I've written about how the context of justification is inconsistent with baptismal regeneration. Paul describes that context in Galatians 3:2 when he refers to "hearing with faith".
Just before the "hearing with faith" reference in verse 2, Paul refers to how Jesus was "publicly portrayed as crucified" to the Galatians (verse 1). Notice how closely that aligns with Paul's reference to preaching as involving "the cross of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 1:17, where he distinguishes between preaching and baptizing. Though baptism is also related to the cross, the focus tends to be on Jesus' burial, since being covered with water resembles burial. Baptism portrays burial, not crucifixion, though the two are related. The focus on the cross in Galatians 3:1, instead of burial, is more reminiscent of the focus on the cross in the preaching context of 1 Corinthians. So, Paul refers to preaching, which is distinct from baptism, just before referring to "hearing" as the context of justifying faith.
The terminology involved in the phrase "hearing with faith" makes the most sense as a reference to believing in response to the proclamation of the gospel. Though there's a hearing aspect to baptism, baptism isn't associated with hearing as much as preaching is, so the unqualified reference to "hearing" is more naturally taken as a reference to preaching. And faith makes more sense as a response to preaching than as a response to baptism, since preaching involves more information and more of an effort to persuade than baptism does. Both the "hearing" and the "faith" make more sense in a preaching context than in a baptismal one. There's no reference to baptism in Galatians 3:2, so including baptism would involve a more complicated, less likely interpretation. Though there are auditory components to baptism, it involves more than just hearing and faith on the part of the person baptized. If you hear the preaching of the gospel and have faith, you have to do more than that to be baptized, and Galatians 3:2 doesn't refer to more.
Paul comments elsewhere that hearing is brought about by a preacher (Romans 10:14), which he distinguishes from a baptizer (1 Corinthians 1:17). See here and here regarding the evidence that baptism isn't involved in the Romans 10 context.
And we get further clarification in Galatians 3:8. Paul not only cites an Old Testament illustration of how we're justified, even though there is no Old Testament example of or equivalent to baptismal justification, but he even cites Abraham's faith and the context of that faith (the preaching context, which is the "hearing" referred to earlier in verse 2). Notice that Paul isn't just drawing one parallel to Abraham. He's drawing multiple parallels. He's paralleling both the hearing and the faith the Galatians experienced, and he's paralleling them to what happened to a man, Abraham, who wasn't baptized and wasn't justified through any Old Testament equivalent of baptism.
Advocates of baptismal regeneration often appeal to Acts 2, and opponents of baptismal regeneration often appeal to Acts 10. But the two passages have a common thread. The proclamation of the gospel message comes before the baptism. In both passages, Peter preaches, then baptism occurs. And we see the same elsewhere with Philip, Paul, etc. As Paul wrote, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17). They're distinct. Preaching comes before baptism. And it's in the context of preaching that justifying faith occurs. It makes no sense to put preaching at the time of baptism or to think that it's normative for people without faith to get baptized. The most natural way to take both preaching and faith is to take both activities as prebaptismal. In other words, the setting of justification is prebaptismal. It's the preaching and faith in response to it that motivate individuals to get baptized. Even when the baptism occurs close in time to the preaching, baptism is distinct from the preaching, and baptism is motivated by the faith that comes before it. Paul was the spiritual father of the Corinthians in general through preaching (1 Corinthians 4:15), even though he didn't baptize many of them (1 Corinthians 1:14-16).
Acts 10 closely aligns with Galatians 3, as I've discussed before. The "listening" of Acts 10:44 is the "hearing" of Galatians 3:2, and both passages are addressing something prebaptismal.
Similarly, Ephesians 1:13 connects hearing the gospel and the origination of faith. Colossians 1:5 likewise refers to hearing.
