01.01 - Lecture 1
BAPTISM, ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS.
LECTURE I. THE MODE OF BAPTISM INTRODUCTORY. THE subject of Baptism is one in regard to which there is some difference of opinion, and therefore it is a subject in regard to which we should have all the information that can be gathered from a careful study of the Word of God, so that our opinion may be not simply a matter of tradition but a matter of conviction. It is usual and convenient to divide the subject into two different compartments and to consider each separately. This course will save us from confusion and help us to find our way, by the unerring light of Scripture truth, to a right issue in each case. The two outstanding points in regard to which different opinions are entertained are (1) the Mode of Baptism, and (2) the Subjects of Baptism. We shall consider them in the order indicated.
POSITION DEFINED.
Before entering upon a detailed consideration of the question of Mode, it will be well to define the respective positions of the Baptists and ourselves in relation to this point. The Baptists hold that immersion, and nothing but immersion, is Baptism, and that immersion is so essential to the due administration of the ordinance that one who has not been immersed has not been baptized. On the other hand, we hold that the ordinance is rightly administered, so far as mode is concerned, by pouring or sprinkling or immersion. We do not say that immersion is not Baptism. All we say is that it is not necessary to Baptism. We say that pouring or sprinkling is sufficient. It will thus be seen that with our Baptist friends mode is a matter of supreme importance, and that with us it is a very subordinate consideration. According to the Baptist contention, it would seem that mode is of far more importance than significance, and that the dipping which is actualized is of far more importance than the cleansing that is symbolized. Our contention is that the significance of the ordinance is the supreme consideration, and that mode is a matter of minor importance. We hold that the water is symbolical, and that for the purpose of symbol a cupful is as good as a tankful, just as, in the case of the Lord’s Supper, a sip of wine and a bite of bread are as good for the purpose of symbol as if sufficient quantities of these elements were taken to constitute a full meal. We shall proceed to consider which of these positions is in harmony with the teaching of God’s Word.
BAPT1ZO CLASSICAL USAGE.
Dr. Carson has an easy way of settling this controversy. He tells us that the Greek verb baptizo always means “to dip, and nothing but dip.” He admits that all the lexicographers and all the commentators are against him, but that does not seem to cause him any concern. He is so self confident that he goes on his way with apparently as much assurance as if they were all with him. His great failing is infallibility, but, in this matter at least, that is characteristic of the denomination of which he is admittedly the champion controversialist. He gives a number of quotations from Greek authors in which the word occurs, and tries to translate them all in accordance with his own view, for I may observe that he was a scholar, having been educated for the ministry of the Presbyterian Church, and having been ordained to the pastorate of a Presbyterian congregation. 1 Dr. Carson contends for the unchangeableness of baptizo, which, according to him, continued for hundreds of years to have one meaning, and only one, which it retained all through without the slightest shade of variation, and which can be exactly expressed by an English verb. If that were so it would, I venture to submit, be a
1 Dr. Alexander Carson was ordained to the ministry in the Congregation of Tobermore, by the Presbytery of Tyrone, in connection with the Synod of Ulster,
It may be observed that an extreme position like that of Dr. Carson is one that is very difficult to maintain and very easy to overthrow that is, if it can be overthrown. When a man says that a word has always one meaning, and only one, he must bring forward every instance in which it is used in the literature to which it belongs in order to prove his statement, but an opponent has only to bring forward one instance in which it is used in a different sense in order to disprove the statement. So that Dr. Carson’s whole theory is at the mercy of a solitary hostile example. If there is one instance in Greek literature in which baptizo means some thing else than to dip, then his case falls to the ground. And not one instance only, but several instances have been cited from Greek authors in which the verb not only does not mean to dip, but from which the notion of dipping is essentially excluded. Many such instances are given by Dr. Wilson and Dr. Halley in their valuable works on Baptism, by Professor Stuart in an article in the Biblical depository for April 1833, and by Dr. J. W. Dale in his exhaustive volume on Classic Baptism. Ast, a famous German scholar, who expended the labour of a lifetime on his Lexicon Platonicum, and who was not in any way interested in the controversy regarding Baptism, renders the verb baptizo to over whelm, to oppress (obruo, opprimo), and nothing else. So that, according to this distinguished lexicographer, Plato knew nothing whatever of Baptism by immersion. And if you take any standard Greek lexicon you will find that the verb baptizo has several meanings. It means not only to immerse, but also to overflow, to wet, to drench, to pour upon, to wash, to cleanse, and to overwhelm. 1 So that if our Baptist friends wish to have a lexicon to their liking they must have it made to order, and when it has been manufactured they will not get any scholar to stand sponsor for it. According to Dr. Dale, and his view has generally commended itself to scholars, baptizo expresses a change of state or condition without defining the kind of action by which that change of state or condition has been effected. 2 1 Sec Note A at the end of the volume.
