01.02 - Lecture 2
WE continue our study of the subject of Baptism, still keeping to the question of Mode. It seems at first sight a somewhat curious circumstance that the mode in which the ordinance of Baptism should be administered in the Christian Church has not been specifically prescribed in the New Testament.
We have, no doubt, references to Baptism which shed sufficient light on the subject, and which indicate, with sufficient clearness, the mode that is most significant and that is most completely in line with Old Testament ritual and Old Testament prophecy, but we have not, as in the case of the Lord’s Supper, a detailed directory, giving full instructions as to the way in which the ordinance is to be administered. We have no less than four different accounts of the institution of the Supper in the New Testament, so that, whatever the practice of particular Churches may be in regard to the mode of observance of this great central ordinance of Christianity, the teaching of the Word of God in reference to this matter is clear and unmistakable. But in the cast; of Baptism we have not the same definiteness of description and exposition. Why is this? Obviously because the Lord’s Supper was a new institution. There was nothing exactly like it in the ritual of the Old Testament Church. It was necessary, therefore, that a word of explanation should be given in connection with its inauguration. But it was different with Baptism. That was a thing the Jewish people were familiar with. As we saw on last Sabbath evening, when referring to Hebrews 9:10, there were “different baptisms,” that is, different sprinklings or washings embraced in the ceremonial observances of the Jews. Water baptism was a common method of external purification. The prophet Ezekiel, when referring to the great work of cleansing and renewal that should characterize the rise and progress of the Redeemer’s Kingdom, gives expression to a Divine promise in these words: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you” (Ezekiel 36:25). And the prophet’s message was cast in this form because the sprinkling of clean water was a well-understood symbol of purification. There was no need to explain Baptism to a Jew in the time of our Lord.
He knew what it was and he knew what it meant.
It is held by some that the Jews baptized the proselytes that accepted their faith and cast in their lot with them, and it is certain that the Baptism of Jewish proselytes was practised in the early centuries of the Christian era, but it is not certain that it was practised before the time of Christ, and, therefore, we shall not refer to it in this connection, because we, at least, do not need to refer to any thing that is doubtful, and we, at least, do not need to build on anything that is not solid rock.
Apart altogether, however, from this doubtful question of pre-Christian proselyte Baptism, the Jews understood perfectly well from their own ritual what Baptism was and what Baptism signified. They were not in the least surprised when John the Baptist began to baptize the crowds that waited upon his ministry, and they never thought of asking him for an explanation of the rite. It is spoken of as a matter of course. Indeed, it is evident that they expected both the Messiah and the Elijah who was to precede Him to baptize the people generally, and to introduce them to a life of greater purity and uprightness. The deputation of Jewish officials who waited on John the Baptist to find out who he was asked him (John 1:25) “ Why, then, baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet? “ thus implying that Baptism on a large scale on a national scale was expected in connection with the inauguration of Messiah’s Kingdom.
Having referred to the “ baptisms “ of the Old Economy, and having seen that these “ baptisms “were in all cases “ washings,” in most cases “ sprinklings,” and perhaps in no case “ immersions,” and having thus set aside the Baptist contention that baptism is “ immersion, and nothing but immersion,” and having thus vindicated the Scripturality of our own position that “ sprinkling or pouring is sufficient,” we proceed to consider what further light the Word of God has to give us in reference to this matter. The ritual baptisms of the Mosaic Law having been dealt with, we come in the natural and historical order to consider the question of John’s Baptism.
JOHN’S BAPTISM.
It is hardly necessary to observe that John’s Baptism indicated a purification preparatory to the coming of the Messiah. It did not make men disciples of Christ, but it committed them to an attitude of immediate expectation in reference to His coming, and it called them to a life of rightness in keeping with that attitude. The mission of the Baptist was to call the people to order and to lead them into a condition of preparedness in anticipation of the advent of their King. He was a great man, but he was overshadowed by a Greater. He did a great work, but it was simply subordinate and preparatory to the greater work by which it was followed. His Baptism was of Divine appointment, and so our Lord set upon it the seal of His approval by submitting to it, just as He submitted to all the other requirements of the Dispensation in which He lived, and which came to a close when He offered Himself up upon the Cross. But as John was subordinate to Christ, and as his work was subordinate to Christ’s work, so his Baptism was subordinate to the Baptism that Christ instituted. The Baptism that we are specially interested in is not John’s Baptism but Christian Baptism. Of course we have some things to learn from John’s Baptism, and especially from the Baptism of our Lord, and our present object is to find out what light John’s Baptism sheds upon the mode in which the ordinance was administered. A superficial examination of the passages that refer to John’s Baptism might lead the ordinary uninstructed reader to imagine that John the Baptist was a Dipper, that he practised immersion wholesale, and that our Saviour Himself was immersed in the Jordan; but a closer and more careful study of these passages will show that this view cannot be sustained.
