www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Baptismal Symbolism in St Paul

Some recent discussions with a friend on the subject of Christian Baptism led me an interesting article in an out of print resource. I liked it so much that I have put the text online. It's entitled "Baptismal Symbolism in St Paul."

The first part of the article follows:

Baptismal Symbolism in St Paul

[Originally published in French in Lumiere Et Vie in 1956. English
translation published in Baptism in the New Testament--A Symposium,
published by Helicon in 1964.]


by D. Mollat, S.J.


To describe the symbolism which baptism effects in the Christian, St Paul
sometimes uses spatial imagery. For instance, "The Father...has delivered us
from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his
beloved Son" (Col. 1:13). But, more often than not, the apostle expresses
this temporal reality through the image of the two ages. For him, the
Christian is a man who has passed from one age to another--from the age of
sin to that of grace, from the age of Adam to that of Christ, from the age
of the old man who was crucified on Calvary to that of the new man who was
born on Easter morning. And baptism forms the frontier between these two
ages. Through baptism, man leaves one epoch for another--he changes his
"time"; he rejects the past which belonged to sin, and enters the present
which belongs to justice and salvation. The different baptismal symbols that
we find in the epistles are simply different ways of expressing this
astounding leap out of the night of a "world" which is travelling to
perdition, into the light of a day which never ends. If we are to understand
these symbols, we must see them in this temporal context of "past" and
"present" (of Paul's "remember what you once were" and "see what you have
now become") in which most of them are set.


I. The Baptismal Bath


The most frequent symbol in St Paul is that of the bath. The neophyte was
plunged into water, and it was only to be expected that logical reflection
should use this central and essential rite first of all to give expression
to the sacramental reality. But this rite lends itself to a variety of
symbolic meanings. For this reason, this image of the bath is the richest of
all the Pauline baptismal images, and the one which allowed the apostle to
throw light on more aspects of sacramental grace than any other.


"You were washed" (1 Cor. 6:11).

The entire article can be found at:

http://hometown.aol.com/orthocath1/bapsymbolism.html

Hi DT,

That sounds just a bit odd... in that it is being said by a Catholic... in an Orthodox forum.

Babies are baptised in both Communions... how is it that a Jesuit scholar speaks of the baptised one as a... man?

Yes, the earliest believers were adults who made a choice to identify with Messiah Yeshua/Christ Jesus/χριστοs ιησουs, as opposed to staying with Judaism... or from some pagan religion to Christianity. But subsequent generations were usually baptised as infants.

Of course, with more and more people not growing up in the Faith, there is much more scope for baptising adults-- again! There may just be a few more Christian men and women... if the members of Christ's Body get busy sharing the Faith, right! :-)

wild goose

Perhaps the phrasing is due to:

1) The author was speaking of a time when the majority of those added to the Church were converts.

2) The translation of the author's article was in a time when there were less concerns for inclusive language.

3) The book is written in dialogue with Protestant views not Orthodox views.

To no one in particular.

Man - <singular> a male
Man - <plural> all mankind <male and female>

Men - <plural used as a singular> a group of males.
Men - <plural used as a singular> a group of any humans including females.

Men - <plural> all females and all males as a species - noted as individuals of one singular set.

Which meaning is intended (and it might even be a double entandra) being determined by context.

It was not until around the late 19th and early 20th century when feminism and the lesbian rights movements (gay men not as interested) objected to the proper English language use - and tried to have their own use adopted through political pressure. Pushing forward in some quarters their own �correction� by substituting �person� a sexless tern to their minds (Chairman / Chairperson - Congressman / Congressperson etc..).

But the definition still stands.

Webster: MAN: 1) An adult male human being 2) A human being - regardless of sex

Son of Man (not meaning son of a male - but meaning born into humanity).

Word use by the gay community did not come into common use in the English language until the late 20th century - and should not be used when reading literature older than the early 20th century. A feminist interpretation should never be used when reading philosophy or theology, or psychology and psychiatry, before the 20th century. Instead - use the proper English definitions.

Especially in philosophy, theology and such - examples - are often given using a �man� but understood to be anyone - male or female. One should always begin by assuming that the �man� in the example is - anyone - no gender specified - unless the text or context explicitly states otherwise.

We do the same in everyday language.. For example we might say �The dog ran across the street and he was hit by a car.� - the word �he� is here used as a generic (neither male nor female) as everyone assumes that you did not go and examine the dog to determine its sex - before you spoke. We speak of a ship as �her� and of course a ship has no sex gender.

God is a �he� and not a �she� but the reason is not gender based. God - has no gender.

So it is that when we encounter words in the English language that are often used for gender - we should not be overly gender conscious about them - as most of them also have application in a gender-neutral fashion.

No offence meant.