This is a defence for an almost entirely novel view of the sacraments, namely that they are not dominical (that is, not commanded by Jesus). A simple explanation of what I will defend is as follows:
Matthew 28:19 does not contain a command to literally immerse in water, but to metaphorically ‘immerse’ into the name of the triune God (that is, to ‘immerse’ new disciples into all that pertains to God).
Luke 22:19 is not a command to do a remembrance meal but a description of what the disciples are already doing (better translated: “You are doing this in remembrance of me”). So, what Paul “received from the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11 is not a mandatory Christian practice, but a Christian principle: by any eating and drinking together, believers proclaim the Lord’s death.
I tremble to think that what I am defending, bar a few people, is novel in all of church history. It is here that I take comfort that, if not my conclusion, then my methodology is very familiar. For I have tried to do nothing more than to submit every teaching to the authority of Scripture. That, I trust, will be clear as you read what follows.
Why are the sacraments worthy of re-examination?
Before getting into my argument, I thought it would be worthwhile to set out why I believe both sacraments ought to be re-examined afresh. I find the following questions puzzling for a traditional view.
As it relates to baptism :
As it relates to the Lord's Supper :
I want to be exceptionally clear: at this point, I am not arguing for my position, but showing reasons I think a ‘traditional’ view could validly be questioned. It is to that re-examination that I turn my attention.
Chapter One Baptising in the Name of the Triune God
The question for this chapter is: does Scripture command a perpetual Christian water rite? To answer that we must focus on what Jesus meant when he said in Matthew 28:19-20:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
My answer (though, not original to me ) is that the word translated “baptising”, which ordinarily means “immersing”, does not refer literally to immersion in water, but metaphorically to ‘immersion’ into the name of the triune God (that is, into all that God is and does). Thus, Jesus does not command a water rite, but the preaching of the gospel of the triune God.
This view is not often considered. By the laity, because the English word “baptising” has no association with anything but the water rite (so that the ordinary translation “immersing” is not even known). And by scholars, because of what I trust is a commendable clinging to orthodoxy.
My explanation is surprisingly simple (though the details are technical). The argument is:
The baptism word-group ordinarily means “immerse” and can be used both literally and metaphorically.
This is also true in the New Testament.
Thus, we cannot assume a literal usage in Matthew 28:19.
Matthew 28:19 is better understood as a metaphorical immersion.
Which words should we consider?
There are two main words to consider, namely:
The verb βαπτίζω (commonly translated: “baptise”)
The noun βάπτισμα (commonly translated “baptism”)
The two other baptism adjacent words are significantly less important.
What does the baptism word-group mean in Ancient Greek generally?
The noun, which occurs 20 times in the New Testament, occurs only twice in surviving material outside the New Testament (prior to the 1st century CE, where Christian usage takes over). Neither occurrence is helpful for determining the basic meaning of the word-group.
The verb, by contrast, occurs 99 times in this same literature.
The verb has the basic lexical meaning of “immerse”. Some argue that since βαπτίζω derives from βάπτω (which means “dip”), therefore the semantic range of βαπτίζω should include ‘dipping’ (a partial immersion). The best argument against this is usage. However, another simple rebuttal is that the “-ἰζω” functions to intensify the verb.
The 99 occurrences fit into four basic categories:
A literal usage — most commonly referring to the immersion of ships (that is, sinking ) and people (that is, drowning ).
A metaphorical fluid usage — ‘immersed/overwhelmed, as if by a fluid’ (e.g. a city overrun as if by a flood ).
A metaphorical alcoholic usage — ‘immersed/overwhelmed in alcohol’ (that is, being drunk).
A metaphorical non-fluid usage — ‘immersed/overwhelmed by a non-fluid’ (e.g. debt , argument , passions , troubles , lawlessness ).
The breakdown of usages is as follows:
Period
Literal
Metaphorical
Fluid
Alcoholic
Non-fluid
Prior to 100 B.C.
77%
5%
8%
10%
100 B.C. — 100 A.D.
64%
14%
8%
14%
Total
70%
10%
8%
12%
In most instances (96-99%) there is no religious connotations. And, for reference, when Jewish washing practices are talked about there is an entirely different word used (λούω, “wash”).
Based on the above findings, we would expect to find in the New Testament that βαπτίζω (and the derived word-group) means “immerse” with both literal and metaphorical non-religious usages.
What does the baptism word-group mean in the New Testament?
In traditional Christian thought, the above conclusion is functionally ignored:
Commentators assume that the baptism word-group always refers to a religious rite, unless the context explicitly states otherwise.
Translators never use “immerse” but rather use the transliteration “baptise” (creating a new English word that sounds like the Greek). This holds even where it is clearly a metaphoric ‘immersion’.
This section looks at the New Testament, showing “immerse” is ordinarily the best translation, and that there are both literal usages (immersion in water) and metaphorical usages (‘immersion’ in something else).
To aid in understanding my larger argument: this section argues that we cannot assume literal immersion in Matthew 28:19. However, it also aims to show, more adventurously, that outside the historical narratives the baptism word-group is only ever metaphorical (except in 1 Corinthians 1 where Paul says “Christ did not send me to baptise”). Which is to say, the apostles never taught the churches about water immersions.
Can we get a broad sense of the occurrences of the word-group?
In the New Testament, there are 21 usages of the noun (βάπτισμα) and 76 usages of the verb (βαπτίζω).
In the Gospels and Acts there are:
2 references to the washing practices of the Jews
41 references to literal water immersions by John
19 references to literal water immersions by others
14 references to metaphoric immersions
And 4 references that I will argue are metaphoric
In the rest of the New Testament there are only 19 occurences of the word-group. These fall into the following categories:
6 references in one passage that are literal (though I will argue 2 of them could be understood as potentially metaphoric)
1 reference that is agreed to be metaphoric
And 10 references that I will argue are metaphoric
What follows focuses on those passages I want to argue are metaphoric, but it would be helpful to pause now and read all the passages mentioned. Two things would hopefully become clear about the word-group:
It is commonly literal (referring to immersion in water)
It can be metaphoric (referring to ‘immersion’ in a non-liquid)
Noticing that already proves my conclusion. However, I want to make the argument that a lot more usages are better understood as metaphoric.
