01.03 - Lecture 3
LECTURE III. THE MODE OF BAPTISM continued.
WE continue our study of the Word of God with the view of finding out what further light it sheds on the mode in which the ordinance of Baptism was administered. Up to this point we have followed what we may call the historical method of investigation that is to say, we have prosecuted our inquiry in the order of time and in the order of development, going away back into the past as far as the light of Scripture truth will carry us, and then coining down toward the present from that starting-place, still keeping in the light which does not lead astray. We have not seen our way to follow the example of the Baptists in this matter, by ignoring the Old Testament and shutting out the light which the Old Testament gives, because we still cling to the old Presbyterian prejudice that the Old Testament is a part of the Bible. We hold that the Old Testament leads up to the New Testament, and that the New Testament cannot be properly understood apart from the Old Testament. No one who has even the ordinary instincts of an ordinary student, not to speak of the enlightened instincts of an enlightened student of Holy Scripture, will be guilty of the barbarity of arbitrarily ruling the past out of court in a case in which the past is directly concerned, and of refusing the light which the past cannot be kept from giving. We, at least, have no interest in keeping back any part of the light. We are open to the light on every side. We have not a blind window in the back specially constructed to block all the light which the Old Testament sheds on the subject of Baptism. We hail the light from every quarter. We know our ground, and we are confident that the more light we have on this subject the more completely will our position be vindicated.
We have considered the ritual baptisms or purifications of the Mosaic law referred to in Hebrews 9:10, and we have seen that they were effected in most cases by sprinkling, and that it is not in evidence that any one of them was effected by immersion. We have studied the accounts and reviewed the circumstances of John’s Baptism, and we have proved that the doctrine of immersion and nothing but immersion has no footing there.
Still keeping to the historical method we come to the baptisms performed by the disciples of our Lord while He was with them in the flesh. Reference is made to these baptisms in John 3:22 :” After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judaea, and there He tarried with them and baptized.” Also in John 4:1-2 : “When, therefore, the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples) He left Judaea and departed into Galilee.” I may observe, in passing, that the apparent inconsistency between those two passages is easily explained. In the one place it is said simply that He “ baptized.” In the other place it is said that He “ was baptizing,” although He Himself “ baptized not, but His disciples.” The meaning obviously is that the disciples baptized with His sanction and by His authority. He accepted responsibility for what His agents did, because He had confidence in them. As Dr. Godet says “ The moral act alone belonged to Jesus; the material operation was done by His disciples.” *
There is nothing stated in reference to this Baptism by the disciples of Jesus that would throw any additional light on the question of Mode. It seems to have had pretty much the same significance as John’s Baptism, and to have been, like it, a preparatory purifying rite binding to repentance. For, it is to be remembered that, like John’s Baptism, it belonged to the Old Dispensation. It was not Christian Baptism, for Christian Baptism belongs to the New Dispensation the Dispensation that was ushered in by the Resurrection of our Lord. As you know, it was after the Resurrection that the 1 Commentary on John, vol. ii. p. 89. great Commission, which contains the “inarching orders “ of the Church, was issued. It is found in Matthew 28:19-20 : “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you, and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” That Commission constitutes Baptism an ordinance of the Christian Church. That is to say, our Lord laid hold of a rite that was already in use, a rite that had been in use for ages as part of the Jewish ceremonial, a rite with which His disciples and the people generally were perfectly familiar. He laid hold of that rite and appropriated it to a new use, and impressed upon it a new significance. The Commission does not define the mode of Baptism, for no such definition was needed by those to whom it was immediately given. Therefore, we cannot gather anything from it that is pertinent to our present purpose, which is to discover what may be learned from Scripture in regard to the question of Mode in Baptism. But while the Commission, in itself and by itself, does not give us much help in our present inquiry, we can -learn something from the way in which the Apostles proceeded to carry out the instructions which it conveyed. In obedience to the command of their risen Lord they went forth in His name, after they had been endued with power from on high, and began to make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them. The story of their labours, in so far as it has been preserved to us, is given in the book of the Acts. We shall now turn to the instances of Christian Baptism recorded by the writer of the Acts that throw any light directly or indirectly on the mode in which the ordinance was administered, and allow them to say all that is in them in reference to this particular point.
BAPTISM OF THE THREE THOUSAND. The first case that claims our attention is that of the converts who were baptized on the day of Pentecost. You know that the Spirit was given in great plenitude on that day, and that under the influence of the Spirit Peter delivered an address of overwhelming power to the assembled multitude, and vast numbers of people were moved to the very depths of their being by the eloquence and earnestness and intensity of the inspired orator, and put themselves in his hands and in the hands of the other Apostles, and were received into the fellowship of the disciples. We read in Acts 2:41, “They that received his word were baptized, and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.” Here were three thousand people baptized in a single day, or rather in part of a single day, for we do not know how long Peter’s address and his many other words of teaching and exhortation occupied. In all likelihood it was the afternoon before any Baptism took place. At any rate the day must have been considerably advanced.
