There is very likely a reference to baptism in 5:26. Christ gave
himself up for the church “in order that he might sanctify her, purifying her
by the washing [τῷ
λουτρῷ, bath] of water
with the word [ἐν
ῥήματι].” The context
compares the relations of husbands and wives with the relations of Christ and
the church. In view of this marriage context elements of a wedding ceremony
that could be related to Christian practice are likely being drawn on. The
bride took a bath before the wedding, hence the reference to a washing
expressly said to be in water, which would parallel the baptism of Christ’s
“bride,” the church, taking place in the conversion of each of its members.
There was also a wedding contract, an exchange of vows, hence the reference to
a “word.” Baptism was not a ritual without words, but what words are meant is
the subject of varying interpretations. The preposition ἐν can mean “by” or “together with,” which
seems the natural meaning here. The “word” may refer to the proclamation of the
gospel, which is the basis of baptism. It may refer to the formula pronounced
by the administrator, identifying the nature of the baptism.42 It
may refer to the candidate’s confession of faith at baptism. Or, in terms of
the wedding context, it may be the Lord’s promise as corresponding to the
bridegroom’s betrothal vows.44 I think the wedding context favors
either of the latter two interpretations, but since we have no confirmatory
evidence for anything corresponding to the Lord’s word of promise in the
baptismal ritual, I favor the confession by the person being baptized (for
which there is ample evidence) as the “word” accompanying the washing.
The formal opening passage of praise in Ephesians refers to conversion
but does not mention baptism: “In him [Christ] you also, when you had heard the
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were
marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit” (1:13). We might deduce from
other passages that baptism was the time of the sealing with the Holy Spirit
(cf. 4:30 for the imagery of a seal, which marked ownership), but Ephesians
does not expressly say this. (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the
Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 161-62)
The key phrase in Titus 3:5 might be translated as “the washing of a
new beginning and the being made new by the Holy Spirit.” The passage offers
the rich theological context of baptism: salvation from God by grace (2:11)
through Jesus Christ that justifies and gives hope of eternal life. Not only is
the divine goodness, kindness, and mercy underscored, but the human response of
faith is not neglected, for those who have experienced these favors are
described in 3:8 as “those who have come to believe in God.” The same verse
says, as we have found in other passages, that the baptized are expected to
“devote themselves to good works.”
The word λουτρόν
was first a bath or a place of bathing and then the water used for bathing or
washing. Here and in Ephesians 5:26 above the word refers to the act rather
than the place of washing. The washing is not figurative (such a usage would be
unprecedented) for the work of the Holy Spirit; that interpretation might have
been avoided if the translation “bath” were more common. The theological ideas
of the passage are elsewhere associated with baptism, which is indicated here
by the “washing.” Baptism is not a human work, but is a work of God.
The word for “regeneration” is not the same as the word used in 1
Peter 1:3 and 23 (chap. 11). “Regeneration” [παλιγγενεσία] was used by Stoics for the starting over
of the world after each periodic conflagration in their cycles of existence.
The word was used by Christians in relation to eschatological new beginnings
that have their initiation through the work of Christ (cf. Matt. 19:28, the
renewal of the world). The two phrases, “bath of regeneration” and “renewing of
the Holy Spirit,” are both dependent on the verb “saved.” They have commonly
been taken as parallel, that is, expressing two means of salvation that worked
simultaneously, as in John 3:5. (A separate outpouring of the Holy Spirit,
therefore, is not in view.) Recently another interpretation has gained favor,
according to which both the regeneration and renewal (admittedly virtually
synonymous expressions) are construed with the “bath” and both are jointly
effected by the Holy Spirit. So we could paraphrase, “the bath of regeneration
and renewal that is effected by the Holy Spirit.” Some manuscripts of the
“Western” text seem to have taken this interpretation, for they insert the
preposition “through” again before “Holy Spirit.” This construction is
especially favored by those who want to take the “washing” as equivalent to the
work of the Holy Spirit, so they would render the thought as “the Holy Spirit
effects a spiritual washing of regeneration and renewal.” But this construction
in no way requires the “washing” to be in anything other than with water. The
washing is the occasion of the regeneration and renewal by the Spirit, so we
could paraphrase, “The Holy Spirit effected regeneration and renewal in the
bath.” Thus whether we understand two parallel but separate clauses or the
whole statement combined in one clause does not greatly affect the meaning.
Those who want to eliminate water from the passage are right in one
respect: the passage is a strong affirmation of the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit effects renewal, or regeneration and renewal. God pours the Spirit
out richly in Christ on the convert. Thus the passage combines the work of God,
Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Where some interpreters go wrong is in failing to
see that this may be connected with and concentrated in baptism. The author of
Titus expressly excludes understanding baptism as “works righteousness.” God,
Christ, and the Holy Spirit may work through human and material means to bring
about the rich blessings described in these verses.
Titus 1:6 requires that the children of an elder/bishop be believers
(cf. 1 Tim. 3:4). The requirement was superfluous if infant baptism was
routine, for baptized children were by definition “believers,” and so would say
nothing about the man’s leadership of his family. (Everett Ferguson,
Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five
Centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 163-64)