Acts 18-19
This passage (while containing six uses of the word-group) contains only three that are debated. These are marked in blue. The text is as follows:
“He [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:25-26)
[After Paul had arrived.] And he said to them [disciples of Apollos] , “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptised?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptised with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:2-5)
While clearly some uses of the word-group in this passage refer to a literal immersion, the question is whether the ones marked in blue refer most fundamentally to metaphorical ‘immersion’ into a body of teaching.
For the first in question, I hold that “he knew only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25) refers most substantially to Apollos knowing only the body of teaching of John (which is called the ‘immersion of John’). This is held for the following reasons:
The verb “knew” in the phrase “he knew only the baptism of John” is odd if the only reference is literal water immersion.
The phrase “he knew only the baptism of John” is placed in apposition to “he taught accurately...”, indicating knowing only the baptism of John should ordinarily have hindered Apollos’ ability to teach.
Priscilla and Aquila’s solution is not to water immerse him but to explain “the way of God more accurately” to him. In Priscilla and Acquilla’s minds, the problem was not that he had one immersion rite and not another, but that he had one body of teaching and not another (that is, the ‘immersion’ that really mattered was what teaching they had been ‘immersed’ in).
For the second and third, I hold that Paul asks into what teaching they were ‘immersed’ rather than what liquid, and that Apollos’ disciples respond appropriately. This is held for the following reasons:
Paul pivots from knowledge of the Holy Spirit to the question, “Into what then were you baptised?”. Clearly, Paul assumes that by their immersion they should have known the Holy Spirit. Clearly, the immersion he refers to is then an immersion in a body of teaching.
The disciples do not reply with ‘water’, which would be the most natural answer if Paul’s use of immerse was understood literally.
The disciples repeat “into” (εἰς), so that their answer is akin to: ‘(we were immersed) into John’s immersion’. Note, the first use of immerse must be metaphorical in that answer (as the object is John’s immersion or the teaching associated with John’s immersions).
To clarify, no argument is being made that these three occurrences don’t have some secondary reference to literal immersion. Rather, it is argued that the baptism word-group is being used primarily metaphorically.
Romans 6
This passage contains three debated uses. The text is as follows:
“By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:2-45)
There is no reading of this where the baptism word-group is exclusively literal. The debate is whether Paul intends any literal meaning or purely a metaphorical one. The two options can be paraphrased as follows:
A reading with some literal sense — ‘Do you not know that all of us who have been water-immersed into Christ were spiritually-immersed into his death? We were buried therefore with him by water-immersion into death...’
A reading with only a metaphorical sense — ‘Do you not know that all of us who have been spiritually-immersed into Christ were spiritually-immersed into his death? We were buried therefore with him by spiritual-immersion into death...’
I find the arguments for the former unpersuasive. On the contrary, a purely metaphoric understanding is preferred for the following reasons:
It gives a consistent reading to the three usages (all are metaphoric).
It makes better sense. The former argues from water-immersion “into Christ” to spiritual-immersion “in Christ’s death”, which assumes a necessary step (water-immersion in Christ is spiritual-immersion in Christ). Conversely, the latter argues straightforwardly from spiritual-immersion “in Christ” to spiritual-immersion “in Christ’s death”.
The baptism word-group is associated with death by immersion (drowning) and so it is fitting for Paul here to describe spiritual union in this unusual way, so as to illustrate another death by immersion (our death with Christ by union with him).
If it is literal, Paul mentions literal immersion only here in the letter.
This case seems strong to me, indicating a metaphoric ‘immersion’.
1 Corinthians 1
This passage (while containing six uses of the word-group) contains only two that are debated. Again, these are marked in blue. The text is as follows:
“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptised none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptised in my name. (I did baptise also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptised anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the gospel...” (1 Corinthians 1:13-17)
Akin to Acts 18-19, while it is clear that most of the uses of the word-group in this passage refer to literal immersions, again, in two instances (highlighted in blue) it seems that the ultimate substantial reference is to ‘immersion’ in a body of teaching (associated with the literal immersion).
It is worth noting that, however you understand this passage, it is intended to limit the importance of literal water immersions.
1 Corinthians 12
This passage contains one debated use. The text is as follows:
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)
Of all the passages we will discuss, this has the most proponents for the metaphoric view. The view is that we are members of Christ’s body, for we were ‘immersed’ into his one Spirit. This is held for the following reasons:
All the other key ideas in context are metaphoric (e.g. “body”, “Spirit”, “drink”). For a shift from metaphorical to literal reality, we would need clear signposting (which there is not).
The two phrases of verse 13 are clearly paralleled.
v. 13a
"were all"
"baptised into"
"one body"
v. 13b
"all were"
"made to drink of"
"the one Spirit"
The parallel compares “baptised into” and “made to drink of”, and we would hardly argue the latter is equivalent to literal water-drinking. Hence, the former is hardly likely to be literal water-immersion.
The similarities to Galatians 3:27-28, which I will argue is metaphoric.
The best way to understand this is as metaphoric immersion.
1 Corinthians 15
This passage contains two debated uses. The text is as follows:
“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptised on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptised on their behalf? Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:29-32)
It must be noted this passage is puzzling on a traditional (literal) reading:
There are no other recordings of a literal water rite associated with the dead. This would be completely novel in the New Testament.
Depending on how you interpret it, this practice is inconsistent with the Biblical teaching against communing (in any way) with the dead.
No Christian tradition has seemingly ever been convinced enough to practice any baptism “on behalf of the dead”.
