Читать книгу The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism - Karl Barth - Страница 5

THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH REGARDING BAPTISM

I

CHRISTIAN baptism is in essence the representation (Abbild) of a man’s renewal through his participation by means of the power of the Holy Spirit in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and therewith the representation of man’s association with Christ, with the covenant of grace which is concluded and realised in Him, and with the fellowship of His Church.

The Greek word βαπτίζειν and the German word taufen (from Tiefe, depth) originally and properly describe the process by which a man or an object is completely immersed in water and then withdrawn from it again. Primitive baptism carried out in this manner had in its mode, exactly like the circumcision of the Old Testament, the character of a direct threat to life, succeeded immediately by the corresponding deliverance and preservation, the raising from baptism1. One can hardly deny that baptism carried out as immersion—as it was in the West until well on into the Middle Ages—showed what was represented in far more expressive fashion than did the affusion which later became customary, especially when this affusion was reduced from a real wetting to a sprinkling and eventually in practice to a mere moistening with as little water as possible. Who would think that Paul, according to 1 Cor. 10:1 ff., saw the prefiguration of baptism in so critical an experience as the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea? One may surely agree with Luther1 that it would be well to give so complete and pregnant an affair its full and complete expression: sicut et institutum est sine dubio a Christo. Is the last word on the matter to be, that facility of administration, health and propriety are important reasons for doing otherwise?2 Or will a Christianity return whose more vigorous imagination will be satisfied no longer with the innocuous form of present-day baptism any more than with certain other inoffensive features of modern Christianity?

Luther, however, did not regard the original form of baptism as necessary to salvation. He was therefore opposed to all those who wished to make this an actual article of faith (Glaubensfrage), on the well-founded ground, first, that βαπτίζειν signifies historically aspergere, affusion, wetting—though a really efficacious wetting. Further, in regard to certain of the New Testament narratives (e.g. the baptism of the three thousand at Pentecost) it is questionable what outward form of baptism is in mind. Moreover, it is certain that soon after the time of the apostles, at all events in the case of the baptism of the sick (the so-called baptismus clinicorum), the original rule was broken from time to time. These considerations, however, do not alter the fact that it is impossible to understand the meaning of baptism, unless one keeps in mind that it implies a threat of death and a deliverance to life; nor that, generally speaking, the custom followed in baptism is to be called good or bad as it more or less adequately represents such a process.

What baptism portrays, according to the basic passage in Romans 6. If., is a supremely critical happening,—a real event whose light and shade fall upon the candidate in the course of his baptism. This happening is his participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ: that is, the fact that at a particular time and place, in the year A.D. 30 outside Jerusalem on the cross at Golgotha, not Jesus Christ alone, but with Him also this particular individual died eternally, and that, in the garden of Joseph of Arimathea, not Jesus Christ alone, but with Him also this particular individual rose from the dead for evermore. Not only his sins and he not only in his character as sinner—but really he himself as subject, met his death then and there, was then and there buried, so that, although he is still in existence, he is in effect now no more. And not only did God’s grace begin for him then and there, but also his real life in God’s eternal Kingdom and therefore in its glory; so that he can now no more die, but can only live, even though he will one day die. Therefore, according to Romans 6 he is now dead to sin, but has become alive unto God for an existence in His service.

This is what happens for him and to him in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; in very truth for him and to him, in the power of the Holy Spirit which is poured out upon him. For it is the Holy Spirit, proceeding from Jesus Christ and moving this particular man, which unites him to Jesus Christ like a body to its head, making him belong to Jesus Christ and making everything that Jesus Christ is and does belong to him. This happens in such a manner that he can no more be without Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ can no more be without him; he is no more outside but in Jesus Christ and with Him to the end of all things, standing with Him at the dawn of a new heaven and a new earth. “Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away: behold, they are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

As the Holy Spirit is the agent of this union of man with Jesus Christ, therefore the work of the Holy Spirit belongs inseparably to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and to the happening portrayed in baptism. As the Holy Spirit is the agent of this union, what happens is “baptism with the Holy Spirit” and it is so described by all four gospels and by the Acts of the Apostles, to distinguish it from water baptism as such. Thus it is that water baptism is the μυστήριον ἀναγεννήσεως,1, the sacramentum regenerationis. What befalls a man in that participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit, which is set forth in baptism, is indeed his rebirth to new life in the Age to Come. It is accomplished through his full justification before God, through the full forgiveness of his sins, through his full consecration to God’s service.

