The Preached Word as Means of Grace in Calvin.

(This is a chapter from my master's thesis. If I had it to rework I would make some changes. Also this chapter relies heavily on some groundwork done by Glen Clary. Despite the shortcomings, I thought I would share this work, especially since this work laid the foundation for my doctrine of the Word and why I believe the Reformed Tradition has the correct emphasis on the primacy of the Word and preaching (Contra the Anglo-Catholic Anglicans or some High Church Lutherans)

THE PREACHED WORD IN CALVIN

The concept of the Word of God exercises a high prominence in John Calvin’s Theology. The sacraments have no efficacy, except by the Word of God.¹ The church does not exist, except by the Word of God.² Faith ordinarily is produced by the Word of God.³ All of creation comes to being by the efficacy of the Word.⁴ Calvin’s Ecclesiology, Sacramental theology and Soteriology depend on the concept of the Word of God, and so understanding the Biblical teaching of the Word of God is essential to understanding the Calvin’s summation of the Christian religion.

What is the Word?

Scholarly opinion holds “the primacy of the word of God was fundamental to the doctrine of the Reformation.”⁵ Yet, the contemporary understanding of the meaning of the concept in Scripture of “the Word of God” could cause the contemporary reader to misunderstand Calvin's robust doctrine of the Word. The Westminster Larger Catechism asks “What is the Word of God?” in Question three. The answer states the Word of God is, “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.” To the student of the Westminster Catechism, the first and primary answer for “what is the Word of God?” would be the written Word in Scripture.

Calvin's theology of the Word includes, though not less than this Westminsterian affirmation of Scripture as Word of God, much more teaching on the doctrine of the Word. When Calvin defines the Word, he does not begin with the written form, but insists that “‘Word’ mean the everlasting Wisdom, residing with God, from which both all oracles and all prophecies go forth.”⁶ Such a definition as including “Wisdom” includes Christ as the ultimate Word. “The Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God himself.”⁷ Yet, in identifying the Word with “oracles” Calvin also conceives of the message of the Word. The content of the message is Christ, and the oracles are the communication of God of Himself. When applying the term “Word” to something other than Christ, what is meant is a medium of communication of the Word of God.

Calvin includes with his doctrine of the Word identification of what may be called modes or mediums of communication of the Word of God. Calvin certainly agrees with later theology (including the Westminster Catechism) that the Word of God is communicated in Scripture.⁸ Yet written Scripture is not the only means by which God has communicated to man, which also includes oracles, visions, and the work and ministry of men.⁹ When observing Calvin's use of the term “Word,” we can clearly see it is more expansive than merely “Scripture.” Specifically to the appellation of Word of God being applied to preaching, Calvin writes that God sends “the Word” to Pharaoh which hardens his heart. By Word, Calvin is referring to the message Moses delivered orally. Calvin makes the same identification of Ezekiel’s spoken message to be delivered orally.¹⁰ Thus, for Calvin, not only are the Scriptures the Word of God, but so is preaching. Certainly, the nature of the two is different depending on the time in redemptive history,¹¹ yet both the Scriptures are affirmed, as will be labeled “the written Word,” and preaching is affirmed, as will be labeled “the preached Word.”

Preaching as Word of God

The modern focus on the written Word to the neglect of the spoken or preached Word, has likewise led to a neglect of the preached Word in studying Calvin. Thomas Davis remarked that, “When we speak of Calvin’s preaching, we approach one of the two final frontiers…in studies of Calvin; the other is exegesis.”¹² Any exploration of Calvin's preaching and his doctrine of preaching must deal with Calvin's conception of the Word both in Scripture and preached. Though contemporary evaluations of Calvin’s view of preaching acknowledge it as “the Word” in Calvin understating the doctrine. For instance, T.H.L. Parker asserts, “According to Calvin...preaching so to say 'borrows' its status of 'Word of God' from Scripture.”¹³ This description becomes the often quoted maxim for the relation of Calvin’s idea of the preached Word in regards to the written word, as both Glen Clarey and J. Mark Beach quote Parker.¹⁴ This wording of “status,” gives the wrong impression of Calvin’s estimation of status of the preaching the Word as a medium. According to Calvin, the apostles operated under a different set of rules in their preaching than do their successors and so the apostles are “scribes of the Holy Spirit.” The preaching of the apostles begins as Word of God and lends its status to Scripture. Then, their successors must follow the apostles’ preaching and teaching as recorded in Scripture.¹⁵

