Why Baptize By Sprinkling
By
JOHN R. CHURCH,
D.
D.
General Evangelist of The
Methodist
Church
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
The topic discussed by the author would appear to many outmoded,
out-of-date, uninteresting and unimportant. There are multiplied thousands of people, however, who literally base
their salvation upon their mode of baptism. If they would read this book with care, it would astonish, enlighten, and
bless them.
Dr. Church approaches the subject in a fair manner.
He deals with it scholarly and brotherly.
He shows the reasonableness of the Wesleyan position on the subject and
very adequately throws the burden of proof on the other group.
The Old Testament background for the practice of baptism is
clearly brought forth. The reason
for and the methods of those ceremonies which became a basis for New Testament
baptism are clearly revealed.
The arguments of the strict immersionists are taken up one
by one, and the false position of the advocates of that one type of baptism is
revealed from the viewpoint of argument, Scripture, and practical application. The scriptural interpretations are very concise.
“How Was Jesus Baptized?”
The discussion of this portion of the book is worth the effort of the
author to writ it; is worth the time of any person it will take to read it; and
is worth whatever price the book sells for. The
same thing could be said on the division of “Some Arguments From Common
Sense.”
You will enjoy reading this book.
It will enlighten you; it will interest you; it will bless you.
Z.
T. Johnson
President of
Asbury
College
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOREWORD
There was a time, in the history of the Christian church
when there was a great deal of wrangling and disputing over the proper mode of
Christian baptism. This caused a
great deal of hard feelings and led to an unchristian attitude on the part of
many who engaged in such debate. I
thank God that in a large measure this has passed away, and today most people
take a more charitable attitude toward those who may differ with them on this
subject. I trust that the time will
never come in the Christian church when such a condition will prevail again.
Certainly I would not be guilty of willfully doing anything to help bring such a
spirit back into the ranks of God’s people.
I would not deliberately, for anything in this world, do anything that
would stir up strife and discord. I
have nothing but the kindliest of feelings for those who teach and practice the
mode of baptism by immersion. I have
many very dear friends in their ranks, and love them with all my heart.
I am perfectly willing for them to practice the mode of baptism that
seems best to them. I feel that
every person ought to be baptized in the way he thinks is right.
I believe that every one ought to be satisfied in his own heart and mind.
As Peter says, “Baptism is an answer to a good conscience,” and I
feel that every one ought to be satisfied in his own mind.
I have baptized a number of people by immersion, and will gladly baptize
anyone else in that way, if they so desire.
As you no doubt know, the
Methodist
Church
practices baptism by either one of the three modes.
We will either baptize by sprinkling, pouring or immersion.
We want the candidate to be satisfied in his own heart and mind.
We take this attitude not because we are indifferent or unconcerned about
doing things as they should be done. It
is not due to laxness or indifference on our part, but we are convinced in our
own minds that either mode is real baptism in the true sense of the word
baptize, as it is used in the New Testament.
We believe that the word, as it is used in the New Testament, means
ceremonial cleansing, regardless of how it might be done.
We believe that if a person is either baptized by sprinkling, pouring or
immersion he is really baptized in the New Testament sense of the word.
Now unfortunately our good friends, who contend for immersion as the only true
scriptural mode of baptism, will not take this liberal position.
They contend that there is only one true mode of baptism, and that is by
immersion; and they contend that if you have not been baptized in that way you
have not been baptized at all. If
they are right in their position then of course we are wrong, and ought to
forsake our practices and only baptize by immersion.
If we are right in our position then our good friends, who contend for
immersion alone, are wrong, and they ought to forsake their position.
Really there is no middle ground that can be taken on this subject.
Either we are right and they are wrong, or they are right and we are
wrong.
Now as I have said before, I would not do anything to stir up strife and cause
division in the ranks of God’s people. However,
after saying this, I want to say that it is my earnest and honest conviction
that we as Methodists have done our people a great injustice by not telling them
why we believe in and practice baptism as we do.
We have asked our people to accept baptism by affusion (sprinkling or
pouring) and have in many instances never told them why we practice these modes. There are many people in the
Methodist
Church
today, who have no clear cut conception as to why they have been baptized by
affusion. They have submitted to it, but have no idea why we do it in that way.
Our good immersionist friends preach often and earnestly on why they
practice immersion, and most of their people are well indoctrinated on this
subject. On the other hand, we have many people that could not give you any
intelligent reason as to why they were baptized by affusion. I feel that this is unfair to our people.
I feel that we ought to tell them why we do things as we do. They are
entitled to know if they are to accept baptism in the way we do it.
I have met many people who have left our church and went to some other
church for no reason other than that they became upset about the question of
baptism. I am firmly convinced in my
own mind that if they had been instructed as they should have been, they would
be in our church today and would be happy and satisfied.
Our good immersionist friends do not hesitate to emphasize their views on
the subject of water baptism, so why should we? They ought to be willing to grant us the same privilege that they take
for themselves, and ought not to feel hard toward us when we set forth our
views.
In fact I feel that we have not only done our own people an
injustice in keeping quiet on this subject, but I feel we have done our good
immersionist friends an injustice also. I
have met many good people in churches that insist on baptism by immersion only,
and many of them seem to have the feeling that we have absolutely no scriptural
ground for our practice, but that we just do it for convenience, or because some
Pope passed a decree that it should be done in that way.
We owe it to them to give them our reasons for doing it as we do, and
then let them weigh the evidence and see if we are right in our teaching.
It is with this purpose in mind that we have undertaken this little treatise on
this subject. We are not trying to
stir up strife or to change other people in their views.
We are only setting forth the reasons for our practice and let you weigh
the evidence. We are willing to live
and let live, and to extend the right hand of fellowship to all that love and
serve our Lord Jesus Christ. We can
say, “Is thy heart right as my heart is right, if so give me thy hand?”
I trust that I am free from sectarianism and denominational
prejudices. I trust that I have a
feeling of love and Christian charity for all of God’s children, regardless of
whether they may agree with me on all points.
I feel that the question of the proper mode of baptism has its place and
is of some importance. I believe
that when our Lord commands us to do a thing, we ought to try and find out how
it should be done. When we do know
how it should be done then we ought to do it in that way.
If immersion is the only way it should be done, then by all means we
should immerse every person who comes into the church. On the other hand, if the Bible teaches that some other mode is proper,
then we ought to know what the Bible really teaches on the subject.
We do not believe that water baptism is essential to salvation.
We believe and teach that we are saved by grace through faith.
We are not saved by baptism, but are baptized as a testimony to the world
that we are saved. Just as Abraham
believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, so we believe Christ
and are saved by faith in him. Abraham was
circumcised not in order to be saved, but rather as a testimony to his
salvation. The same is true of baptism
today. We are baptized, not in order to be
saved, but rather as a testimony to the fact that we are saved.
Of course we are aware of the fact that some people teach that baptism is
essential to salvation, and they go to that passage in John 3:5 where it says,
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.” However, I want
to say emphatically that Jesus is not speaking of water baptism in this passage.
The subject of water baptism is not mentioned in this whole discourse.
When Jesus speaks of being born of water in this place, he is speaking of
natural birth. Anyone that knows anything
about the birth of a child knows that it is born in water, if it isn’t, then
the child dies and usually the mother dies also. Jesus
is really saying here, that you must not only be born naturally, (that is of
water) but you must also be born of the Spirit in order to become a child of
God. He points out why this is true
in the very next verse. He says, “That
which is born of the flesh (water) is flesh; and that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I
said unto thee, ye must be born again.”
(Not
only does medical science teach us that a child is born in water, but it also
teaches us that about 78% of the human body is water. Jesus, therefore,
was sound in his teaching from the standpoint of science when he speaks of being
born in water in speaking of natural birth.)
To make this mean water baptism would mean that water baptism was absolutely
essential to salvation, and would certainly put Jesus in a tight place.
When Jesus went home with Zaccheus he said, “This day is salvation come
to this house.” He did not say,
“When this man has been baptized he will have salvation,” but he said he had
it then and there. To make water baptism
essential to salvation would rule the thief on the cross out of the
kingdom
of
God
, for he was never baptized and yet Jesus said unto him, “Verily, I say unto
thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
To make water baptism essential to salvation would certainly put St. Paul
on the spot, for he wrote to the church at Corinth and said, I Corinthians 1:14,
17, “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; For God
sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:”.
Now if water baptism was absolutely essential to salvation, then
certainly
St. Paul
knew it; and if Paul knew it was essential to salvation, then certainly he
would not be thanking God, that he had failed to do a thing that is absolutely
necessary to get a person into the
kingdom
of
God
. It seems to me that any thinking
person can see that this is true.
Yes, baptism has its place, but it is not essential to
salvation. As St. Peter says, “It cannot
put away the filth of the flesh, but it is the answer of a good conscience
toward God.” We ought to be
baptized and in the proper way, but we ought never to depend upon baptism to
save us. Only the blood of Jesus Christ
can wash away sins.