The alternative could be paraphrased as: ‘For what is the point of people being overwhelmed in suffering for the sake of the spiritually-dead? If those who are dead are not raised, why are people overwhelmed in suffering for their sake?’ Some alternative translations have been made:
ὑπὲρ has been translated as “for the sake of” instead of “on behalf of”.
The dead being referred to have been interpreted as the ‘spiritually dead’ as opposed to the ‘literally dead’. This translation is in all major New Testament lexicons for νεκρός (dead).
The two conjugations of βαπτίζω have been translated metaphorically as meaning “overwhelmed in suffering”.
This is to be preferred for the following reasons:
It alleviates the problems of the traditional view.
This usage of βαπτίζω is familiar in the New Testament (e.g. Mark 10:38, 10:39, Luke 12:50, and as I argue later 1 Peter 3:21).
Being literally immersed is not costly, and Paul’s argument implies it would be foolish to undergo this kind of immersion.
The argument is more consistent. Paul first presents the suffering of other believers for gospel proclamation (v. 29: “what do people mean by being baptised...”), and then his own suffering for gospel proclamation (v. 30-32: “why are we in danger...”).
A metaphorical ‘immersion’ (and the other changes) makes the most sense.
Galatians 3
This passage contains only one debated use. The text is as follows:
“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:25-28)
The metaphoric reading would be that ‘as many of you as were baptised’ means (to put it woodenly): ‘as many of you as were enveloped into Christ’. This is held for the following reasons:
Being “baptised into Christ” is explained as having “put on Christ”. This makes a strong case for a metaphorical ‘enveloping’.
The argumentation makes more sense if verse 27 proves that the believer has come “into Christ” (which is presupposed on both sides by the phrase “in Christ”, vv. 26 and 28).
The Galatian letter makes strong arguments against any mandatory act required to be saved, and a literal understanding of immersion would seem to require that only “as many of you as were baptised” (that is, literally immersed in water) have “put on Christ” and so are “in Christ”. This, I would argue, is entirely antithetical to the purpose of the letter (justification is by faith alone).
The similarities to 1 Corinthians 12:13 which I have argued above is metaphoric (specifically the language of “baptised”, “Jew/Greek”, and “slave/free”).
Thus, the metaphorical reading is preferred.
Ephesians 4
This passage contains only one debated use. The text is as follows:
“There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)
The metaphoric reading would be that the ‘one baptism’ referred to is one immersion in Christ (one spiritual union with Christ), that all believers share. The case for it is very simple:
All the other items in the list are spiritual realities and not literal realities (namely: body, hope, Spirit, Lord, faith, and Father).
The literal water immersions of the Ephesian believers are by no means a self-evidently singular entity in the way the other items listed are (for their baptisms were many distinct events).
The reality of being “in Christ” is perhaps the theme of Ephesians. Therefore, the inclusion of our ‘immersion’ into Christ is fitting.
Surely if there is any reference to the water rite it must be secondary (at most) to a primary metaphoric meaning.
Colossians 2
This passage contains only one debated use. The text is as follows:
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12)
The metaphoric reading would be that it refers to spiritual union with Christ (being enveloped in him). This is held for the following reasons:
The similarities to Romans 6:4, which I have argued is metaphoric.
The other key ideas are all clearly metaphoric (or spiritual) and not literal (“circumcision”, “buried with him” and “raised with him”).
The topic of our spiritual-resurrection now (v. 12) reinforces that these verses are about the believers’ spiritual union with Christ.
This passage seems best interpreted as metaphorical baptism.
1 Peter 3
This passage contains only one debated use. The text is as follows:
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...” (1 Peter 3:18-21)
It must be noted, as with 1 Corinthians 15, that this passage is puzzling. But there are certainly clear elements: the passage is about the “suffering” of believers generally (1 Pet. 3:13-17) and Christ specifically (1 Pet. 3:18, 4:1). Among the things that are tricky for modern interpreters are:
The meaning of verses 19-20 (“in which he went... through the water”).
The link between verses 19-20 and what follows (when Peter says that baptism is an ἀντίτυπον of “this”).
One proposal sees verses 19-20 as detailing Noah’s salvation “through water” and sees verse 21 as linking this to the believers’ salvation through immersion in their own baptismal waters. (That is: both are salvation events through water.) However, there are some issues with this view:
It is not clear how this links at all to the broader argument about suffering (either of believers or of Christ) and consequently verses 19-22 become merely a series of tangents stemming from Peter’s initial comment in verse 18 about “the spiritual realm”.
The preposition “as” must be supplied by translators in “not as a removal of dirt from the body” (v. 21) to remove the implication that Peter is ruling out a literal immersion in water (which removes dirt).
Literal immersion in water does not, at least at face value, “save you”.
The proposal I find more persuasive is that βάπτισμα refers to the believer being overwhelmed in suffering. That is, to paraphrase the relevant part: ‘God preserved eight people in Noah’s day through their ordeal, and he will now do the same for the elect exiles of Peter’s day through their current immersion in suffering’. This is held for the following reasons:
It makes sense of the wider argument about Christ’s suffering (3:18 and 4:1) and our suffering (3:13-17). These verses are not tangential, but prove Christ suffered in the flesh (hence 4:1).
It explains how it is not “the removal of dirt from the body”.
Verse 21 reinforces the teaching of verse 16 (slander = suffering).
While tricky, this verse is best understood as metaphorical baptism.
So what can we say about the baptism word-group in the New Testament?
If each of the above conclusions is held, the following breakdown of usages for βαπτίζω and βάπτισμα emerges (excluding Matthew 28 for now):
2 references to the washing practices of the Jews.
40 references to literal water immersions by John (all in narratives).
24 references to literal immersions by apostles or other notable Christians (all in narratives, except 1 Corinthians 1).
32 references to metaphoric immersions.
Thus, the following observations can be made:
There is a practice of literal water immersions, by John the Baptist and others after him, clearly evident in the Gospels and Acts.
The apostles never teach about water immersion in their letters, except when Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach” (1 Cor. 1:17).