Therefore, Calvin's evaluation of preaching, then, does not begin with it borrowing its status from Scripture. After quickly identifying the creed as the message of the church in book four, Calvin identifies the first Word through which this message of the church is conveyed to the congregation. This Word is the preached Word. Calvin uses Scripture to identify the message of God first coming by auditory means to the people. The teaching God wishes to convey to His people is “by the mouth of the priest.”¹⁶ In discussing the message of God, Calvin does not begin with his own time and how his time came to have the content of the message. In his own time and ours, certainly preaching borrows its content, though not its status, from Scripture. Rather, when dealing the relationship, Calvin starts in history where the message of God begins in a form that is heard rather than read, and only after it is heard is it recorded in written form. Historically speaking, for Calvin, especially in those instances where the message begins as the oral word of the prophet, Scripture borrows its content as Word of God from the preached Word. Although in the case of the priest speaking he is likely expounding the Law in written form and the priest's spoken Word would then borrow its content from the written Word. Primacy is not always given to the written Word, but to God's message as He personally encounters His people in a particular time. Authority is derived from God in the mediums of written and spoken message, without one being primary in status, until the written Word gains priority in infallible content at the close of the canon.¹⁷ Therefore, in addressing the concept of the preached Word in Calvin, we are speaking merely of an extension of the doctrine of the written Word.

Characteristics of Preached Word

The concept of the Word of God dominates and then serves as the foundation for a great deal of the content in book four of the Institutes which expound the concept of the means of grace. There, the means of grace are also called, “the external means or aids by which God invites us into the Society of Christ and holds us therein.” The church forms the context of these means, as the deposit of the gospel.¹⁸ The creed of the Church serves as a summary of the message the church has received, and so also within in the Nicene Creed, Calvin understands the exhortation to be to “believe the church.”¹⁹ Calvin here concerns himself with the Word of God as it is before the people through the church. Though Christ as Word is not present immediately before the people, the Word is present in Scripture and preaching.

We can thus conclude that for Calvin the preached Word functions as a means of grace. It does so not merely by borrowing its status from the Scriptures, but from its divinely sanctioned role in the history of redemption. Though God may not currently directly give oral instructions directly to his messengers, He does give such content through the written Word. This does not diminish the place of preaching in the delivery of the gospel to God’s people.²⁰

We may explore in Calvin’s doctrine of the Preached Word as means of grace three main attributes. Calvin articulates the preached word as a peculiar medium, rather than one possible option for dispensing Scripture’s content. Calvin also maintains what Hugh Oliphant Old calls “a Kerygmatic real presence” of Christ in the preached Word.²¹ Finally, Calvin declares that preaching gains its power of efficacy from the working of the Spirit, Who has bound Himself to this instrumental means.

The Peculiar Ordained Medium

Calvin viewed the medium of preaching as a divinely sanctioned medium. Again, the written Word is not lending itself to a lesser medium in preaching. God establishes preaching as a chosen medium of the message of the church.

This conception of preaching as a God-ordained medium displays itself in Calvin’s discussion of the “power of the keys.” When Jesus declares the church has the power of the keys, this refers to the privilege of proclaiming the gospel as “it is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the gospel or by the administration of the sacraments.”²² The concept of “word and sacrament” for Calvin refers to the preached Word, Baptism and the Supper. The validation of a true church by these marks is not merely whether they have the Scriptures, but whether “the preaching of His word [is] kept pure.”²³

