Paedo-Baptism Answers John's Baptism and the example of Christ.

[Braden]

Greetings, brethren.

I'm very confused over John's baptism. I was considering leaving my baptist church once I came to the conclusion that John's baptism was not a Christian baptism, but I have since read Paul Barth and Matthew Henry and see that I seem to be mistaken.

My problem is this: I see a few things at John's Baptism.

1: It requires faith. It seems to be distinct from the Old Covenant in that Repentance is a pre-requisite.

2: Bloodlines are insufficient. It was enough to be a child of Abraham physically to join the Old Covenant, but it seems that Spiritual Descendancy from Abraham is required in the New.

3: It seems to be separate from the Old Covenant. The fact that many Jews already had circumcision, but were denied baptism due to the fact that they didn't believe seems to suggest that it is entirely possible to be in the covenant of circumcision, but not in the covenant of Baptism, which strongly suggests they're 2 completely different covenants; the old a national covenant, the New THE covenant of Grace.

4: It seems to be based not on Circumcision, but on OT Baptismal Priestly Anointing.

The sum of these 4 parts means this: Christians are Baptized into the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace and separate from every previous covenant, and only those who do actually profess faith. It is modelled on priestly anointing, and ties into the anointing of every believer into the "priesthood". Thus, if John's Baptism is Christian Baptism, then it is the model for all baptism and Covenantal Infant Baptism based on circumcision and old land covenants no longer applies.

However, if John's baptism is not Christian Baptism, then it logically cannot be a model for our baptism today, and is no longer the dividing line which separates covenants. Therefore, we have no divorce of the covenants and paedo-inclusion is continued.

So with that brief and hasty background, my question is: How can Presbyterians who insist that John's Baptism is Christian Baptism (E.g. John Calvin and Matthew Henry) continue to hold to paedo-baptism?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Kinghezy]

Can you provide the quotes that indicate they are equivalent? I had recently studied John:3:22-4:3, and it seems like both John and Jesus' baptisms (while Jesus was on Earth) are still some sort of precursor to Christian baptism:

1. Jesus isn't yet raised. He will give the command to baptise after his resurrection. Can it be a "Christian baptisn:" before Jesus is raised and/or glorified?
2. Acts 19, they baptize someone who had been baptized in John's baptism repentance. Unless Paul is already introducing the practice of a re-baptism (tongue firmly planted in cheek), John's baptism has to be different.

 

[Solparvus]

We have approved examples to baptize the households of believers, whatever we think of John's ministry.

Besides, Abraham was required to repent and believe yet his children were circumcised automatically. He was the pattern for adults. So faith and repentance in New Covenant times doesn't do much distinguish the requirements of baptism from circumcision.

More later, maybe.

 

[Braden]

Besides, Abraham was required to repent and believe yet his children were circumcised automatically. He was the pattern for adults.

OK, but if circumcision is the sign of being in the outward covenant, and the circumcised Pharisees came to be baptized, then they are entitled to receive it because they're within the administration of the covenant. But what John actually does is turn them away because they don't have faith.

 

[Solparvus]

OK, but if circumcision is the sign of being in the outward covenant, and the circumcised Pharisees came to be baptized, then they are entitled to receive it because they're within the administration of the covenant. But what John actually does is turn them away because they don't have faith.

Actually, it's a sign of an inward covenantal reality

Romans 4:11 - And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

This isn't a secondary layer of interpretation, but this is what circumcision meant all along, even by investigation of the Old Testament account itself.

As for the Pharisees, they didn't come to be baptized, didn't request it, didn't want it. Perhaps investigate, ask questions, satisfy curiosity, but they were notoriously hostile even by John's words. "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" In other words, "You vipers are marked by such wickedness and hostility to the truth that it stuns me that you even showed up at all. Now do the thing which has never marked your life at all: repent. Prove that you are really Abraham's children."