Interestingly, a third of the New Testament usage is metaphoric (which reflects the same percentage in the surviving extra-biblical material).
So, what does Jesus command in Matthew 28:19?
Attention must now be given to Jesus’ final command in Matthew:
“Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:16-20)
The task is to “make disciples of all nations”. The assurance given for this mighty task is that Jesus has “all authority in heaven and on earth” and he is “with you always, to the end of the age”. In our efforts to figure out one participle phrase, we ought not to lose sight of the main thing!
Some initial observations can be made:
The imperative is to “make disciples”.
Three participles are attached: “going”, “baptising” and “teaching”.
“Going” is placed prior to the imperative to indicate it is a necessary pre-requisite step for these Israelite men to “make disciples of all nations” (not a necessary step to “make disciples” always).
We should not assume a literal water immersion
The prior section argued that we cannot bring the assumption that the New Testament uses the baptism word-group only literally.
Additionally, the baptism word-group has already been used literally and metaphorically in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew 3:11 records John the Baptist saying: “I baptise you with water... He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” We must note, then, that the following two types of baptism exist in the minds of Matthew’s audience:
There is a literal water immersion by John the Baptist. Hence, it is qualified as “in water” (ἐν ὕδατι).
There is a metaphorical ‘immersion’ by Jesus. Hence, it is qualified as “in the Holy Spirit and fire” (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί).
These are the only two types of baptism that Matthew introduces us to prior to chapter 28. Especially of note is that Matthew never records anyone but John the Baptist doing a literal water immersion (it is only in John’s Gospel that we learn Jesus’ disciples did them too, John 3:22, 4:1-2).
The use of βαπτίζω in Matthew 28 is distinct from the only two previous usages in the Gospel, for the following reasons:
The preposition is different (εἰς, “into”).
The indirect object is different (“the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”).
The person(s) baptising is different (Jesus’ disciples).
Thus, βαπτίζω in Matthew 28 should not be equated (at least immediately) with either previous type of baptism. Therefore, I reject any simplistic claim that it must be literal water immersion.
The problems with a literal understanding
This passage has two exegetical issues when read as literal immersion:
The first issue is that the imperative (“make disciples”) must be treated as one of the participles, so that the first step after “going” is not to water immerse them. That is, the imperative is step two of four: (1) go, (2) “make disciples” (which includes some content), (3) immerse them in water, and (4) teach them to obey. It is odd that the imperative serves the same function as the participles.
The second issue arises in that the content that must be read into the imperative is strikingly similar to only one of the participles (teaching obedience) but bears no discernible similarity to the other two (going and baptising). The content of the imperative, considering Matthew’s teaching on salvation, is something like ‘teaching repentance and belief’ so that someone follows Jesus. If this is right, there is an odd weighting of the imperative to only one of the three participles.
These issues are sufficient, in my mind, to have pause at reading βαπτίζω in Matthew 28 as referring to literal water immersion.
The reasons for a metaphoric understanding
While there is no connection between the choice of preposition “into” (εἰς) and whether the verb is literal or metaphoric, the phrase “into the name” (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) taken as a whole does have a fixed meaning. Six times this phrase occurs with verbs other than βαπτίζω and in each one “the name” refers not to ‘what God is called’ but to ‘God himself’:
Four times as “believing in the name” (John 1:12, 2:23, 3:18, 1 Jo. 5:13).
Once as “indicating in the name” (Heb. 6:10).
And once as “gathering in my name” (Matt. 18:20).
This reflects the Hebrew usage of שֵׁם (“name”), which is used to refer to the totality of the one named (and especially personal relationship with the one named).
If we understand that Jesus used “into the name” in a similar way in Matthew 28:19, then the indirect object of the immersion is a person and not a liquid. Indeed, given that someone’s name represents all that pertains to them (their nature, character and work), the immersion seems to be into a full knowledge of a person (by means of teaching about them).
Taken this way, this alleviates the issues with the participles. Here the imperative (“make disciples”) is achieved by two explanatory participles:
The former (“immersing them into the name...”) involves teaching who the triune God is and all he has done to save a people for himself.
The latter (“teaching them to observe”) calls for the obedience of faith to that gospel, and the resulting submission to Christ’s lordship.
The passage, as I understand it, could be paraphrased as such:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, by immersing them into all that the one God (who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is and all that he has done, and by teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
This reading coheres with the rest of the New Testament
This reading makes sense of many other oddities associated with the traditional view. Namely, the following are no longer issues:
That no other Gospel includes Jesus’ command that gospel preaching must be accompanied by a water rite. Since, on this reading, all the other Gospels do include a command to gospel the nations.
That no triune baptism is ever recorded in the Scriptures.
That Luke records a disciple being made without a water rite, even when baptism is discussed (specifically, Apollos in Acts 18).
That Paul could say “Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17). The plain sense of which is that Paul could baptise (hence, 1 Cor. 1:14, 16) but was not under obligation to do so.
That no instruction is ever given by the apostles in their many letters about a water rite.
That the letter to the Galatians, which argues strongly against mandatory acts accompanying faith (specifically circumcision), would contain no exception for the mandatory water initiation rite.
So what can we conclude from Matthew 28:19?
I conclude that Jesus did not command a literal immersion of newly-made-disciples into water, but a metaphoric ‘immersion’ of would-be-disciples into the triune God (that is, a complete enveloping of them in the triune God, accomplished by teaching them who he is and what he has done).
So why then did the apostles practice the rite in Acts?
Nothing in the view I have articulated would stop the apostles conducting water immersions for new disciples, rather it would question what the basis of such water immersions was. It will be argued that the apostles (and those following their lead) conducted water immersions for new converts, not out of obedience to a command of Jesus, but because of an already forged association between the water rite and repentance.
It is helpful here to state that in first-century Israel, water immersions was a known symbol of repentance. This is held because:
Non-Christian historical sources record the proliferation of the water rite among the Jews and its connection to repentance.