Preaching is a peculiar medium for God’s Word, distinct from reading Scripture. Scripture is printed on the page and read by the eye. For Calvin, it is important that the Word of God be spoken by the mouth and heard by the ear. In hearing the message of the preacher, one does not merely hear teaching on the Word of God, the hearer hears the Word of God. Calvin explores this concept especially in his interaction with the books of the Old Testament prophets. On Isaiah 55:11, which states that God’s Word does not return void, Calvin explains, “The word goeth out of the mouth of God in such a manner that it likewise “goeth out of the mouth” of men; for God does not speak openly from heaven, but employs men as his instruments, that by their agency he may make known his will.”²⁴ When the Word is preached rightly, the hearer hears the voice of God in the mouths of humans. Again, in John 10:4, where the sheep hear Christ’s voice, Calvin insists, “God should be heard speaking by them [ministers].”²⁵ For this reason, Parker’s earlier stated position that for Calvin preaching borrows its status as Word of God from Scripture is insufficient.²⁶ The status of the medium is ordained by God. The content of that message is derived from and regulated by Scripture. Yet especially in a worship context, Calvin prefers that Christ’s voice is heard, rather than Christ’s words merely being read. Scripture then has priority in authority, but preaching has priority in delivery.²⁷

The Kerygmatic Presence

Secondly, Calvin expounds a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in preaching. Old calls this the “kerygmatic real presence” to distinguish it from the spiritual, or pneumatic, presence in Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist.²⁸ In the preaching of the Word, Calvin declares that “God himself appears in our midst.”²⁹

Calvin’s conception of God’s presence in the Temple supports the kerygmatic presence. “The Temple is called God’s resting place.”³⁰ God does not merely have a preference of location, for God does not dwell in temples made by men, but rather “By his Word, God alone sanctifies temples to himself for lawful use.”³¹ The “place of God’s name” is the place where God’s name is heard. “The Lord nowhere recognizes any temple as his save where his Word is heard.”³² Preaching brings God’s presence among his people. As explored above, God’s voice is heard through the consecrated mouths of men, manifesting a measure of God’s presence by men hearing God’s Word.³³

The implications of Christ’s real presence in preaching consist in union and communion with Christ. Glen Clary clarifies Calvin’s position as stating “The gospel is not merely an invitation to fellowship with Christ; it is a vehicle by which Christ is communicated to us”³⁴ Calvin usually connects the concept of communion with God to the works of the Holy Spirit, and also does so here. The Word is a means of communion with Christ because God joins “his Spirit with it.”³⁵ Calvin so understands the phrase from Galatians 3:2 “received the Spirit…by the hearing of faith,” with faith “here put, by a figure of speech, for the gospel.”³⁶

Since it is by the mouth of the preacher Christ speaks, so preaching is the means by which Christ reigns over His Church. Calvin connects the concept of the kingdom of God with the preaching of the Word especially in the Commissioning passages. In Acts 1:8, Calvin does not interpret Christ to be ignoring the disciple’s question to whether Christ was bringing the kingdom at that time. Instead, Christ is answering by what means the kingdom was advanced. Christ’s “kingdom consisteth in the preaching of the gospel…Christ did then reign when as he subdueth unto himself (all the whole) world by the preaching of the gospel.”³⁷ In Matthew 28:18, Calvin uses kingdom language in stating that Jesus “by constraining men to obey him in the preaching of the gospel, he established his throne on the earth.”³⁸ Calvin gave no other medium or sacrament the high status of preaching by calling it the earthly throne of Christ. Ronald S. Wallace summarizes Calvin’s view of Old Testament prophecies about the “rule of the Messiah amongst the nations” as being fulfilled in the preached Word.³⁹

The Spirit and the Preached Word

The preached Word, in being endowed by God as a divinely sanctioned medium, as an instrument of God’s presence, and as the instrument of God’s rule, carries with it a power to accomplish God’s purposes. The degree to which these three attributes truly describe the preached Word corresponds to the effecting power of preaching. When Romans 10:17 states “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ,” Calvin connects “word of Christ” with preaching as confirming “the efficacy of preaching.”⁴⁰ In such a way, we may understand Calvin to hold preaching as a means of grace.

