Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Page 65 of 94

Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

 
Revised 3 March 2014
Orthodox Baptism

Orthodox Baptism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin wrote:

I have a question. Baptists and Pentecostals say infant baptism is not biblical.  Do we find infant baptisms in the Bible? I heard someone say that this practice started around year 200. Where can I find the earliest teachings about infant baptism? When is the first time the early Fathers mentioned it? What does the Orthodox Church teach about this? How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism? What difference is there between Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox infant baptism?

 

My Response

You asked some very good questions about the rationale for infant baptism.  I will attempt to answer each of your questions below but before I do so I need to discuss the role of Scripture in the various Christian traditions.  But feel free to jump to Question 1.

For Protestants the Bible is the preeminent source of theology.  This arises from the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone).  But what does one do when Scripture is silent or the biblical text is not clear?  Protestants respond to this ambiguity in several ways: (1) some will argue that this makes the practice unbiblical and thus prohibited; (2) some will argue that this is a matter of liberty subject to personal opinion or conscience, and (3) some will attempt to rely on historical precedents to guide them.  This accounts for the wide array, even contradictory, positions Protestants hold on baptism, including infant baptism.

Orthodoxy base its doctrines and practice on Tradition (with a capital ‘T’), a combination of oral tradition and written tradition (II Thessalonians 2:15).  Orthodoxy also relies on Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).  Thus, with respect to the Orthodox approach to infant baptism we find an ancient practice widely accepted that in time was formally acknowledged by the Ecumenical Councils.

In contrast to Orthodoxy’s conciliar approach to church authority, Roman Catholicism holds to a monarchical understanding of church authority.  It views the Pope as having ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.  Thus, on matters where Scripture is silent the Pope speaks.  This view stems from the understanding that the Pope is the successor to the Apostle Peter and thus has the ultimate authority to interpret Scripture and define Tradition.  This monarchical understanding of the Bishop of Rome arose in the Middle Ages.  Orthodoxy rejects this as a departure from the conciliar approach of the early Church.  While it has roots in the early Church, the Great Schism of 1054 resulted in the Church of Rome going its own way.  It began to adopt innovative teachings and practices that many found objectionable.  This resulted in the Protestant Reformation.  In order to counter the authority of the Pope, Luther and the other Reformers invoked the authority of Scripture.  This led to sola scriptura as a foundational principle for Protestantism.

With this new theological method of sola scriptura, Tradition — oral tradition, the church fathers, and Ecumenical Councils — took on a subordinate position to Scripture.  Orthodoxy rejects the Protestant subordination of Tradition to Scripture because it views written and oral tradition as two sides of the same coin, integral and inseparable to the other (II Thessalonians 2:15).  Understanding these differences will help you understand how I put together my answer to your questions.  In answering your questions I seek to show how Orthodoxy is at its core biblical in its doctrine and practice while also consistent with the early Church founded by the Apostles.

 

1. Do we find infant baptisms in the Bible?

A lot depends on the question we ask.  If you ask a question the wrong way, you are quite likely to get an incorrect answer.  If we take your question about infants as a starting point, we can extend it to adults, teenagers and elderly as well.  Just as there is no teaching in the Bible in support of infant baptism so likewise there is no teaching in the Bible in support of teenagers or of senior citizens being baptized.

A better way to frame the question is to ask: What does the Bible teach about covenant initiation?  We find throughout the Bible God establishing covenants (contracts) and people entering into a covenant relationship by means of a certain ritual act.  In Genesis 17 God invites Abram to enter into a covenant via circumcision.  What is the age span of those circumcised in Genesis 17?  Anywhere from a new born male child eight days old (Genesis 17:12), a teenage boy (Ishmael was 13 years old at the time; see Genesis 16:16), to a male senior citizen (Abraham was 99 years old at the time; see Genesis 17:1).

