In my previous post I mentioned a well-used hermeneutical principle which I called in totidem verbis, meaning “in just so many words”. This principle says that we often understand what the Bible is teaching by seeing it laid out for us explicitly and plainly in the words before us. And it makes obvious sense. In the New Testament, the words clearly teach that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on a cross. We see Paul the Apostle giving the command to love and forgive others. We learn that God gives his Holy Spirit so that Christians might know the hope they have in Christ. It’s all there, plain as day, in just so many words.
When it comes to an important doctrine like baptism, it is often assumed this principle applies in the same way. It is assumed we derive our doctrine and practice from the words we plainly see in the New Testament. Since we don’t see any infants being baptism, or hear an explicit command to baptize infants, we are told (understandably) that we don’t have sufficient grounds for baptizing the little children of professing Christians. Why? Because it’s not there “in just so many words”.
But I want to suggest there are limitations to the in totidem verbis principle. I think there are a good many things that most Protestant churches believe or do (or fail to do), which are not consistent with the idea that “we just get our doctrine and practice from the explicit words of the Bible”. Let me list 15.
(i) The practice of child dedications: many churches have ‘dedication’ ceremonies where parents dedicate their children to God. It’s a bit like an infant baptism without the water. These churches feel very comfortable ‘dedicating’ children even though it’s not required in the New Testament. Nor is there one example of such a rite being performed in the New Testament church. Yes, Jesus himself was ‘dedicated’ to the Lord in Luke 2:21-24, but this was in obedience to Old Testament law. If you’re going to say that’s binding, don’t forget to take your two sacrificial doves to church when getting little Bianca dedicated.
(ii) Re-baptizing people: Many Baptist churches (and sadly, some Presbyterian churches too) re-baptize people who have lapsed in their faith. Doing this isn’t explicitly commanded by the New Testament. Some would suggest Ephesians 4:5 forbids it.
(iii) Pre-baptism programs (catechizing): Many churches have preparatory programs or assessments to ensure that the professing adults and teens they’re baptizing are genuine Christians. They like to “hold off” to be sure they’re not baptizing a person who isn’t saved. The only problem is – it’s not in the New Testament. In fact, the majority of people who are baptized in the book of Acts are baptized immediately upon believing the good news about Jesus. If we’re going to base our practice of baptism only on the explicit data of the New Testament, then we shouldn’t delay baptism of anyone who recognizes themselves as a sinner who needs Jesus as their Saviour, irrespective of age. We should move to baptism immediately – that is the explicit practice of the New Testament church. Additionally we should note that no conversion and baptism event in Acts (after Pentecost) is clearly accompanied by a verbal profession of faith.
(iv) Using juice instead of wine at the Lord’s Supper: Some Protestant churches (like mine) serve juice at Communion instead of wine. They normally do this so they don’t offend the consciences of Christians who don’t drink alcohol. Even though Jesus used wine when he instituted the Lord’s Supper, many Christians don’t find using juice a great concern, considering the genuine reasons for which it’s done. Again, the words of the New Testament are not the final arbiter of church practice in this instance.
(v) The Lord’s ‘Snack’ or Supper? The precedent set by Jesus and the Apostles for Communion is that of a genuine meal in which the death of Jesus is remembered. Jesus and the Apostles never authorized little squares of sliced bread (or wafers) and 10mls of juice as a substitute for real bread and real wine in a real meal. Yet it seems that very few churches practice the Lord’s Supper as a supper at all! The explicit biblical example is a real meal, but most churches don’t practice this.
(vi) Church buildings and pews: The New Testament knows nothing of dedicated church buildings, long wooden pews, rows of soft chairs, pulpits, screens, etc. New Testament Christians normally met in homes or in open areas which made meetings more practical. One wonders what Paul might have thought about the massive expenses incurred by building and maintaining dedicated church buildings. Again, the New Testament describes explicitly the practice of the first Christians. Aside from Christians who can’t afford (or aren’t allowed) to have a building, most churches today actually meet in large dedicated buildings (at great cost) even though it’s not explicitly warranted by the New Testament.