Also, this is the beginning of excommunication proceedings for Israel. These are the final warnings of the coming judgment, that God is about to lop off the natural/Jewish branches. "The axe is laid at the root."

But I think these answer two of your concerns:

1) Since it was not sufficient for Abraham to just be circumcised without faith and repentance, neither was it sufficient for any of his children.
2) Circumcision is not about bloodlines, but is about the righteousness of Christ itself. Not secondarily or in a shadowy sense, but that is the meaning of the rite itself. Furthermore remember even though that Jewish children were immediately made part of the church, spiritual backsliding and open rebellion brought them under discipline and judgment--so faith and repentance were a real demand of God upon them.

You've provoked a big subject: covenants. That's one that just takes a lot of study. But in synopsis, circumcision and baptism are ultimately signs of a higher covenant, the Covenant of Grace. That is, the Covenant made with Christ and the elect with Him as His seed. Christ would die, obey, impute righteousness and His death to His elect, require faith alone as the condition, and would give them His righteousness, cleanse their sins, and give them holiness and all other saving benefits as evidence. Baptism and circumcision were both given as pledges that God would deliver these benefits upon faith. And to those who have faith, it assures them of the certainty of the benefits of salvation that belong to them. The Abrahamic and New Covenant are means of delivering Christ and His benefits to the elect in each church age (which means I also reject that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and that it differs from the Abrahamic in substance).

If that seems odd, remember that Paul of the New Testament sees circumcision as being spiritual, not as being about land and physical bloodlines, though those things had a true role in the Jewish economy. That needs to rule our interpretation of circumcision. And if that is so, then the emphasis of faith and repentance in baptism is no argument against applying the sign to children.

Btw, my own view is that John's baptism is not New Covenant baptism, as John was acting as a Levitical officer in the Old Covenant economy.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Can you provide the quotes that indicate they are equivalent? I had recently studied John:3:22-4:3, and it seems like both John and Jesus' baptisms (while Jesus was on Earth) are still some sort of precursor to Christian baptism:

@Braden

Hi Chris,

I'm not 100% sure what your position is from your post, but if you think that all the subjects of John's baptism were eventually re-baptized with "Christian" water baptism, then I think you are mistaken. There is a perfectly sound interpretation of the supposed second baptism with water into Christ in Acts 19 that you mentioned. This Acts 19:2-6 passage is the only hint anywhere in the New Testament that John's baptism was inferior to Christian water Baptism. It is the additional Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the Christian addition to John's baptism, which is not at all necessarily tied to the time of a Christian's water baptism.

I can go into more detail if you are unsure of my interpretation.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I'm not 100% sure what your position is from your post, but if you think that all the subjects of John's baptism were eventually re-baptized with "Christian" water baptism, then I think you are mistaken. There is a perfectly sound interpretation of the supposed second baptism with water into Christ in Acts 19 that you mentioned. This Acts 19:2-6 passage is the only hint anywhere in the New Testament that John's baptism was inferior to Christian water Baptism. It is the additional Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the Christian addition to John's baptism, which is not at all necessarily tied to the time of a Christian's water baptism.

I'll echo Ed's post. Was John's baptism in the Trinity? Were submersion washings in the OT germane to the people or was what John was doing, new? Was John sending the message to the Jews who came to the Jordan, telling them that their covenant sign of circumcision was inconsequential? Why do we not see any mass Christian baptisms in the NT of OT signage?

 

[Kinghezy]

I'm not 100% sure what your position is from your post, but if you think that all the subjects of John's baptism were eventually re-baptized with "Christian" water baptism, then I think you are mistaken. There is a perfectly sound interpretation of the supposed second baptism with water into Christ in Acts 19 that you mentioned. This Acts 19:2-6 passage is the only hint anywhere in the New Testament that John's baptism was inferior to Christian water Baptism. It is the additional Baptism of the Holy Spirit that is the Christian addition to John's baptism, which is not at all necessarily tied to the time of a Christian's water baptism.