Preaching, in a certain sense, may effect the faith that it demands.⁴¹ Not that the bare Word effects, for “faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit.”⁴² The Spirit and the Word accomplish God’s purposes together. These two must not be separated, for “as soon as the Spirit is separated from the word of Christ, the door is open to all kinds of delusions and impostures” like Romanism and Islam.⁴³ The Spirit does not normally work apart from the Word, and the Word always carries the Spirit. If the Spirit chooses to grant faith, then preaching is the means of bestowing and effecting regeneration and sanctification.⁴⁴

The effect of the Word, however, may also be negative. The Word may be the means either of binding or of loosening,⁴⁵ of softening or hardening,⁴⁶ or of effecting salvation for the elect or condemnation on the wicked, depending on how the Spirit effects the recipient.⁴⁷ In addition to being a means of grace, we might also call preaching a means of condemnation or judgment.

When conceiving of the benefits of the means, Calvin has specific metaphysical benefits in mind. Since preaching stands beside the Eucharist and Baptism, as fellow means of grace, preaching is often described as bestowing the same benefits. For Calvin, the Eucharist hosts a communion that causes the soul of the believer to “rise heavenward.”⁴⁸ So too, does the preaching of the Word not only bestow benefits, but proceeds “to bear us up as if in chariots to his heavenly glory.”⁴⁹ The need for this arises from Calvin’s insistence on the reality of a real union with Christ from which springs all the benefits of redemption.⁵⁰ Thus, benefits are not merely delivered, but union between the believer and Christ is experienced in the means of grace.⁵¹ Even when speaking of the nature of the union experienced through other means such as the Supper or baptism, that benefit “requires the Word…there is need of preaching.”⁵² The currency of transfer, as figured in the means, is nothing other than the life of Christ, by way of experiencing union with Christ.⁵³

Conclusion

As we have seen, the concept of the “Word” to Calvin includes much more than the doctrine of the inspiration of the written text of Scripture. Calvin’s theology, especially of God’s use of means may be said develop as working out of the implication of the presupposition that “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.”⁵⁴ Calvin’s position can briefly be put as, “God as the author of preaching, joining his Spirit with it, promises benefits from it.”⁵⁵ Preaching as a divinely ordained medium works as an instrument of God’s presence, and as the instrument of God’s rule in carrying out God’s purposes.

1 John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmanns, 1986), 1278. (4.14.3)

2 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1046 (4.2.4).

3 John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

4 John Calvin. Commentary on the First Book of Moses called Genesis. Trans. John King. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 75.

5 Jaroslav Pelikan. The Christian Tradition. Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984), 187

6 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 129 (1.13.7).

7 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 130 (1.13.7).

8 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 71-73 (1.6.2).

9 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 71 (1.6.2).

10 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 980 (3.24.13).

11 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

12 Thomas J. Davis, This is My Body: the Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 94.

13 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

14 Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 100 / Glen J. Clarey. John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God. (Unpublished paper 2009), 15

15 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

16 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

17 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1157 (4.8.9).

18 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1011-1012 (4.1.1).

19 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1012-1013 (4.1.2).

20 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1011-1012 (4.1.1).

21 Hughes Oliphant Old. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133.

22 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1036 (4.1.22).

23 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1024 (4.1.10).

24 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Volume 4. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 172.

25 John Calvin. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 396.

26 T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23.

27 One may conjecture if the lower rate of literacy and availability of printed books influenced this preference for the medium of delivery of preaching. Yet, the contrast remains that where contemporary pastors may push congregants to reading the Word in the Scriptures, Calvin placed an equal emphasis on hearing the Word.

28 Hughes Oliphant Old. The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. Volume 4: The Age of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 133.

29 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

30 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1017 (4.1.5).

31 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1019 (4.1.5).

32 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1043 (4.2.3).

33 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1018 (4.1.5).

34 Glen J. Clarey. John Calvin: Servant of the Word of God. (Unpublished paper 2009), 20.

35 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.6).

36 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 81.

37 John Calvin. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles Volume 1. Trans. Henry Beveridge. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 47.

38 John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke Volume 3. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 382.

39 Ronald S. Wallace. Calvin’s Doctrine of Word & Sacrament. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 87.

40 John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

41 “preaching…by it faith is produced.” John Calvin. Commentary on Romans. Trans. John Owen. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 401

42 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1284 (4.14.8).