The Reformed theology of the 17th century meant and said nothing other than this when, in accordance with its central point of view, it2 described this reality as the admission of a man to the foedus gratiae Dei, which was established by God’s eternal decree of election in Jesus Christ and which was realised in time in the coming, the death and the resurrection of the same Jesus Christ. As a partner in this covenant and therefore a brother of Jesus Christ, man is born again as a child of God and a citizen of the new Age. He is moreover righteous before God, because declared free from his sins and therefore consecrated to Him. These things a man becomes because he believes in Jesus Christ and in his own renewal as a child of God through Him, and because he confesses this his faith, becoming by reason of his confession a responsible partner in the divine grace, a living member of the Church of Jesus Christ. All this—that is, everything accomplished in the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, right up to and including the last thing of all, namely, the praise of God which breaks from the lips of the forgiven sinner and is accepted by grace—is the reality which is portrayed in water-baptism.

According to John 1, the water baptism of John witnesses to the baptism of the Spirit which is to be directly accomplished by Jesus Christ Himself. According to the foundation passage Romans 6:5, it is the ὁμοίωμα (likeness) of His death. Therefore and in this sense we call baptism a representation (Abbild). We might instead call it a seal (σφραγίς), following a usage which was widespread in the second century, or a sign (signum), according to the terminology of Augustine which later came to prevail. So far as I know, there is no teaching about Christian baptism which would directly contest the view that water baptism itself is also, and indeed primarily, to be understood as a symbol, that is, as a type (Entsprechung) and a representation (Darstellung), or, according to Gregory of Nyssa, a copy μίμησις—of that other divine-human reality which it attests. One can obscure this by expressions which appear stronger or more definite, but one cannot contest it.

Baptism is holy and hallowing, though we have yet to see why and how far. But it is neither God, nor Jesus Christ, nor the covenant, nor grace, nor faith, nor the Church. It bears witness to all these as the event in which God in Jesus Christ makes a man His child and a member of His covenant, awakening faith through His grace and calling a man to life in the Church. Baptism testifies to a man that this event is not his fancy but is objective reality which no power on earth can alter and which God has pledged Himself to maintain in all circumstances. It testifies to him that God has directed all His words and works towards him and does not cease so to do. It testifies to him what has already been declared in the signum audibile of the word of Christian teaching and instruction, and has already come to pass in fact after the latter, because it occurs also at his baptism and will occur again after his baptism. It testifies this to him, however, as signum visibile: as the speaking likeness of that threat of death and deliverance to life, in the midst of which he is concerned with no one but himself as the one who is threatened and delivered; in which also he is not only dealt with but, by yielding himself to this threat and deliverance, finds himself taking an active part. Baptism then is a picture in which, man, it is true, is not the most important figure but is certainly the second most important.

This is the essence of baptism: to be this picture, this witness and sign. That it is only a picture is evident, apart from anything else, from the inadequacy with which the threat and deliverance—ultimately harmless even in the most pointed form of the representation—correspond to the actual death and actual eternal life of man, with which it deals objectively.

What John 1:8 says of John the Baptist: “He was not the light but came that he might bear witness of the light”; what the Baptist according to John 1:20; 3:28, so confessed of himself: “I am not the Christ,” and Jesus conversely said of Himself: “The witness which I have is greater than that of John” (John 5:36); all this holds good also of baptism and points to a limiting principle which in a sound doctrine of baptism must be neither put on one side nor rendered ineffective. One does no honour to baptism by interpreting it as if it were in its essence more than the representation of the sacred history (Heilsgeschichte) which comes to pass between God and man in Jesus Christ. It has its full honour precisely in being in fact the most living and expressive picture of that history: the visible sign of the invisible nativitas spiritualis at the entrance gate of the Church and at the beginning of every Christian life.