I did not think that every one had to be re-baptized. That was my mistake in misreading Acts. Thanks.

 

[timfost]

Btw, my own view is that John's baptism is not New Covenant baptism, as John was acting as a Levitical officer in the Old Covenant economy.

You're not alone in this one, brother!

 

[Ed Walsh]

I did not think that everyone had to be re-baptized. That was my mistake in misreading Acts. Thanks.

@timfost @Braden

Acts 19:1–7 (NKJV)

1 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples

2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”
So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”


5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 Now the men were about twelve in all.

=======
A very loose paraphrase and my apologies to the real theologians on the PB:
=======

IMPORTANT: Notice that in verse 5 above and in the image below that the 4th word this is italicized indicating that the translators added the word. But did they change the meaning? Or is my interpretation off base?

[vs. 1 & 7] When Paul came to Ephesus, he found about a dozen fellow Christians, [vs. 2] and he asked them, "Did you received the Holy Spirit when you were saved." They answered and said, "We never even heard there was such a thing as the Holy Spirit." [vs. 3] Paul then asked them, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into the baptism of John." [vs. 4] Paul was glad and spoke his thoughts out loud, saying, "That's great! John's baptism was the real deal. John's preaching and baptism was unto true repentance and faith in the Christ Jesus." [vs. 5] So when Paul and those who came to Ephesus with him heard of their baptism into the name of the Lord Jesus, [vs. 6] Paul laid his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.​

 

[Kinghezy]

Can you provide the quotes that indicate they are equivalent?

@Braden are you able to provide these quotes (Matthew Henry at least is available electronically)?

 

[Ben Zartman]

I am forbidden to respond here to the OP, but beg the indulgence to ask only of those who have stated that John's baptism was a Levitical office @Harley and @timfost : do you believe that John was a Levite? If not, how could he hold a levitical office, especially given the emphasis in Hebrews on Christ's priesthood being different partly because He was from another tribe? It seems clear in Hebrews that OC priesthood was limited to the sons of Aaron.
Thanks

 

[Scott Bushey]

I am forbidden to respond here to the OP, but beg the indulgence to ask only of those who have stated that John's baptism was a Levitical office @Harley and @timfost : do you believe that John was a Levite? If not, how could he hold a levitical office, especially given the emphasis in Hebrews on Christ's priesthood being different partly because He was from another tribe? It seems clear in Hebrews that OC priesthood was limited to the sons of Aaron.
Thanks

John the Baptist's father was Zechariah; He was a Levite Priest. According to Old Testament law, the service of priests is supposedly tied to membership of the tribe of Levi and to Aaron. John was transferring the priesthood of the OT to the NT, final priest, King Jesus.

It would seem evident that the priesthood fell upon lineage:

6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Le 8:6.

 

[Reformed Apologist]

Greetings, brethren.

I'm very confused over John's baptism. I was considering leaving my baptist church once I came to the conclusion that John's baptism was not a Christian baptism, but I have since read Paul Barth and Matthew Henry and see that I seem to be mistaken.

My problem is this: I see a few things at John's Baptism.

1: It requires faith. It seems to be distinct from the Old Covenant in that Repentance is a pre-requisite.

2: Bloodlines are insufficient. It was enough to be a child of Abraham physically to join the Old Covenant, but it seems that Spiritual Descendancy from Abraham is required in the New.

3: It seems to be separate from the Old Covenant. The fact that many Jews already had circumcision, but were denied baptism due to the fact that they didn't believe seems to suggest that it is entirely possible to be in the covenant of circumcision, but not in the covenant of Baptism, which strongly suggests they're 2 completely different covenants; the old a national covenant, the New THE covenant of Grace.

4: It seems to be based not on Circumcision, but on OT Baptismal Priestly Anointing.

