01.005. Jewish Baptism

Jewish Baptism.

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants."

"We note that only children born before their fathers’ conversion received this Jewish Baptism. This difference from Christian Baptism, and the uncertainty about the date of its origin, make the Baptism of Proselytes an uncertain basis for argument."--Prof. J. A. Beet, Methodist.

Pedobaptist apologists generally attempt to support their argument by reference to the proselyte baptism of the Jews. They cannot get cases of infant baptism in the Bible--Old Testament or New,--so they are extremely anxious to obtain them in Biblical times if not in Biblical writings. To those who have been brought up to regard the Scriptures as their sole rule of faith and practice, this may prove an uninteresting study. All who are content to believe that God meant us to learn his will from his Word will not bother much about proselyte baptism. Mr. Madsen says: "Baptist advocates strongly deny the prevalence of baptism among the Jews in our Lord’s time." Some of them doubtless do this, because we have no recorded instances there. But the chief objection which is taken to the Pedobaptists position here is this, that whether or not Jews baptized proselytes and infants does not begin to touch the question as to those whom the Lord Jesus would have baptized. He who wants to know whom the Jews of later days baptized, naturally goes to Jewish uninspired writings. He who wishes to know those whom the Lord desired to be baptized, will equally naturally go to the inspired Scriptures which are given to make us complete (2 Timothy 3:17). It is ludicrous to suggest that God meant us to learn his will as to the subjects of baptism from extra-biblical sources, or from the very people who so sadly rejected the gospel of Christ.

It is important that believers in God’s Word should be warned against accepting specious arguments which might undermine its authority. In the common Pedobaptists treatment of proselyte baptism there is such a danger. It will often be found that controversialists seek for the origin of Christian baptism, or of John’s baptism, in the supposed Jewish practice. Mr. Madsen quotes from A. Plummer, who in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary writes thus: "Assume that baptism for proselytes was a well-established custom when John began to preach, and we have an obvious reason why John adopted the rite. Not that this was his only reason; but that, so far as the custom was of any influence, it was a recommendation and not an objection. And the same argument applies to Christian baptism, which becomes more, and not less, intelligible when we consider that it was preceded by baptism for proselytes and the baptism of John." That reference to "an obvious reason why John adopted the rite" is mischievous. What Plummer put guardedly is often expressed more rashly. The Colac Reformer, of 10th September, reports a sermon by a Presbyterian minister, in which report appears the following: "When John came on the scene there was baptism among the proselytes. Firstly, there was circumcision, secondly there was baptism, and thirdly they had to make an offering or sacrifice in the temple. That was absolutely necessary for the Jewish proselytes. John made a selection from the three rites, and he chose baptism--spiritual cleansing."

"John made a selection"! I prefer my New Testament way of speaking: "There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John" (John 1:6). "That he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water" (John 1:31). "He that sent me to baptize in water" (John 1:33). We would not like by unscriptural modes of speaking to seem to give reason for being ranked with those who would have liked to say John’s baptism was from men, and not from heaven (Matthew 22:24-27).

Even if we assume (and it is wonderful the number of assumptions which have to be made with the Jewish proselyte baptism argument) that John knew of Jewish baptism, how far does that assumption carry us? John knew of proselyte baby baptism and so preached "the baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4)! Therefore, also, we read that the people "were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matthew 3:6)! Anyone can see the weakness of the argument, the halting of the logic. If baby baptism were in existence before, and if John "selected" the rite, he must have altered one important part of it, for, save in the case of our Lord who knew no sin, there is not a hint that anybody who did not repent and confess his sins was baptized by John. The argument from proselyte baptism consists of an inference added to another inference. (1) It is not proved that proselyte baptism was practiced in the days of Jesus or of John. Most modern writers seem to believe in its existence. They do not so believe on the ground of express mention or stated example. Read the following: "What is wanted is direct evidence that before John the Baptist made so remarkable a use of the rite, it was the custom to make all proselytes submit to baptism; and such evidence is not forthcoming."--A. Plummer, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary. "It is uncertain whether the later rite with which Jewish proselyte baptism was performed. .. was in existence at the foundation of the Christian Church."--P. Drews in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

"The details of the act of reception [of proselytes] seem not to have been settled definitely before the second Christian century."--THE Jewish Encyclopedia."

Some one may ask, How then can Plummer say, as he does, that the fact of proselyte baptism in the days of John "is not really doubtful"? The answer is that there is very great difficulty in believing that the Jews who so opposed Christ would have later borrowed a Christian rite; Plummer calls this a monstrous supposition. Most, I think, in this agree with Plummer, though some yet vigorously deny the validity of the inference, holding that the lack of any mention in the Bible and Apocrypha, in Josephus and Philo, and in the older Targumists is inexplicable if the rite existed.

(2) It is, then, an inference only, and that not an absolutely necessary one, that such baptism existed in early days. It is also an inference--and that so wild that to state it is almost sufficient to refute it--that the subjects of John’s baptism or of Christ’s must have been settled by the subjects of Jewish baptism.