When we look at Peter’s Pentecost Sermon we find some interesting teaching about covenant initiation.  At the climax of the sermon Peter exhorts:

Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.  And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39: NIV, emphasis added)

The phrase “you and your children” implies both the adult listeners and their offspring.  The Greek word for “offspring” (τεκνος, teknos) can include young children as well as those grownup.  If we look at the opening quotation from Joel in Acts 2:17 Peter is describing those receiving the Holy Spirit broadly, not restrictively.  Notice the language used: sons versus daughters, young men versus old men.  In Peter’s Pentecost sermon water baptism is closely linked to Spirit baptism.  The Orthodox Church maintains this linkage by administering Chrismation immediately following baptism.

Another element we need to take into consideration is the fact that the Bible teaches the salvation of families.  Luke in his account of the conversion of the Philippian jailer wrote:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.  The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.  (Acts 16:33-34; NIV, emphasis added)

The phrase “his whole family” can be read to include little children and infants.  This emphasis on the family unit parallels the first Passover when the Israelites gathered in a home to celebrate a Passover meal (Exodus 12).  The blood of the sacrificed lamb was smeared over the door of the house, not on individuals.  This contrasts with the modern mindset that elevates the individual over the family, and which emphasizes individualized faith over believing together with others.

Baptism is the new circumcision.  Just as circumcision was the rite of initiation into the old covenant, so likewise baptism is the rite of initiation into the new covenant founded by Christ on the Cross.

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.  (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

Orthodoxy does not view the sacrament of baptism as magic.  Rather, it understands baptism as making one part of God’s family.  It is the responsibility of the parents and godparents to make sure the baptized child learn about Christ and the Christian way of life.  In II Timothy 3:15 we learn that Timothy was exposed to the Old Testament at a very early age, from infancy.  As the child grows up he or she will begin to make their own decisions and develop a lively personal faith in Christ.  If there is “magic,” it is the powerful influence a loving and faith-filled environment at home and church will have on a child.  One of the biggest threats to this model of Orthodox discipleship is a mindless nominalism in which people do church things because it is part of their ethnic heritage and are not able to give a reasoned response to youths asking questions about the doctrines and practices of the Church.

 

2. Where can I find the earliest teachings about infant baptism?

The thing to keep in mind is that the early church allowed for infant baptism, it did not mandate the baptizing of infants.  It was a common practice among Christians and there was very little protests against it.  Infant baptism became the standard practice with the conversion of entire people groups.  When a ruler converted, he would be followed by his supporters and their entire families.  It is also important to keep in mind that given the high mortality rates at the time many parents would seek to baptize their child especially if death was imminent.

An overview of the early church’s attitude towards infant baptism can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Christian Tradition (100-600), (pp. 290-292).  The earliest mention of infant baptism was by Tertullian (c. 160-220) who voiced skepticism about the practice of baptizing infants.  The renowned Alexandrian theologian, Origen (185-254), admitted infant baptism to be part of the church tradition going back to the Apostles even as he struggled to articulate a clear rationale for the practice.  With the church father Cyprian (c. 200-258) we find infant baptism defended on the basis of original sin.  Of the three sources mentioned here only Cyprian is regarded as a church father.  J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines noted while the sacraments of baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist were universally practiced in the early Church there was very little evidence of a systematic sacramental theology at the time of the fourth and fifth centuries (p. 422 ff.).  This points to the sacraments and Liturgy preceding theology in the early Church.

Dating infant baptism to AD 200 is based on a restrictive reading of the evidence.  The evidence is clear that the first mention of infant baptism took place circa 200 which means that its origin can be placed earlier than 200.  Given Origen’s testimony that infant baptism has apostolic roots and the absence of contrary evidence, we can assume that infant baptism dates back to the early days of the church, even the Apostles.  Given Christianity’s Jewish roots and the established practice of infant circumcision among Jews, it should be no big leap to infant baptism among Christians.