The sum of these 4 parts means this: Christians are Baptized into the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace and separate from every previous covenant, and only those who do actually profess faith. It is modelled on priestly anointing, and ties into the anointing of every believer into the "priesthood". Thus, if John's Baptism is Christian Baptism, then it is the model for all baptism and Covenantal Infant Baptism based on circumcision and old land covenants no longer applies.

However, if John's baptism is not Christian Baptism, then it logically cannot be a model for our baptism today, and is no longer the dividing line which separates covenants. Therefore, we have no divorce of the covenants and paedo-inclusion is continued.

So with that brief and hasty background, my question is: How can Presbyterians who insist that John's Baptism is Christian Baptism (E.g. John Calvin and Matthew Henry) continue to hold to paedo-baptism?

Thanks for your time.

I would read Dr. Michael Heiser on Baptisim and the Lord's supper. I believe he does a very good job detailing exactly what is going on in these ordnances and their significance.

 

[Solparvus]

John the Baptist's father was Zechariah; He was a Levite Priest. According to Old Testament law, the service of priests is supposedly tied to membership of the tribes of Levi and Aaron. John was transferring the priesthood of the OT to the NT, final priest, King Jesus.

It would seem evident that the priesthood fell upon lineage:

6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Le 8:6.

Was going to address, but this says it perfectly.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The other thing was given what John was doing, 'ceremonial washings', would render a hint of his position.

 

[timfost]

I am forbidden to respond here to the OP, but beg the indulgence to ask only of those who have stated that John's baptism was a Levitical office @Harley and @timfost : do you believe that John was a Levite? If not, how could he hold a levitical office, especially given the emphasis in Hebrews on Christ's priesthood being different partly because He was from another tribe? It seems clear in Hebrews that OC priesthood was limited to the sons of Aaron.
Thanks

Basically what Scott said.

Luke 1:5 "There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth."

 

[De Jager]

OK, but if circumcision is the sign of being in the outward covenant, and the circumcised Pharisees came to be baptized, then they are entitled to receive it because they're within the administration of the covenant. But what John actually does is turn them away because they don't have faith.

Amen to what Harley said. A visible outward sign is more useful if it points to something yet unseen. Did one really need a "sign" to conclude that they were in the outward, covenant community? They could easily see that already. What they did need was a sign that pointed to "the righteousness that comes by faith" (Romans 4:11) - a reality, yet an invisible reality.

That is the nature of signs - they point to something unseen.

Whatever John's baptism was, we can be sure it was not the sign of the covenant of grace like circumcision was. There were many old testament baptisms, in fact. How do we know this?

The epistle to the Hebrews in chapter 9 talks of "various washings" of the old (mosaic) covenant. The word "washings" is translated from the greek "baptismois". In fact, a religious, ceremonial washing is a good definition of what any baptism is.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Whatever John's baptism was, we can be sure it was not the sign of the covenant of grace like circumcision was. There were many old testament baptisms, in fact. How do we know this?

Keep in mind, John was calling who out to the Jordan? Those that already had the sign of circumcision in their flesh. If John's baptism was Christian, what was this saying to Israel about the previous signage?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Keep in mind, John was calling who out to the Jordan? Those that already had the sign of circumcision in their flesh. If John's baptism was Christian, what was this saying to Israel about the previous signage?

The Apostles baptized circumcized Jews too. I'm not sure I see your point.

 

[Solparvus]

A visible outward sign is more useful if it points to something yet unseen. Did one really need a "sign" to conclude that they were in the outward, covenant community? They could easily see that already. What they did need was a sign that pointed to "the righteousness that comes by faith" (Romans 4:11) - a reality, yet an invisible reality.

Never even considered that concerning visible membership ... thanks.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The Apostles baptized circumcized Jews too. I'm not sure I see your point.