While I am not narrow and sectarian in my attitude toward other people, I am
glad that I belong to that body of Christian people known as Methodists. There are several reasons why this is true.
I do not have time and space to mention all the reasons why I am glad I
am a Methodist, but there are two reasons that I would like to set forth in this
little booklet. In the first place I want
to say that I am glad I belong to that body of believers known as Methodists
because of the attitude they take about the church.
The
Methodist
Church
does not make any claim to being the one and only true church.
Sometimes our good friends in other churches, who make rather strong
claims along this line, seem to take delight in reminding us of the fact that
our church is not very old, and that it was founded by Mr. John Wesley.
They seem to think that his is a reflection on us.
However, we do not feel that way about it.
We do not make any claims as to the matter of being the one and only true
church. We are aware of the fact
that there are a number of groups that do make such claims, but we don’t
believe they can successfully prove their claims.
We do not make any such claims. In
fact, strictly speaking, the
Methodist
Church
does not even claim to be a church, let alone the one and only true church.
We believe there is only one true church, and that is the spiritual
church, which is the Bride of Christ, or the Body of Christ.
We believe this is the only true church in the strictest sense of the
word. We believe the only way you can get
into this church is by the process of regeneration or the New Birth.
You can’t join this church, but you are baptized into it by the Spirit
of God. The Lord adds to the church
such as are saved by faith in Christ. If
you are born of the Spirit of God you are a member of this church, regardless of
what earthly organization you may belong to, and if you are not born of the
Spirit of God, then you may belong to all the earthly organizations you can
find, and still not be a member of the true church of Christ.
Mr. John Wesley, who was led of God in establishing the Methodist Societies, was
a member of the Established Church of England at the time of his conversion, and
remained in that church to the day of his death.
He was an ordained minister in that Church.
Mr. Wesley had no desire to start a new church, and I don’t think he
felt that he was starting a new church when he organized the first Methodist
Societies. He organized his converts
into small bands, known as societies in order to preserve the fruits of his
labor, and that the people might be helped in their efforts to live the
Christian life. They were small bands that
were bound together by religious ties so that they might have the help that
comes from the fellowship of kindred minds.
Really when you join a
Methodist
Church
today, you are joining a society of people for the purpose of getting and
giving help in the Christian life. We
believe that there are real children of God in all the different churches of
today, and are glad to recognize them as such.
I like that kind of an attitude, for it saves me time and labor in trying
to prove that my little group is the one and only true church.
I don’t have to try and prove that, because I don’t believe that it
is true. I believe the one and only
true church is made up of all regenerated people, and, therefore, I can say,
“Is thy heart right as my heart is right, if so give me thy hand?”
I am glad that I can take this position as a member of the Methodist
Church.
The second thing that makes me glad I am a member of the Methodist
Church
is the position we take on the subject of water baptism.
I am glad that I do not have to contend for one and only one mode of
water baptism. I am glad that I can
take the position that if you have been baptized either by sprinkling, pouring,
or immersion then you have been baptized in the New Testament sense of the word.
I am firmly convinced in my own mind that this is the scriptural position
to take, and is more in harmony with the spirit and teaching of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Feeling as I do on the
subject I could not take the position that immersion is the one and only true
mode of baptism. (In
passing I would like to say that what has been said here of the
Methodist
Church
, and its stand on these two points, is also true of a large number of other
Christian denominations. They take the same stand.)
Now I am aware of the fact that there are many good sincere
people in the world who do take the other position, and cannot understand how an
honest informed person could take any such position.
For that reason I feel justified in setting forth my views on this
subject in this little booklet entitled, “WHY BAPTIZE BY SPRINKLING?”
I trust that all who may read it will be helped and not hurt.
I trust that it will be read in the same Christian spirit in which it was
written. It is not my desire to stir
up strife and discord, but rather to make my little contribution to a better
understanding of a question that has vexed the minds of so many good people.
May this little booklet be used by the Master to clarify rather than to
confuse. If this little booklet can
be used to help someone to understand this subject better, and cause them to
take a more liberal and charitable attitude on this question, then I shall be
happy indeed.
We want it distinctly understood that we are not contending for baptism by
sprinkling alone. We believe that
sprinkling, pouring or immersion is baptism, according to the way the word is
used in the New Testament. In our
argument that is given of course we will be putting the major emphasis on
baptism by affusion (sprinkling or pouring), for this is the point at issue with
our friends who disagree with us. However,
we want it understood that we do recognize immersion as one of the modes of
baptism. If you have been baptized
by immersion then you have been baptized according to the way the word is used
by our Lord Jesus. The only thing we
are contending for, is that a person has just as truly been baptized, according
to the use our Lord made of the word, if he has been sprinkled, or had water
poured on him, as if he had been immersed. This
is all we are contending for, but we are contending for this.
You will find our reasons given in the booklet. All we ask is that you give it a prayerful and fair reading and weigh the
evidence and arrive at your own conclusion.
May God bless you is our prayer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT
Sometime ago I announced that I would speak on the theme we
are dealing with in this book. There was a
good man in the city where I was holding the meeting, and when he heard my
announcement he remarked to a friend of mine that he did not see how I could
prove my point unless I went back to the Old Testament for my proof. I
feel that the point can be proven from the New Testament alone.
However, we need to see that it is perfectly logical for us to begin a
discussion of this subject from the standpoint of the Old Testament teaching.
The New Testament springs out of the Old Testament, and the New Testament
is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. They
supplement each other. We can never fully
understand the Bible teaching on the subject of baptism, and many other
subjects, unless we do go back to the Old Testament to begin.
When John the Baptist came and began to baptize the people
he did it in accordance with the teaching of the Old Testament and in
fulfillment of it. The scribes and
Pharisees recognized this fact. They
asked him, “If thou art not that prophet nor the Messiah then why do you
baptize?” They had a perfect right
to ask that question for there were some Old Testament prophecies that told of
the time when people would be baptized in large numbers.
In fact, baptism was no new thing to the Jews.
If it had been then the scribes and Pharisees would have offered strong
objection to it, because they were sticklers for things being done according to
the law. If John had done something
that was contrary to the law and the prophets, then they would have objected.
However, we do not find them offering any objection to his baptism.
Neither did they object to the mode that he used.
The reason they did not object was because they were perfectly familiar
with the matter of baptism. The
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us that they had divers baptisms, Hebrews 9:10. The
English has it “divers washings,” but the Greek gives it “divers baptisms.” In
fact every proselyte that came into the Jewish Church was baptized.
In the writings that existed before and at the time of Christ, we find a
number of references to the matter of baptism.
In the book of Judith (that is one of the Apocryphal books which was
written in the 400 year period between the closing of the Old Testament and the
coming of Christ), we find the record of how Judith went out and baptized
herself every day for a number of days at the horse trough, in order to deceive
a king. The writer of this book
calls it baptism and it was done by
sprinkling. We also find that
Josephus, a great Jewish historian, who lived about the same time as Christ,
used the word baptize in his writings,
and he plainly tells us that it was done by sprinkling.
I merely mention these two instances in order to point out to you that
the matter of baptism was no new thing to the Jews at the time of Christ. They were perfectly familiar with the practice and looked upon it as a
part of their religion. We need to
keep this truth in mind if we are to have any clear understanding of the
subject. John did not start
something new. If he had he would
have gotten into plenty of trouble with the Jews of that day.
Now, with this thought in mind, I would like to call your attention to two Old
Testament prophecies that seem to shed some light on this subject. In
the book of Isaiah 52:15, we find these words, “So shall he sprinkle
many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him;” etc.
I would suggest that you begin at the thirteenth verse of this chapter
and read clear on through the fifty-third chapter.
As you read this passage please keep in mind the fact that when the Bible
was first written it was not divided into verses and chapters. That has been done at a more recent time, and, of course, the people who
did it did not claim to be divinely inspired in their work.
Now as you read this passage ask yourself the question, Who is the writer
speaking of in this passage? There
is but one answer to this question and that is Christ.
The prophet is speaking by inspiration of the coming Christ and tells
about his suffering and death. All
Bible scholars are agreed on this. In
fact the writers of the New Testament clearly verify this in the fact that they
quote this passage and apply it to Christ. It
was this portion that the eunuch was reading when Philip joined him in his
chariot, and we are told that he began at this passage and preached Christ unto
him. There can be no question but
that Isaiah is speaking of Christ. Now
please go back and notice what he says Christ will do when he comes.
He says, “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” The
Hebrew word that is translated “sprinkle” in this place is the word “Nazah,”
and is used 24 times in the Old Testament, and every time it is translated into
the English word “sprinkle.”
So you see we have here a clear cut prophecy that when Jesus does come he
will sprinkle many nations. It does
not say that he will immerse them, but it does say that he will sprinkle them.