 

3. What does the Orthodox Church teach about this?

Orthodoxy accepts infant baptism as an ancient practice.  For Orthodoxy the Ecumenical Councils comprise an important authority for faith and practice.  We find in Canon 84 of the Quinisext Council (692) instructions on how to handle those who claimed to have been baptized as infants but unable to provide witnesses to support that claim—baptize them provisionally.  Van Espen in his commentary on Canon 13 of the Council of Nicea (325) noted “that after baptism and confirmation, the Eucharist was given even to infants.” The implicit acceptance of infant baptism by the major church councils points to infant baptism being a widely accepted practice among Christians.

From the standpoint of church history infant baptism was an ancient practice accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox churches.  It was even accepted by the mainstream Protestant churches: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican.  But it was rejected by the radical Anabaptists then by the Baptists.  In time it became popular among many Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Pentecostals.  Thus, the strict credobaptist position which rejects paedobaptism is a doctrinal novelty that originated in the 1500s and marks a major departure from the historic Christian faith.

 

The Visitation Icon

The Visitation Icon

4. How can a baby be “born again” with no personal faith before he/she has heard the Gospel being preached? Or what is the point of infant baptism?

This question defines faith in Christ narrowly in terms of an intellectual acceptance of certain precepts on who God is (God is loving and just), what human nature is like (sinful and fallen), what Christ has done for us (died on the Cross for our sins), and the expected response (saying the “sinners prayer” to receive Christ into your heart).  This intellectual understanding of faith has resulted in certain branches of Protestants debating among themselves about the “age of accountability.”

Evangelicals have projected their subjective emotionalism into the phrase “born again.”  Being “born again” is not an emotional experience as it is a new life in Christ.  Once we were living life apart from Christ, but now we put our faith in Christ and come under his authority through baptism.  In Genesis 17 when Abram entered into a covenant with Yahweh via circumcision, he took on a new name “Abraham” signifying his new life as a follower of Yahweh.  Genesis 17 is about a change in relationship with God, it was not about Abram having an emotional “born again” experience.

 

"The baby leaped in her womb" (Luke 1:41)

“The baby leaped in her womb”      (Luke 1:41)

If we look at what the Bible has to say about the spiritual capacity of young children the answer might surprise us.  Luke reports that when the Virgin Mary entered into Elizabeth’s home and greeted her that the baby inside Elizabeth’s womb “leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:41, 44)  John the Baptist’s pre-natal response to the presence of the Incarnate Logos points to our desire for God in the primordial core of our being.  An infant may not have a fully developed intellect, but it possesses the ability to respond to love.  This is because the ability to love and respond in love is foundational to our humanity.  Faith as the ability to trust someone is critical to our being able to love another person.  That is why the betrayal of trust is so damaging to our being able to love another.  This relational approach to faith can be seen in Orthodoxy’s Holy Week services which mourn Judas’ betrayal of Christ.  This is something I did not learn as a Protestant.

But what is Jesus’ attitude about the spiritual capacity of children?  The incident of Jesus blessing the little children appears in all three synoptic Gospels.  Where Matthew and Mark used the general term for children παιδιον (paidion), Luke used the more precise term βρεφος (brephos) which can mean infant and new born, and even unborn children.

But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”  (Luke 18:16; NIV)

This incident contains a powerful lesson about the accessibility of the kingdom of God.  It is for those who have an open heart like little children.  It does not teach that the children should wait until they are old enough to understand before they can enter the kingdom of God.  The phrase “enter the kingdom of God” is a synonym for entering into a covenant relationship with Christ.  This phrase crops up in Jesus’ night conversation with Nicodemus (see John 3:5).  Read in the larger context of the entire chapter Nicodemus’ conversation with Jesus in the first half of John 3 dovetails with the second half which describes how Jesus’ baptism was superseding that of John the Baptist.  The message behind the need to be “born again” was not about an emotional spiritual experience but about a new life in Christ through the sacrament of baptism.

Our understanding of the spiritual capacity of children will be consequential for our understanding of their place in church.  Because the sermon is the focal point of many Protestant worship services, many infants are sent off to the child care ministry.  They are not expected to be in main worship service.  It is by and large assumed that the main worship service is for adult members.