Yea, this is the actual transition of the sign. You see no mass baptisms of circumcised Jews after this event; hence, the previous sign is efficacious and valid. John wasn’t in any way doing something w water that that the Jews at the Jordan where is familiar with. John wasn’t saying that they’re circumcision meant nothing, but that on top of their circumcision, Faith without repentance is a dead faith. The point being, if John’s baptism was a Christian baptism then we would see all these mass baptisms in the New Testament where circumcised Jews needed to have water placed on them. We don’t see that.

 

[De Jager]

Yea, this is the actual transition of the sign. You see no mass baptisms of circumcised Jews after this event; hence, the previous sign is efficacious.

Question, do you think the apostles themselves were baptized? (Other than Paul). Why or why not? The Bible only seems to mention Paul.

Another question: does the Bible mention the baptism of any circumcised Jew who actually accepted Jesus as Messiah prior to the institution of the sacrament?

The 3,000 at Pentecost, and Paul both rejected Christ as Messiah during the time in which circumcision was the covenant sign. Those Jews received Jesus as Messiah after the institution of baptism. Whereas there is someone like Peter, who received Jesus as Messiah during Jesus' earthly ministry, before the institution of baptism, and there is no mention of him being baptized. I'm not sure if that is significant or not, but it is an interesting observation.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Question, do you think the apostles themselves were baptized? (Other than Paul). Why or why not? The Bible only seems to mention Paul.

At least three and maybe more of the Apostles were previously disciples of John. They surely were baptized. Paul did not come to faith in the days of the Baptist's ministry, so of course, he needed water baptism.

Commonly it is held that the 12 disciples Paul met in Emphasis were baptized with water at that time. (Acts 19:1-7) But I don't think so. The story is all about Paul checking them out to see if they were baptized Christians before he laid hands on them and be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

You could take a look at my post on Acts 19 if you like and see what you think.

 

[De Jager]

At least three and maybe more of the Apostles were previously disciples of John. They surely were baptized. Paul did not come to faith in the days of the Baptist's ministry, so of course, he needed water baptism.

Commonly it is held that the 12 disciples Paul met in Emphasis were baptized with water at that time. (Acts 19:1-7) But I don't think so. The story is all about Paul checking them out to see if they were baptized Christians before he laid hands on them and be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

You could take a look at my post on Acts 19 if you like and see what you think.

I was wondering if there were any apostles baptized with the Christian baptism, not the baptism of John.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I was wondering if there were any apostles baptized with the Christian baptism, not the baptism of John.

Perhaps Matthew, too, but I don't think there is any way to know one way or the other. Matthew must have had some history with Jesus, His disciples, John Baptist, to just up and drop everything and follow Him.

 

[timfost]

Matthew must have had some history with Jesus, His disciples, John Baptist, to just up and drop everything and follow Him.

Or a bad day at work. Or just the mighty work of the Spirit.

 

[Solparvus]

Or a bad day at work. Or just the mighty work of the Spirit.

If you worked in taxes you would know.

 

[Scott Bushey]

III. The baptism of proselytes was an obligation to perform the law; that of John was an obligation to repentance. For although proselytical baptism admitted of some ends,—and circumcision of others,—yet a traditional and erroneous doctrine at that time had joined this to both, that the proselyte covenanted in both, and obliged himself to perform the law; to which that of the apostle relates, Gal. 5:3, “I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

But the baptism of John was a ‘baptism of repentance;’ Mark 1:4: which being undertaken, they who were baptized professed to renounce their own legal righteousness; and, on the contrary, acknowledged themselves to be obliged to repentance and faith in the Messias to come. How much the Pharisaical doctrine of justification differed from the evangelical, so much the obligation undertaken in the baptism of proselytes differed from the obligation undertaken in the baptism of John: which obligation also holds amongst Christians to the end of the world.

