoken with more boldness than truth, proves that the world can be washed clean through Him for this especial reason, that He is the Son of God. For he says: “And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” Furthermore, that He is the Son of God he proves by the fact that the heavenly Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and rested upon Him. Thus, what had taken place before, the Evangelist narrates afterwards. For a visible sign had been given to John, that by it he might recognize Christ. Having recognized Him, he proclaimed to others also that He was the Lamb that destroys the sins of the world. For there follows a little later the statement that on the next day he pointed Him out again to two of His disciples, who leit him and followed Jesus [Jn. 1:35-43]. All this makes it manifest that John led to Jesus Christ, and as soon as it could be done sent his own followers to Him. While this is all so, another point meets us, namely, that Christ was not unknown to John when he baptized Him; for we have it plainly put in Matt. 3:14 that when Jesus came to John to be baptized by him John said: “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” These words apparently cannot have been said to one unknown; hence it seems possible to infer that Jesus was known to John even before he saw the Spirit descending upon Him. Since it would take too long to disentangle this knot here, I refer you to Augustine’s “The Agreement of the Evangelists,” Book 2, Ch. 15. My object is simply to make plain that there is but one baptism, whether we call it of John or of Christ. For there is “one faith, one baptism,” Eph. 4:5. This ean also be inferred from the fact, Matt. 3:14, that John pleaded that he needed rather to be baptized by Christ, meaning, of course, I send to ‘Thee those whom I initiate with water, because I, too, ought to be sent to Thee, and comest Thou to Me?” Christ, therefore, solved his difficulty thus: “Suffer it: for whatever is right, that is, whatever ought to be done, we will fulfil.” ‘lThus Jesus was baptized in just the same way as other men, for nothing is said of any change; and mention of that
[De consensu evangelistarum.]
would not have been omitted if any had been made; nor indeed would Christ’s being baptized have had any great significance if it had been done by a method different from the common one. But now, as the Son of God was baptized by John, by whom sinners were baptized, it is a wonderful thing that the spotless Son of God accepted that sign which is given to those who have to be changed, though He is Himself the unchangeable God.
Finally, and this is the strongest point of all, men who had already heard Christ and justified Him, were still baptized with the baptism of John, Luke 7:29. If you maintain that βαπτισϑέντες in this passage clearly signifies that they had already been baptized before, I have no objection, for my conclusion follows just the same, namely, that the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ are the same thing; for unless they were one and the same, Jesus would have rebaptized these persons through His disciples. Since, therefore, even here He was satisfied with the baptism of John, we must agree that it was the same as the baptism of Christ. Still, the first-mentioned meaning appeals to me more, namely, that after hearing Christ they were baptized with the baptism of John; or, what is much nearer the truth, “baptizati” is used in this passage for “imbuti,” so that the meaning is that these men had hitherto been taught by John, but having heard Christ, about whom they had heard much while with John, they justified Him, that is, they had an exalted opinion of Him such as we are wont to have of a just man. That the disciples of Christ were washed in the baptism only of John is plain from this: In John 1: 37 we read that two disciples of John the Baptist had heard the heralding of Christ by their master, “Behold the Lamb of God,” ete. One of these was Andrew, brother of Simon. Now, if he was a disciple of John he was undoubtedly baptized; for there were baptized by him even those who did not care to be his disciples, much more, then, those who followed him as their leader. Again, in John 3: 26 we read that John’s disciples brought him word: “Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, I say, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.” From this it appears that Christ through His attendants baptized in
the same way and form as John did; for if He had baptized otherwise, the disciples of John could not have failed to mention it. In the third place, John 4:2 has, “Although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.” Since, therefore, we nowhere see that the disciples were baptized by Christ (for He baptized not), and at the same time see that His disciples baptized, it is not likely that they baptized others, but had never been baptized themselves. Since, then, they were baptized, they were baptized with no baptism but the baptism of John; for Christ baptized not. Since, therefore, Christ received the baptism of John and made no change in it either in his own case or that of the Apostles, it is clearly established that baptism had its beginning under John, and that there was no difference between the baptism of John and that of Christ, as far as the nature, effect, and purpose are concerned. For it is evident that Christ was baptized on our account, in order to commend baptism to us. What baptism, then, did He wish to commend? Some other than John’s? Why, then, was He not first Himself baptized with that other? Since, therefore, He wished by means of the baptism of John to commend baptism to us and made no change in it, it is apparent that the baptism of John and that of Christ are the same baptism.