43 John Calvin. Commentary on the Gospel According to John Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 145.

44 See Mark Beach, “The Real Presence of Christ in the Preaching of the Gospel: Luther and Calvin on the Nature of Preaching,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 [1999]: 110

45 John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke Volume 2. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 293.

46 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 980 (3.24.13).

47 John Calvin. Commentary on a the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Volume 4. Trans. William Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 172.

48 John Calvin. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Vol 1. Trans. John Pringle. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2005), 378

49 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.5)

50 “The only way in which [Christ] communicates his blessings to us is by making himself ours.” [Calvin Treatises on the Sacraments 89]

51 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 570 (3.2.24).

52 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1416-7 (4.17.39).

53 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 540 (3.1.3).

54 Romans 1:16 ESV

55 Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1020 (4.1.5)

Spirit and Word

When we ask what "The Spirit taught me," do we ask how the Spirit taught "In the Word?" Not that all learning is head knowledge. Indeed, if all we learn stays in the head and never makes it to the heart and hands, it was not really learned. Yet, I do think we should ask if the experiential conforms to the Word. An interesting section in Calvin I came across in my thesis research:

"If Scripture is quoted against the Pope, he maintains that we ought not to confine ourselves to it, because the Spirit is come, and has carried us above Scripture by many additions. Mahomet asserts that, without his Alcoran, men always re-main children. Thus, by a false pretense of the Spirit, the world was bewitched to depart from the simple purity of Christ; for, as soon as the Spirit is separated from the word of Christ, the door is open to all kinds of delusions and impostures."

-John Calvin on John 16:14

Bavinck on Christ as Word of God

"He [Christ] is the Logos in an utterly unique sense, revealer and revelation alike. In him, all revelations of God, all words of God, in nature and history, in creation and re-creation, under the Old and New Testaments, have their ground, their unity and center. He is the sun; the particular words of God are its rays. The word of God in nature, in Israel, in the New Testament, in Scripture may not for a moment be detached or thought about apart from Him. God’s revelation exists only because He is the Logos. He is the principium cognoscendi [the principle of knowing], in the general sense of all knowledge, in the special sense, as logos ensarkos [the word infleshed], of all knowledge of God, of religion and theology."

-Herman Bavinck. Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1. pg 402.

What Baptism is...and is not

Modern times have seen a decrease in the priority placed on the sacraments and especially baptism within Protestant churches. We have a fear of being Roman Catholic, where we perceive a faith in the sacraments as man's deeds performed before God, rather than a trust in Christ. The Lord's Supper becomes a sacrifice, performed for meritorious gain. And baptism becomes a work performed to "Christianize" someone by religious performance and ceremony.

In reaction, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have seen a de-emphasis on sacraments. Many churches only occasionally have the Lord's Supper, perhaps quarterly, perhaps only in an evening service, and without much ritual and an explanation of what the supper is NOT. Some churches do not perform baptisms anymore, or perform them outside of the church for the benefit of the person connecting their experience of conversion immediately with baptism.

Such a situation led Peter Leithart, a profoundly intelligent scholar, to write a small (and problematic) book called "The Baptized Body." So much time had been spent saying what baptism doesn't do, Leithart wanted to ask "What does Baptism do to the baptized?" What Leithart wants to know is what baptism objectively does to every single baptized individual.

Leithart's conclusion thesis is that baptism admits the baptized to the visible church, and that that visible church is the body of Christ, and therefore, every baptized individual:

1) Is united to Christ as a member of his body

2) Is married to Christ as part of his Bride

3) Is granted a share in the cross

Leithart always wants these consequences to be part of the effect of baptism. The problem is these things are not granted by ritual ceremony. This belief is called "ex opere operato" or "in the doing of the doing," or "by the very act." However, I would contend that these benefits require reception.

Calvin compared baptism and the promises given in it (the offer of the gospel) to pouring water over vessels. If the vessels have an opening of faith, the promises and grace fill the vessels. If the vessels have no opening, then the vessels are merely drowned in water. The gospel effects of baptism occur for the elect, not the non-elect.

Leithart does admit that cursing and judgment can occur after baptism, but he applies to those who are united, married and sharing in the cross by baptism. Does baptism first perform a positive work (union with Christ) then condemning (in their apostasy)?

