Wednesday, January 11, 2023

S. Kent Brown on Ephesians 5:26

 In his commentary on Eph 5:26, S. Kent Brown notes the following:

 

by the word: Again, most commentators agree that this term (ρημα, rhēma) points to the words spoken in the baptismal ordinance. (Goppelt, TDNT, 8:330) Those words cannot be recovered from the New Testament, but they appear in a record that rests on Jesus’ words spoken and preserved in the New World (see Moro. 2:1; 4:1, “according to the commandments of Christ”). This is certainly how we must view the baptismal prayer among the Old world Christians: “It does back to God and Christ, and thence derives its efficacy.” (Oeopke, TDNT 4:304). The noun rhema is not the same as logos and usually directs us to something said orally. Elsewhere, it is equated to the gospel preached orally: “The word [rhema] of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is he word [rhema] which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pet. 1:25 . . .) (S. Kent Brown, The Epistle to the Ephesians [Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary; Provo, Utah: BYU Studies, 2023], 493)

 

The following are the relevant entries from TDNT referenced above:

 

In Eph. 5:26 Christ gave Himself for the community, ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν π̔ήματι. He did this with a view to bridal unity with it in unspotted sanctity (v. 27).

 

The part. does not supply something preceding the main verb but the means of its fulfilment. ἐν ῥήματι is a closer definition of καθαρίσας. The cleansing takes place through the specified bath (double art.) by means of the word. The word is that spoken at baptism. This word brings the preceding word of proclamation to its goal. It is neither to be perverted into magic nor dissolved into mere symbolism. It goes back to God and Christ, and thence derives its efficacy.

 

In Hb. 10:22: προσερχώμεθα μετὰ ἀληθινῆς καρδίας ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα ὕδατι καθαρῷ, the reference is not to an ultimately unrelated juxtaposition of outer and inner cleansing (so Philo → 302; I, 534, and Joseph., → I, 535), but to an inseparable relationship between the outer process and the sacramental operation, → I, 540. Tt. 3:5: Not on the basis of our works, but according to His mercy God saved us διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου.

 

Since reception of the Spirit is constantly connected with baptism in the NT, there is no reason to combine ἀνακαινώσεως κτλ. directly with διά. λουτρόν is the master concept for both the gen. which follow. The more individualistic view of regeneration and renovation is probably Hellenistic rather than genuinely Pauline. The more significant, then, is the close link with forgiveness indicated by λουτρόν. This is undoubtedly Pauline, → I, 540. (Albrecht Oepke, “Λούω, Ἀπολούω, Λουτρόν,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 10 vols [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–], 4:304)

 

Sanctifying of the Water of Baptism.

 

From Ign. Eph., 18, 2 one finds in various forms the idea of a sanctifying of the water of baptism: “He was born and baptised to cleanse (καθαρίσῃ) water by his passion.” This statement describes the institution of baptism in such a way that the common ancient idea of a power mediated to the water is associated therewith. Water is cleansed or sanctified when set apart as a means of divine grace. The NT says this only of the eucharistic elements (→ VI, 157, 1 ff.), not of the water of baptism. But this founding of baptism is presupposed in the NT, for already in Mk. 1:9 ff. the baptism of Jesus is the basis and model of Chr. baptism. His entry into John’s baptism makes this Chr. baptism after He has run His course. Jn. 19:34 and 1 Jn. 5:6–9 suggest this connection → 330, 3 ff.

 

Once the idea grew of an empowering of the water as well as an institution of the act, a corresponding epiclesis developed in the baptismal liturgy. Acc. to the NT the washing becomes baptism only with invocation of the name of Jesus over the act → 330, 17 ff. But from the 2nd cent. a preceding epiclesis over the water is gen.: oportet … mundari et sanctificari aquam prius a sacerdote, ut possit baptismo … peccata … abluere. Various ideas cluster around this consecration. Acc. to Tert. Bapt., 4, cf. 8 the Spirit as a heavenly substance comes down on the water through the invocation of God and mediates to the water the power to sanctify. This very material explanation is an extreme view not shared by all. The epiclesis of Const. Ap., VII, 43 prays essentially only that the act of baptism which follows should have an effect corresponding to the promise. (Leonhard Goppelt, “Ὕδωρ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–], 8:332–333)