II

THE power or potency (Kraft) of baptism consists in this—that as an element in the Church’s message it is a free word and deed of Jesus Christ Himself.

Baptism is no dead or dumb representation, but a living and expressive one. Its potency lies in the fact that it comprehends the whole movement of sacred history (Heilsgeschichte) and that it is therefore res potentissima et efficacissima. All that it intends and actually effects is the result of this potency. It exercises its power as it shows to a man that objective reality to which he himself belongs (and of which it is a sign) in such a way that he can only forget or miss it per nefas; in such a way, at all events, that he becomes by its marks himself a marked man, by its portraiture one who is himself portrayed. We next ask therefore: whence comes this potency?

We begin from the fact that baptism is in any case a part of the Church’s proclamation and that it is plainly a human act. Like the Lord’s Supper, preaching, prayer, the whole worship of the Church, pastoral care, works of charity, church order and Christian education, it is a part of the Church’s proclamation. One is accustomed to distinguish it from the other activities of the Church as, like the Lord’s Supper, a “sacrament.” But whilst being clear about baptism and the Lord’s Supper, it is even more important to realise that all the activities of the Church are in their way sacramental. That is to say, they are activities involving signs and symbols; moreover, they are dependent for their effectiveness on certain fixed signs and symbols. Baptism (as we have said) is in any case, like all the Church’s acts, plainly a human act. If in fact it has the potency of a living and expressive representation, able to represent and denote man, then it owes this to the fact that it is, together with all the other parts of the Church’s proclamation, in itself and in its complete humanity, still indirectly and mediately a free word and act of Jesus Christ Himself. It is this which gives life to all parts of the Church’s proclamation and to baptism along with the others. The Church stands under the government of her Lord, an instrument at His disposal. When she expresses herself in human words and deeds, she lays hold of the promise that whoever listens to her listens to Him. The Church did not found or gather herself. She was founded and gathered by her Lord and so she continues to be. Similarly, the Church did not herself invent the different parts of her proclamation; nor did she invent baptism. She administers it as instituted by her Lord. She obeys His command. By word and deed she serves those who are His, in hope and expectation that through the power of her words and deeds His word and His deed will find expression.

The water-baptism of John witnesses to the baptism with Spirit and fire of Jesus Christ Himself. For that very reason, the mighty dispenser of water-baptism is neither John, nor the Church—but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, though indirectly and mediately, it is effected through the service of John and through the service of the Church. Who else but Jesus Christ Himself could effectively testify of Jesus Christ? As Luther rightly and repeatedly made clear in his sermons on Matt. 3:13f. (following Chrysostom, Ambrose, Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura) and Calvin also believed,1 it is the Lord who makes water-baptism powerful for repentance and the forgiveness of sins. He, who needed not these things, submitted Himself to them, thereby setting forth both what happened on Golgotha and also what happened on Easter morning, thus declaring His solidarity with sinners. Baptism was thereby made a living and expressive representation of Christ’s high-priestly death and resurrection. Whoever now is baptized may expect like Him to see the heavens opened, to hear the voice of the Father, and to share in the Holy Spirit. Therefore it is called, and indeed is, baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The covenant of grace was to be established through Christ’s death and revealed in His resurrection. By thus putting Himself already into the representation that pre-figured these things (and afterwards into their mirroring), Jesus Christ “instituted” (eingesetzt) baptism.

All the other passages which occur to one at this point—for example, Matt. 28:19—are to be understood as the ratification and enforcement of this actual “institution” of baptism. By this testimony to the service He was to render—by thus witnessing to Himself as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world (John 1:29f. Cf. Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50)—Christ made Himself Lord of baptism. He Who, in every baptism which is properly administered in the services of the Church, is the Chief Character, the primary and true Baptizer, thus turned baptism into something powerful, living and expressive. Baptism is the acted parable of His death, in which (according to Romans 6:5) man is at his own baptism “planted.” It is a repetition of Christ’s baptism, in which man himself as the candidate for baptism is now the second most important figure. To quote Luther once more, baptism is “God’s Word in water” (Larger Catechism), that is, Jesus Christ Himself is the first to be dealt with in this act and to take an active part in it. By His own participation in it, He gave command and commission. Therein lies the potency of baptism.