Now turn in your Bible to the book of Ezekiel 36:25 and you will find this
prophecy, “Then will I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from
all your idols, will I cleanse you.” Here
we have another clear-cut prophecy of the time when God shall begin to deal with
his people, and we are plainly told that he will sprinkle clean water upon them
and they shall be clean. In the days
of Moses the people had water sprinkled upon them for cleansing.
In Isaiah we are told that when Christ comes he will sprinkle many
nations, and now in Ezekiel we are told of the time when God will sprinkle clean
water upon his people to cleanse them. In
this I think we must see that there is at least some scripture for the practice
of sprinkling people with water.
As we continue this study on the subject of baptism we will have occasion to
come back again to the Old Testament for evidence on this question, but in the
very beginning of the study we wanted to point out to you that the whole subject
gets its start in the Old Testament. The
practice of baptism was no new thing to the Jews in the days of Jesus and John
the Baptist. In fact, when Jesus
came to John for baptism and John hesitated to comply with his request, Jesus
said, “Suffer it to be so that we fulfill all righteousness.”
In other words, they were fulfilling the Old Testament instruction. Jesus said, “I come not to destroy but to fulfill the law. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle shall pass
out of the word until all has been fulfilled.” God
had given certain instructions to his people, and Jesus and John were doing what
the Old Testament prescribed. If this had
not been true then there would have been strong objection to the whole thing on
the part of the scribes and Pharisees. However,
we do not find them offering any protest. The
very fact that they were silent on the matter is proof that it was the thing
that was expected to be done, and that it was done according to the law.
A careful study of the Bible will reveal that the writer of Hebrews was right
when he spoke of divers (or many) baptisms. In
the time of Christ the Jews were already in the habit of baptizing their hands,
pots, pans, tables, couches and themselves many times each day.
In Mark 7:4 we are told, “And when they come from the market, except
they wash, they eat not. And many other
things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing
(the Greek is baptisontai, or
baptizing) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.”
We also find a reference to the customs that prevailed in the days of
Jesus in the gospel of Luke 11:38, “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled
that he (Jesus) had not first washed (the Greek is ebaptisthm
or baptized) before dinner.” These
two references from the gospels clearly indicate that the Jews were familiar
with baptism, and that they practiced it many times in their daily life and
conduct. So you see that this is not some
new practice that John the Baptist started, but it was a carrying out of what
was already a common practice among the Jews of that day.
The word baptism had already taken on a very definite meaning in the mind
of the Jews at the time of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A STUDY OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY IMMERSIONISTS
(In
our discussion of this word baptizo, we will use it in this form whenever we
refer to its use. Of course we are all aware of the fact that it has
various endings which are determined by the tense and its relationship to other
words in the sentence where it occurs. Just as the English word occurs in
different forms such as baptize, baptized, and baptism; or as the word wash has
various forms such as wash, washed, or washing. For convenience we will
use the simple for baptize whenever it occurs in any form in the New Testament. We
do this to avoid confusion.)
As has already been stated in the introduction of this booklet, if our good
immersionist friends would take the position that we take, there would be no
ground for argument on this subject. However,
they cannot see fit to take this position. They
contend that nothing but immersion will do for baptism. They teach and contend
that if you have not been baptized by immersion, then you have not been baptized
at all. They contend that the word baptize
means immersion and nothing else, and that nothing else will do.
Since they do take this position, then it becomes necessary, in dealing
with this subject, to consider their main points of argument.
The subject could not be dealt with properly in any other way.
In this part of the study we shall try to take up some of their strongest
arguments and answer them. In doing
this we want to be fair and Christian in our attitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE NEW TESTAMENT MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD “BAPTIZO”
The first main argument that our good friends, who contend
for baptism by immersion only, offer is the meaning of the Greek word baptizo.
They contend that this word means immerse, dip, plunge, or submerge, and that it
does not mean anything else and cannot mean anything else.
They contend that nothing but immersion will fulfill the demands of this
word. Now I want to say that this, to my
mind, is their strongest point, and if it can be proved by the Bible then the
whole argument is ended and there is nothing more to say on the subject.
If they are right in their contention about the meaning of this word,
then their point is won and we don’t have a leg to stand upon. However, if it can be proved conclusively that this word does not always
mean immerse as it is used in the New Testament, then their whole argument falls
to the ground and they are left without a leg to stand upon. If it can be proved
by the Bible that the word baptizo
means to pour or sprinkle, then we have proved our point and they must admit
that we are taking the right position when we practice either mode of baptism.
In our dealing with the meaning of this word, baptizo,
we want it clearly understood that we very freely and frankly admit that the
classical meaning of this word is usually immerse, dip, plunge or submerge.
There are a few rare exceptions in this rule, but generally when this
word is used by the writers of classical Greek it does mean just what our good
immersionist friends contend it means. If
we were dealing with the classical Greek of that day then there would be no
argument on the question. They could
easily prove their point by many references to the classical literature of that
day. Any good lexicon of that day, or
this, would bear out the truth of this statement.
However, I must remind you that the New Testament is not
written in what is known as classical Greek. Anyone
who knows anything at all about the New Testament Greek, knows that this is
true. The New Testament is not written in
classical Greek, but it is rather written in what is know as the Koine, or in other words the language of the common people.
This is a fact that is clearly recognized by all Greek scholars.
There was a time when many of the early scholars held to the idea that
the language of the New Testament was a peculiar language, adopted by the Holy
Spirit especially for the purpose of giving the truth to the people through the
inspired writers. However, the recent work of the archaeologists has proved
conclusively that this was not the case, but that rather the language used in
the New Testament is the language the common people used in the days of Christ.
In many instances it is different from the language of the classical
writers, but it was the language the common people understood.
This is a truth that is well established today.
So we see that in this study we are not dealing with the
classical use of the word baptizo. We are not so much concerned about how
Socrates, Plato and Xenephon used the word, but we are very much concerned about
how it is defined in some Greek Lexicon as we are about what it meant to Jesus
and the people that he taught in the days of his flesh.
Resort to Greek lexicons can never fully settle the question as to what
this word means in the New Testament. The best way to find out what it meant to
the people in the days of Christ is to go back to the New Testament and see how
it is used there. In our discussion of
this word we shall confine ourselves largely to the use of the word in the New
Testament. That is to be the final test of the meaning of this word.
I feel sure that all of us are aware that the language of
the common people is often different from that of the scholars. We are also
aware of the fact that words are continually changing their meaning. Words that
were in use two hundred years ago by the scholars are hardly understood by many
of the common people of this day. Words
that were in use in the days when the King James Version of the Bible was first
translated have become obsolete today. We hardly understand what some of them
meant to the people of that day. Many
illustrations of this could be given from our Bible if we had the time and
space. Our language is changing all the time. Some words are dropped out of our
everyday speech and new words are being coined to take their place.
In the last World War there were many new words added to our vocabulary
that we had never heard before, but today we use them without a second thought
as to their origin and as to how we happened to get them. The language of
different sections of our land is entirely different from that of other parts of
our land. If you don’t believe
this is true, then some time just listen to some typical New Yorker and some one
from the deep South. They seem to speak a different language altogether.
I have a very dear friend who is a native of
England
and he speaks the English language in its purest form, however, he and his
family have now lived for a number of years in
Chicago
. He told me some time ago that his
daughter used the expression, “O Yea!” in his presence. He turned to her and
asked her not to use that expression again. She asked him why.
He told her that it was not good English.
She retorted, “Daddy I am not talking English, I am talking
American.” I mention this to point out
to you the fact that even though we Americans are supposed to use the English
language, yet our use of it is different from that of the people of
England
.
What is true of our language today was true of the language in use at the time
of Christ. Many Greek words that had
been used by the scholars in classical Greek had changed their meaning in the
time of Christ and are used with an entirely different meaning in the Koine.
Anyone who has studied the Greek New Testament will testify to that fact.
There are many words used in the New Testament that are not used with
their classical meaning at all. The word Logos in classical Greek meant “word
or speech.” That meant anybody’s
word or speech. However, when we
come to the New Testament, we find that John took this word and put a capital at
the beginning and used it to mean Christ our Lord.
“In the beginning was the Logos,
and the Logos was with God, and the Logos
was God.” Now if you should go to
a Greek Lexicon to look up the word Logos you
would find the definition “word or speech,” but if you should turn to the
gospel by St. John
you would find that it meant Christ Jesus our Lord.
There is quite a difference in these two meanings, but this is the way it
is often used in the New Testament. The word Pneuma in the classical Greek meant wind or breath. That meant any
kind of wind or any kind of breath. However,
when we come to the New Testament we find that this word is adopted and made to
mean spirit, and when it is capitalized and the word Holy is put before it, it
means the third person of the Trinity. So
we see that this word is not used in its classical sense by the writers of the
New Testament. It has a different and
peculiar meaning when it is used in the New Testament.
If you should turn to a Greek lexicon for a definition of this word you
would find one thing, but when you turn to the New Testament you find something
entirely different.