If you divide the three thousand over the twelve Apostles, you get two hundred and fifty for each of them to baptize, and if the ordinance were administered by dipping, after the manner of modern Baptists, it will be seen that they had each a very heavy day’s work. But that is not the difficulty in this case that gives most trouble to the Baptists. The difficulty is to find a place or places about Jerusalem suitable for the immersion of so many people. For Jerusalem, although in some respects like our own city, was unlike Derry in this respect: that it was not built upon a river like the Foyle, arid had not a place so admirably adapted for dipping purposes as Rosses Bay. We have it on the highest authority that there was no public place at or near Jerusalem where even a much smaller number of people than three thousand could have been immersed. 1 There is no river and there is no lake. The brook Kidron that is mentioned in various places in the Bible is nothing more than the dry bed of a wintry torrent.
There is no stream in this channel unless during the heavy rains of winter, when the waters descend into it from the neighbouring hills. Even in winter there is no constant flow, and people have been known to live at Jerusalem for years with their 1 See Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Arts. Jerusalem and Kidran, The Brook. eyes open without ever seeing a stream in this little water-course. And Pentecost was not in winter. It occurred at the same time as our Whit Sunday seven weeks after Easter that is to say, towards the end of May or in the beginning of June. At that time there would not be a drop of water in the brook. The only spring that is known is called the “ Virgin’s Fountain.” It is connected with the Upper Pool of Siloam, into which it occasionally overflows. The only well of any account is at the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom Val leys, and is 125 feet deep. It may be supposed that no dipping was done there. But it may be asked, “ How was the city supplied with water? “ for it was fairly well supplied. There was sufficient water for ordinary use in private houses and for special use at the Temple, where frequent ceremonial ablutions took place. The chief supply of the inhabitants must have been rain water, collected and stored in cisterns, in winter. Then little reservoirs or pools were made for catching the surface drain age, but there were only a few of these. The water required in the Temple was, for the most part, conveyed from a distance by aqueducts and stored in subterranean reservoirs. In some cases also the water used in private houses was conveyed from a distance in the same way and preserved in tanks, so that the situation was something like this: Immersion could not have taken place outside the city and convenient to it unless the pools had been used for that purpose. In that case hundreds of people must have been dipped in the same pool, and the water must have been anything but tempting, and anything but a symbol of purity, before the last person was dipped. In fact it must have been in such a state that no Jew would allow himself to be immersed in it. Besides, the people of Jerusalem would not have tolerated the pollution of the pools, which were part of the city supply, any more than we would tolerate the pollution of the reservoirs from which our supply is drawn. It is perfectly certain that the three thousand were not dipped outside Jerusalem, and it is just as certain that they were not dipped inside Jerusalem. The Temple water was not available for immersion, not even for the immersion of the priests, still less was it available for the immersion of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Nor was the water in private houses available for this purpose. You may take it that most of the converts were strangers. The Jerusalem Jews, with their invincible pride and their impenetrable prejudice, were uncompromisingly hostile to the new teaching. Their brethren of the Dispersion were more likely to be influenced by Gospel truth.