 

http://orthodoxbahamas.com/?p=1808

Baby receiving Holy Communion

In Orthodoxy the general understanding is that children, even young infants, belong in the Liturgy.  They may not fully comprehend what is going on but they are in the presence of God.  Orthodoxy believes this exposure is important for their spiritual growth.  Furthermore, as a sign of their inclusion in the kingdom of God, children are given Holy Communion.  The practice in many Orthodox parishes is to let the children go up first to receive Communion followed by the grownups.  For me this stands in stark contrast to my Protestant experience where I would see parents go up to receive Communion while their children remained behind because they have not yet made a profession of faith.

 

Sacrament of Chrismation (receiving the Holy Spirit)

Sacrament of Chrismation (receiving the Holy Spirit)

5. What difference is there between Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox infant baptism?

All three traditions baptize infants but the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches tend to defer Confirmation and Communion until the child reaches a certain age.  The practice in Orthodoxy is to baptize infants about a month after they are born, and to give them the sacraments of Chrismation and Holy Communion in the same service as baptism.  This makes them full members of the Church.

Children Receiving Communion in Indonesia

Children Receiving Communion in Indonesia

It is a touching sight to see parents carrying babies up for Communion, followed by a line of toddlers and teenagers, then adults and seniors.  The demographics of a line for Orthodox Communion is something you won’t find in either Roman Catholic or Lutheran parishes  Orthodoxy is for people of all ages!

Robert Arakaki

 

 

Christ Is Born, Glorify Him!

 

Hawaiian Christmas

Hawaiian Christmas

 

Christ is born, glorify him. 
Christ is from heaven, go to meet him.
Christ is on earth, be ye lifted up.
Sing to the Lord, all the earth.
Sing out with gladness, all ye people. For he is glorified.
 
(First Ode of the Christmas Canon)
 

Folks,

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas!

Robert

Saint Paul and the “Works of the Law”

Folks,    I often get questions about how Orthodoxy views sola fide.  Orthodoxy believes that we are justified through faith in Christ, but it denies the Protestant insistence that justification is by faith alone.  My assessment is that Martini’s article shows how the Orthodox understanding of justification is much more faithful to Scripture than Luther’s.  Let’s read it and have and have a discussion on this important issue.    Robert

Saint Paul and the “Works of the Law”

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/2012/06/23/st-paul-and-the-works-of-the-law/

Coptic priest censing the altar

A great emphasis in the protestant reformation was the doctrinal formulation of “justification by faith alone,” which many asserted to be “the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls” (Martin Luther: “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae”).

While this was in and of itself a complete novelty (and devoid of Patristic warrant or justification) — supposedly based upon the Scriptures alone — it is quite easy to demonstrate that not only is this concept foreign to the Scriptures but also foreign to the first century Judean mindset (not to mention the Christian mindset). To be plain, Luther and other reformers were reading their contemporary disagreements with the mainstream Latin church into the words of St Paul.

From an Orthodox perspective, there is no conflict between faith and works, and indeed the “faith vs. works” arguments never found any foothold in the Christian east. Concepts like “legalism” are a complete non sequitor for the Orthodox, as “merit” has no place in our Theology (but this is a much longer, and more intricate discussion beyond the scope of this post). Perhaps the best summary of the Orthodox viewpoint on this topic is found in Saint Mark the Ascetic (Philokalia): “Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfill the commandments and then expect the Kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken.”

As Christians, we are most certainly “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1) as the apostle clearly intimates, but this is not the same thing as being justified “by faith alone.” The only time we read “by faith alone” in the Scriptures is when the Brother of God writes: “You see, then, that one is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (St James 2:24). The person who has faith is seen as on par with the demons, but nothing more (according to St James). Our faith must be shown forth and proven by good works — by hope, love, charity, fasting, worship, etc — by coming together as the Body of Christ and offering ourselves, along with Christ, as a sacrifice for the Life of the World.

But the main issue with the novel readings of the reformers (Luther, especially) is that they imported the discussions around “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6) into St Paul’s completely separate discussions on the “works of the law” (εργων νομου), or what could properly be translated “works of the Torah,” given the Alexandrian (Septuagint) usage of νομος.

