The Ethiopian Eunuch is often cited as an example of someone who was not baptized into a local church. His baptism is then made the precedent for overturning everything else that the New Testament teaches about the coincidence of baptism and church membership. Several important objections must be made against this use of the passage. First, if the Ethiopian Eunuch indeed was not baptized into a local church, it was only because no such church existed in Ethiopia. This was clearly an exceptional circumstance that must not be made into a normative principle of the church or applied to situations where a local church does exist. Second, it is not, in fact, clear that the Ethiopian Eunuch was not baptized into a local church. This assumption on the part of interpreters is nowhere stated in the passage. It is possible and even probable given the teaching of the rest of the New Testament that he was baptized into the membership of the church in Jerusalem or that he was the first member of the church in Ethiopia. One thing is for sure this is no instance of happy-go-lucky evangelism where believers are made and then left to fend for themselves. We cannot attribute such a practice to Philip or the church in Jerusalem.
The only alternative to saying that Christians are baptized into the visible and local church is to say that they are baptized into the invisible and universal church. This is to misconceive the relation between the universal and local church.
At bottom a failure to see the connection between baptism and church membership is rooted in a failure to see that the local church is the only appointed, visible expression of the universal church. It is rooted in a misconception of the relation between the universal and local church. In 1 Timothy 3:15 it is plainly the universal church that is described in the language “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” Just as clearly when Timothy is instructed as to how he ought to conduct himself in that church in the ordering of its public meetings and the setting apart of its officers (1 Tim. 2:1-3:15) and in his own ministry (1 Tim. 4:1ff.), the local church at Ephesus is viewed as the visible expression of that church. It is impossible, then, to argue that baptism joins one (visibly) to the universal church without seeing that at one and the same time this must make one a member of the local church where one is baptized. So to argue is to misconceive the relation between what we call the universal and local church.
Sam Waldron Professor of Systematic Theology at Midwest Center for Theological Studies
I guess the question is this, is baptism primarily about obedience to the commandments of Christ or as a sign of membership into the local body? Since there presumably wasn’t a local church to be baptized into, should he not have been baptized at all?
To further Arthur but agreeing that baptism is a membership signiture, if baptism is into local church membership, what happens when a member moves? Obviously, the baptism is no longer local. It cannot therefore be baptism into the local church. Even though the Ethiopian was a unique happening, as is most of the Acts and not prescriptive, it connotes the same thing. Baptism is universal membership and not local, but necessary for a right standing in any local communion. I know this brings back the issues of baptismal certification, etc., and what constitutes the rightful authority to baptize, that is another aspect not necessarily germane.
In contradistinction to Authur, I would argue that baptism is not primarily the obedience to the Commandments bared of it purpose, that being the declaration of the Gospel. It is not about us, not about our obedience. Two things can be extrapolated from the ordinance, first that a candidate is baptized, but second, he is baptized by someone. I can add to this the GC’s charge is to the church as authorized and is subsumed along with discipleship under evangelism and linked with it. The typical notion is the focus on the obedience/change in the candidate. When in fact the oppposite is true. It all is symbolic of Christ’s work and primarily preaches the Gospel of his life, his death and his resurrection on behalf of sinners.
As to the eunuch, we have no idea how many were part his entourage, nor how many others were baptized consequent to the witness. It is doubtful that he was alone being a dignitary of state. That may have constituted a congregation when they arrived in Ethiopia. A further question if by what authority Phillip baptized? Just who was he?
That is really the question at hand. Just who can baptize, i.e., by what authority. To that, I believe that we need the guidance of Scripture. It is beyond doubt that the GC is authorizs in the committing, and that to particular individuals. However, the normative today is to say that evangelism is the common propriety of all believers. If that is true, then it would follow that baptism is also. If we are to correctly assign baptism to right authority and that being through the local church, of which I agree, then that rests upon the commissioning of the authorities and that is a particularity which belongs exclusively to the leadership. Likewise, the primary responsibility is not given to all to evangelize, but to the leadership. As well, it is not given to all to teach, but to those who are apt (rightly fitted) teachers.
Without a doubt we all have a responsibility to share the Gospel whenever the opportunity arises. However, that is not evangelism. Evangelism, like baptism and teaching are the sole responsibility of those who have been authorized to do so and that is distinctly connected to the GC as particularly given to a select authorized band.
Thomas I agree with you.
dc