Baptism involves the word of God, as do prayer, the eucharist, sermons, and other things. But the proclamation of the gospel Paul is referring to as the setting of justification involves the word of God in a particular form, which he distinguishes from baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17), Acts distinguishes from baptism (e.g., 10:44-48), etc. And, returning to Galatians 3:8, the preaching involved in Abraham's context resembles the sort of prebaptismal gospel proclamation Paul was involved in more than it resembles baptism. There is no baptism or equivalent of it through which Abraham was justified.
An objection that could be raised is that Galatians 3:8 is citing a passage from Genesis 12, not Genesis 15. Doesn't that allow a gap of time between the gospel preaching and Abraham's justification, similar to the gap of time that occurs between preaching and baptism? First of all, Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15, as Hebrews 11:8-19 and other evidence demonstrate. Paul and other early sources cite Genesis 15:6 as an example of the faith by which Abraham was justified, regardless of whether it originated then. And it didn't originate then. The fact that Abraham's justification happened before circumcision is important, and Genesis 15 illustrates that timing, but Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 are both before circumcision. So, the fact that Genesis 15 is cited to prove that the timing was earlier than circumcision doesn't tell you whether Abraham was justified before Genesis 15. Secondly, the gap in time between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 doesn't address the problems with baptismal regeneration that I've been discussing in this post. The hearing and faith referred to in Galatians 3:2 make more sense in a prebaptismal context than in a baptismal one, and both are paralleled to what happened with the unbaptized Abraham. Citing the gap in time between Genesis 12 and Genesis 15 doesn't address any of that.
But what if baptism is left out of the opening verses of Galatians 3 to accommodate the citation of Abraham, even though baptism was a means of justification for the Galatians? The same "hearing with faith" framework is present in contexts in which Abraham isn't brought up, like with Cornelius in Acts 10 and the Ephesians in Ephesians 1. And Abraham doesn't come up in Galatians until 3:6. The experience of the Galatians that Paul appealed to before verse 6 had to be recognizable to them. Even if Paul was anticipating bringing up Abraham later, the Galatian audience didn't know he was going to do that. And if baptism was a means of receiving justification, then it makes less sense to cite Abraham and discuss him at such length and parallel his experience to both the hearing and the faith of Galatians 3:2. If there was a third factor with the Galatians, baptism added to the hearing and faith, then Paul's initial comments about the Galatians' experience are incomplete and confusing, the parallel to Abraham is weakened, and the exclusion of adding any works (verses 21-25) or further conditions (verse 15) doesn't make sense. Baptism is a work, it's a condition, and there's no equivalent of it through which Abraham was justified. Under baptismal regeneration, the Galatians' answer to Paul's question in 3:2 should be "Neither." That's not the answer Paul is anticipating.
What about the mention of baptism in Galatians 3:27? I've addressed that verse elsewhere. Appealing to a reference to baptism in that later context doesn't address the issues I've raised about the earlier verses. A simpler, more harmonious interpretation of verse 27 is that it's similar to verse 5. In verse 5, Paul cites what happens in a non-justification context, namely the reception of miracles, to illustrate what happens in the context of justification. Most likely, he's doing the same kind of thing in verse 27. Baptism illustrates the Christian unity he's discussing at the end of the chapter. The same sort of language of being clothed with or putting on Christ is used in post-justification contexts elsewhere (e.g., Romans 13:14), as discussed in my earlier post linked above. Given how much the language of clothing is used in post-justification contexts elsewhere in Paul's letters, the use of that language in Galatians 3:27 makes more sense if baptism is a post-justification event rather than a means of receiving justification. The unity of believers discussed in verses 28-29 is post-justification. Just as verse 5 isn't meant to place justification in the context of miracles, verse 27 isn't meant to place justification in the context of baptism. There are some aspects of Galatians 3 that are addressing the Christian life after justification, and verse 27 seems to be one of them. If you reject that sort of view of verse 27, and propose instead that Paul is referring to being justified in the context of baptism, then you have to explain not only why you reject a view of verse 27 like mine, but also how you explain the more numerous and weightier lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration earlier in the chapter (and elsewhere).
No comments:
Post a Comment