(vii) The ‘procedure’ of prayer: Closing eyes? Bowing heads? Saying “amen” at the end of every prayer? None of these things are explicitly prescribed aspects of personal or corporate prayer in the New Testament, yet they are considered to be virtually compulsory aspects of prayer in our churches.
(viii) Christmas Day: We happily celebrate the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December but we really don’t know precisely when Jesus was born, nor are we ever told to commemorate his birth. Added to this, only two of the four Gospel writers even bother to give us an account of his birth. Despite this most churches observe this day by holding a special Christmas Day service. Again, the in totidem verbis principle is not the final arbiter of practice.
(ix) Sunday Schools and children’s ministries: There are few contemporary Protestant churches that don’t have a Sunday School or some kind of age-specific ministry to kids. Yet it’s nowhere to be found in the New Testament. In fact, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians indicates that the religious education of children is almost exclusively a prerogative of the parents (Eph. 6:4) in the family home (cf. numerous references in Proverbs that teach the same). More will be said about this at another time.
(x) The ‘holy kiss’: On a number of occasions Paul instructs the church that they should “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26). Perhaps it’s fortunate that these verses aren’t taken as explicit warrant for consensual kissing at every church service!
(xi) Fasting: The practice of fasting is held up as a practice of godly people (cf. Luke 2:36-38), something which Jesus did himself (Matt. 4:2), and something which Jesus gave commands about (Matt. 6:18). Yet it is rarely (if ever) spoken of, let alone practiced, within the contemporary Western church despite the explicit practice found in the New Testament (cf. also Acts 13:2, 14:23).
(xii) The use of music instruments in a worship service: There is no New Testament command to use musical instruments when Christians gather. With the exception of the apocalyptic scenes in Revelation, there is no explicit example of it being done either. In fact, some suggest that Ephesians 5:18-20 implies that instruments are not to be used, since Christians are to “make a melody in their hearts” when singing.
(xiii) Lifting up hands during prayer: The Old Testament regularly speaks of lifting up your hands during the course of prayer (Ps. 88:9, 134:2; Lam. 3:41). In the New Testament, Paul says, “Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.” (1 Tim. 2:8; NIV). The exact words of the Bible promote this practice. Most evangelical and Reformed churches don’t.
(xiv) Baptizing a young person ‘when they’re old enough’: There is no instance in the New Testament of a child raised in a Christian home being baptized when they are old enough to make their own profession of faith. Not one.
(xv) Women at the Lord’s Supper: Quite remarkably, the involvement of women at the Lord’s Supper is neither commanded in the New Testament, nor accompanied by any explicit incident where it is clear that women did participate. In 1 Corinthians 11: 28 it says, “A man ought to examine himself (heauton) before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.” The Last Supper seems to have only involved Jesus and his male disciples. Now, of course, believing women may participate in the Lord’s Supper, but such a practice is only established by making good and necessary inferences from other aspects of the biblical witness. It’s clear that the socio-historical particularity of the New Testament documents was in many ways (certainly not all), centered on adult males. This in itself is an important fact to which we will return later.
I have stopped at 15 examples that show the “in just as many words” principle isn’t applied consistently by most (if not all) churches. There are other things I could have mentioned too, such as anointing people for healing, foot-washing, and church discipline (something that seems virtually non-existent in the western churches).
No doubt, there are probably good reasons that not everything we believe or do is based precisely on the exact words of the Bible. To understand the Bible we need to consider things in a broader canonical (both Old and New Testaments) context, bearing in mind that original authors wrote in a unique socio-historical setting, and that there are many interconnected themes which contribute to the full meaning of the plain words of the text – a bit like a network of underwater streams which diverge and converge in different places and ‘bubble up’ and become visible springs of doctrinal water, even streams and rivers.
Essentially, the in totidem verbis principle is a legitimate principle for understanding what the Bible says, but it only functions properly when operating concurrently with other principles which take account of the rich theological, historical, and literary complexity of the entire Bible. I’ll have more to say about that at another time.
spes clara 