The comparison of baptism to the word here may be appropriate. Under the preached word, does the preached word always have the desired effect of softening and conversion? Does everyone who hears become converted? Or does the same word go out, and to some it is received and to others it is rejected? The same Spirit accompanies the word to both people, one to soften, the other to harden. Yet the preached word does not first ALWAYS convert and then in some later harden. So too, baptism does not ALWAYS unite and marry the recepient then only to condemn some later.

We do well to restrict the invisible church, the true elect, as known only to God and as the recepients of the benefits of baptism as the Westminster Confession does (25:1) and assign to the visible church the status of mixed community or kingdom that encompasses both elect and non-elect in the church as Scripture also does in Matthew 13 (and the WCF does in 25:2).

So what does baptism do? It always serves as entrance into the visible church. Yet, what else it does depends on what the Spirit desires to do through it. To those who are granted faith, baptism is seen as the place where the promises of God were extended, and the laver of regeneration exhibited. To those who reject the faith, baptism is the place where they rejected the offer of substitution in the baptism that Christ spoke about:

Luke 12:49-50: "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

For the faithful, Christian baptism is their being united with Christ and His baptism, while for the unfaithful, their baptism of judgment and fire still awaits. Void of faith, their baptism did not unite them to Christ, through Whom salvation from the baptism of judgment is offered. Yet, for the faithful baptism is their salvation in Christ, since for them the baptism of judgment was already suffered by Christ on their behalf.

The Lord assures the faithful:

"Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine.
When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you;
when you walk through fire you shall not be burned,
and the flame shall not consume you."

-Isaiah 43:1-2

The Ordinary Means: The Word and Baptism

There are countless definitions that have been given of baptism. We may, however, categorize them as one of two varieties. One defines baptism as something like:

"Baptism is an act of faith and a testimony that one has been united with Christ in his death and resurrection, that one has experienced spiritual circumcision. It is a public indication of one's commitment to Christ." (Millard Erickson. Christian Theology. pg 1110)

The first way is how Erikson defines baptism, as an act done by the believer, confirming the believer's experience and publicly commiting to Christ.

The second variety, however, defines baptism quite differently:

"We don’t think of baptism as something we do, but rather as something God does–at least in the ultimate sense. While the recipient physically gets wet, God washes the elect too with the Holy Spirit unto regeneration in effectual calling." (Preston Graham, pastor)

The second way is how Graham defines baptism, as something God does to the believer. But how does the Bible speak of baptism? I would like to here argue (and though it should be clear, argue I must) that Ephesians 5:26 gives us a picture of the Scriptural understanding of baptism:

Ephesians 5:25b-27: Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So how does Christ wash his Bride?

Paul gives husbands a rich object lesson for their love for their brides in Ephesians 5, saying they must love their wives as Christ loved the church. Yet, when Paul gives this picture, he includes “washing of water with the word.” What does this washing refer to?

John Gill emphatically says it is “not baptism, which is never expressed by washing” but is “the blood of Christ.” This answer has a huge problem reconciling that fact that Paul here specifically mentions “water” not blood. Images exist for washing in Christ’s blood in Heb 9 and Rev 7:14, but these will specifically mention blood and not water. To eliminate any thought of baptism is bold but unfounded. Also, Gill’s comments that baptism is “never expressed by washing” defies the way Scripture uses the word “baptism,” which is used to mean “washing,” in both Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where the disciples are reprimanded by Pharisees for not washing (baptizing) before eating.

Another possibility that has recently been posited is that Paul means an ancient form of “bridal washing.” Commentator Harold Hoehner cites an occasionally practiced rite of washing that a bride performs before a wedding in Greek culture. This, however, would be a poor metaphor, as the husband is said to do the washing in Ephesians 5:26, but the ancient marriage rite would not be done by the husband, for the bride does this to herself before the wedding. (S. Safrai “Home and Family” in The Jewish People in the First Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social Cultural and Religious Life. Ed S. Safrai and M. Stern. 1987 Volume 2, pg 758)

I would submit that the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, and even credo-baptists need not react immediately against such a proposition. Indeed not all credo-baptists do, as John Piper to his credit comments on the verse saying, “The water of baptism is a representation of that spiritual washing. Notice that the cleansing from sin in verse 26 comes from the self-sacrifice of Christ in verse 25. So it is with baptism.”