Pedobaptist controversialists are by no means agreed amongst themselves as to the weight to be attached to this argument, even while they agree on the early existence of proselyte baptism. Particularly, has there been difference of view as to infant baptism.

Edersheim, speaking of the Jewish views, says:

"In regard to the little children of proselytes, opinions differed." The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. II, p. 746.

We call attention to J. Agar Beet’s view as stated at the beginning of this article. He also states:

"It is therefore more probable than not that this undoubted Jewish practice was as early as the days of Christ. Usually, though apparently not always, the young children of such converts were also baptized, as undoubtedly their boys were circumcised. This proselyte baptism, if then practiced, would naturally suggest the Baptism of the young children of converts to Christianity."

E. Von Dobschutz, Professor of N.T. Exegesis in the University of Breslau, after speaking of the threefold ceremony of circumcision, immersion, and sacrifice, says: "The relation of this rite to the Christian sacrament of baptism has given rise to much discussion, but the present tendency to derive Christian baptism from the immersion of proselytes is incorrect, especially as the existence of sacramental ideas is not certainly proved in connection either with immersion or circumcision."--In The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.

Here is another striking statement:

"Sometimes the attempt is made to strengthen this argument from circumcision to baptism by a reference to the baptism of the proselyte. When a proselyte was baptized, it is said, his whole household, down to its youngest member, was baptized with him; and it may be supposed that the Christian practice would conform to this custom . .. Opinions differed, however, on the subject of the baptism of the children of proselytes. .. And in any case, the analogy from proselyte baptism is not one that it is safe to apply to Christian baptism; for whatever may he thought about the younger children of the household, it is exceedingly unlikely that the older, children would be baptized by the apostles on the mere ground of their father’s faith, as the analogy from proselyte baptism would suggest."--J. C. Lambert, in The Sacraments in the New Testament.

Surely these quotations will show that the argument from proselyte baptism to infant baptism as a Christian rite is far from being proved when it is rendered reasonably probable that proselyte baptism existed in the days of the Lord Jesus. If Beet confesses that it is "an uncertain basis for argument," we need not blush with shame merely because Beet’s brother Methodist, Mr. Madsen, tells us we "are fighting a hopeless issue." To anyone who is interested in the amount of weight to be attached to the argument from Jewish proselyte baptism, assuming such a thing existed in the days of Jesus, we commend a consideration of the following facts. These are conclusive against the argument as generally presented.

1. The proselytes spoken of were introduced not into the church of Jesus Christ, but into the Jewish nation. "If, then, the little children of proselytes were, with their parents, grafted into the Jewish nation, it follows not that the children of Christians should, in like manner, be received into the church--which is not national but spiritual--which the Lord requires shall be composed of those only who are twice born, not of those born of the flesh nor of the will of man; but solely of those who are born again; born of God." 2. Mr. Madsen and his brethren persistently argue that baptism came in the place of circumcision. They never give proof of this, of course. Now see how their own argument that the baptism of John or Jesus was adopted from the earlier Jewish rite destroys the cogency of their former reasoning. If both baptism and circumcision were needed to initiate proselytes, surely in their case the baptism did not come in the room of circumcision. If the New Testament ordinance were framed on the analogy of the Jewish proselyte practice, then how could New Testament baptism come in the room of circumcision? If our friends are right now, they were wrong before; if they were right before, they are wrong now. They could not twice be right; but they could be, and are, twice wrong.

2. How little weight Mr. Madsen himself really attaches to the analogy of Jewish proselyte baptism may be shown. The "Jewish baptism" was immersion. See the quotation from Von Dobschutz above. Plummer tells how the proselyte "plunged beneath the water, taking care to be entirely submerged." So also Lightfoot says. Dr. Brandt, in Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, writes: "The convert made a complete immersion." J. V. Bartlett in the same Encyclopedia remarks: "Immersion seems to have been the practice of the Apostolic age, in continuity with Jewish proselyte baptism." The Jewish Encyclopedia speaks of the tebilah or "bath of purification." Now, Mr. Madsen is not very keen on immersion; he is only keen on the analogy of Jewish baptism so far as it seems to serve his purpose.

Lightfoot, whose "Hors Hebraics" is a storehouse of Pedobaptists argument, and is quoted by Mr. Madsen, says:

"The sons of proselytes, in following generations, were circumcised indeed, but not baptized."

J. Agar Beet writes:

"We note that only children born before their fathers’ conversion received this Jewish Baptism."

Proselyte baptism was not repeated on the posterity of those baptized, not given to any born after their parents became proselytes. If this pattern, then, were to guide us, then "only the children of Christians horn before the conversion and baptism of their parents would be entitled to baptism, while all horn afterwards would remain unbaptized." Compare this with Pedobaptists practice. Our friends really ought to allow that we are in good company when we decline to be bound as to the subjects of Christian baptism by any Jewish procedure. They themselves decline, to be thus bound. Their consistency must improve, and their reasoning also; else tracts, sermons and books alike will fail to stop the numbers from turning to the precept and practice of the Word of God and hearing, believing, being baptized.