There is another word that is not often used in the New
Testament, but was in common use in the days of Christ, that had gone through
somewhat the same change in its meaning. The
word of which I speak is bapto. It
comes from the same root as the word baptizo. Now
in classical Greek this word meant to dye by the process of dipping or
submerging the article in the dye. However,
in common use this word had become so closely associated with the process of
dyeing that it finally came to mean dye, regardless of how it might be done. It
might be done either by dipping the garment in the dye, or it might be done by
sprinkling or pouring the dye upon the garment. Regardless of how it might be
done the word bapto was used to describe it. One of the classical writers of that
day used this word bapto in speaking
of a lake being dyed (or bapto) with
the blood of a rat. Now of course we can
readily see that the lake was not immersed in the blood of a rat, but it was
rather tinged or dyed with the blood of a rat. We also find an instance in the
classical writers where Socrates speaks of an island being baptized (baptizo) with the spray of the ocean.
I am sure we can readily see that he did not mean to imply that the
island was immersed in the spray of the ocean, and yet he used this word baptizo
in speaking of what took place.
Now I feel these three illustrations are sufficient to show that words are used
in different ways and that words do change their meaning.
Anyone who is familiar with the Greek New Testament could easily run
through the New Testament and pick out a score of words that would illustrate
and prove the very things I have been pointing out. There are many words in the
Greek New Testament that are not used in their classical sense, but rather they
have a different meaning from that of classical Greek.
(In “ESSENTIALS OF NEW TESTAMENT
GREEK” by Huddleston, we find this statement, page 21 “The vocabulary of the
New Testament furnishes nearly 900 words that are not found in the classical
writers.” In “A MANUAL GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT” by Dana
and Mantey, we find this statement, page 13 “Robertson (Dr. A. T. Robertson
the great Baptist scholar) cites 186 words formerly supposed to be peculiar
to Biblical Greek which the papyri and inscriptions have shown were in common
use.” (R. 65 f)
We have given these illustrations and have said these
things in order that we might say this; it is our contention that the word baptizo
is not use in its classical sense in the New Testament. A long time before Jesus
ever came into the world, this word had undergone a change in meaning and had
come to have a very definite religious significance. The Jews had once spoken
the Hebrew language and expressed their ideas through this medium.
However, a long time before Christ came, the common people of the world
had adopted the Greek language as the medium for expressing their thoughts. When
the Jews changed over from the use of Hebrew and came to use the Greek language,
they did not find a Greek word that exactly conveyed the idea of ceremonial
cleansing or purification. They were
in need of a word to convey this idea, for it held a very important place in
their religious life. In their
search for such a word they adopted the Greek word baptizo,
and used it to convey the idea of ceremonial cleansing or purification
regardless of how it might be done. In the days of Christ they did not use the
word in its classical sense, but they used it to express the idea of cleansing
or purification. When a Jew was baptized
he was cleansed. This was the major meaning of the word to him.
He was not so much interested in how it was done as what was done.
He might be baptized either by sprinkling, pouring or immersion, but the
thing that counted most with him was the fact that he had been cleansed. This
was the idea the word conveyed to his mind. This was the way he thought about
it. A careful study of the way the
word is used in the New Testament will verify the thing we have been saying. The translators of the New Testament recognized this fact and, in many
instances in the King James version, they use the English word wash
where the Greek gives it baptizo.
We have already called attention to three instances in the New Testament
where this is the case. In Hebrews 9:10
the Greek gives the word baptizo, but
in English it is translated divers washings. In
Mark 7:4 the Greek word baptizo is
used but in our version it is translated washing.
In Luke 11:38 the Greek used the word baptizo
but in English it is translated washed.
In fact, anywhere you find the word baptize in the New Testament you can take
that word out and insert either the word cleanse or purify and it does not
change the meaning of the sentence in the least. As
an illustration let us take the statement of Christ in Acts 1:5 “John indeed
baptized (purified or cleansed) with water; but ye shall be baptized (purified
or cleansed) with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”
Now while you can do that, and it does not change the meaning, yet you
could not insert the word immerse and not change the meaning of many sentences.
For the question would naturally arise, immerse in what?
There is no water in the word immerse. You
might immerse a person in many different things. Neither
is there any water in the word sprinkle, for the same question would arise.
Sprinkle with what? However, there
was water implied in the use of the word baptize as the Jews understood it, for
it had come to convey the idea of ceremonial cleansing with water.
When a Jew had water sprinkled on him, with a bunch of hyssop, he was
baptized. He had been purified or cleansed. This
was the meaning of the word as it was used in the days of Jesus.
This word had come to have this definite meaning a long time before
Christ ever came. It had been used to convey this idea to the minds of the
people. This is illustrated in the case we have mentioned from the book of
Judith. She washed herself at the horse
trough by sprinkling, but the historian calls it baptism.
Josephus tells us of people that were baptized and he says it was done by
sprinkling, and yet he uses the Greek word baptizo
in speaking of it. These two illustrations show us how the word was used by
reliable Jewish writers at that time. It
is not used in its classical sense but has a different meaning.
It conveyed a definite idea to the minds of the people in the days of
Christ. When they heard and used the word they were thinking of cleansing or
purification, regardless of how it might be done. Now this is the meaning we are
most concerned about. We are not so much
interested in how Socrates used it and what it meant to him, but we are very
much concerned about how Jesus used it and what it meant to the people that
heard him speak.
The translators of our New Testament have very wisely
carried over the word baptize into our English translations for there is no
other word that would exactly convey the meaning this word carried.
It would not do to use either the words sprinkle, pour or immerse, for
then the question would naturally arise as to what substance was to be used in
either process. It is true that some
over-zealous immersionist did get out a Bible some years ago and inserted the
word immerse where the Greek word baptizo
was used. However, it was not very
long until this version was withdrawn because it proved too much and led to some
very awkward situations. It would sound
funny indeed to talk about divers (or many) immersions. Hebrews 9:10.
The passage in Mark 7:4 would read very funny indeed if you should use
the word immerse where the word baptizo
occurs in the Greek. Neither can we
reconcile ourselves to the idea that the Pharisee, spoken of in Luke 11:38,
really expected Jesus to immerse
himself before dinner. It would have been inconvenient to say the least. He did
not expect him to immerse himself before dinner, but he was rather surprised
that he did not wash or purify himself before the meal. The Pharisees purified
themselves many times each day, but they did it by sprinkling. They also
baptized or purified many household articles often, but they did it by
sprinkling. We can hardly conceive of them immersing their beds, tables and
couches before they ate. However, it was the custom for them to take clean water
and a bunch of hyssop and sprinkle many such articles. They called this baptism
according to the gospel of Mark and Luke.
Now we are well aware of the fact that our good
immersionist friends will not admit this point that we are making in this part
of the discussion. In fact they could hardly afford to admit it, because if they
did they would have to forsake their teaching and position.
Since this is one of the points of difference in our study, it will be
necessary for us to give further proof of the position we take. We feel that the
proof already given is strong evidence in our favor.
However, we are glad to announce that there is a great deal more evidence
in the New Testament to prove this point. We
shall now cite a number of instances in the New Testament where the use of the
word baptizo clearly proves that the word does not always mean immerse.
In fact these passages prove that in many cases it either means pour
or sprinkle.
I feel sure you do not have to be a Greek scholar to see that this is
true. I now call your attention to a group
of five passages from Matthew, mark, Luke, John and the Acts where the word is
used, and it cannot possibly mean immerse, but it definitely means pour. They
are:
Matthew 3:11 “I indeed baptize (baptizo) you with water unto repentance…he shall baptize (baptizo)
you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” Here
the word is used twice.
Mark 1:8 “I indeed have baptized (baptizo) you with water; but he shall baptize (baptizo) you with the Holy Ghost.” Here it is used twice again.
Luke 3:16 “John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize (baptizo)
you with water…he shall baptize (baptizo)
you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” In
this passage we have it used twice again.
John 1:33 “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize (baptizo)
with water…the same is he which baptizeth (baptizo)
with the Holy Ghost.” It is used twice in this verse.
Acts 1:5 “For John truly baptized (baptizo) with water; but ye shall be baptized (baptizo) with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” The same is true here.
Now in each of these five passages we find the Greek word (baptizo)
used twice. In each passage it is used
once in speaking of the baptism of John, and the other time it is used in
speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. In
the case of the baptism of John there would no doubt be a difference of opinion
as to just how it was done. You might
content that it was done by immersion, and I might contend that it was done by
sprinkling, and we might never be able to agree as to the mode of John’s
baptism. However, there can be no question
as to how the people were baptize with the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost
for the Bible settles that question once and forever.
If you will turn to the second chapter of Acts you will find that the
Word of God says it was poured out upon them. In
fact, it could not have been done in any other way if it was the fulfillment of
the prophecy of Joel, for he plainly said it would be poured out upon them. If it
had been done in any other way it would not have been the fulfillment of this
prophecy. Peter said it was the
fulfillment of this prophecy. It must have
been done the way God said it would be done.