BAPTISM WITH WATER AND BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Let us turn now to the passages in connection with John’s Baptism that seem to favour Immersionist views. Matthew 3:11: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, Whose shoes 1 am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire “ (R.V.).
See also Mark 1:8, and John 1:26, John 1:31, John 1:33. In all these passages it is only fair to say that the word translated “ with “ is the Greek preposition en, and Baptists say it ought to be translated “ in.”
Thus the passage in Matthew would read: “I indeed baptize you in water.... He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire.” But it would hardly savour of reverence to speak of baptizing anyone “ in the Holy Ghost,” and it is not a very happy idea that is expressed by baptizing “ in fire.” However, that is not the main consideration. It is well known that in Greek (especially in New Testament Greek where the writers were influenced by Hebrew forms of expression, and where en corresponds with the Hebrew beth, with) the dative, with or without the preposition en, is often used to express the instrument or the means by which anything is done, in which case it is called “ the instrumental dative.” Now, Greek scholarship, without an object to serve, has decided in this case against the Baptist contention, with an object to serve, and has decided that the rendering shall be “ with “and not “ in.” Further, in each of the three passages Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:16 the preposition en does not occur before the word translated “ water,” but it does occur in the other part of the sentence before the words translated “ the Holy Ghost,” and the preposition “ with “ is given in the translation in both places.
That is to say, the dative without en is just the same, in these instances, as the dative with en, and in both cases the right translation is “with.” And Luke was a scholar and wrote good Greek. Even those who hold that en should be translated “in” are obliged to translate the dative without en by using “with.” So that they have “with” before “water” in the first part of the sentence and “ in “before” the Holy Ghost “in the last part of the sentence, thus: “ I indeed baptize you with water but He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire.” But such a translation is obviously ill balanced, inelegant and inaccurate. So much for the Greek; but everybody does not know Greek, and fortunately we can get at the right rendering in this case without knowing Greek. You know that the promise announced by John about the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was largely fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Baptism of the Spirit was given. And you know that on that occasion the disciples were baptized not “ in “ the Spirit, but “ with “ the Spirit. You know that the Spirit was then poured forth, as Peter explained, in accordance with a prediction of the prophet Joel. Further on in the course of his Pentecost address, Peter, speaking of the fulfilment of the promise of the Holy Ghost, says of Jesus that “ He hath poured forth this which ye now see and hear “ (Acts 2:33). The emblem of the Holy Spirit in the shape of “ cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost “ (Acts 2:3-4). There you have both the sign and the thing signified. There you have the Baptism “ with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” There is not a solitary trace of Immersionism in the second chapter of the Acts, and, therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that there is not a solitary trace of Immersionism in the passages to which we have referred in connection with John’s Baptism. For in these passages the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and the Baptism with water are joined together in such a way as to compel the conclusion that mode in the one case determines mode in the other case. And as there was a pouring forth on the day of Pentecost, so there must have been a pouring forth at the Jordan. Here the teaching of scholarship and the teaching of the Spirit are on one and the same side, and that is not the side of immersion.
BAPTISM IN THE JORDAN.