People who are not yet disciples of Jesus know of the connection, such that they ask for water immersion upon repenting (Acts 8:36).
Matthew records that “Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going” to be baptised by John (Matt. 3:5).
It is also helpful to remember that Jesus’ disciples had already, prior to Jesus’ death and resurrection, conducted the water rite upon making disciples of Jesus (John 4:1-2). It is not a new practice for them.
So, as I understand it, when the apostles went out preaching repentance, they took with them the practice they had received from their earliest days and that was already known by their hearers to symbolise repentance.
Hence, we understand that the apostles were able to preach:
“Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ...” (Acts 2:38)
But at other times, could simply call for repentance only:
“Repent therefore, and turn back...” (Acts 3:19)
“Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours...” (Acts 8:22)
The former does not establish a mandatory rite, just as much as the latter does not preclude the practice of such a rite.
Conclusions
The essential conclusions of this chapter are:
The baptism word-group means “immerse” both metaphorically and literally in the New Testament (and ancient Greek generally).
Every usage of the baptism word-group in the letters (besides 1 Corinthians 1) is best understood as metaphoric. And so, there is no teaching on literal water immersions in the apostles’ letters.
Matthew 28:19 is best understood as commanding believers to ‘immerse’ would-be-disciples into the triune God (that is to envelop them in the teaching of who God is and what he has done, specifically what he has done for them in the gospel of the Lord Jesus).
The water immersions of the apostles were not their obedience to a command of Jesus, but their continued adoption of a practice associated with repentance (known across first-century Israel).
Chapter Two Proclaiming the Lord’s Death by Eating and Drinking
The question for this chapter is: does Scripture command a perpetual Christian bread and wine rite? There are three passages that must be investigated, namely: Luke 22:15-20, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:17-34. A short excerpt from each has been rendered below:
“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’” (Luke 22:19-20)
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16)
“When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat... For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:20, 23-26)
My answer (which, again, is not original to me ) is that the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me” (found in both Luke and 1 Corinthians) is better translated as “You are doing this in remembrance of me”. Understood this way, there is no bread and wine rite instituted by the Lord, and Paul is not passing on a practice he received, but a principle he received (a teaching he learnt from Jesus’ words at his last Passover).
Is the bread and wine rite to be repeated according to the Gospels?
Jesus’ last Passover is discussed in each Gospel. Each has a distinct focus:
John’s Gospel does not mention what Jesus said about the bread and the wine. You could not read this account as instituting any perpetual practice (except perhaps, interestingly, foot washing). John focuses more on Jesus’ teaching about his imminent departure.
Matthew and Mark’s Gospels do discuss the bread and the wine. However, there is no instruction about their ongoing practice. Rather, there are short comments on each element, namely: an instruction on what the disciples were to do with the element, and a short comment on the element’s relationship to Jesus.
Luke’s Gospel is the only account that could be called an institution (however, even this will be questioned).
It must be noted, for all the emphasis placed on repeating this meal, only Luke saw fit to mention it must be repeated.
Before discussing Luke’s account, it is worth noting there are manuscript variations that exclude Luke 22:17-20 (which would remove the line about remembrance). However, I am convinced that we have an accurate recording of Luke’s account.
We now turn our attention to Luke 22, specifically to the important words found at the end of verse 19:
“Do this in remembrance of me”
What is the “this” that Jesus referred to?
There are three options for what “this” could refer to:
The breaking of bread (taken as an individual act)
The breaking of the bread and sharing from the cup (taken together)
The Passover meal (taken as a whole)
The first is not likely, for two reasons:
Paul, interpreting this event, applies the same statement not merely to the bread, but also to the cup (“Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”, 1 Cor. 11:25).
A “this” that refers only to breaking the bread ignores that this is no ordinary bread (it is the bread of the Passover meal, Ex. 12:15).
The second is also not likely, because Luke has intentionally placed the eating of the whole meal between the bread and the wine (“And likewise the cup after they had eaten”, 22:20). It would be entirely arbitrary to exclude the eating of the lamb from the “this” they must repeat.
This leaves that Jesus was referring to the Passover meal as a whole, saying something like: ‘Do a Passover meal in remembrance of me.’
If nothing that follows convinces you, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that Jesus instructed his disciples to remember him at future Passovers. That is not as strange as it might sound. The earliest Jewish Christians still participated in Old Testament ceremonies after the resurrection, including (it would seem) the Passover. And, the Passover was already a remembrance meal (Exod. 12:14, 13:3, Deut. 16:3), so Jesus was simply directing them what to remember at future Passovers.
Is “Do this in remembrance of me” the best translation?
I have issue with the translation of one word: ποιεῖτε. Because of how verbs conjugate in Greek, this verb could be translated as either “you must do” (imperative) or “you are doing” (indicative). Every English translation has chosen to translate it as an imperative, but I have issue with that.
The reason I prefer the indicative is technical. It has to do with the order of the verb (ποιεῖτε) and the pronoun (τοῦτο). It seems that, regardless of whether the verb and pronoun are singular or plural, it is in the indicative if the pronoun is first, and in the imperative if the verb is first.
Below is the data to back up that claim. (Note, to prove what I am claiming we would expected to see a majority in the top-left and bottom-right. I've included notes in the footnotes with explanations for the exceptions.)
Below is everything outside the New Testament (600 BC to 200 AD).
Case
Indicative
Imperative
Pronoun first
29
1
Verb first
2
3
Below is the New Testament (excluding the passages in question).
Case
Indicative
Imperative
Pronoun first
6
0
Verb first
1
0
Three observations can be made from this data:
The indicative mood is far more prevalent than the imperative.
The imperative mood does not occur in the New Testament.
Where the pronoun is first, the verb should be assumed to be in the indicative mood (this holds 97% of the time).
All three of these observations, when applied to Luke 22:19, would indicate that the translation “You are doing...” is preferable to “Do this...”, since Luke has placed the pronoun before the verb.