Now here we have five different passages from the New
Testament, and in them Jesus, John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
all use the Greek word baptizo in
speaking of something that was done by pouring
and not by immersion. So we see that
the word does not always mean immerse as it is used in the New Testament.
Here are five instances in which it means pour
and yet they call it baptism.
Sometime ago I was discussing this question with a good Baptist minister. He
informed me that he had majored in Greek at College, and he admitted to me that
he was considered an authority on the use of Greek.
I pointed out these five passages where the word baptizo is used, and
then I told him that in these five instances that it could not mean immerse. I
told him that it was done by pouring and gave him the proof for my contention.
For a minute he looked very much perplexed and then his face lighted up and he
said, “But they were immersed with the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. It
says the room was filled where they were sitting.”
I laughed and said, “Now come Doctor, surely you are not serious when
you make that statement.” He
assured me that he was. I asked him
to read the second verse of Acts 2. It
says, “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind, and it (the sound) filled all the house where they were sitting.”
I asked him if he was going to contend that the people were immersed in
sound. That is what filled the house where they were sitting.
The Holy Ghost is not mentioned here until the fourth verse and it says,
“they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost.” Certainly
there can be no immersion here for the Holy Ghost was on the inside of them.
He was in them instead of them being immersed in the Holy Ghost. This is
just what Jesus said would take place. John
14:17 “He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
There can be no immersion here unless you are going to content that the
Holy Ghost was immersed in the people, and, of course, that would not fit the
case. They were to be baptized with
the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost was
poured out upon them and they were baptized (cleansed or purified) with the Holy
Ghost. Peter clearly brings this out
in his account of Cornelius and his household getting the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. Acts 15:8, 9 “And God which
knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he
did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying
their hearts by faith.” That was
the purpose of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
It was to cleanse or purify. Water baptism is outward cleansing. The Jews
so understood it.
(In passing, may I say that if people will keep this idea in mind it will save
them from much confusion on the matter of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Many
times, when I preach on the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, I have people ask me,
“Don’t all Christian people have the Holy Ghost?” Certainly they do. They
could not be Christians if they did not have the Holy Ghost. The only way to
become a Christian is to be born of the Holy Ghost into the Kingdom.
However, a person may have the Holy Ghost and still not have the Baptism of the
Holy Ghost. The disciples had the Holy Ghost before the Day of Pentecost.
Jesus plainly said so. He said, “He dwelleth with you, and shall be in
you.” Before Pentecost they had the Holy Ghost with them, but at
Pentecost they were baptized (cleansed or purified) by the Holy Ghost. It was
the same Spirit they had known before, but he was doing something for them that
he had not done before. The same thing is true today. In regeneration the
Holy Ghost comes to us and imparts a new nature to us. It is a nature we
never had before. In the baptism of the Holy Ghost it is the same Spirit,
but he is doing something for us that was not done in regeneration. He cleanses
or purifies our hearts. In other words, he takes away an old nature that we have
always had and could not get rid of in any other way. It is the same Spirit, but
he is doing a different work for us. We need both of these things
done for us. We need the birth of or by the Holy Spirit and we also need the
baptism (cleansing or purifying) with or by the Holy Ghost.)
In Acts 11:15, 16 we have the word baptizo used again in speaking of Cornelius and his household
receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. The context clearly shows that it was
done by pouring, and yet Peter used the word baptizo in speaking of it. Here is what Peter says, “And as I
began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on
them, as on us at the beginning. Then
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized (baptizo)
with the Holy Ghost.” In this
passage Peter tells of how the Holy Ghost fell on them, and he immediately ties
it up with Christ’s promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. So we see they
were baptized with the Holy Ghost, but it was done by pouring. Peter says it was
done that way. In Acts 10:44 we are
told that the Holy Ghost fell on all
them. Peter also confirms what we have said before about the way it came on the
day of Pentecost. He says it fell on them as
on us at the beginning. This is not what I have to say about it, but this is
what the Word says about it. So we see
here another instance where the word does not mean immerse; it means to pour,
and yet Peter calls it baptism (baptizo).
In I Corinthians 10:2 we have the word baptizo used by St. Paul
and it cannot possibly mean immerse in this case. In this passage Paul is speaking of what happened to the Children of
Israel when they crossed the Red Sean and he says, “And they were all baptized
(baptizo) unto Moses in the cloud and
in the sea.” In this case it could
not have been done by immersion for the Bible plainly says that the waters were
a wall unto them on the right hand and on their left.
We are also told that they went over on dry ground.
In the 14th chapter of Exodus we are told three different times that they
went over on dry ground. It is
simply out of the question to think of a person being immersed in water and
being on dry ground at the same time. It
just cannot be done. A person has to get his
fee wet to be immersed. They
were baptized, but it was done by sprinkling for Paul says they were under the
cloud in the sea. The baptism came
from the cloud and not in the sea. Yet
Paul uses the word baptizo in speaking
of this. Here we have another case
where the word does not always mean immerse or dip.
We have already referred several times to the passages, Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4
and Luke 11:38. However, we ask you
to consider them with us again for the word baptizo
is used in each of these three passages, and they are part of our proof in our
effort to prove that the word baptizo
does not always mean immerse or dip.
Hebrews 9:10 “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and
divers washings (baptizo) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of
reformation.” Here the writer of
the epistle to the Hebrews is speaking of the Old Testament dispensation and he
says that they had divers washings or
baptisms. The word divers means many. They had many baptisms. Now if you will
search diligently through the Old Testament you will find many cases of where
the people were sprinkled and were commanded to do so; but I don’t believe you
can find any place where they were commanded to immerse. In fact, if you had
suggested to an orthodox Jew the idea of being immersed in a pool of still water
that some other person had already been immersed in, he would have felt
insulted. He would not consider that cleansing.
He would feel that he had been polluted or defiled. For a true Jew it had
to be clean water and he also wanted living (moving) water. That was why they
used a bunch of hyssop and sprinkled it upon the person to be washed. You can
find an abundance of evidence for many
sprinklings in the Old Testament but not
any immersions. In the days of Jesus they had many sprinklings but not
immersions. It is these many
sprinklings the writer is speaking of in this passage, but he calls them baptisms. He mentions
one of the in Hebrews 9:10, “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all
the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with
water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled
both the book, and all the people.” This
is one of the many baptisms that he speaks of, but it was done by sprinkling.
He calls it baptism, and he knew how the word should be used and what it
meant. I think you can see that this is one more place where the word does not
always mean immerse.
Mark 7:4, “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not.
And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptizo) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of
tables.” In this passage Mark
tells us that it was the custom in the days of Christ for the Jews to baptize
their cups, pots, brazen vessels, and even their tables. They did this many
times a day. He says they did it
every time they came from the market. Now I feel sure that any clear thinking
person can readily see that the people did not immerse all of these things many
times a day. That would be ridiculous to say the least.
It was their custom, in those days, to keep a vessel of clean water handy
and with a bunch of hyssop they would go around through the house and sprinkle a
bit of this water as an act of cleansing. It was a part of their religion to do
this. It was ceremonial cleansing.
However, Mark uses the word baptizo to speak of it. No doubt he knew what
the word meant in that day, and in this case it could not mean immerse.
Luke 11:38, “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed
(baptizo) before dinner.” In
this passage Luke is telling us of a visit that our Lord made to the home of a
Pharisee. He tells us that the
Pharisee marveled that he did not baptize
before dinner. I feel sure any thinking person can readily see that the
Pharisee did not expect Jesus to immerse himself before he sat down for the
meal. Common sense would lead us to
see that this is not what Luke is speaking of in this passage. He is speaking of
the washing that was so strictly observed by all the Pharisees of that day.
However, it was not done by immersion, and yet Luke uses this word to
speak of it. Surely
Doctor Luke knew how to use the word in the right way.
He did know how to use it, and in this case it does not mean immerse.
Thus far we have quoted from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, I Corinthians and
Hebrews. We have showed how John the
Baptist, Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and the writer of Hebrews used
this word. In six
cases it means to pour, and in four others it means to sprinkle.
And yet in all of these places the word baptizo
is used. Surely these men knew how the
word should be used, and what it meant in that day.
It may have meant immerse, dip, plunge or submerge to the classical
writers of that day, but it certainly does not mean that in the New Testament.
It seems to me that this is clearly proved by these many passages that we have
called to your attention. We leave
it to you to decide on the scriptural evidence we have given.
We have not appealed to some Doctor of Divinity for our proof. Neither
have we gone to the Greek Lexicons to see what they have to say on the subject.
We have let the New Testament speak for itself. To us this is the most conclusive proof in the world.
We are convinced that the word does not always mean immerse.
Many times it means pour, and in other instances it means to sprinkle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. “BURIED WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM”
The second point, that our good immersionist friends place
a great deal of stress on in their contention for baptism by immersion only, is
that of being buried with Christ in baptism. Of
course they go to Romans 6:3, 4 and also to Colossians 2:11, 12 for their
teaching on this point. Since this is true
let us look carefully at these two passages and see just what they do say. I
give them here in full so that we may have them before us for our study.
