CROSS Spirit- and Water-Baptism 139
metonymy in relation to his six Lukan parables mutatis mutandis to
baptism in 1 Cor. 12.13, it becomes increasingly easier to see baptism as
an example of metonymy^70 rather than simply metaphor: 'metonymy, in
which something is represented by one of its own attributes or aspects, is
to be preferred to "metaphor"...' I also believe Wright's comments on the
six parables are equally applicable to baptism: that baptism is metanomic,
a representation 'in miniature of the gospel story, expressing and epito-
mizing the great reversal initiated by the grace of God and the call to
repentance which accompanied it'.^71 And it should not be forgotten the
response of people to the proclamation of the gospel recorded in Acts was
to seek baptism even though Luke has not always recorded baptism as part
of the presentation of the gospel (cf, e.g., Acts 8.12; 9.18; 10.47-48;
16.33), with the exception of Acts 2.38 and 19.3-5. This was possible for
Luke precisely because, as Dunn and others readily acknowledge, Spirit-
and water-baptism were components of conversion-initiation and therefore
essential components of conversion, the divine-human encounter.^72 As
Kelly indicates, it would be several centuries before the various compo-
nents of Christian initiation were separated. So understood, the reference
to baptism in 1 Cor. 12.13 can readily be understood as a reference to both
Spirit- and water-baptism.
Precedent for understanding baptism, and the sacraments, in terms ofmetonymy is not hard to find. Several of the Reformers used it in their
discussion of the sacraments. Heinrich Bullinger believes that it is a 'uni-
versal rule for interpreting the sacraments' that 'in the sacraments the
signs receive the name of the things that are signified, yet without being
transformed into them'. For John Calvin it is axiomatic that 'whenever
sacraments are being dealt with, it is usual for the name of the things signi-
fied to be transferred by metonymy to the sign'. Metonymy is not the same
as parable or allegory but implies that by its use God is representing- This is what I set out to argue in my earlier' "One Baptism"', pp. 175-78,190
and 192, in which, following Tappeiner, I argued that metonymy was the key to
understanding the references to baptism in Mt. 28.19,1 Cor. 12.13,Gal. 3.27,Eph.4.5
and 1 Pet. 3.21. However, in a revised version of this paper, I argue for synecdoche (on
which see below). See my' "One Baptism" and Christian Literature in the Ecumenical
Age' (2001) published on the 'Baptist Doing Theology in Context: A Continuing Con-
sultation' website, http://www.rpc.ox.ac.uk/theology-in-context/ - Wright, Voice, pp. 52 and 51 respectively.
- The phrase comes from E. Brunner, The Divine-Human Encounter (London:
SCM Press, 1944), and the enlarged revised version, Truth as Encounter (London:
SCM Press, 1964).