A conclusion for Luke 22:19
It is better to translate Luke 22:19 as: “You are doing this in remembrance of me.” This would mean Jesus was teaching that: the disciples, in doing a Passover ceremony, were remembering the Exodus salvation through the blood of a lamb, but this was in reality about the greater salvation Jesus accomplished through his blood. In this way, the disciples (and indeed all Israel) had been doing the Passover in remembrance of Christ.
The natural corollary of this is that Jesus did not command (in the Gospels) a perpetual bread and wine rite.
Is the bread and wine rite to be repeated according to 1 Corinthians 10-11?
There are a series of references in 1 Corinthians 10-11 that have historically been understood as referring to a bread and wine rite. These cluster in two passages (10:14-22 and 11:17-34). These will be dealt with separately in what follows. It would be worth pausing and reading 1 Corinthians 8-11 before continuing (as I will assume you know this context).
1 Corinthians 10:14-22
This section fits into the larger argument of chapters 8-10, where Paul addresses “food offered to idols” (8:1). Paul’s main argument is that knowledge that idols are not real allows the Corinthians to eat this meat, but love for those who do not know better demands they do not eat it. So, if the verses we are interest in do talk of an ongoing rite, it is a tangent.
The conclusion that will be reached is that the two purported references to a rite in this section are actually an informal Corinthian fellowship meal.
The first supposed reference in this section is as follows:
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)
There are good reasons not to see the “cup” and “bread” as elements of a Christian rite, but as ordinary parts of an informal Christian meal:
Context shows that the eating is not in a formal church gathering.
The ordering of cup before bread (v. 16) reverses Jesus’ order at the last Passover (Luke 22:19-20) and Paul’s quotation of that ordering in a chapters time (1 Cor. 11:23-25). A more satisfying explanation is that in Greco-Roman culture: (1) both wine and food were involved in worshipping the gods, so it is expected Paul would raise both in a discussion of the necessity to “flee from idolatry” (10:14); and (2) wine was perhaps more prolific than food at a meal, so it is not strange he would reference the cup first (when referring to an ordinary meal).
There is no convincing evidence that “the cup of blessing” (τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας) was a term referring to a Passover cup. Paul appears to have invented the phrase. Furthermore, the addition of “that we bless” (ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν) uses the ‘wrong’ verb if Paul had Jesus’ Passover in mind. The Gospels use “bless” (εὐλογέω) only for the bread and “give thanks” (εὐχαριστέω) for the cup (Matt. 26:26-27 and Mark 14:22-23). It is better to assume a blessing was done before the first element of any meal (and there is no predefined liturgy being referred to).
Likewise, the phrase “bread that we break” (τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν) is not necessarily a link to Jesus’ last Passover, as much as it is a link to what ordinarily happens at any meal in the New Testament.
Consequently, it is held verses 16-17 teach something akin to the following: ‘When we ordinarily drink wine (by which we blessed God), are we not experiencing fellowship with Christ who shed his blood for us? And when we ordinarily eat food together are we not experiencing oneness with Christ? Though many, we are one because we share in Jesus, the one bread.’
The second supposed reference in this section is as follows:
“You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)
Again, there are good reasons to believe this is an ordinary meal:
As with the previous verses, the context is ordinary eating.
Again, the ordering of “cup” first reverses Jesus’ words at Passover.
Since there are no articles in the Greek, each phrase could be translated either: definitely (e.g. “the cup of the Lord”) or indefinitely (e.g. “a cup of the Lord”). There are three reasons to prefer the latter:
First, there is no known “cup of demons” or “table of demons” about which Paul could refer to.
Second, all known cups named for a god or mythical figure are for one individual at a time and never multiple (that is, it would be unexpected to speak of a cup of ‘demons’ in the plural).
Third, the same can be said for tables (that is, there are tables for one god/mythical figure but never for multiple at once).
The term “table of the Lord” is not obviously connected to Jesus’ last Passover. Indeed, the term most closely relates to the “table of the presence” in the Old Testament, and there is some evidence that eating from that table was a known Jewish metaphor for what happens when you eat with fellow believers.
It seems better to conclude: (1) “cup of the Lord” refers to wine drunk in honour of the Lord (perhaps by a prayer said), (2) “cup of demons” refers to wine drunk in honour of an idol (perhaps by a libation done to an idol ), (3) “table of the Lord” refers to a meal had in honour of the Lord (perhaps by a Scripture reading ), and (4) “table of demons” refers to a meal had in honour of an idol (perhaps by eating meat sacrificed to an idol, v. 20). Thus, verse 21 teaches: ‘You cannot drink wine in honour to the Lord while drinking wine in honour to an idol. You cannot partake in meals dedicated to the Lord while you partake in meals dedicated to an idol.’
On this reading, then, there are no references to a Christian rite in 1 Corinthians 10, but repeated references to informal Christian meals.
1 Corinthians 11:17-34
This text fits into a larger section spanning chapters 11-14, where Paul addresses three issues in the Corinthian gatherings. Contextually, here it would be more appropriate to find a discussion of such a rite. And yet even some conservative commentators question whether Paul does so.
My conclusion will be that Paul is not correcting their faulty practicing of a rite (as is commonly held), but their sinful behaviour at formal fellowship meals. The following summarises the movements of the passage:
When the Corinthians gather to have meals, some rich believers bring their own meals and eat lavishly, while others cannot (vv. 21-22)
This type of eating is not “κυριακὸν δεῖπνον” (“a Lordly meal”, v. 20), meaning: it is not a meal Jesus would ‘own’ or ‘approve of’
This is shown by comparing their meal to the Lordly meal that Paul “received from the Lord”, namely: Jesus’ last Passover (vv. 23-26)
Therefore, to eat as they were, while purporting to be Christian, was to “be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27)
Paul’s solution is two-fold:
Individually: “Let a person examine himself...” (vv. 28-32)
Corporately: “When you come together to eat, ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε [‘share with each other’] ...” (vv. 33-34)
My analysis of the church’s problem (disparity in food quality/quantity) and Paul’s solution (share) is not novel. It is held because:
The other two available interpretations of the ‘issue’ are unsatisfying:
The first is a disparity in seating (some sitting in the dining room while others stood in the atrium). However, it is not clear how “one goes hungry” (v. 21), nor why the solution, whether “wait” or “share” (v. 33), is at all related to the issue.
