Parsing "baptism"

My main objective in this post is to make a linguistic point about "baptism" in the NT. But for completeness' sake, I will review some related issues before getting to the main point. 

i) Sacramentarians believe in baptismal regeneration and/or baptismal justification. This includes Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Campbellites (e.g. Everett Ferguson, Jack Cottrell). In the case of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, this depends the authority of the church to dictate the interpretation of Scripture. In the case of Protestants, this involves methodological errors. 

ii) Sacramentarians don't understand the basic nature of symbolism. A symbol stands for what it symbolizes. Therefore, you can impute to the symbol what is literally true of what it signifies. Take the OT sacrificial system. Animal sacrifice emblemized the principle of vicarious atonement and penal substitution. From that, some Jews probably inferred that sacrificial animals could actually atone for sin. But, of course, that's not true. That confuses the symbol with what it stands for. 

Even if the NT attributes saving benefits to the sacraments, this doesn't means the sacraments are in fact the source of saving benefits. For the NT would characterize the sacraments is precisely the same way even if that's merely what they represent. For that's the nature of symbolic representation. 

iii) The Bible often uses food and water as theological metaphors. The fact, therefore, that some NT passages use such imagery doesn't presume that this is referring to the sacraments. 

iv) Although the NT sometimes attributes saving benefits to the sacraments, it often promises the same saving benefits apart from the sacraments. For instance, it indexes such benefits to faith in Christ. That confirms the point that the ascription of saving benefits to the sacraments is symbolic. They illustrate divine grace. 

v) Now to the main point. Because the meaning of "baptism" (as well as the theology of baptism) is controversial, English translators of Scripture traditionally avoid prejudging the question by simply transliterating the Greek nouns and verbs rather than rendering them into English synonyms. 

However, because the word "baptism" is used in almost every Christian denomination as a technical term for water baptism, for the rite of initiation or church membership, that conditions us to associate the word "baptism" with the Christian sacrament whenever we read the word "baptism" in the NT. That constant linguistic association in church practice becomes the subconscious default meaning when we read the NT. 

As a result, sacramentarians find more occurrences of water baptism in the NT than may actually be there. So when we read the NT, we should make a conscious effort to bracket that linguistic conditioning. "Baptism" doesn't have a presumptive meaning in NT usage. Rather, that's to be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

vi) There are explicit references to water baptism in the Gospels and Acts. In the Gospels, some of these refer to John's baptism–which is the precursor to Christian baptism. But even in the Gospels, "baptism" doesn't always denote water baptism. In Mk 10:38-39 and Lk 12:50, it's a metaphor for persecution or judgment. It trades on the imagery of drowning.

Likewise, the Gospels refer to "baptism" by fire. That, too, is figurative.  

vii) Although Acts contains several references to water baptism, the first reference is to Spirit-baptism (Acts 1:5). That's both backward-looking and forward-looking. It looks back to the contrast between John's baptism, by water, and the fiery "baptism" which Christ confers, which is a metaphor for imparting the Holy Spirit. And it looks forward to Pentecost, when the Spirit descends.

Interestingly, Joel's description uses an aqueous metaphor: the "outpouring" of the Spirit. One question is the precise nuance of this image. Does it trade on water as a cleansing agent? Washing away one's guilt? A metaphor for the remission of sins? Or does it trade on water as rain? A downpour which revives parched land after a drought? A metaphor for new life? Given the agricultural prelude in Joel, it probably signifies spiritual renewal or spiritual empowerment.   

viii) Mt 28:19 is a locus classics of baptism. However, that doesn't specify water baptism. So that's not something we can just assume. It's something we ought to exegete.

Could it refer to Spirit-baptism? One objection to that interpretation is that it makes reception of the Spirit contingent on apostles transmitting the Spirit, as if it's a power which they discharge. So I think water baptism makes more sense. 

ix) More ambiguous are some Pauline references (e.g. Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 4:25-26; Eph 4:5). Do these denote water baptism, Spirit-baptism, or something else?

Baptists tend to construe Rom 6:3-4 (and Col 2:12) as a reference to the Christian sacrament because they think that interpretation bolsters immersion as the proper mode of baptism. However,  I think the up-and-down imagery trades on the comparison with burial and resurrection (i.e. to be lowered into the ground, to rise from the grave) rather than baptism. I think it's a mistake to use Rom 6:3-4 as a prooftext for the mode of baptism. Of course, it could still refer to water baptism, but that apologetic agenda shouldn't drive the interpretation.  

I happen to think immersion is the normative mode of baptism. But I think narrative passages furnish better evidence for the mode.    

x) Attempts to defend one interpretation or another (i.e. water baptism, Spirit-baptism) are often circular inasmuch as commentators will construe one Pauline passage in relation to other Pauline passages. But that assumes the other passages refer to the same thing, which is the very issue in dispute! 

If it refers refers to Spirit-baptism, we might render the verb or noun by "saturated" in the Spirit (or something along those lines). 

xi) Let's take some specific examples:

Commenting on Eph 4:5, Hoehner thinks it refers, not to water baptism, but functions as  a baptismal metaphor for union with Christ in his death and resurrection. And he cites Rom 6:1-11, 1 Cor 10:2; Gal 3:27, and Col 2:12 to corroborate that interpretation. Ephesians, 518. 

Commenting on Gal 3:26-29, Thielman says:

The reference to putting on Christ is metaphorical, and so the reference to baptism is best understood as metaphorical also. Ephesians, 258-59. 

Commenting on 1 Cor 12:13, Fee argues for Spirit-baptism rather than water baptism, in part because there's no reference to water, as well as Semitic parallelism. To "drink" the Spirit is clearly figurative. 

He also refers to agricultural metaphors (Isa 32:15; 44:3). God's Empowering Presence, 179-80.

xii) My purpose is not to settle on the correct interpretation of these passages. The point, rather, is that "baptism" in NT usage isn't necessarily a technical term for the Christian sacrament. It's a mistake to read the NT through that filter. That preconditions the reader to perceive something that may not be there. 

We should treat "baptism" as a neutral word, a placeholder, the meaning of which must be determined in context. And in some cases, there may be insufficient textual clues to nail down the identification.