Romans 6:3, 4 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into
his death? Therefore, we are
buried with him by baptism into his death: that like as Christ was raised up
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness
of life. Colossians 2:11, 12, “In whom also ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, in the putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are
risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him
from the dead.”
Now most people, when they read these two passages where it speaks of being
baptized and buried, immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul is speaking of
water baptism and say, “There that proves it. We must go down under the
water.” However, before you jump
to such conclusions, let us take the time to see what Paul really does say. I want to especially call your attention to that little preposition “into.”
It is used three times in Romans 6:3, 4 and is the key to this
passage. Now Paul says that the baptism of
which he speaks causes us to be baptized into
Christ and into his death. May I
ask you the question, “Does water baptism do this for a person?” The answer is “Not necessarily.”
It is possible for a person to be baptized a dozen times with water and
still not be in Christ. There are many people today who have been baptized with water, but they
are not in Jesus Christ. They
are in sin and of the world. The baptism of which Paul speaks puts you into
Christ and into his death. This is
not figurative language that Paul is using. He
is talking about something that really takes place and it puts you into
Christ and into his death. It also
brings you into touch with the power of his resurrection.
Does water baptism do that?
Is there a baptism that really does do what Paul speaks of here? There is and Paul tells about it in I Corinthians 12:13, “For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” It
is this baptism that Paul is speaking of in both of these passages.
In fact in the passage in Colossians he plainly tells us that he is
speaking of a circumcision without hand, but he is speaking of a spiritual circumcision that
puts off the body of the sins of the flesh, and then he links baptism right up
with this circumcision. He is, of course,
speaking of a spiritual baptism. In
fact, there is not a drop of water in either of these passages.
Dr. A. J. Gordon, the great Baptist Divine of Boston, says so.
Certainly water baptism cannot put us into his death.
Neither can water baptism free us from the sins of the flesh, but the
baptism of which Paul speaks does do this very thing for it is spiritual
baptism.
It is so easy for us to be swayed by our prejudices and
preconceived ideas. We are so easily
influenced by our surroundings that it is hard for us to shake off their
influence. When you speak to people in
this part of the world about being buried, the first thought that comes to their
mind is that of being placed in the ground and covered over with dirt. This is
the picture the word calls to their minds. However,
that is not the way Jesus was buried. He
was carried into a tomb with the opening above ground and laid on a shelf in
that tomb. A stone was then rolled before
the opening. I have read of certain
tribes of people who bury their dead by building pyres above the ground and
placing their dead up in the air on those pyres. If you should talk to them
about being buried in baptism, it would suggest an entirely different picture to
them from the picture most of us have in our minds.
A good Baptist minister said to me sometime ago,
“Doesn’t the Bible say that baptism is a symbol of the death and
resurrection of Christ? When we are
baptized doesn’t that symbolize the death and burial of Christ?”
I said, “No! The Bible does
not say any such thing.” To my mind
there is no scriptural grounds for such a conception.
Water baptism might just as easily be a symbol of the sprinkling of
Christ’s blood upon our hearts, or it might easily be a symbol of the
outpouring of the Holy Ghost. In fact
there is far more scripture for this latter view than for the one suggested by
the minister. Jesus never one time
intimated that baptism was to be a symbol of his death and burial.
He did say that when we partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper
that we do show forth his death until he comes again.
However, the Bible does not say that baptism is a symbol of his death and
burial. In these two passages Paul
is dealing with more vital truths than the mode of baptism.
To wrest these two passages out of their setting and use them to try and
prove baptism by immersion only, is to do violence to the spirit of Paul’s
message. If he were alive today I am
sure he would protest against such a use and would tell us that we are missing
what he is trying to say. In both of these
passages he is dealing with great sublime spiritual truths.
It is unfair to drag these passages down to a lower level.
In the days of
St. Paul
for a person to accept Christian baptism regardless of what mode was used in
doing it, it meant in a very real sense a death. In
the days of Paul, Christian baptism was the dividing line between the old life
and a new life begun. It was the
visible symbol to the world that you were cutting loose from father, mother,
home, friends, and the old life. When Paul accepted Christian baptism he really
died to his old life and started out to live in a new world. Water baptism was the step that declared this to the world. This same
thing is true of Jews today and also in many heathen lands. For a Jew or a
person in a heathen land to accept Christian baptism today, regardless of the
mode, it means death in a very real sense of the word.
When I was but a lad there was something that happened in
my home city that illustrated this in a very striking way. There was a fine Jewish family in our city.
They had several sons, but one of them fell in love with a Gentile girl.
This was not so bad in the eyes of his parents, for many Jewish boys
marry Gentile girls these days. However,
when this boy and girl were married he also was baptized into the fellowship of
a Christian church. It happened that he
joined the First Presbyterian Church and was baptized by sprinkling, but the
mode of his baptism did not make any difference with his parents.To them their
boy was lost. He had died.
They really had a funeral just as if he had actually died. They mourned him as one dead. To
them he is dead. They never mention
his name in their home. His brother
meets him on the street and never speaks. He
is dead so far as they are concerned.
Fortunately most of us do not have to pay such an extreme price when we are
baptized. However, we do need to see that to accept baptism, regardless of how
it may be done, is a very serious matter, and it should mean more than just
going through an empty ceremony and then be forgotten. It ought to mean that we
have renounced the world with all of its vain pomp and glory, and that we will
no longer follow or be led by the dictates of our former manner of life.
We have died to all of this and have started out to live a new life in
Christ. I fear there are too many people who feel about baptism somewhat like an
old fellow expressed himself about getting married.
He said he believed he would just get married and be done with it. There
are too many people that seem to feel the same way about baptism.
They are baptized and then they are done with it.
It does not seem to mean anything to them.
They can talk very glibly about being buried and risen again, and about
following Christ in baptism, but seemingly they do not feel under any obligation
to follow him in life. We need to see that
it is far more important to follow Christ in life and our daily conduct than to
just observe some certain ritual or form and then forget it.
Regardless of the mode that is used in our baptism it ought to be a very
serious matter with us, and we ought to show to the world by our life that we
consider it so.
-------------------------------------------------------
3. GOING DOWN INTO, AND COMING STRAIGHTWAY UP OUT OF
The third point that our good immersionist friends
emphasize in their teaching on this subject are the statements in the gospels
where it says, "Jesus went down into
the water, and came straightway up out of
the water." They like to put a great deal of stress on these two
expressions and they use them as though they thought this ought to settle the argument
once and for all. However, to my mind, they are not the least bit convincing
when it comes to settling the matter of how Christ was baptized. It would be a
very easy thing for anyone to walk down into the river
Jordan
and stand there and be baptized and then come up out of the water without ever
being immersed in the water. The Bible says that Jesus went into
Peter's boat, but that does not mean he was immersed in the boat. The truth of
the matter is he just sat down in it and used it for a pulpit. He went into
it but only a small part of his body was really in the boat, most of it was
above the boat. The Bible also says that he went up into the mount and sat down and taught his disciples. The fact that
he went up into the mount does not mean to suggest that he was immersed or
submerged in the mountain.
When I went on my first circuit I had one church that was about eight miles from
my home. There was one stream that I had to ford seven times in going to preach
at that church. I rode horseback on these trips. In the roundtrip I forded that
stream fourteen times in all. Fourteen times I went down
into that stream, and fourteen times I came straightway
up out of it, but usually I reached home just as dry as when I left.
I have thought for many years that sometime I may be able
to make a trip to the
Holy Land
. I have often thought that if I ever did I would like to be baptized near the
same place our Lord was baptized and in the same way he was baptized. If I ever
get to make such a trip and undertake to be baptized as I believe Jesus was, I
intend to walk down into the river
Jordan
and stand there in the water and then have some proper person take a bunch of
hyssop and dip it into the water and sprinkle it on me. I believe when I have
done that, then I will have been baptized as Jesus was by John the Baptist. Then
I will come straightway up out of the water just as Jesus did after he had been
sprinkled by John. I shall have more to say about why I believe this to be true
later on.
------------------------------------------------------
4. FOLLOWING OUR LORD IN BAPTISM
The fourth point, in the immersionist contention for
baptism by immersion only, is found in the phrase at the beginning of this
chapter. They like to play upon this phrase and emphasize it.
To them it seems to be very convincing and conclusive.
However, to my way of thinking it is not a real argument, but is merely a
catchy phrase. When it is closely examined it becomes rather weak and
unconvincing. To follow Jesus literally in baptism would involve a great deal
more than just being dipped in a pool of water.
In the first place, if we are to literally follow Jesus in baptism, we
would at least have to seek out a stream of moving water. As we have already
said, to suggest to a truly orthodox Jew the idea of being dipped in a pool of
still water where many other people had already been dipped, would be shocking
indeed. He would consider himself polluted
or denied by such a procedure. The Jew wanted living or moving water when he was
to be cleansed. In the second place,
to literally follow Jesus in baptism would mean that every candidate would have
to wait until he was thirty years of age before he was baptized. There was a
definite reason why Jesus was not baptized at an earlier age.