The second is a disparity in arrival times (some coming for a ‘first table’ before the common table). However: (1) it is not true “each one goes ahead with his own meal” (v. 21), but only the early arrivals, (2) verse 21 requires some “hungry” among those that went ahead, and (3) “ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν” (“in the eating”, v. 21) implies one collective meal.
We know that at Greco-Roman dinner parties, guests brought their own meals they prepared beforehand. And since the Corinthian gatherings likely occurred in a believer’s house, it seems likely this church maintained this practice of each supplying their own meals.
While “ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε” can refer to “waiting” (Acts 17:16), in the context of a meal, the phrase always means “share”.
It is necessary on this view to read “if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (v. 34) as sarcasm. This is consistent with Paul’s use of sarcasm in this section.
So, while the general thrust of my reading is not novel, there are three elements that are:
Understanding “κυριακὸν δεῖπνον” as ‘a Lordly meal’ (v. 20)
Understanding Jesus to be saying “This you are doing...” (vv. 24-25)
Understanding Paul to be treating the Corinthian meals as though they were Jesus’ last Passover when he writes “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death...” (vv. 26-27)
These will be explained in what follows.
First, I hold that “κυριακὸν δεῖπνον” (v. 20) means ‘a Lordly meal’ and not “the Lord’s Supper”, for the following reasons:
The article has been supplied by the translators (to make it read: “the Lord’s supper”; as opposed to: “a Lord’s supper”). Translating it this way has given the impression that there is a rite known by this name.
The word “κυριακὸν”, despite being translated as “Lord’s”, is not the word for “Lord’s” used repeatedly in context. If Paul meant “Lord’s”, he would have used “κυρίου” (the genitive of Lord), but he has picked the adjective “κυριακὸν”. This word has a fixed meaning outside the Bible, namely that something bore the Lord’s stamp (that is, the Lord’s approval). This ordinary meaning fits both uses in the Bible.
The choice of “supper” (instead of “meal”) unnecessarily ties this phrase to ‘the last supper’. The same word (δεῖπνον) is translated “meal” in the next verse (“each one goes ahead with his own meal”, v. 21). The word simply refers to a formal meal at which people are invited, with the only possible exception being John 12:2.
If “κυριακὸν δεῖπνον” means ‘a Lordly meal’, then Paul says: not that their meals fail the criteria of a known rite with a formal title but instead cannot be described in a certain way (that description being: a meal the Lord Jesus would place his stamp of approval on).
Second, I hold that Jesus is best translated as having said “This you are doing...” (rather than “Do this...”). This has been argued already. However, additionally here: the inclusion of “as often as you drink it” (v. 25) makes no sense if Jesus’ words are understood as a command.
Third, I hold (admittedly more tentatively) that Paul is treating their meal as though it were Jesus’ last Passover in verses 26-27 (as opposed to saying they performed the same rite that Jesus did). There are good grounds for holding the position I do:
Despite up till now dealing with each exegetical choice in isolation, there is a cumulative force to the argument. At this point, there is no reason to believe Paul might be referencing a bread and wine rite.
Traditionally, interpreters have assumed “τοῦτον” (“this”, v. 26) means that Jesus’ Passover meal is to be continued (because Paul says the Corinthian church “eat this bread”). While possible, there is a better explanation for “τοῦτον”. It can be deduced in the following manner:
In the previous two verses (vv. 24-25) there are four uses of the same pronoun. The last of those is a Pauline addition when compared to the Gospels.
That Paul modifies the Gospel tradition indicates he has a specific aim for his allusion to this meal.
Paul’s attribution of “as often as you drink it” to Jesus (v. 25) indicates his aim is to show that Jesus’ said something generally true (that is, Paul wants to show that Jesus’ words apply to more meals than the one he and his disciples had that night, even, as he will say, to the Corinthian meals he has issue with).
Specifically, since Jesus taught “This you are doing...”, Paul’s aim in alluding to that night is to generalise Jesus’ principle. Jesus’ principle (now universalised) is that whenever believers drink together, they do it in remembrance of his death.
Thus, when Paul says they ‘eat this bread and cup’, he means that: because of the generality of Jesus’ teaching, it is as if they ate this bread when they ate at their gathering, and as if they drank this cup when they drank at their gatherings.
(Note, since verse 27 extends this comparison, it is “the bread” and “the cup”, since Paul is referencing the specific bread and cup of that night, as if they were the Corinthian bread and cup.)
If verses 26-27 are talking about a rite, Paul has introduced a second issue into this section (namely, partaking in the rite “in an unworthy manner”). There are two problems with this: (1) it separates the explanation of the first issue (vv. 18-22) from Paul’s solution for that issue (vv. 33-34), and (2) the “for” (v. 23) linking the inner section to the outer is hard to explain, if they are indeed two separate issues.
Thus, I understand verses 26-27 to say:
For, whenever you eat, it is as if it is this bread from the night Jesus was betrayed, and whenever you drink, it is as if it is this cup from the night Jesus was betrayed. And so, in your eating and drinking, as Jesus explained: his death is proclaimed (for that is what brings you together). Therefore, the one who eats that bread and drinks that cup in a manner contrary to Jesus’ death (by not showing equal honour to those he died for) is guilty of his death.
On this reading, then, there are no references in 1 Corinthians 11 to the practice of a Christian rite, but repeated references to the Corinthian practice of formal meals done when they gathered as believers.