The commentators Gill and Hoehner share a common prejudice they bring to the text. Hoehner explicitly states he rejects that Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism because “the rite of baptism does not cleanse one from sin.” (Hoehner, Ephesians. 753) Both Gill and Hoehner bring to the text an assumption about baptism, rather than letting the Scriptures tell them whether “the rite of baptism” cleanses from sin, and in what sense it would do so. If we can recognize the washing in Ephesians 5:26 is baptism, we can learn a great truth about baptism from the text.

The word used for washing in 5:26 is “λουτρῷ”. The only other time the word λουτρῷ is used is used is in Titus 3:5, in refering to the washing of regeneration. However there is a variation used 1 Cor 6:11 and Acts 22:16, which uses the variation ἀπελούσασθε. This variation is also used in regards to baptism in Acts 22:16, where the command is given to be “baptized and wash away your sins.” The word λουτρῷ would also come to have a variant that would be used for a baptismal fount, letting us know how the church received Paul’s use of that word (if the explicit connection by early church writers Cyprian and Marius Victorinus aren’t enough.). But just thinking logically, where is the one place where water would be associated with any member of the church? The only time a church member would come in contact with water in a religious context would be in baptism.

How are we to understand Baptism as washing then? Does the physical act of baptism cleanse the church of sin? This is where careful attention to Paul’s wording of “washing of water with the word” becomes very important. The sacrament is only effective by means of the word. No word = no sacrament. This is not because the words become an incantation where a magic act occurs, but because the outward sign points to and teaches with the word the inward reality that accompanies the sign.

Scripture makes a distinction between the inward reality and the outward sign. Paul had already mentioned the inward reality of “sanctification” in 5:26, so the outward reality of washing with water is natural. As Calvin says: “Having mentioned the inward and hidden sanctification, he now adds the outward symbol…that pledge of that sanctification is held out to us by baptism.” (John Calvin on Ephesians 5:26 in Commentaries, on Galatians and Ephesians. pg 319)

If one were to ask Peter what baptism does, we see his answer in 1 Peter 3:21, that yes “Baptism saves,” but, “not as a removal of dirt from the body.” It is not the waters that cleanse, but the spirit through the word. In other words, the mere act of water touching skin does nothing of itself, but baptism is effectual “as an appeal to God.” The appeal is to the promises of God made in baptism that create a good conscience, not an appeal to God in a self-created good conscience. The washing is something God in Christ through the Spirit does, God is the Effecter, baptism is Christ washing the bride, not the bride washing herself.

Paul so richly tells us the relationship between sign and reality in Romans 2:28-29, when speaking about circumcision, the sign under the old covenant: “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” There were many times when the Israelites confused sign and reality, yet, throughout the Old Testament, never was the physical act of circumcision resended. The physical was important, necessary and commanded, yet the inward that accompanies the outward was the reality.

In Ephesians 5:26, the image of washing points to baptism. The wording of washing and the use of water as a symbol that points to the reality, as well as sealing that reality by action. To divorce the two completely tells more of an attempted reading of one’s own theology into the passage than what the passage actually means. The reference is not an acknowledgment of some magical power in the water of baptism, but a testament to the sanctifying nature of the love of a husband for a wife, and of Christ for his church which is figured, exhibited, and conferred when accepted by faith in baptism. Baptism ultimately is something God does for the benefit of the baptized, not something the baptized does for the benefit of other people.

In such a way, baptism is a means of grace for the church. In it, the word is made visible, and the act that the word promises is displayed. Baptism is the place of washing, where Christ washes His bride, those receiving (and not giving something) in faith, in the word of His promise.

[But this may still leave questions as to specifically what Baptism does...]

The Ordinary Means: The Word

What do we mean by "the Word"?