Another passage on which the Baptists take their stand with even greater confidence, if that were possible, is the passage in Mark which refers to the Baptism of our Lord (Mark 1:9): “ And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized of John in the Jordan “ (R.V.). This passage seems to favour the Baptist view. But here again Greek scholar ship rises up in opposition to Baptist presumption. The preposition translated “in” when it comes after a verb of motion, does not necessarily and does not usually mean “into.” It does not necessarily mean more than to or at. So that the force of the Greek word by itself, and apart from every other consideration, will not carry us farther than the edge of the river, and will not allow us to say more than that Jesus was baptized at the Jordan. But we are told that the Revisers have kept to the word “in,” and that what was good enough for them should be good enough for less scholarly students. Be it so. For my part I am perfectly satisfied with “in.” I suppose it did not occur to any Baptist that our Lord might be baptized “in the Jordan” without being in the Jordan.
Let us look at this passage in the light of another passage of similar construction. The passage that is most to the point is John 9:7, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.” Those who say that the correct rendering in Mark 1:1-45. is not “ in the Jordan “ but “ into the Jordan,” will please note that on the same principle the translation here should be “ Go, wash into the pool of Siloam.” The construction in both cases is precisely the same. It is necessary to say that the verb (nipto) which in John 9:7 is translated “wash” is applied to the washing of a part of the body. It is plain that the man was sent to wash his eyes. He was not required to undress and go into the pool and immerse himself in order to save the Baptist situation.
He washed at the pool, or, if you like, he washed in the pool, but he did not go into the pool. And so Jesus was baptized at the Jordan, or, if you like, in the Jordan, but it does not follow that He went into the Jordan. Surely it is possible for one to wash his face in a river without going into the river himself. I think it is not necessary to say anything more in order to show that the words of Holy Scripture do not, of necessity, imply that our Lord went into the Jordan; and if they do not imply that, they are of no service to our Baptist friends. But this is not all. We read in Mark 1:10, “ And straightway coming up out of the water.” That surely implies that he was in the water.
No, it does not imply anything of the kind. The force of the Greek does not, of necessity, imply more than that He came up “ from the water,” as you have it in Matthew 3:16 (E.V.). May I venture to say, for the benefit of any student who may be here, that there is a most scholarly and exhaustive and conclusive discussion of these pas sages and of the whole question of the Mode of Baptism in an article by Professor Moses Stuart in the Biblical Repository for April 1833? 1
We have seen that the words used in reference to John’s Baptism do not necessarily imply that our Lord or anyone else went into the river. But further, even if it could be proved, which it cannot, that our Lord went into the water, it does not follow 1 Sec also Dr. Dale’s Johannic Baptism. that He was immersed. Suppose for a moment, for the sake of argument, that He did go in. Then it may have been that He stood in water up to the ankles, and that while in this position water was poured on His head. In the opinion of many of the commentators that is the way in which He was baptized. We have some very old representations of the act of Baptism. The earliest of these is i\ representation in fresco in the cemetery of St. Calixtus at Home. This picture is believed by the highest authorities to belong to the second century.
It represents the baptized person standing up to the ankles in shallow water, while the baptizer pours water on his head. 1 Many of you have, no doubt, seen pictures of the Baptism of our Lord in stained-glass windows, in which the Saviour is represented as standing in water up to the ankles, while the Baptist pours water on His head from something like a shell. These pictures are reproduced from very early representations of our Lord’s Baptism. It may be interesting to know that similar representations are to be found carved on some of our old Irish stone crosses. The mode of Baptism thus represented is still practised in Syria by the Jacobites and Maronites, and they afh rm that it has always been the Syrian custom. 2 In the Peshito, or Syriac Version of the New 1 See Art. Baptism, in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities vol. 1, pp. 168, 170.
2 See Dr Bannerman’s handbook, Difficulties about Baptism p. 41.
Testament, which is one of the oldest translations extant, and which is admitted by those who are qualified to express an opinion on the subject, to be one of the most faithful and authentic of all the ancient versions, the Greek verb baptizo is translated by a verb which means to make to stand, although the Syriac has a verb which means to dip or immerse. The word which is used may refer to the attitude of the person baptized when the water was poured upon him; or more likely it conveys the idea of confirming or establishing, leaving the mode of Baptism altogether out of account.
Having said so much in reference to the meaning of the words used, and having shown (1) that the language does not, of necessity, imply that our Lord went into the water, and (2) that even if He did go into the river, it does not follow that He was immersed, we are now at liberty to take some note of the circumstances under which John’s Baptism was administered.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF JOHN’S BAPTISM.
