You’ve heard it before: “A text
without a context is a pretext.” Meaning, you can make the Bible conform to
almost any preconception you have. This is no different from other areas of
inquiry. Elementary science teachers
report that most children are told by adults that the “sun is rising and
setting,” giving them an image of a sun that moves around the earth. In school,
students are told by teachers (years after they have already formed their own
mental model of how things work) that the earth rotates around the sun. Students
are then faced with the difficult task of deleting a mental image that makes
sense to them, based on their own observations, and replacing it with a model
that is not as intuitively acceptable. This task is not trivial, for students
must undo a whole mental framework of knowledge that they have used to
understand the world. The same is true
when we come to the Scriptures.
Last week I was treated to a
living example of such preconceptions regarding baptism. (Perhaps the reason I could
see it so clearly is that I too suffered from the same preconceptions decades
ago.) It began with a question: “Why do you baptize infants?” The questioner
followed up with this statement: “When the Bible never mentions the baptism of
infants, instead it only refers to believers being baptized.”
Before I sought to answer the
question I asked for some background. It turns out that the questioner had
grown up in a church where only non-infants were baptized. This insight was
added, “We only baptized people who reached the age of accountability and who
could profess Christ for themselves.” Moreover, the questioner had spent much
of her adult life married to a minister who only baptized believers.
So, quickly I could see that I
was dealing with a person who was steeped in her views. There was a good chance
that her question was more of a challenge than a solicitation of information,
or a desire to learn. However, I detected an openness to learn, so I proceeded
with a three-part answer.
First, biblically, I pointed out
that the New Testament writers were recording first generation encounters with
Christ and the Gospel. Though Jesus spoke of children, and on occasion held
them in His arms, all of the first disciples and those to whom they ministered were
adults. Thus, it stands to reason that it was adults in the first century who were
being baptized. Moreover, I noted that in at least five places in the New
Testament an individual is noted as having been baptized along with his/her
whole household. Now the world “household” had a specific meaning in antiquity.
It meant the composite of all the family, the servants, and in some cases, any
economic dependants. Clearly infants and children were a part of a household.
Second, I pointed out that
historically Roman persecution of Christians throughout the first three
centuries extended to infants and children. Indeed, baptismal records found in
the catacombs of Rome include the names of all who had been baptized, including
children. I also noted that for the first 15 centuries of the Christian Church
the baptism of infants was the normal practice of the church. No one questioned
its veracity until the rising of the heretical Anabaptists in 1525.
Third, I noted that theologically
infant baptism is a clear picture of sola
gratia (grace alone). In infant baptism there’s no work that the infant
does. There’s no assent on the part of the baptized. All that is done is done
for him/her without any additions; just like divine grace is imparted to every
child of wrath (Eph. 2:3) with his/her help or facilitation.
The immediate result of my ten-minute
tutorial was silence, followed by, “I just don’t think it’s biblical to baptize
infants.” “Oh, well,” I thought, “Maybe the sun does rotate around the earth!”
I say all this because this
Sunday, the final week of the “MOVE” series, brings us to John 3:1-21, another
text that’s often held hostage to preconceptions and assumptions. Is there any
more popular biblical citation than John 3:16? But what’s it mean? How does it
fit with the preceding encounter of Nicodemus and Jesus? Who is the
“whosoever”? How does one believe given Jesus’ assessment of the human
condition in verse 3? How does the concluding statement in verse 21 square with
verse 16? I would venture to say that in the whole Bible no verse is more
misrepresented or made a pretext than John 3:16. Here, as in every other text
we’ve examined as part of this series, “the in”, “the up”, and “the out” begin
and end in God’s sovereign grace.
In preparation for Sunday’s
message: “Nick at Night,” you may wish to consider the following:
1. Who
is Nicodemus?
2. What
does his name mean?
3. What
are the similarities and differences between Zacchaeus and Nicodemus?
4. Why
does Nicodemus come to Jesus at night?
5. What
is his view of Jesus?
6. What
is the significance of “truly, truly” in verse 3? Why does Jesus’ response
appear to be a non sequitur?
7. Why
does Jesus analogize salvation to natural birth?
8. How
is verse 8 a flashback to Genesis 1? What parallels does Jesus see physical
creation and spiritual regeneration?
9. Who
are the “whosoever” in verse 16?
10. How
is salvation a total work of God? (See verse 21)
11. How
does every godly “move” flow from His work?
See you Sunday!