But this view seems to be opposed by what is written in Acts 19:1-10 and Matt. 28:19. For this passage of Acts plainly bears witness that twelve men were baptized over again in the name of Jesus, who yet had been previously baptized with the baptism of John. But if the baptism of John and that of Christ are the same, there was no need of their being baptized with the baptism of Christ. We must, therefore, consider the character of both baptisms. John baptized, then, unto the entering upon repentance, as has been said, and proclaimed that salvation was at hand in Him who was to come after him; for He was the Lamb that alone took away sin, and he taught trust in Him; for he said [they should believe] on Him which should come, that is, on Christ, Acts 19: 4. The baptism of John, therefore, demanded a new life and made known hope in Christ. And this was a baptism of teaching; for the water was the same in both cases. The baptism of Christ required
[See p. 186.]
nothing different, for He, just like John, “began to preach, Repent!” Matt. 4:17. The fact that Christ was Himself the hope, and that John was not the hope (for he was not himself the Light, John 1:8, but sent men to Christ), produced no difference in the baptisms; for both tended to Christ, that is, demanded a new life which should be modeled after the pattern of Christ. Nay more, no difference is argued by the fact that Christ’s baptism had the author of salvation at hand in person, while John’s promised that He was coming, for the lot was the same of those who were baptized in the baptism of John as of those who were baptized in the baptism of Christ, if they died before Christ ascended into heaven. For “no one hath ascended into heaven but the Son of Man, who is in heaven,” John 3:13. Those, therefore, who died before the departure of Christ into heaven could not reach heaven, even though they changed their life and set all their hope upon Christ; for He is Himself the first fruits of them that rise again [I Cor. 15:20]. Much less could their having been washed with water bring about the opening of heaven. For Christ in all things must have the pre-eminence, Col. 1: 18. Since, therefore, John taught that the life must be changed and modeled after the pattern of Christ, to whom he sent men, and since he proclaimed that Christ Himself is our hope, and since Christ taught the same thing (for what does all the teaching of Christ demand but a new life formed according to the will of God and having unwavering trust in Christ?), it follows that if their baptisms of teachings were the same, their baptisms of water also were the same. The character of their teachings is the same. For what difference does it make that John said He was coming forthwith, and that Christ exhibited Himself in person? Did not John also show Him when he said: “Behold the Lamb of God,” ete.? For not even the Apostles could have spoken of Christ’s first coming otherwise than John spoke; nay, rather, no one without exception could have exhibited Christ but Himself. As, therefore, the Apostles drew men to Christ, so also did John. Hence Luke not without reason said of his preaching, 3:18: “With many other exhortations preached he good tidings unto the people.” For what else did John teach than the Apostles taught? Besides, that deeply
significant speech which John the Evangelist sums up in Chapter 3: 35-36 expresses the nature of the gospel most clearly, as given in these words: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; but he that hath not faith in the Son shail not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” What else is this, pray, than He that believeth when the gospel is preached shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” [Mk. 16: 16]? Since, then, the baptisms of teaching are altogether the same, how is it that we suppose a difference in the baptisms of water, when each applied the water to the end that we might come forth new men and might model our lives according to the teaching which each proclaimed?
