02.22. BAPTISM - 01 - The Action of Baptism

BAPTISM - 01 – The Action of Baptism Reading. Romans 6:1-18.

AMONGST the very last directions of the risen Savior was the injunction to his disciples to make disciples of an the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20). This ordinance, intended by Jesus to be the universal accompaniment of discipleship, is in itself wondrously beautiful, fun of significance, honored by the Masters own example, and introductory to the blessings he was graciously pleased to promise to the qualified recipient of it. While it is lamentably true that that which should have been a bond of union and a sign of common Christianity has often been made an occasion of strife we shall on examination of the Scriptures find that the Lord has so plainly revealed his will that we need not be troubled by the divergent beliefs of men. He who is interested enough in the subject of baptism to read what the New Testament has to say about it, with the determination in his heart to do whatever Christ would have him do, is not likely to go far astray. The Action of Baptism.

We have first to find out what act was performed. Some tell us that a man may be baptized either by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. Does it appear so from the New Testaments? We may notice that were we to come across--as indeed we often do--the Greek word transliterated "baptize" in, the classical writings of Greece, we should never translate it by "sprinkle" or "pour." The word means "dip" or "submerge," or "immerse." That immersion is baptism has never been denied by any one; no debate ever was held in which this was denied. Ministers of churches which practice sprinkling will on occasion immerse. The Anglican Church has more than sanctioned immersion, for its Prayer Book explicitly states that the priest shall take the child (if it may well endure It) and "dip it in the water, discreetly and warily." But it is held by many that sprinkling or pouring will, equally with immersion, fulfill the requirements of the New Testament. We shall see.

(a) We have the record of the baptism of Jesus our great Exemplar. We are told that John, who was honored as the baptizer of our Lord, baptized the people "in the river Jordan" (Mark 1:5). Jesus, we are also told, "was baptized of John in the Jordan" (Mark 1:9). The preposition in Mark 1:9 is not the same as in Mark 1:5. Mark 1:9 says really that the baptism was "into the Jordan" (see margin, R. V.). It would make nonsense to use this preposition in the circumstances if sprinkling or pouring was the act, as may be seen by substituting either of these words for "baptize" or re-immerse" in this verse. We are also informed that Jesus came "up out of the water" (Mark 1:10); so he had been down into it.

(b) This agrees with the baptism of the eunuch, as recorded in Acts 8:38-39, where there was a going "down into the water" and a coming "up out of the water." Some have in this latter case especially asserted that "into" may only denote close proximity to, but Luke said before they came "unto" the water, and now says that as a subsequent act they went "down into" it. When some try to break the force of this by saying that even if they were in the water, still sprinkling could be the act performed, we reply, first, that the very reason which now generally keeps those who practice sprinkling or pouring from going down into the water (since in their case there is no need to take such a cumbrous method) would have kept John and Philip from doing so had they practiced pouring or sprinkling; while the very reason which makes a candidate for immersion go "down into" the water would sufficiently explain the statements in Mark 1:10 and Acts 8:38.

(c) John baptized in Aenon, near to Salim, "because there was much water there" (John 3:23). That "because" does not suit sprinkling.

(d) When we seek to settle what was performed "in the river Jordan" by John the Baptist, or by Philip when he and the eunuch "went down into the water," there are illuminative passages in Romans 6:3-4, and Colossians 2:12. There we are told that Christians were "buried" with Christ in or through baptism. On sprinkling or pouring there is no enveloping, no covering up, no hiding from view, such as is implied in the word "buried"; in immersion there is. We would be quite content that any honest seeker for the will of God should learn that in baptism he should go down into the water, be there "buried in baptism" then rise or come "up out of the water" and should then do what in his heart he believes the Savior and the early disciples did. That we are not peculiar in thus using Romans 6:3; Romans 4:1-25, we may show. John Wesley in his "Notes on the New Testament," says: "We are buried with him--alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion." Coneybeare and Howson in, "The Life and Epistles of St. Paul say emphatically, "This passage cannot be understood unless it be born in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion." Hastings’ Bible Dictionary says "Immersion is implied in Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12."

      In addition to New Testament examples of baptism, we have two metaphorical uses of the word "baptize" which are important in this connection.

(a) We read of Christ’s baptism of suffering (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50). Now, everybody agrees that Jesus’ suffering was great, intense, that he was overwhelmed by it, and that therefore it is called a baptism. To liken that suffering to a sprinkling would be abhorrent to every believer. So the Oxford "Helps to the Study of the Bible" says: "The original mode of baptism was immersion. Hence the metaphorical use of the word of an overwhelming sorrow."

(b) The baptism in the Holy Spirit is only explicable on the view that the Spirit so took possession of those who were recipients of it that they might fitly be said to be enveloped in or overwhelmed by it.

We need not discuss in detail why a change was ever made from Immersion to sprinkling or pouring. Various reasons are given, none of which can weigh with the man who has the supreme desire of finding out what the Lord appointed and of doing exactly what he said. Slice to say that effusion was practiced in cases of dangerous illness. There was a fear as to the fate of the unbaptized person, coupled with an overrating of baptism per se. It is significant that the Greek Church has never practiced sprinkling. Dean Stanley says "For the first thirteen centuries the almost universal practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and that which is the very meaning of the word ’baptize’--that those who were baptized were plunged, submerged immersed into the water." We may, ere passing on, mention that we have not ventured to discuss the mode of baptism. Immersion is not a mode of baptism; it is baptism. We do not know how the Immersion was carried out in New Testament days, but we know that immersion was practiced, nor do we speak of baptism by immersion (though one or two of our quotations from others contain that objectionable idea). "Baptism by immersion" means baptism by baptism or immersion by immersion.