First of all, there is a difficulty for the Baptists in the great number of people that John baptized, for he baptized them all himself. He was not simply John the Baptist, but John the Baptizer.
Suppose he baptized 300,000 people, and that is a very moderate estimate in view of the language that is used, for we are told that “ Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan went out to him and were baptized of him “(Matthew 3:5-6); and suppose he dipped them at the rate of one every minute, which is more than we should have any right to expect, and suppose he worked ten hours a day, it would have taken him more than a year and a half to baptize them all if he did nothing else. But it is generally agreed that his whole ministry did not last more than a year, and a great many are of opinion that it did not last more than six months. So you see there would have been a difficulty in getting the crowds all dipped in time. But leaving that difficulty aside, there are considerations of delicacy and decency which we can not allow the Baptists to ignore. Did these crowds of people who came to hear John preach, and who responded to his appeal, and who submitted to his Baptism did these crowds bring bathing dresses with them, or were such dresses provided by the Baptist who had difficulty enough in getting a dress for himself, or did they get dipped in their ordinary garments, or were they left to the only remaining alternative? I think it will be evident that there is a real difficulty here. Will the Baptists be good enough to tell us in what costume those mixed crowds of people were dipped by John in the Jordan? To suppose that they had bathing dresses is absurd. To suppose that they allowed themselves to be dipped in their ordinary dresses is still more absurd, for the Jew knew very well how to take care of his health. We leave this little problem with our Baptist friends, that they may find some solution that will be in some degree consistent with the most rudimentary ideas of propriety. But Baptists ask why the river was selected for the purpose of Baptism, and why John went to AEnon, where there was “ much water “ (literally “ many waters,” that is,” many springs or streams”), if his Baptism was only a matter of pouring or sprinkling. It is, of course, open to us to say that pouring, as well as immersion, could be practised at these places. But there are other considerations to be remembered. It is to be remembered that John the Baptist was not an ordinary man, and that he is not to be measured by ordinary standards. He lived away by himself in the solitudes, far from the abodes of men. He could not bring himself to put up with the petty peddling conventionalities of ordinary people, whose life could be hemmed in by four walls and a back yard. Away out on the Judaean hills he appreciated the freedom and the freshness and the largeness and the inspiration of Nature, where there was nothing to stunt his growth or hamper the development of his powers. Of course he had no property. He could not even boast of a well.
He was not the man to put himself under an obligallon to anyone. But the Jordan and the streams of AEnon were free and fresh and flowing, and we can see from the type of man he was that he would prefer to baptize the people at these places, and at such places as these, even if he needed no more water than was sufficient for the purpose of pouring or sprinkling. 1
It must also be remembered that the Jews had a preference for running water, or, as they called it, “ living water,” for the purpose of cleansing or purification. They had a very proper prejudice against standing or stagnant water. They believed that clean water was an appropriate symbol of purity. They had a different idea about water that was not clean. We can understand the idea that a Jew would have about a modern baptistery.
You might get him to go into it if the water were clean and fresh, and if he were allowed to have the first dip. After that he would very properly beg to be excused. The Jewish preference for running water is another circumstance that helps to explain why John went to Jordan and non for the purpose of baptizing those who accepted his teaching.
Besides, it is to be remembered that while John baptized at Jordan and JEnon, his are the only baptisms recorded that are mentioned as having
1 Baptists do not dwell oil the fact that John baptized “in the wilderness” (Mark 1:4 >, and “ in Bethany (or Hethabara) beyond Jordan “ (John 1:28, and John 10:40).
taken place at a river.1 And when we consider all the circumstances of the case, and think of the crowds he had to baptize, we can well understand why he preferred to take his stand at a place where there was an abundant supply of fresh water, even if he did not immerse, as we are convinced he did not immerse, one of the persons he baptized. On the whole, we are taught by a careful study of the passages referring to John’s Baptism that it cannot be proved by the language used that our Lord or anyone else ever set foot in Jordan for the purpose of Baptism. The mode of John’s Baptism has not been explicitly denned, but the weight of evidence is decidedly, and, to my mind, decisively against immersion.
1 Lydia and her household wore evidently baptized at the river side, although this is not specifically stated (Acts 16:13-15).