It was at this age the priest was publicly inducted into his office by
sprinkling. Jesus is our Great High Priest. He
was baptized by the son of a priest. By
right of birth John could have been a priest in the temple. This leads us to see
that in the third place, if we are to literally follow Jesus in baptism, we must
be baptized by a member of the priestly family.
To many people today this catchy phrase "following
Jesus in baptism" seems to mean a great deal. However, I want to say to you
that when you are baptized by a Protestant minister today in a pool of still
water and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, you are not really
following Jesus in baptism. You have not literally followed him at all. Many
people in the early days of the church, who had been baptized unto John's
baptism, were baptized again in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. No, my
friend, when you receive Christian baptism today, regardless as to the mode, you
are not literally following Jesus in baptism. This is just a catch phrase that
some people like to use to impress unthinking people. It may impress some
people, but it does not carry any weight with me. I am not trying to follow
Jesus in baptism. I am trying to follow him in my life and conduct, but there
are some things that he did in fulfillment of the Mosaic Law that I do not feel
called upon to do.
-------------------------------------------------
How Was Jesus Baptized?
Of course, we recognize the fact that the way Jesus was
baptized is of great importance. If we can determine conclusively how Jesus was
baptized, then we will have a great deal of light on this question as to the
proper mode of baptism. I feel sure that all of us would be satisfied to follow
the mode that was used in his baptism. If he was baptized by immersion then we
would want to be baptized the same way. If he was baptized by sprinkling or
pouring, then we would want to have it done in that way. This naturally brings
us to the question, "How was Jesus baptized?"
Of course, our good immersionist friends would answer, "By Immersion."
But what grounds do they have for this contention? It seems to me that their
contention for this rests upon two inferences. In the first place, they infer
that the word baptizo means immerse
and cannot mean anything else. Jesus was baptized. Therefore, he had to be
immersed for the word cannot mean anything else.
Now if they were right in their contention about the meaning of the word baptizo,
then of course they would be right in their deductions about the mode of Jesus'
baptism. However, I think we have already proved that they are wrong in their
contention about the meaning of the word as it is used in the New Testament.
We have proved by the New Testament and other evidence that the word does not
always mean immerse. We have proved that there are a number of instances where
it means pour, and in other instances it means sprinkle. Since this is true,
then we must turn to other sources for added evidence as to how Jesus was
baptized. When you start with a false premise in your argument, then you are
bound to arrive at a false conclusion. The more logical you are in your
reasoning the more certain you are to arrive at a false conclusion. The first
premise must be right if we are to arrive at a right conclusion. That is just
what our good immersionist friends have done. They have jumped to the conclusion
that just because the word baptizo
usually means immerse, in the classical Greek, it must also mean the same thing
in the New Testament. However, this is a false conclusion, as we have already
proved by an abundance of evidence from the New Testament, as well as other
sources. We will have to seek from some source other than classical Greek to
find the real meaning of this word. The only place where this proof can be found
is in the Bible. We must let the Word of God speak for itself. This must be our
final authority. It does speak with clarity and conviction on this, as well as
on all other subjects.
Our good immersionist friends, having already jumped to the
conclusion that the word baptizo
always means immerse, find it very easy to conclude that since Jesus went down
into the water, and came straightway up out of the water, therefore, he was
immersed in the waters of
Jordan
. But we see that the whole argument rests purely on conclusions and we have
clearly proved that one of them is a false conclusion. The other might also
prove to be false.
We have already suggested that the mere fact that Jesus went down into the
water, and came straightway up out of the water, does not necessitate his being
immersed in the water. He could easily have walked down into the water and stood
there for baptism and then come straightway up out of the water and never have
been immersed in the water. When Jesus crossed the brook Kedron on his way to
the garden, no doubt he went down into the water and came straightway up on the
other side, but none of us would contend that he was immersed in the brook
Kedron. And yet it would be just as reasonable to contend for that as it is to
contend that he had to be immersed in
Jordan
just because these two expressions are used. It is just another illustration of
the fact that one false conclusion may lead to another.
The whole argument for immersion rests upon inference. They
infer that baptizo means immerse.
Therefore, they infer that going down into means going under the water. This
then leads to the inference that when Paul speaks of being baptized into Jesus,
and being buried with him by baptism into his death, then this must mean
immersion. One argument rests upon another and when you pull out the foundation
the whole thing falls to the ground. We have proved that their first conclusion
is a false one. It just can't stand the test of a clear analysis in the light of
the New Testament. You may appeal to the classical scholars and Greek lexicons,
but when the New Testament speaks it says otherwise. It is the New Testament
that we are interested in.
If we were shut up to the New Testament use of the word baptizo
to determine the mode that was used in the baptism of Jesus, then we could never
be positive in our conclusions as to how Jesus was baptized. According to the
New Testament it might mean pour, sprinkle or immerse. I think we have proved
conclusively that it does not always mean immerse. We have proved that Jesus
could have been baptized either by sprinkling or pouring, and it would have
fulfilled the meaning of the word according to New Testament usage.
I rejoice that we are not shut up to inferences alone for light on the
question of how Jesus was baptized. There is another great field of Bible
evidence that sheds light on this question. To me this field of evidence offers
some strong proof on the other side of the question. I confess that I have often
wondered why it has not been used more in the consideration of this subject. It
seems to me that it is the only proper source to begin a study of the question
of how Jesus was baptized, and the evidence to my mind is very convincing and
conclusive. I ask you to give it your prayerful and careful consideration.
However, before launching into the discussion of this evidence, we would like to
digress for a few minutes to testify and also tell you how we happened to
stumble on this field of evidence. It is true that we just stumbled upon it. No
one ever pointed it out to us. So far as we are concerned it is entirely
original. We never had it suggested to us by any other person. In fact, when we
came to consider this question, we did not have any evidence on the affusion
side of the subject.
I was converted and grew up in a
Methodist
Church. My Mother was a very devout Christian and a zealous Methodist. However, she
did not have narrow views on this or any other subject. She never taught me
along this line. I was baptized by sprinkling, but my mother did not tell me why
it was done that way. Neither did our pastors preach on this subject and
instruct us along these lines. This question was never dealt with by our
pastors. They left us in the dark on the subject. The only argument I ever heard
on the subject during my childhood came from the immersionist point of view. My
parents were very broad and charitable in their views and taught us to believe
that there were good Christian people in all the different churches. I am glad I
had that kind of teaching in childhood. I have found that my parents were right
at this point. I have traveled extensively in my work as a minister, and have
found good Christian people in all branches of the Christian church, and I love
them and appreciate them. We may differ on some points, but we love the same
Lord and are going to the same Heaven. My wife came from a devout Baptist home
and all of her people belong to that branch of the church. I have never put
forth one single effort to try and change their views on the matter of baptism. The truth of the matter is we have never even discussed it. My wife came to the
Methodist
Church
with me and is a loyal helper in my work. We are in hearty accord on this
subject and we love and appreciate the other members of her family that hold
different views on this subject. I have one brother who is a member of the
Campbellite Christian Church. He is a zealous contender for baptism by
immersion, but I never mentioned the subject to him when he left our church and
went with his wife to the Christian Church. It is true he tackled me once on the
subject, but he soon gave me up as a hopeless case and has never brought the
subject up since.
In my boyhood I had one uncle who was an ardent Baptist and a zealous contender
for baptism by immersion. In fact he believed and argued that it was necessary
to be immersed in order to reach heaven. He delighted to argue the subject. He
would argue by the hour on this subject. When I was in my teens he would
harangue me by the hour on the subject of baptism. It was not an argument for I
had no argument to offer. He did all the talking and I think I received about
all the argument that is to be presented from that side. I did not tell him or
anyone else for that matter, but he did get me terribly upset on the subject. I
have always tried to be open and fair in my attitude on such questions and have
always tried to be open to new light on any Bible subject. I believe this is the
proper attitude for every Christian to have. I feel that we ought to be open to
truth and willing to accept new light if it comes from the Bible. This was my
attitude on this subject.
Finally I made up my mind that I would not accept what
someone else believed on the subject, but I decided to do some investigating for
myself. I decided that nothing but the Bible could settle this question for me.
I secured an Analytical Concordance and began a diligent study of the subject.
The first thing I did was to look for the word immerse. To my utter amazement I could not find it used anywhere in
the Bible. I then looked up the word sprinkle and found it used many, many
times. I looked up the word pour and found it used many times. Then I asked
myself the question, "How was Jesus baptized ?" At that time I did not
know anything about the Greek language and was not the least bit biased in my
conception of what the word meant in Greek. I was not familiar with the way the
classical writers used the word and so was entirely open to find out how it was
used in the New Testament. If I know my mind and heart, I was not the least
biased in my attitude at all. If I had any learning at all at that time, it was
toward the immersionist point of view. However, after a diligent study of the
Bible both Old and New Testament, I came to the conclusion that Jesus must have
been baptized by sprinkling. I will now tell you why I came to that conclusion.