Interestingly enough, this phrase “works of the law” is found in only three places in all of Second Temple and early Christian (apostolic) literature. Two of those references are the apostle Paul himself, in his epistles to both the Romans and the Galatians:

“… by works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20)

“Therefore, we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles as well?” (Rom. 3:28-29)

“… no one is justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ […] that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.” (Gal. 2:16)

“I just want to hear this from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you that senseless that having begun in the Spirit, you now end in the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2-3)

“… those who depend on the works of the law are under a curse …” (Gal. 3:10)

Try to imagine how someone 2,000 years from now — and completely removed from our culture by time — would understand a phrase like “Honest Abe.” Without knowing the cultural significance behind a phrase like this, one would be left scratching their head. Similarly, we must listen to the Mind of the Church and the understanding of those living in Paul’s day in order to see what he’s “getting at” in both of these epistles.

 

http://fullhomelydivinity.org/salem/Articles/icons.htm

Apostle Paul

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention here the important notion that Paul’s epistles were not doctrinal treatises “out of the blue,” but were all written to address problems in the Church. These letters are not exclusively (or even primarily) for the sake of posterity and for the establishment of “dogma,” but are rather mostly for the purpose of correcting errors in both thought and behavior in the new and burgeoning pioneer faith of the Christians.

That said, let’s take a closer look at the apostle’s statements above regarding the “works of the law.”

In the first quote from Romans (3:20), St Paul says that “no flesh” will be justified in God’s sight. He then continues to speak of the fact that “there is no distinction” (v. 22) of persons before God, speaking to the difference (or lack thereof) between Jews and Gentiles. The conclusion of the apostle’s present discussion is that the Lord is “God of the Gentiles as well” and therefore “a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28-29). In other words, we are not purified before God because of “Jewishness” or cultic purity (as the Pharisees and other anti-temple cults of Second Temple Judaism argued, e.g. the Essenes/Qumran community), but because of the faith of Abraham — because of faith in Jesus Christ. It is Christ that makes us pure through our union with Him (and as a result, the entire world is both purified and sanctified by the Church and Her sacrificial service).

The issue that the apostle is addressing here is not one of “faith vs. works” or even “legalism” vs. “faith alone” — the question is, does one need to “become a Jew” first in order to be a true and justified Christian? The answer is (of course) no, for Christianity is the true Judaism. There is not even a hint of the Medieval and protestant notion of “meritorious works” here, and to read such a discussion into Paul is simply anachronistic.

In the Galatian epistle, St Paul makes the same argument in relation to εργων νομου, but with even more force — even challenging the apostle Peter on this very issue in front of a large gathering of Christians (although Chrysostom seems to indicate that they planned this public outburst in advance, in order to teach a lesson).

The apostle emphasizes that he and other Hebrew Christians are “Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners” (Gal. 2:15). This statement immediately characterizes the following ones in the context of “Jews vs. Gentiles,” not “faith vs. works” as later protestant commentators would erroneously assert. The apostle then helps me not feel so bad for being redundant at times (i.e. v. 16) and reinforces that one is justified through “faith in Jesus Christ” and “not by the works of the law.” For Christians, our “cultic purity” as people of the true Temple is found through our union with Jesus Christ, not through the “traditions of men” (St Mark 7:8) that would have us continually purify ourselves by other means (more on that in a bit).

Shifting the focus to that of “receiving the Spirit” of God, the apostle asks the Galatians if this was accomplished through εργων νομου or through belief — the answer is obvious: throughbelief, and then continued through faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if we have “begun in the Spirit,” why would we nullify the Grace of God with the εργων νομου and purification of “the flesh?” This, again, is not a reference to “meritorious works” or “works of supererogation,” but to that of cultic purity and the excesses certain groups propagated in the later period of the Second Temple.