2 Any student who wishes to make himself acquainted with the full significance of baptizo must study carefully Dr. Dale’s four volumes Classic Baptism, Judaic Baptism, Johannic Baptism, and Christic and Patristic Baptism (Presbyterian Hoard of Publication, Philadelphia).
NEW TESTAMENT USAGE.
Now, if Baptists could show that baptizo in the Classics always means to dip, they might come to the New Testament with that fact to their credit whatever it might be worth. As we have seen, it is not a fact, but even if it were a fact, we cannot allow that the usage of the Classics determines the usage of the New Testament. The New Testament writers had, for the most part, to use the words they found to their hand, and by means of these words already in use, they had to express the new ideas which Christianity introduced. It was, there fore, in many cases necessary that the sense of an old word should be somewhat altered or modified that it might be suitable for its new use. The acceptance of new ideas always modifies to some extent the use of language. So that the meaning of baptizo in the New Testament cannot be deter mined from the usage of the Classics even if that usage were invariable. The New Testament usage must be determined from the New Testament itself, and to the New Testament we accordingly repair, bearing in mind that we have only to bring for ward one instance in which baptizo does not signify to dip in order to overthrow the Baptist position.
JEWISH BAPTISMS.
Turn to Hebrews 9:9-10 : “ According to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect, being only, with meats and drinks and divers washings (literally, baptisms), carnal ordinances imposed until a time of reformation” (K.V.). There is some difference of opinion as to the precise reference in the expression “divers washings” or “divers baptisms.” Does it refer to the Jewish ceremonial at large, or does it refer to the service connected with the Tabernacle or Temple? Taking the whole context into consideration, I believe the expression is to be understood in the restricted sense, and refers to the “washings” that took place in connection with the tabernacle or temple service. The chief object of the writer in this chapter is to contrast “the first tabernacle “ and its services with the “ greater and more perfect tabernacle.” Thus he naturally refers to the tabernacle “washings.”
However, if the more general reference be insisted on, and if the “different baptisms “ or “ washings “be made to include the washings that took place in private houses, we will not contest the point. All we contend for is that the tabernacle or temple baptisms shall not be excluded. These “divers baptisms “ included the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats upon the altar, and the sprinkling of the unclean with the “ water of separation.” In view of what follows in the 13th verse (where these sprinklings are actually specified with an unmistakable reference to the “divers washings “of the 10th verse), these sprinklings cannot be excluded by any method of interpretation that has not an outside purpose to serve. So that you have here baptisms which at least included sprinklings, and which in the opinion of many scholars included nothing else that is to say, you have the word “ baptisms “ used in a sense which is utterly inconsistent with the Baptist position, and which is perfectly consonant with our position.
Turn now to Mark 7:4: “And when they come from the market-place, except they wash (literally, baptize) themselves, they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, washings (literally, baptizings) of cups and pots and brazen vessels “(R.V.).
Here baptizo is translated “wash,” which does not of necessity imply immersion. Baptists maintain that when the Pharisee came home from the market he took a bath, and that thus the Greek word has the meaning for which they contend. But he might have a bath without being immersed, and, as a matter of fact, baths were generally taken by having water poured upon the person. The Jews were notoriously economical in the use of water. But the plain statement is that “they wash themselves.” Even the overtaxed in genuity of Baptist controversialists cannot torture the English verb wash so as to make it mean immerse, and nothing but immerse. In this connection take also Luke 11:37-38, “ Now as He spake, a Pharisee asketh Him to dine with him, and he went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it he marvelled that He had not first washed (literally, baptized) before dinner “ (R.V.). It cannot be contended that baptize here means to immerse, because the Pharisees did not always immerse themselves before dinner, even if it be allowed that they did it when they came home from the market-place, and the Pharisee would not express surprise because our Lord failed to do what it was not customary to do. And even if it had been customary for Pharisees to immerse themselves before dinner in their own houses, such a thing could hardly be expected in the house of a host who had frequently several guests for dinner at the same time. The plain meaning is that our Lord had neglected to wash His hands before taking food, as was the custom of the Jews. Even in that case the Baptists will have it that the hands were dipped in order to be washed. But if hands are dipped in order that they may be washed (baptized), then dipping and baptizing are different things. Besides, the hands were not always dipped in order that they might be washed. The usual custom was to have water poured on the hands for this purpose. In accordance with this custom, Elisha is spoken of (2 Kings 3:1-27) as having poured water on the hands of Elijah. So that we have here two additional instances in which baptizo does not mean to dip, and nothing but dip; and even if we had nothing further to say on the mode of Baptism, the Baptist contention is seen to be inadmissible. 1 1 For a farther discussion of these three passages see the last lecture in this volume.