I believe Jesus was baptized according to the Mosaic Law. I
believe he was baptized in fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. Let us remember that
Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest. When he was inducted
into the priest's office he had water sprinkled upon him. As a priest he was
called upon many times to sprinkle water upon people. He sprinkled water on the
leper that was cleansed. He sprinkled water on the person who was to be cleansed
from a dead body. He sprinkled water upon a woman when she was to be purified
after the birth of a child. No doubt Mary, the Mother of Jesus, had water
sprinkled on her when she stood in the temple with Jesus in her arms. A strict
Jew sprinkled his body and articles of furniture many times. As the writer of
Hebrews says, they had divers, or many baptisms. According to the writer of
Hebrews and also Mark and Luke, these washings by sprinkling were called baptism
in the days of Jesus. We have no record of where John was ever baptized, but I
venture to say that if he ever was baptized, it was done by sprinkling. In fact I cannot conceive of Zacharias
doing it in any other way. That was the way the law said it should be done and
naturally he would do it according to the law. If John had lived and so desired,
he, by right of birth, could have been a priest. If he had become a priest, then
it would have been his duty to sprinkle many people. There is absolutely no Old
Testament scripture for baptism by immersion. It was unheard of in Old Testament
times. The only case in the Old Testament that I know anything about, where it
says a person was cleansed by dipping, is that of Naaman the leper, and of
course, no one would contend that his was a baptism because he dipped himself
seven times before he was clean. I don't think the most rabid immersionist would
go quite that far. I have heard of some who contend for three times, but I have
never heard of any going in for seven times.
Here is what the law said about the induction of the priest
into his office. Numbers 8:6, 7 "Take the Levites from among the children
of
Israel
, and cleanse them. And thus shall you do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle
water of purifying upon them" etc.
Then, in Numbers 19 :18, 19, 20 we have the law for
cleansing the unclean, "And a clean person shall take hyssop and dip it
into the water and sprinkle it upon
the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and
upon him that touched a bone, or of one slain, or of one dead, or of a grave:
And the clean person shall sprinkle
upon the unclean on the third day" etc.
In the book of Leviticus 14th chapter we have the law as to
the cleansing of the leper. It would be of interest and no doubt great profit to
you if you would turn to this chapter and read and study it. We quote one
statement from this chapter. It is found in the seventh verse. Here it is,
"And he (the priest) shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from
leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean" etc.
In these three passages we have a glimpse at the process of
cleansing as the law prescribed it. For the induction of the priest it was by
sprinkling. For the cleansing of an unclean person it was to be done by sprinkling.
When a leper was to be cleansed it was to be done by sprinkling. Moses sprinkled
both the book and all the people with clean water. Here we have the law for
sprinkling and a precedent already set by the great Lawgiver himself. Now I must
confess to you that I can't conceive of John going against all of this and
starting an entirely new mode of
baptism. Immersion was not the custom in that day. If John baptized by immersion, then he started a new mode of baptism.
If he started a new mode then there is nothing in the Bible to indicate such a
thing.
When Jesus came to John to be baptized and John protested
that he was not worthy to perform the act, then Jesus said, "Suffer it to
be so that we fulfill all righteousness." In other words let us do it in
fulfillment of the law. In the eyes of the Jews that was the fulfillment of all
righteousness. When you had kept all of the law you had fulfilled all
righteousness. Jesus said, "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill
it." Now, if Jesus was baptized in fulfillment of the law, he certainly was
not immersed. There is absolutely nothing in the law about immersion, but the
law does command sprinkling. I believe that is the way John baptized Jesus. I
believe he took a bunch of hyssop and sprinkled water upon Jesus as he stood in
the river
Jordan
. It seems to me that it is perfectly logical to believe this. I can't conceive
of it being done any other way, in view of what the law commanded.
As has already been suggested, the scribes and Pharisees
were sticklers for things being done according to the letter of the law. There
is nothing in the law that would even suggest baptism by immersion. There is
plenty in the law that commands sprinkling. If John had baptized by any other
mode than the law provided, then the scribes and Pharisees would have raised a
howl to high heaven. However there is nothing in the record to even suggest
that they offered a single objection to the mode of John's baptism. They
accepted it and took it as a matter of course. The very fact that they were
silent on this point is proof to me that it was done according to the law. To
accept any other view would mean that we would have to believe that John
instituted an entirely new mode of baptism that had no precedent in the Old
Testament, and that was contrary to the customs that had prevailed among the
Jews for hundred of years before Christ. I just can't believe such a thing could
have happened and no notice being taken of it by the Jews of that day.
There are two subjects that are of considerable importance
in the Christian life. The subjects of which I speak are: that of the proper
amount of money to give and the proper mode of baptism. Strange to say Jesus had
very little to say about how much of our material substances we were to give to
God. He, of course, had a great deal to say about money and its proper use.
However, he did not set forth any definite rule as to how much his followers
were to give. I used to wonder about this. I
would ask myself the question, "Why did Jesus not settle this question once
and for all, so that there would be no ground for dispute or
misunderstanding?" However, I have come to the conclusion that he did
settle it. In the Old Testament God gave the law as to how much his people were
to give to him and his work. He had said, "Bring ye all the tithe into the
storehouse. The tithe is mine, and if
you fail to bring it in then ye are thieves and robbers." When Jesus came
he set his seal upon this law and said, 'This
ye ought to have done." Matthew 23:23. What more could he say than
this? What more need he say than this? God had spoken and Jesus set his seal
upon it. That ought to be enough for anyone. That law has never been revoked.
The same thing is true with reference to the proper mode of
baptism. I used to wonder why Jesus did not speak some positive word on this
subject, that has vexed the minds of so many good people, and settle it once and
forever as to the proper mode, so that there would be no ground for dispute at
this point. I am now convinced that Jesus
did settle the matter. In the Old Testament God gave the law. He told us how
it should be done. When Jesus came into the world he accepted God's mode of baptism, and set his seal upon it by
submitting to it. What more needs to be said on the subject? What more can be
said on the subject? Unless it be, "Go and do thou likewise."
The thing that has led to the confusion has not been due to
the fact that we did not have a clear cut example of how it should be done, but
it has been due to the fact that people have come to look at the pattern with
their vision distorted by preconceived ideas about the meaning of the word baptizo.
Many have gone to the classical
writers for their definition of this word instead of going to the Bible. They
have come to the Bible with preconceived ideas about what the word means, and
have tried to twist the Bible and make it fit their preconceived ideas. It just
won't work.
I firmly believe Jesus was baptized according to the way
God's law said it should be done. To my mind the burden of proof rests upon our
good immersionist friends to prove otherwise. To do this they will have to do
more than give the definition of the word baptizo
that is found in some Greek lexicon, or tell of how some classical writer used
it in the time of Socrates. I am not so much concerned about how they used it.
The thing I want to know is; How did John the Baptist, Jesus, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John and Paul use it? I am willing to let the Bible settle this question,
and I believe when we let it speak, it will speak clearly. It has already spoken
and Jesus has given his testimony by accepting baptism the way God said it
should be done. That is enough for me.
When John the Baptist appeared on the scene, and the people
began to flock to him for baptism, this naturally attracted the attention of the
scribes and Pharisees. They were the religious leaders and the custodians of the
law. They came out to him and began to question him. They asked of him saying,
"Art thou the Messiah?" He told them he was not. They asked him if he
was that prophet, and he told them that he was not. Then they asked him,
"If thou art not the Messiah or that prophet then why do you baptize?"
This was a perfectly reasonable question for them to ask, for there were two
outstanding Old Testament prophecies that told of a time that would come when
many people would be sprinkled. We have already quoted them earlier in this
discussion. One of them is that statement found in Isaiah 52:15, "So shall
he sprinkle many nations:" The
other is that passage found in Ezekiel 36:25, "Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean:" etc. The Jews fully
expected these prophecies to be fulfilled.
However, I want you to notice that it was to be done by
sprinkling. If it had been done in any other way, it would not have fit these
two prophecies, and the Jews would have objected. However, they did not object
to the mode that John was using. He must have been doing it as the prophets said
it would be done.
No doubt John the Baptist baptized great multitudes of
people. Matthew 3:15, "Then went out to him
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the regions round about
Jordan
, and were baptized of him in
Jordan, confessing their sins." Of course, we would not contend that every single
person in all of these sections mentioned went out to be baptized, but certainly
we have reason to believe that great crowds of them went. Now to baptize all of
these people by immersion would have been some task and would have consumed a
great deal of time. However, it would have been a very simple matter for John to
have stood in the edge of the river Jordan
with a bunch of hyssop in his hand and sprinkled the people as they walked down
into the water to him. He could have done that and hardly have missed a lick in
his preaching. He had a clear cut example for such a procedure in the c