When we consider the old covenant Scriptures with regards to the Temple and ritual purity, we can see how the “flesh” (σάρξ or sarx) was a pivotal theme — but one that had nothing to do with “merit.” For example, in Leuitikon (Leviticus), chapters 13-14, there are various instructions on how to deal with people that contract the flesh-disease of leprousy. The fact that these people are anointed with oil is no insignificant notion, as the correspondance to Chrismation reminds us that through union with Christ (and by receiving the Holy Spirit), we are united to the true Temple (Jesus Christ) and are therefore made ritually pure in the flesh. Beyond this, we see that even buildings can contract leprousy, being defiled by the Gentiles (the foreigners) that dwelled in the land before the Hebrews:

“When you come into the land of the Chananites, which I will give you in possession, and I shall give a leprous disease in the houses in the land acquired by you […] And he[the priest] shall look at the attack in the walls of the house, hollow, greenish or reddish […] and they shall take out the stones in which is the attack and throw them into an unclean place outside the city. And they shall scrape off the inside of the house round about and pour out the soil in an unclean place outside the city.”
Leuitikon (Leviticus), 14:34,37,40-41 (LXX)

This same concern for a ritual purity “of the flesh” was paramount in the notions of both the Pharisees and the other anti-Temple/anti-Jerusalem movements of the first century — not “faith vs. works.”

http://st-takla.org/Gallery/Bible/Illustrations/The-Book-of-Books-in-Pictures/1-Old-Testament/7-Elijah-Ezra/126--Rebuilding-the-Temple-2.html

Rebuilding the Temple Ezra 3:10

Due to the fact that “the promised land” had been under constant occupation by “the Gentiles” (the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, etc.) — along with the continual defilement of the Temple by these impure foreigners — the feeling of ritual impurity had to have been at an all time high for those living in the first century (AD). In the minds of the Pharisees and Essenes, the entire land was defiled in the flesh with leprousy. The only hope for the Judeans, then, was the purification of their land and of their Temple (or even an abandonment of the Temple altogether, until it was under the control of “pure” hands). Without the Temple as a locus of cultic purity — in the midst of a purified land, set apart for God’s people — there was no hope for the salvation and restoration of Israel (the eschatological hope for the new covenant, the anointed one, or Messiah, etc.).

Salvation must be seen (in one sense) as a return to the Paradise of Eden, in true union and communion with God — but this can only be possible if we are cleansed of our impurities and able to dwell in the midst of a holy God (or rather to have a holy God dwell in the midst of us). The concern of the Pharisees and Essenes (for example) was certainly valid, therefore, but they were ultimately “missing the boat.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

Qumran Caves

The third place where this phrase ”works of the Torah/law” is found is in one of the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls (from Cave Four). This scroll is self-titled Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah, or “Selections of the Works of the Torah” (it is also known as 4QMMT/4Q394-399 in scholarly references or as “A Sectarian Manifesto”).

 

 

The scroll opens with a statement of purpose: “These are some of our pronouncements concerning the Law of God; specifically, some of the pronouncements concerning works of the law, which we have determined . . . and all of them concern defiling mixtures and the purity of the sanctuary” (4Q394 Frags. 3-7, Cols. 1-2; with 4Q395 Frag. 1). As stated here, the very purpose of these εργων νομου are to keep the sanctuary pure and free of defilement — they are not about “meriting” salvation through “good works.”

Some of the “works of the law” that are then enumerated fall under topics such as: a ban on offerings using Gentile grain, a ban on sin offerings boiled in Gentile/copper  vessels, a ban on sacrifices by Gentiles, rulings on the purity of those who prepare the red heifer, a ban on bringing the skins of cattle/sheep into the Temple, a ban on Temple entrance after contact with skins of a carcass, a ruling on who is fit to eat of the holy gifts, a ban on the inclusion of the “unfit” into the people of Israel, a ban on the entrance of the blind/deaf into the Temple, a ruling on the cleansing of lepers, a ruling on unlawful sexual unions and marriage, and so on (cf. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, ed. Wise, Abegg & Cook, pp. 454-462). As you can tell, the predominant concerns of these “works of the law” is that of cultic/ritual purity (as related to the Temple and to the people/congregation of Israel).

But beyond this, what is the ultimate concern? As alluded to above, it is that of salvation — and not just for individuals but for the whole of Israel (the longing for its restoration and salvation in the new covenant, even).

The “people of the desert” in Qumran are warned that to ignore these rituals of purity is to invite the judgment of God: . . . because of […] the fornication, some places have been destroyed. Indeed, it is written in the book of Moses that ‘You shall not bring an abomination into your house,’ for an abomination is hated (by God).”

You can almost hear the paranoia in these words, as the Judeans looked around and were completely surrounded and “infested” throughout the land (and the Temple) by Gentiles. It is no wonder that a variety of anti-Temple movements arose in the first century (of which the Forerunner, John the Baptist, was likely a part), and one can’t help but mention the zeal shown by Christ in the cleansing of the Temple. In fact, the necessity of “separation” from the impure is next mentioned in this scroll: “We have separated from the majority of the people and from all their uncleanness and from being party to these matters or going along with them in these things. And you know that no unfaithfulness, deception, or evil are found in our hands, for we give some thought to these issues” (4Q398, Frags. 14-17, Col. 1).

The connection of this apparent apostasy and compromise in Israel is connected with an eschatology of “the Last Days,” as well: “In the book of Moses it is written […] that you ‘will turn from the path and evil will befall you.’ And it is written ‘that when all these things happen to you in the Last Days, the blessing and the curse, that you call them to mind and return to Him with all your heart and with all your soul.’ . . . at the end of the age, then you shall live . . .“ Even with some damage and incompleteness to these fragments, we can see the overall direction the author of the scroll is taking — if the defilement and cultic impurity of Jerusalem/the Temple continues, God will completely abandon Israel. The time for returning to God “with all your heart and with all your soul” has come (and arguably, this is what we see in the new covenant and in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Church).

Continuing with the eschatological theme, the Qumran community (according to this scroll) expected the restoration of Israel (the return to God) to occur in “the Last Days” when those of Israel shall return to the Law of Moses with all their heart and will never turn away again.” I believe this refers not only to the new covenant but explicitly to the ultimate anti-Temple sect: “the Way” of Jesus Christ and His blessed apostles.

The rather important conclusion to this scroll (“Selections of the Works of the Torah”) is as follows:

“Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen that you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel.”

Of note, we see that the ultimate purpose of these “works of the law” is for the sake of Israel and her salvation. For the Judeans of Qumran, this had come to mean purifying the land and the Temple from the defilement — the leprousy — of the Gentiles, and this is certainly why they found themselves in the recesses of the wilderness as a protest against the impure and compromised priests of Jerusalem.

It seems to be the case as well that the Pharisees had ultimately the same goal, leading them to push for cultic purity even outside the context and walls of the Temple (an extra-Scriptural notion), as we must keep in mind that the Pharisees were not priests, nor were they directly connected to the (Second) Temple. Rather, they were attempting a “lay” reform of the priesthood and of the people of Israel, pushing their agenda by any means necessary (as an aside, this made the “new Rabbi on the block” — Jesus — to be quite a direct affront and competitor against their efforts, and thus their attempts to discredit him and his ministry).

I also need to mention the use of the phrase “reckoned to you as righteousness” in this scroll. In the Qumran/Essene/Pharisee mindset, the ultimate personification of this being “reckoned” as righteousness is not in Abraham, but in Phinehas (and this is very clear in theDSS elsewhere). Phinehas is famous for his zeal in the book of Numbers:

“And Israel stayed in Sattim, and the people were profaned by whoring after the daughters of Moab. And they invited them to the sacrifices of their idols, and the people ate of their sacrifices and did obeisance to their idols […] And behold, a man of the sons of Israel came and brought his brother to the Medianite woman before Moyses [Moses] and before all the congregation of Israel’s sons […] And when Phinees[Phinehas] son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest saw it, he arose from the midst of the congregation. And he took a barbed lance in his hand, and he went in after the Israelite man into the alcove and pierced both of them, both the Israelite man and the woman through her womb. And the plague stopped from Israel’s sons. And those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.”
Numbers 25:1-2; 6-9 (LXX)