IV. That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same manner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related of him; namely, that he “baptized in Jordan;” that he baptized “in Ænon, because there was much water there;” and that Christ, being baptized, “came up out of the water:” to which that seems to be parallel, Acts 8:38, “Philip and the eunuch went down into the water,” &c. Some complain, that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used instead of plunging. This is no place to dispute of these things. Let us return these three things only for a present answer:—

1. That the notion of washing in John’s baptism differs from ours, in that be baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too,—into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us who are born Christians: the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement, indeed, and uncleanness; and demonstrates this doctrinally,—that we, being polluted, have need of washing: but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God: with which stain, indeed, they were defiled who were baptized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacramental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water,—when, in truth, this argues washing and purification as well as that. But those who were baptized by John were blemished with another stain, and that an outward one, and after a manner visible; that is, a polluted religion,—namely, Judaism, or heathenism; from which, if, according to the custom of the nation, they passed by a deeper and severer washing,—they neither underwent it without reason; nor with any reason may it be laid upon us, whose condition is different from theirs.

2. Since dipping was a rite used only in the Jewish nation and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially, when it is neither necessarily to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that, in regard of these things, it scarcely gave place to circumcision. We read that some, leavened with Judaism to the highest degree, yet wished that dipping in purification might be taken away, because it was accompanied with so much severity. “In the days of R. Joshua Ben Levi, some endeavoured to abolish this dipping, for the sake of the women of Galilee; because, by reason of the cold, they became barren. R. Joshua Ben Levi said unto them, Do ye go about to take away that which hedges in Israel from transgression?” Surely it is hard to lay this yoke upon the neck of all nations, which seemed too rough to the Jews themselves, and not to be borne by them, men too much given to such kind of severer rites. And if it be demanded of them who went about to take away that dipping, Would you have no purification at all by water? it is probable that they would have allowed of the sprinkling of water, which is less harsh, and not less agreeable to the thing itself.

3. The following ages, with good reason, and by divine prescript, administered a baptism differing in a greater matter from the baptism of John; and therefore it was less to differ in a less matter. The application of water was necessarily of the essence of baptism; but the application of it in this or that manner speaks but a circumstance: the adding also of the word was of the nature of a sacrament; but the changing of the word into this or that form, would you not call this a circumstance also? And yet we read the form of baptism so changed, that you may observe it to have been threefold in the history of the New Testament.

Secondly, In reference to the form of John’s baptism [which thing we have propounded to consider in the second place], it is not at all to be doubted but he baptized “in the name of the Messias now ready to come:” and it may be gathered from his words, and from his story. As yet he knew not that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias: which he confesseth himself, John 1:31: yet he knew well enough, that the Messias was coming; therefore, he baptized those that came to him in his name, instructing them in the doctrine of the gospel, concerning faith in the Messias, and repentance; that they might be the readier to receive the Messias when he should manifest himself. Consider well Mal. 3:1, Luke 1:17, John 1:7, 31, &c. The apostles, baptizing the Jews, baptized them “in the name of Jesus;” because Jesus of Nazareth had now been revealed for the Messias; and that they did, when it had been before commanded them by Christ, “Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” So you must understand that which is spoken, John 3:23, 4:2, concerning the disciples of Christ baptizing; namely, that they baptized in ‘the name of Jesus,’ that thence it might be known that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messias, in the name of whom, suddenly to come, John had baptized. That of St. Peter is plain, Acts 2:38; “Be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ:” and that, Acts 8:16, “They were baptized in the name of Jesus.”

But the apostles baptized the Gentiles, according to the precept of our Lord, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Matt, 28:19

John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 63–66.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Or a bad day at work. Or just the mighty work of the Spirit.

If you worked in taxes you would know.

All joking aside, it is unreasonable to think that Matthew simply abandoned maybe $10's of thousands in taxes, leaving it to be stolen by the ships' crews at the Galilean port where he was stationed. He probably had assistants who he left in charge when he left. Not even following Jesus could justify the sin of walking away, leaving his post unattended. Matthew would be in jail and not providing a feast for Jesus and His disciples and many others.