We may mean various things by the "word." John calls Christ the Word of God. (John 1:1-17) Jonah is given a word to preach to Ninevah (Jonah 1:1). The message of Paul's gospel is called the word. In the church we call the Bible the Word of God. Do these all mean the same thing?

To some degree yes, to some degree no. There are typically three categories of the word, written, preached and incarnate. Yet, these three are all related in meaning.

Looking first at Jonah, we can see the basic meaning. Jonah is given a "word" to proclaim to Ninevah. Here, we can see that Jonah is not told to proclaim the Torah or Scriptures to Ninevah, but to relay God's message. The word, or message, is God's, but God uses Jonah to deliver the message. God speaks to Ninevah mediately, not immediately. God could merely speak Himself audably to Ninevah, He had no need of Jonah. Yet, God chose to include Jonah, not for Ninevah's sake, but for Jonah's sake and Jonah's privledge (even if he didn't see it as such).

The principle we derive from Jonah's story is that the ministry of the word, the way that God has chosen to relay his message, is mediately, not immediately. God does not ordinarily speak directly to a person, with Jonah, Moses and a few others being the exceptional cases, not the ordinary cases. This is why there is a division in the way we speak between the extraordinary means and the ordinary means. In the ordinary means, there is a mediator.

This is different from what we mean by Christ being mediator, for Christ mediates from us to God in prayer and sacrifice, but the ordinary means mediate the word of God to us, now that Christ is absent. Yet do we not have the Spirit as the mediator? Does the Spirit speak directly to us immediately?

No. Today, the Spirit is found accompanying the Word. Even throughout the events of the Spirit we might find strange in Acts, the Spirit was accompanying the Word in the mouths of the Apostles. Look at Acts 4:31 or Acts 10:44:

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. "

Conversion was never immediate, meaning: conversion happened by the Spirit accompanying the Word. There is never a wordless Spirit. People do not convert apart from the Word. The Spirit accompanies the Word.

This is why Paul writes in Romans 10:14:

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? "

Paul teaches that faith is created in the event of the preaching of the word. God condescends to use the word through human agents to communicate faith to the people. Without human agents, Paul sees no faith being cultivated by the Spirit. The Spirit does not work immediately (directly, without an intermediate means), but mediately through the word, especially preached.

This is the first form of the word: The Preached Word. The other two forms are the Word written (The Scriptures) and the Word Incarnate (The Lord Jesus Christ).

They are all different, yet all work together. The guidance of the preached word is the Word written, for the messager must have the form of the Word given to him in order to faithfully communicate the Word. And the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, is the object, end and content of that message.

But what comes first, is there a primary Word? Temporally the question winds in circles. Christ came before the message of the church preached or written, but preaching existed before Christ came in the OT, yet also pointed to Christ. Our sake, it may be helpful to think of the order in this way. Christ is the eternal word of God, the word of creation and of redemption. From this reality, the word is given to be preached, to prophets and to apostles. From this received message, the word receives written form in Scripture.

The Word is given first to the apostles, then communicated by the preaching of the church and the book of the church. The word is found in and proclaimed in the church. The primary ground of the communication of God's word is the community of the church. This is different from what we as Americans usually think. We think firstly of an individual, having an immediate encounter with God, then freely associating with other Christians in a church body, in as much as that person can bring forward their assistance to other individuals. Conversion and spiritual growth are envisioned as individual tasks, with communal consequences. The pattern of the Christian life, however, is communal first. The message is proclaimed in the community in the church, from the church's book, of the church's Lord, and these are the means by which the word is communicated to us, that the Spirit uses to cause us to grow in grace and understanding.

The Spiritual Life is Churchly Life. It does not end in the church, and personal, private growth is essential. Yet this personal growth is feed by the corporate feeding. The Christian first encounters God in the church and then takes the Word into the world. That is why it is true that "there is no salvation apart from the church" for the church is the arena of the Word and salvation is both initial and growing, both justification and sanctification. They are indivisible, and where we go for one, we go for the other. We learn by the Church who Christ is and God's revelation from the church's book. For otherwise, "how then will they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of Whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? " (Romans 10:14)


[Next: so why are the sacraments talked about with the word? Why is the church not just the ministry of the word rather than word and sacrament?]