We must now come back to the nineteenth chapter of Acts, where there seemed to be something opposed to the view that there is but one baptism, whether you call it Christ’s or John’s or that of the other Apostles also. “When Paul had come to Ephesus and found certain disciples, he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?” What is Paul asking here? Is it whether they have spoken with tongues? He seems to be asking this, for afterwards when he “had laid his hands upon them, they spake with tongues.” What, then, is this new inquiry? Was this thing demanded for faith? Certainly not, for we see that the miracle of tongues rarely occurred. He was not, therefore, asking about the gift of tongues, although this gift followed afterwards, but about the inward strength of their faith. For he knew that they had been baptized, that is, taught, by Apollos; who, however, was first taught “the way of God more exactly” by Aquila and Priscilla [Acts 18: 24-28] after he had come to Corinth from Ephesus. Hence Paul, very properly fearing that these disciples might perhaps be lacking in something, asked whether they had been taught inwardly through the Holy Spirit, so as to have all confidence in salvation through Christ. They, therefore, not having yet attained this, tell him that they have never heard any mention of a Holy Spirit. Paul wondered at these words, and asked into what they had been baptized. They replied, “Into John’s baptism.” Notice how he here uses “baptism” for “teaching,” as does also Christ, Matt. 21:25, when He asks the Jews:
“The baptism of John, was it from men or from God?” Hereitis manifest that Christ is not speaking of the baptism of water, for that is decidedly of the earth, whereas the teaching had come down from heaven. And in John 3:26 the disciples of John say: “Behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him”; when nevertheless He did not Himself baptize, as later on we see in the fourth chapter. But Christ did baptize with teaching, since He taught just what John also taught, as far as the substance of it was concerned; for in other respects no one so taught, as one having authority. In the same third chapter, a little before the passage already quoted, John says [3:22]: “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.” While there is here no mention at all of teaching, it is manifest that the Evangelist uses “baptize” for “teach.” Here I warn those persons who do not interpret this passage quite correctly to give careful attention. What now follows Paul said not for the purpose of belittling the dignity of John’s baptism or the estimation in which it was held, as we have generally believed, but in order to bring out its character plainly, for when this had been explained these disciples could tell whether they had come to repentance and Christ in the way John had preached. So he says [Acts 19:4-5]: “John verily baptized the baptism of repentance”— what else is this than “preached repentance”?—saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him that should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” If, therefore, these men had the form of baptism which Paul tells of here, what, pray, was lacking to them? For if they repented of their former life and set all their hope on Christ, they were already born again. It becomes manifest, therefore, that they were not adequately instructed in the teaching of John, however far they thought they had progressed therein. For what one of the Apostles preached the Gospel of Christ more clearly than John, as was seen a little while ago? But Apollos himself had been somewhat deficient, as we see in Acts 18: 24-28, so that it is not likely that disciples still new to the faith were better equipped than a master so famous for his knowledge of
the law and the prophets. Having, therefore, believed up to this time that they held the teaching of John correctly, they found, as Paul recited its essentials, that they were still far from the complete teaching. They are baptized, therefore, that is, led by Paul into Christ. For I must not fail to note that, however the Latin translators render it, the Greeks uniformly have in this passage [Acts 19:3] “Into what were ye baptized,” not “in what”; and again, “Into John’s baptism,” not “in John’s baptism.” Also, a little later, “baptized the baptism of repentance,” not “with the baptism”; and, finally, “They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,” not “in the name.” I am well aware that figurative expressions of this kind are sometimes translated in that fashion, but in this passage the recurrence of the locution warns us not to think it used casually. Nay, not to waste time with such critics, what the Greeks have in Matt. 28: 19—“Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”— is much more vivid than “in the name,” as the Latins have it. For to be “baptized into the name” is to be grafted into faith in God. That “name” in this place signifies “power, majesty, grace,” is nothing new, for Christ Himself says, Mark 16: 17, “In my name shall they cast out demons,” that is “in my strength”; for the Apostles had naught either of words or of deeds that they could fairly attribute to themselves, as Paul tells us, Rom. 15: 18; and in the fourth chapter of Acts Peter says that there is no other name under heaven than that of Christ whereby we can be saved, that is, it can be done only through the grace of Christ. However, as far as the external baptism of water is concerned, I still would not oppose using these sacred words as we dip a man, or initiate him with baptism, although to “baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, ete.,” is in reality nothing else than to dedicate, devote, consecrate, those who were previously of the world and the flesh to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. From what has been said, answer can easily be made also to the second objection, in which it was said that Christ’s baptism was different in form from John’s; for these words that are written in Matt. 28: 19, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father, etc.,” were not said simply for the purpose to which the theologians have con-
fined them. For the real meaning of these words is that those who are about to put on Christ are thus dedicated to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, joined and bound to them. But it is a mere outward thing, this dipping to the accompaniment of the sacred words, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”—a sign and ceremony signifying the real thing. As, when something is delivered by hand, the joining of hands is not the delivery of the thing, but is the visible sign by which we testify that a contraet has been performed on both sides, so are ceremonies outward signs which prove to others that the participant has bound himself to a new life or will confess Christ even unto death.
← 49. Commentary on True and False Religion · Contents · 51. Commentary on True and False Religion →