Though it is Christ’s institution of it, His word and deed, which gives potency to baptism, it must of course be emphasized that it is His free word and deed. He Who, when He let Himself be baptized by John in Jordan, prefigured and represented Himself as the servant of all those who baptize and are baptized in His name and that of the Father and the Spirit, thereby showed Himself as also their sovereign Lord and the sole and powerful head of the Church. The potency of baptism depends upon Christ who is the chief actor in it. It has no independent potency in itself. Nor have any other of the parts of the Church’s proclamation. Though the Church utters the Word in baptism and performs the act, what must always be believed in, loved, expected and prayed for is the power of His free Person, sent down for this very purpose. It cannot be manipulated by men. It is always power which Christ Himself personally and freely grants. It is something promised which He Himself alone can provide.

At this point certain qualifications are necessary. All those are right who have drawn attention to the fact that there is a genuine symbolic power in the water itself and who have therefore spoken of its use being necessary in baptism. Tertullian1 and Ambrose2 point back to the movement of the Spirit of God over the waters at the time of the creation. It is certainly permissible for us to ascribe a certain saving significance to our douche of cold water on the morning of each new day. But one must not press such symbolism too far. The natural symbolism of water and its ordinary use can point in every other possible direction, as well as to the death and resurrection of Jesus, the events upon which man’s regeneration depends. Such general symbolism can entirely fail. For anything to be a witness or a sign the necessary power must be present. Water and its use must first receive their special meaning. And they do not receive it because of anything given or attributed to them in a certain way by the Church. They receive it because Jesus Christ is Lord of Nature and because He has of His own free will allowed them to serve His word and work. As Luther in the Shorter Catechism puts it: “Truly water cannot do it, but the Word of God which is with and on the water, and the faith which believes such Word of God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is simple water, and not baptism; but with the Word of God it is baptism.”

Zwingli would have been right had he been content to say that baptism is a symbol of the faith of the Church and of the faith of her individual members, and that its performance is an act of remembrance and therefore an act of confession, and therefore something confirming such faith. How should Jesus Christ demonstrate the power of baptism, if not for faith and in the faith both of the Church and the baptized? Unfortunately Zwingli wanted to say something else; namely, that the potency of baptism is now limited to the power of a faith which strengthens itself by the use of the symbol. To this it must be said that the power of faith is not something dependent on itself—a power which may indeed strengthen itself in pious ceremonies—but that it is the power of the one exercising it and really nothing else; and that even this, and this by itself, and also the power of Jesus Christ, are really the same as the power of baptism. But the power of baptism really lies precisely here—that it shows like a clear mirror that the Church and those baptized within her are not left alone with their own faith, are not dependent on themselves, but that faith has its ground and essence in the objective reality of the divine covenant of grace.

The tradition of the Church of Rome, in its turn, would be right if it is said that the potency of baptism is the potency of the opus operatum of Jesus Christ, the potency of His reconciling work wrought once for all, and ever and again made effective through the free might of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately this is not what is said. Instead, there is talk of an opus operatum of the correctly administered baptismal rite, which becomes powerful and effectual by its own means, just as faith does in the teaching of Zwingli. To this it must be said that the potency of baptism cannot be a potency dependent on itself or one which itself produces its effects. We read in Acts 8:14f. concerning the Samaritans that those who had (unlike the disciples of John in Acts 19:1f.) heard the mighty preaching of Philip were baptized expressly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and yet that they had not received the Holy Spirit. Is not this passage (together with Acts 19) an explicit warning against any view which would ascribe to the baptismal water, the ecclesiastical rite, or the parts of the Church’s proclamation in general, their own even relatively independent power of action over against the free enactment of the Lord? In 1 Cor. 6:11 it does not say that we are washed, sanctified and justified in baptism, but “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” If baptism is a true witness, that means that it is living and expressive not in its own power, but in the power of Him to whom it bears witness and by whose command it is carried out.