Summary of Gospels and 1 Corinthians
My view is as follows: Jesus did not command a repeated action at his last Passover meal but taught his disciples the true meaning of the Passover: “This you are doing in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Paul’s quotation of this in 1 Corinthians 11 is to teach a principle: believers eating and drinking together is always in remembrance of Jesus’ death.
So why then did the apostles practice the rite in Acts?
There are many instances in Acts of a practice referred to by the combination of κλαω (break) and ἄρτος (bread). Since these words appears in Jesus’ last Passover and 1 Corinthians 10-11, it has commonly been held this practice is the bread and wine rite. I do not share that opinion.
Most scholars recognise that ordinarily to ‘break bread’ is to share a meal, but instead assert that Luke is using the words with a technical meaning (to refer to a known rite). The operative question is whether Luke intended a technical meaning. I hold he did not, and that these words always refer to food being divided for regular eating.
I have three general reasons to believe Luke has no technical meaning:
First, in none of the references is there any mention of the second element of the rite (the cup), nor any liturgy spoken.
Second, Luke uses the same two words together to refer to a meal that was assuredly not an example of the rite (Luke 24:28-35).
Third, there is no consistency in the grammatical forms to indicate a technical meaning. In each instance it is different.
For completeness each usage will be looked at briefly. And for each, there are specific reasons it is best understood without reference to any technical meaning (which is to say it simply refers to dividing food).
Acts 2
The first and second usage are found in Acts 2. The text is as follows:
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers... And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people.” (Acts 2:42, 46-47a)
The word προσκαρτερω appears twice in this paragraph: in verse 42 where the new believers “devoted” (προσκαρτεροῦντες) themselves to “the apostles’ teaching”, “the breaking of bread”, and “the prayers”; and then again in verse 46 where “day by day” (προσκαρτεροῦντες) they were “attending the temple” and “breaking bread in their homes”. If the first set delineates what the new believers did, the second explains how they did so. Thus, both uses of the key terms are synonymous (the latter explaining the former). Consequently, when the latter is expanded upon by Luke with the words “they received their food [τροφῆς] with glad and generous hearts” (v. 46), it is clear that neither usage is technical.
Acts 20
The third and fourth usage are found in Acts 20. The text is as follows:
“On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight... And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.” (Acts 20:7, 11)
If it is assumed that both usages here are examples of the rite, then in the second instance, Paul conducts a one-person rite, because the verbs “κλάσας” (broken) and “γευσάμενος” (eaten) are in the singular. While it is technically possible for the breaking to be attributed to the person administering the rite, the eating should surely be a common action.
Acts 27
The final usage is found in Acts 27. The text is as follows:
“As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them [those on the ship with him] all to take some food, saying, ‘Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food. For it will give you strength, for not a hair is to perish from the head of any of you.’ And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves.” (Acts 27:33-36)
Commentators struggle to explain why unbelievers partake in this meal, if it is indeed an example of the Christian rite (as traditionally it is held from 1 Corinthians 11:27 that unbelievers should not partake in the meal). Notably, some commentators therefore conclude this is not an example of the rite, thereby undermining the case that Luke’s usage of these words is consistently technical.
I see no reason to believe Luke uses the words with a technical meaning, and so no reason to believe Acts contains reference to a bread and wine rite, and so no reason to believe there is an apostolic practice.
Conclusions
The essential conclusions of this chapter are:
On the night he was betrayed, Jesus did not command a rite (“Do this...”) but taught a principle (“This you are doing...”). In so doing, he taught his disciples that the Passover remembrance had always been in remembrance of his death.
1 Corinthians 10 refers to informal Corinthian meals. Paul uses the language of participation to make an argument against engaging in idolatry by what you eat and drink.
1 Corinthians 11 refers to formal Christian meals done in the Corinthian gathering. Paul uses: (1) Jesus’ last Passover as an example of ‘a Lordly meal’, and (2) Jesus’ teaching at that meal (that all meals shared by believers are done in remembrance of his death) to show the Corinthian church their failure of love in the way they were conducting their meals.
Acts contains no reference to the rite but refers repeatedly to believers sharing meals together (that is, they were “breaking bread”).
Chapter Three The Implications of Denying Dominical Sacraments
The previous two sections have argued that the two sacraments are not commanded by Jesus. While radical, I posit that there is a beautiful elegance to the simplicity of the conclusion. As of yet nothing substantial has been said about the implications of this view. This section examines the implications in the realms of theology and practice.
The implications for our theology
Four areas of theological implications will be discussed: (1) the sacraments, (2) the church, (3) salvation, and (4) covenant. Obviously, these doctrines cannot be dealt with in detail, so I have merely stated conclusions.
Implications for our theology of sacraments
The Reformers argued that there were not seven sacraments (but only two) on the basis that Christ only ordained two. For example:
Martin Luther says: "... there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the church of God — baptism and the bread. For only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins."
John Calvin says: "Apart from these two, no other sacrament has been instituted by God, so the church of believers ought to recognize no other, for erecting and establishing new sacraments is not a matter of human choice"; and shortly after he says not to "accept any sacraments apart from God's Word, except those two which they knew to be ordained by the Lord."
Thinking this way, I want to argue that the Reformation did not go far enough in bringing the number down to two. I want to state this plainly: this view necessitates that there are no sacraments (inasmuch as you join the church in understanding a 'sacrament' to be something God-ordained).
Much of what follows is the implications of removing this whole section (namely, everything normally discussed under the topic of sacraments).
Implications for our theology of church
It has been common to define "the church" by reference to the two rites (the water rite being a mark of entry into the church and the bread and wine rite being a mark of continuing participation in the church). For example:
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican) says: "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance..."
The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian) says: churches "are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them." and that the sacraments "put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world"
The Second London Baptist Confession (Baptist) says: "The members of these churches... do willingly consent to walk together... in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel."
As such, it will be necessary to disentangle the two sacraments from a definition of church. There are many ways this could be done (and no one specific way follows necessarily from the argument of this paper).
I want to propose an answer called the Knox-Robinson model. Put simply the view is as follows: