My Thesis about Third Corinthians and the Acts of Paul

So here it is, an important reason for my months of blog silence: my the thesis of my Master of Biblical Studies. Much of it may be too specialized for readers not familiar with the history of second century Christianity, but many may find chapters 6 and 7 about pseudepigraphy and letter element interesting nevertheless.

 Whenever I tell people who inform about the subject of my thesis that I am writing about 3 Corinthians, they usually react with a mix of curiosity and surprise. Most, including several students of theology, have never heard of it in spite of the fact that it was still part of many Armenian copies of the Bible as late as the eighteenth century. Some who did some New Testament study, usually think that I refer to a part of what is now known as second Corinthians. My own knowledge of this document did not extend much further when I started to do research for a paper last year. What interested me at first was the existence of a document that could be shown to be an epitome of orthodox teaching and could be proved beyond doubt as pseudepigraphal. I then probably hoped that perhaps it could solve some of the riddles surrounding the pseudepigraphal status of other New Testament letters, especially those of Paul. I am not sure that my study of the document did that, but in regard to 3 Corinthians, that hardly seems to matter anymore. Looking at the correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians and its relationship with the apocryphal Acts of Paul, opened a new window on Christianity in the second century, providing extra, exciting pieces to a puzzle which is still far from complete.

During my examination of the available pieces of information, my view on this correspondence changed. At first, I saw a picture of some frustrated church leader, who enlisted the famed apostle to help him fight the battle against some heresy. That is no longer how I see it. I became convinced that the Corinthian correspondence did not have a separate origin, but was from the start a part of the Acts of Paul. I found the reasons for a separate origin unsatisfactory, reaching this conclusion after considering the manuscript evidence in the light of good textual criticism practices, examining the letter elements of both letters in comparison with that of other letters in the New Testament and second century Christianity and observing narrative elements in the two letters and the Acts of Paul. My attempt to consider the correspondence as an intended integral part of the original composition of the Acts of Paul may still be in need of correction, but I think it opens up new perspectives on both 3 Corinthians and the Acts of Paul.

 

For more see my thesis:

What does the Bible say about....?

 In discussions about homosexuality people often turn to the Bible for an answer. The big problem with this approach is that it turns the Bible into something which it is not, a sort of religious  encyclopedia. Typical of this approach is the question: "What does the Bible say about....." It seems to suppose that the Bible says something about everything in life. One often even hear preachers comparing the Bible with a manual or a handbook.

 Dangerous:

Attractive as this may sound, it is a dangerous approach. Taken to its logical conclusions it leads to bigger questions. If one could for instance ask the question: "What does the Bible say about the nature of the earth?" you would have to conclude that the earth is flat and rests on pillars. The only reason many Christians don't do that is because we had 500 years of hard scientific proof that convinced us that this is not the case. It took a while to get used to it, but I know of no one that would insist that similar descriptions from the Bible describe the reality of the earth anymore. It would have been nice if the Bible told us that sickness could be caused by germs or a virus, that the earth revolves around the sun, that coca-cola is bad for your teeth etc. That is however not the case. The Bible is simply not an encyclopedia, and to treat it as such is actually a form of disrespect even though it is disguised in a tux and a black tie. This approach tends to read the Bible a a collection of verses written to modern individuals instead as books written to specific people with specific questions in the past. Treating the Bible like this often result either in heresy, hurt or unbelief. 

“the fountainhead of all false biblical interpretation and of all heresy is invariably the isolation and the absolutising of one single passage.” (Oscar Cullmann, The State in the New Testament, 47).

It is therefore better to drop the 'about' part of the question when approaching the Bible and simply ask: What does the Bible say? This is not easy, because our heads burst with questions and our conflicts crave a judge's hammer that will easily settle arguments, preferably in our favor of course.. Let me illustrate the difference:

'Biblical giving':

A few years ago, I heard a preacher give a powerful sermon on giving. He preached about the widow who gave her last two copper coins (Mark.12:41-44) in such a compelling way that at the end of his sermon people were flooding to the front of the church to empty their wallets. Ironically most of the money probably paid for the preachers plain-ticket to the Bahamas. I have also noticed that it is usually not the widows who preach from this passage.  The sermon that resulted from this passage was the result of asking the question:"What does the Bible say about giving in church?"

What is the result when one approaches the same passage not with the question:"What does the Bible say about giving?" but rather with the question "What does the Bible say?" or in this case, what is the author of the gospel trying to say with this passage. The passage gets a whole new meaning. Let us look at the broader context of this passage.

The incident with the widow occurs at the end of a series of conflicts between Jesus and the religious leaders in Jerusalem (Mark. 11:27-12:40) and right before the words of Jesus about the destruction of the temple (Mark. 13). Actually the tension between Jesus and the temple already comes to the surface after His entry into Jerusalem (Mark. 11:1-26). Just preceding the incident where this old widow comes to give her copper coins, the author relates that Jesus said:

"Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes and like greetings in the marketplaces and have the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation." (Mar 12:38-40)

This widow giving her last coins illustrated the failure of the temple and it's leaders to do what was just. A closer reading of Mark 11:1-26 reveals how the story of the cursed fig tree is intertwined with the cleansing of the temple and the eventual destruction of it. The story of the exploited widow giving her last coins is a most concrete example of the bad fruit of the temple system in the time of Jesus. All of this is simply not seen when someone read the passage of the widow in isolation as an answer the question: "What does the Bible say about giving?".

When read as part of the carefully composed gospel of Mark, asking what the author is trying to say, the passage of the widow giving her coins is not in the first place about giving, but an tale about God taking the side of those who are exploited by religious leaders. What happened however is that this preacher in his expensive suit already knew what he wanted to say about giving. All he needed was a text to give it a legitimate basis. He found his text and he got his money, sadly ignoring the bigger warning the whole passage had in store for him and others like him.

A similar thing happens when people in the debate about "What the Bible says about homosexuality?" usually read Romans 1:24-32 and fail to see how the passage is part of a whole letter, with an agenda they themselves often ignore: equality before God and the unity of the church. Perhaps when I have time, I will write more about that.  For now it is sufficient to say. Don't ask what Paul says about homosexuality in Romans. Simply ask:"What was Paul trying to say?" Taking seriously what Paul is trying to say in the whole letter should keep us busy for a while.

Househunting

I share this short paper I recently wrote as part of my studies at the University of Utrecht for the benefit of those who might be interested in the role of houses in the period of the apostolic church. This is just an initial exploration of a subject that interest me because I have heard many claims about the early Christian 'house churches', but have a feeling that much of it reads back into the New Testament our own concepts of space and family.

Exploring the role of houses in understanding early Christian literature

Type the term 'temple' in the search engine of the Utrecht university library and you immediately find several articles in the field of Biblical studies. The same applies to synagogue. When you type 'house' however, the first results refer to the American journal for architecture or the Burlington magazine for connoisseurs.  Perhaps this typifies some of the problems when looking at the spatial influence of houses in the texts of the New Testament. In the minds of the authors of the New Testament there was only one temple that mattered. Several of them indicate a familiarity with synagogues, though their relation to these synagogue often seem strained (Joh. 9:22, Rev. 2:9). Houses however are mentioned, not as some great architectural achievements, neither as centres of religious or ethnic identity. Houses are just houses. Or are they?

In one of the more recent discussions of the role of the house church in the Early Church, Roger Gehring remarks that though Christians met almost exclusively in private houses built for domestic use for the first three hundred years, little attention has been paid to the role of households or house churches.[1] In this paper I want to explore the significance of houses for a better understanding of early Christian literature, especially in the book of Acts.

Oἶκος and οἰκία

Though there is a difference of opinion on the exact distinctions between οἶκος and οἰκία, Gehring follows Klauck in rather determining the exact meaning of the words from the context instead of assuming οἶκος to refer to the architectural and οἰκία to the sociological meaning. Oἶκος and οἰκία could thus refer to (a) a house in the sense of living quarters, an inhabited building or (b) an extended family, though the concept of family would still be quite different from the modern sense.[2] Perhaps the ambiguity of the term show the close connection between the space and its social implications which would at least in part explain the significance of the place of the house in early Christian literature. 

Significance

Filson listed five areas  in which a study of house churches could further an understanding of the apostolic church: (1) a distinctively Christian worship, (2) the great amount of attention paid to family life, (3) a tendency to party strife, (4) the social status of early Christians and (5) the development of church polity.[3] To a certain degree all of these, except perhaps the third point touch on the passage from Acts 20:7-12 which I would like to examine in my next paper.  

Several attempts have been made to explain the origin of the early house churches in terms of different models present in the ancient world. Gehring follows White in ascribing the overlap in comparisons of early house churches with the models of philosophical schools, associations, synagogues and household not so much to early Christianity's dependence on either of these, but rather because their organizational schemes overlap in the use of private, often domestic settings and their dependence on patronage.[4]

Gehring rejects the notion that the prominent references to houses in the gospels purely reflect the Post-Easter interests of the early church. Convincingly he argues that the historical Jesus used houses, especially that of Peter in Capernaum, as bases for his itinerant mission to surrounding villages and instructed his disciples to apply a similar model. Gehring envisions groups that would not be too large. They would have to be accommodated in houses of which the living rooms would mostly be about five meters square if one would follow indications in rabbinical writings (m.Ber. 8:12c; 3:6d; Gen. Rab. 31:11) and archaeological evidence which also show courtyards as an integral part of most houses.[5]  Characteristic of the Jesus movement are people giving up their house, both those who do so to as itinerant preachers as well as those who provide housing for the new groups of believers, creating a new spiritual based family.[6]

Gehring sees the continuation of a similar pattern in the Post-Easter use of houses as a base for the Jerusalem church where meetings in the houses of wealthy patrons function parallel to meetings in the temple.[7] He demonstrates how several gatherings in houses exist at the same time in larger cities like Jerusalem, Corinth and Rome.[8] In some cases  like that of Mary in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12-17) and Philemon, the houses in which believers gathered seemed to be owned by people of reasonable wealth.[9]  As Campbell rightly remarks, Gehring's identification of other patrons like Pricilla and Aquilla as wealthy, is less convincing, though plausible. If they rented something like the excavated shops in Corinth with an area of approximately 27m², we could imagine a gathering of about twenty believers.[10] More recent discussions seriously questioned the tendency to locate the gatherings of early Christians in affluent villa's like that excavated at Anaploga. Horrell might therefore be right in saying:

'NT studies should pay more attention to the varieties of domestic space in the urban setting of Corinth and other cities of the Roman empire, and consider these as possible settings for early Christian meetings.'[11]

Different shapes and sizes

Not too much is known about the character of many residential areas in the Roman Empire since excavations like that in Corinth largely focus on forum areas, temples and villa's. This is partly due to the fact that poorer housing tend to be constructed from poorer materials and leave less evidence. More humane reasons also play a role as  Horrel illustrates by quoting Ramsay MacMullen saying: ‘no one has sought fame through the excavation of a slum'.[12] One region where we have a broader picture of both urban and rural housing is that of the Levant.

Yzhar Hirschfeld combined research on rural dwellings in the Hebron Hills and references in rabbinical sources with information about archaeological finds to get a clearer picture of the Palestinian Dwellings in Roman-Byzantine times. Though he recognizes that identical houses are rarely found, he divides the dwellings into four categories: a) simple houses measuring between 20 m² and 220 m², mostly found in rural parts with a courtyard on the side; b) 'courtyard houses' found mostly in cities, measuring between 200-300m² with a simple inner courtyard without columns; c) spacious 'peristyle houses' characterized by an inner courtyard surrounded by columns; d) complex houses, mostly in cities with a combination of several units around a courtyard. Many of these houses were two storied, the lower often used for domestic and workshop activities and the upper story as living quarters, sometimes including a triclinium used for social events.[13] There is even mention of three and five stories in rabbinical sources.[14] Access to roofs and upper stories were by means of wooden or stone staircases.[15] Though windows were often small, the so-called Tyrian windows were large with a rectangular frame.[16]

Though Hirschfeld's analysis could be supplemented by a more accurate classification of the different types of houses like that provided by Richardson[17], and we could imagine regional variations including more insulae in places like Corinth and Troas where the influence of Roman building styles seem larger[18], a greater awareness of the different styles of houses and the way in which such spaces could be utilized in various ways, might at least rid us of the images of an early house church having a cosy bible study in a living room while having a cup of tea on the night of Paul's visit to the church in Troas. It is important that in each case a range op optional settings need to be considered.

.   

Bibliography

Campbell. A. R., & Gehring, R. W. (January 01, 2007). House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. By Roger W. Gehring. Journal of Theological Studies, 58, 2, 666-671.

Clarke, A. D. (January 01, 2008). Roger W. Gehring House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity The Evangelical Quarterly, 80, 4, 367.

Gehring, R. W. (2004). House church and mission: The importance of household structures in early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers.

Filson, F. V. (June 01, 1939). The Significance of the Early House Churches. Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, 2, 105-112.

Horrell, D.. G. (July 01, 1999). Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre. New Testament Studies, 50, 3, 349-369.

Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). The Palestinian dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine period. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.

Richardson, P. (January 01, 2004). Towards a Typology of Levantine/Palestinian Houses. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 27, 47-68.

---

[1] With the exception of a few books and landmark articles like that of Filson after the discovery of a house church in Dura Europos in 1939, not much has been written about the role of houses in the New Testament until the 1980's when interest in the role of the house church in the New Testament increased dramatically with publications by authors like D. Von Allmen, R. Banks, J.H. Elliot, D.C. Verner, H.J. Klauck and L.M. White and B.B. Blue. Gehring, R. W. (2004). House church and mission: The importance of household structures in early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 5-17.

[2] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 8.

[3] Filson, F. V. (June 01, 1939). The Significance of the Early House Churches. Journal of Biblical Literature, 58, 2, 109-112.

[4] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 22-23.

[5] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 28-61.

[6] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 61.

[7] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 117.

[8] Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 71-75,142, 145.

[9] The house of Mary has a gateway πυλών and accomadate a large number ἱκανός of believers, praying. Also see Gehring's discussion on Philemon p. 154. Gehring, R. W. (2004). House church and mission: The importance of household structures in early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 73.

[10] Campbell. A. R., & Gehring, R. W. (January 01, 2007). House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. By Roger W. Gehring. Journal of Theological Studies, 58, 2, p. 669. Gehring, R. W. (2004). p. 135-136.

[11] Horrel, D. G. (July 01, 1999). Domestic Space and Christian Meetings at Corinth: Imagining New Contexts and the Buildings East of the Theatre. New Testament Studies, 50, 3. p. 369.

[12] Horrel, D. G. (July 01, 1999). p. 360.

[13] Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). The Palestinian dwelling in the Roman-Byzantine period. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.p.102.

[14] Hirschfield  refers to T. Eruvin 8:3 , P.T. Baba Bathra 1,13a and M. Baba Bathra 1:5. Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). p.264, 286.

[15] Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). p.245-246.

[16] Hirschfeld, Y. (1995). p.256.

[17] Richardson, P. (January 01, 2004). Towards a Typology of Levantine/Palestinian Houses. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 27, 56-58.

[18] Richardson, P. (January 01, 2004). 27, 61.

Why Christians don't know any gays

A discussion on Facebook and my recent experience in a media debate about reparative therapy made me think about why most Christians hardly know any gays.

For many years thought I was the only gay Christian. I simply did not know any other people struggling with the feelings I was struggling with. You see the problem in the church is that we do not know many gays. We often only know them from a distance. In that case our perception is often colored by our preconceived ideas, about what we heard. To be very honest even though I knew for quite a while that I was 'different' I had the same ideas about other gays as most of my fellow Christians. Gays were the kind of people who had no limits, were just following their feelings and lusts, had unlimited sex-partners and would have sex at the drop of a hat. And gays could not be Christians and Christians could not be gay. Then I got to know some.

I still remember the first time I went to the birthday-party of a friend who lived with his partner for a couple of years by that time. He used to be actively involved in a Pentecostal church close to where I lived by the way. I went to his party, curious about what I would encounter. I was also a bit scarred that I was doing the wrong thing. What if I would be tempted to do something I shouldn't. But he was a friend who listened to me in my struggles. And I had to, I wanted to. I wanted to know if there was perhaps anyone else in the world that would understand what I was going through, the pain I was feeling. Not just telling me so, but someone who would really understand. Well, there wasn't. You know why? None of the people I met was struggling with themselves being gay, in fact all the people I met at the party were actually pretty normal. They talked about their work, talked about the politics of the past election, about a new job, about the weather. When they heard what I was doing, one of them told me about his experience with a Christian colleague. When she heard that he was gay, she said something about getting healed. He said: Healed from what? I am not sick. I had a hard time trying to explain to him why some Christians think like that. But apart from this incident, when I went home I had to think: "Actually I haven't been to such a 'normal' party outside of the Christian circles I spent all my time in".

When a few years later I got to know the stories of some Christian gays, I heard very different things. Some of them were convinced that they were not supposed to have a relationship and tried to stay celibate. Others were thinking that they could have a relationship but were often still wrestling with God, and those verses from time to time. Some gave up hope thinking: "Since I am already going to hell, I can just as well take the scenic route". I remember the emotional words of a man at a meeting about the subject. He came from a strict Reformed background and said, while shaking with emotion: "I tried for 35 years, I can't anymore. If God really thinks this is so important, it is His turn now. I cannot anymore..." I heard many heartbreaking stories of people who told about their struggles to accept themselves and get accepted in the church. Many just gave it up. And in giving up their church, or in being given up by their church, lost the only support group they had. But these stories are never heard in church.

Meeting other gays, I also heard other stories never told in church. I met people who found a love of their life. People who have been together for 11, 17, 23 years. People who make coffee in the morning, go to church together. In fact one of them, a wonderful guy with a true pastoral heart just moved to another church after pastoring his church for a number of years. I heard from someone in that church that the people are quite sorry that he and his husband left, because he was such a good pastor. I know another couple who have been together for 23 years. Still in love, still monogamous. Last year I ate dinner with a friend and four lesbian couples in a nice restaurant. I was reluctant at first, confronted by all my stereotype idea's about lesbians. What a night we had. What warm and wonderful people, what love. But I realize that many Christians would rather have me tell that I noticed that they were all somehow struggling with something.

The sad thing, is that most of my fellow Christians do not think about such people when they think about gays. They think about threats to their families and their way of life, just like I used to think about black people as dangerous and uncivilized when I was growing up in South-Africa under apartheid. Once I got to really know some black people, I was surprised to meet loving and intelligent people, people who enriched my life through their unique gifts and characteristics. In fact, eventually I forgot that they were black.

The sad thing is that when it comes to LGBT's we have created a church apartheid. We accept those gays who 'get healed' and married to someone from the opposite sex. If they are doing well, we ask them to give their testimonies. And we rejoice and say amen. Or if they struggle, we comfort them with a place in heaven where it will all be ok, just like the slaves in the American South were comforted with the 'sweet by and by'. We tell them they are welcome to visit anytime. And we really mean it, mean it well. But is that really what you want to do all the time? Barging in on another family? Hopping from the one, then to the other, never being just really at home.

As for those who do not manage one of these two categories, we have no place for him. If he or she does not get kicked out, they get gossiped or judged out. And when they leave we shake our heads about another person who 'chose to follow his own feelings instead of Christ'. Perhaps we are sad. But we quickly forget. That is why the only gays we know are ones who tell about the change in their lives or the ones who struggle, but at least they are doing it for Jesus, and we comfort ourselves with the idea that He will reward them. As for the rest...well we of course we love them, but we hate their sin. And since we hate their sin so much, we never get very close to any of them. For fear of contamination or just because we do not really care. Not knowing too many gays, helps us to keep saying the harsh things that makes them stay secret or leave.

And most gays do not know any loving Christians. Perhaps that is why so many of them are so anti-Christian...or are they?

A few unfinished thoughts on Baptism

"Are you able to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" Jesus asked the disciples who thought they deserved a place of honor in the kingdom. (Mark. 10:35-45)

"O course" they answered confidently. Did they think of the day Jesus went to be baptized by John in the Jordan? Many people were baptized by John. Baptism itself was not something totally new. Many pagan mystic groups had ritual washings of initiation. The Jews had ritual washings too. The Essenes, a Jewish religious group who lived in strict communities, expecting the coming of Gods kingdom, took regular ritual baths to be cleansed. They took the ritual cleansing every Jew learned about from the laws of Moses to new extremes. But John's baptism was somewhat different. Instead of repeated baths which the individual would take himself, John's baptism seems to be a unique event, a radical turnaround. His custom of washing people was so extraordinary, that he became known as the Baptizer. It was not so much his act of washing someone, but the fact that he did this, not to gentiles who were converting to Judaism, but to Jews. And in the Jordan. This prophet, reminded them so much of Elijah, the prophet who turned Israel back to God in a time of growing idolatry. Here John was, baptizing in the Jordan, reminding them of Joshua bringing the Israelites into the promised land. All the signs were there that the kingdom of God was near. People repented in preparation for this coming kingdom. Was this the baptism Jesus was talking about? He too went to John to be baptized. What a remarkable event that was! What was such a perfect person doing at a baptism for repentance? And after that, why did he go into the wilderness? For forty days! Suffering hunger and temptation. It sounded so much like the story of Israel, God's son, called from Egypt, who went through the waters of the sea and suffered hunger and temptation in the desert for forty years.  

Only later did the disciples realize the true meaning of these words. The baptism Jesus referred to was his death. Consequently the baptism they learned from John received a new meaning. What once was an act of cleansing, now became associated with something Jews considered unclean - a grave. What once was seen as an act of obedience, repentance from the side of man, now became a testimony of rebirth, new life. In this new life the hierarchies of the world was overturned. For as many of them as have been baptized, have put on Christ, like a new coat which covered the old identities which defined their place in the kingdom of this world. They were no longer Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, or even male or female. A new creation, that is what they were. And baptism was a sign of this - out of death came life. A new covenant.  

Old habits die hard

Unfortunately, even in a new covenant, old habits did not always disappear. The fights about who was best and who deserved the places of honor in God's kingdom still continued. In the quests of perfection baptism became such a point of no-return that many people postponed it till shortly before their death, afraid that they would sin again after their baptism. For such sins there was no forgiveness some said. In other circles, baptism became a means of bestowing grace. Once the thought that unbaptized souls were lost, became popular, the baptism of children in a society with a high infant mortality rate, became customary. In their radical break with the established church, the Anabaptists emphasized the baptism of adults by immersion. Even though they might have had a literal reading of the Bible verses on their side, the radicalism of some Anabaptist groups proved that claiming that right did not automatically make you a true follower of Christ. One of these groups were so convinced of their recovery of 'true baptism' and the 'right way' of reading the Bible, that they converged in the city of Münster, expecting the kingdom of God to appear with them having a place of honor in it. The corruption of their leaders like John of Leiden who took 17 wives, publically killing one of them, illustrated that baptism, even that of adults who profess faith,  in itself is no remedy against evil.  

In that sense, the baptism of adult believers have proved no more effective than that of infants. It guarantees nothing. And it can be just such a ritual, done without any sense of new life in Christ, of new covenant.  

"Biblical" Baptism

To be honest, I think that the idea of recovering one 'true' or 'right' baptism from the scriptures, is optimistic. There is a clear move in meaning from the baptism of John to the baptism of Christ and a clear historical move that can be traced even within the Bible itself. How we read those verses have been colored by centuries of development and debate. Should we just ignore these? I fear we are reading too much of our individualism, a fairly recent development into these scriptures, ignoring the way whole households accepted faith and baptism. One of the problems with modern evangelicals is their total lack of awareness of church history. The idea that we can ignore two thousand years is a fallacy. To do so, would be ignoring the developments and debates that colors our reading of the Bible. To do so would disregard Gods work through history. 

It bothers me that in the debate about baptism, I often hear scriptures being quoted superficially. I miss a deeper reflection of what baptism is all about. Perhaps this is also because of a failure to read of the verses in their whole context, historically and literally.  I too have quoted those passages, fiercely debating for the baptism of believers, especially after I just got baptized at the age of fourteen. I was quite zealous for the kingdom of God, but perhaps like James and John, a bit ignorant of the fact that God's kingdom may be bigger than I imagined. I was a bit like those people Paul described in his letter to the Corinthians. Baptism played a role in their factionalism too (1 Cor. 1:10ff). The problem with the proof-texting approach common among modern evangelicals is that it quotes some verses that prove our point and neglect those that may diminish the authority we claim. Perhaps we also limit our expectations of God.

 We have shown that both infant baptism and the baptism of adult believers are not infallible guarantees that grace will prevail in the life of a person. But is it perhaps possible that God can work in and through both? That God can be present at the baptism of a believer who wants to confess Christ publically? And that at the same time, God can be present at the baptism of a child, the parents marking their dedication to bring up their child in the fear of the Lord?  What would happen, if we would celebrate both? Would we perhaps be amazed at a God of covenant, who is also a God of families and at the same time a God who meets each person individually where he or she is? And what would happen, if in both cases we would first and foremost focus on the work and person of Christ?