The zeal shown here by Phinehas was that of keeping the congregation of Israel pure, and helping to stave off further spread of a plague (judgment for their “whoring” as the LXX nicely puts it). In the same way, both the Pharisees and Essenes (and presumably the community at Qumran) were zealous for the absolute purity of Israel. As a result, they associated their actions with those of Phinehas the priest. And indeed, the approval of this zeal is seen in the Psalmist’s words: “And Phinees stood and made atonement, and the breach abated. And it was reckoned to him as righteousness to generation and generation forever” (Psalm 105[106]:30-31 LXX).

 

http://orthodoxbahamas.com/?p=1808

There is no distinction in Christ

If we circle back to the words of St Paul in his two occasional epistles referenced above, everything should be much clearer (although I would argue that the Scriptural text itself stands alone to delineate against any notion of “faith vs. works” or meritology). What’s interesting, however (cf. N.T. Wright), is that St Paul extends the “works of the law” to be not only these cultic purity laws of the Temple but also that of the most basic of Judean “markers,” such as circumcision itself (e.g. Romans 2:25-29; 3:30; 4:9-13). The heart of the apostle’s arguments in both Romans and Galatians is not “faith vs. works” but rather “you don’t have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian.” Indeed, to be a Christian is to be united to Christ — and that is a promise offered to the whole world, for “there is no distinction” (Rom. 3:22) with God.

At the same time, we also see the contemporary (for the apostle) concern over cultic purity in St Paul’s letters. For example, when the apostle mentions being justified “in the flesh” in both letters (e.g. Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:3), he is not speaking to the reformers’ notion of “faith vs. works” (i.e. “works” are “good works” done “in the flesh” and not “by the Spirit”) but rather the attempt to be ritually pure before God through the “works of the law.” This is corroborated not only by the Dead Sea Scrolls but also in Leuitikon (Leviticus, Ch. 13-14), where we see that both people and various objects (e.g. homes) can be diseased “in the flesh” with leprousy, becoming ritually impure in God’s sight.

A great promise of the new covenant in Christ — as related to this subject — is that Christ has replaced the Temple in His very Person. As a result, the Church (as the Body of Christ) is also the temple of the living God, which St Paul mentions elsewhere. With the Church now supplanting the Temple everywhere it gathers, the purity of Christ is capable of being spread throughout the world, ridding every nation of the defilement of the flesh and of every strain of leprousy.

While the Essenes and the Pharisees were both correct in wishing to purify Israel from defilement, they were also both incorrect as to how this would be accomplished.

 

Fall of Jerusalem AD 70 - painting by David Roberts (1850)

Fall of Jerusalem AD 70 – by David Roberts (1850)

With the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the promise of Jesus to supplant that Temple in the Holy Gospel finds its ultimate realization, and the “Last Days” had truly come upon Israel.  In Christ, and in the apostolic Church, the people of God had now “returned to God,” and through union with Christ and faith in Him are now truly pure — even without circumcision and even without the “works of the law.”  In other words, even without the old Temple and even without becoming Jewish first.

 

Good News for all the world

Good News for all the world

In this sense, then, the Good News of Christ is truly Good News for the whole world — for the Jew first and also the Gentiles (the “nations”). The so-called “Great Commission” is a calling to spread the purity of Christ — the true Temple — to all the nations; and this purification begins in the purifying waters of Baptism (cf. St Matt. 28:18-20), hearkening back to the purification rituals for leprousy (using water and oil) in the books of Moses.

The debate over the “works of the law” in the first century was not one over “faith vs. works,” but rather over how one is made a Christian, and therefore how the entire world can be saved in Christ. This mission will certainly require our good works, as we cooperate with the Grace of God and work to spread the Good News and the purity of Christ to every corner of the earth through the ministry of the Church.

Vincent Martini     

On Behalf of All.org

 

 

 

 

1 Vote
« Older posts Newer posts »