It is not in the least likely that the people of Jerusalem placed their cisterns and tanks, which they valued so highly, at the disposal of these schismatics, as they must have regarded them, at any time, but especially at the beginning of summer, when they had the prospect of several months of drought. The idea of immersion in this case is perfectly preposterous, and cannot, in view of the facts, be entertained for a moment by anyone who is blessed with even a trace of sanity. And that was the time for immersion, if ever immersion was to be practised, and especially if it was to be considered essential to the right administration of the ordinance, for that was the first instance of Christian Baptism. The fact is, Immersionism breaks down at the very outset when well-informed Common-Sense looks it steadily in the face. A very intelligent member of my Bible-class suggested a miracle by way of saving the situation for the Baptists. It was, in the circumstances, appropriate to a degree, and showed that he had a perfect appreciation of the requirements of the case. The only difficulty in the way of that suggestion is that nothing of the kind seems to have occurred to the writer of the Acts. So that the difficulty of finding a dipping-place for the new converts remains unsolved arid untouched. “Where,” we ask, “ were these three thousand people dipped? “and Echo answers “ Where? “
BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH The next case we come to is that of the Ethiopian nobleman, whose Baptism is recorded in Acts 8:36-39 “And as they went on the way they came unto a certain water, and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.” This quotation, like the others, is from the Revised Version. The 37th verse of the Authorised Version is omitted as being no part of the sacred text. This at first sight looks like a case of immersion, and Dr. Carson finds so much encouragement in these words that he regards this one passage as sufficient to prove his case. It may be observed that this is the only instance of Christian Baptism from which the Baptists attempt to draw even the appearance of support for their theory of exclusive immersion. But all that we said last Sabbath evening about the Baptism of our Lord at the Jordan applies here that is to say, it does not necessarily follow from the force of the words used that either Philip or the eunuch went into a body of water and came up out of that body of water after being in it. I need not go over the ground traversed last Sabbath evening. It will be enough to say that the language does not necessarily imply more than that they went down to the water and came up from the water. If, for the sake of argument, it be conceded that they did actually go into the water, it does not necessarily follow that the eunuch was immersed? It would be quite sufficient if he stood in water up to the ankles and had the element poured on his head after the manner in which, according to many of the commentators, our Lord Himself was baptized. But the evidence against immersion in this case is even stronger than in the case of our Lord. For immersion would have been possible in the Jordan, but there was no place near the way through the desert that is here described where immersion could have been performed. Dr. Stokes, who favours immersion as the normal idea in a warm Eastern climate, says in his exposition of the Acts “The Ethiopian eunuch, baptized by St. Philip in the wilderness, could not have been immersed.” l That is the opinion of all who know anything about the geography of the place. The language that is used in reference to this case does not imply immersion, and the circumstances of the case positively exclude immersion. We are perfectly convinced that the eunuch was not immersed.
BAPTISM OF PAUL. The next case of Baptism we come to is that of Paul, recorded in Acts 9:18 “And he arose and was baptized,” and referred to in Acts 22:16 “ Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.”
It is evident that Paul was baptized in his lodgings 1 On the Acts of the Apostles in The Expositor’s Bible, vol. 1, p. 143. in Damascus, and that the dominant idea in his mind and in the mind of Ananias at the time was not the idea of immersion but that of washing.
BAPTISM OF CORNELIUS AND OTHERS. The Baptism of Cornelius and those who were in his house is referred to in Acts 10:47,
Some visible emblem of the Holy Spirit came down upon Cornelius and the others who were present, just as the dove descended on Jesus at the Jordan, and just as the emblem of tongues like as of fire “ sat upon “ each of the disciples on the day of Pentecost. There was, to begin with, in this case a Baptism of the Spirit accompanied by some outward and visible manifestation, in which some thing emblematical of the Spirit was “ poured out “upon those who heard the Word through Peter.
Now, if there was a pouring out of an emblem of the Spirit in the one Baptism, why should there not be a pouring out of the water, which is an emblem of the Spirit, in the other Baptism? The evidence in this case also is decidedly against immersion.
BAPTISM OF LYDIA AND HER HOUSEHOLD.
We come now to the Baptism of Lydia recorded in Acts 16:15, “ And when she was baptized and her household she besought us saying: If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.” We learn from the context that there was a prayer-meeting by the river side, near to Philippi, that Paul addressed the women who were present at the meeting, that Lydia received the message that he brought, and that she and her household were straightway baptized. It is evident that they were baptized at the river side (although this is not distinctly stated) after Paul’s address and before Lydia returned to her house. Will the Baptists have the hardihood to tell us that this respectable Eastern lady of good position was immersed, without previous preparation, at a public place, by a man she had never seen be fore? Such a thing would be a flagrant violation of the customs and usages of the East, where women have always been retiring in their habits. And Paul, who “ became all things to all men,” where no principle was involved, “ that he might by all means save some,” was not the man to do unnecessary violence to these feelings of delicacy, that were carefully guarded and cherished, in order to make converts. Besides, Paul himself had very strict ideas about the modesty of carriage and demeanour that was proper to women. We learn from 1 Corinthians 11:13, that he would not allow a woman to pray to God “ unveiled,” as it is in the Revised Version. Is it likely that Paul, with his rigid ideas of propriety, would be so far inconsistent with what he has elsewhere shown himself to be, as to immerse this lady in a public place and in the presence of a public meeting? Most certainly not, for whatever Paul was he was consistent.
Even his enemies could not charge him with in consistency. Beyond all shadow of doubt Lydia was not immersed. Even if we had not another case but this one it would in itself be sufficient to dispose of the Baptist contention that Baptism is “ immersion and nothing but immersion.”
BAPTISM OF PHILIPPIAN JAILER AND HIS HOUSEHOLD.
There is only one other case that we have to refer to, and that is the case of the jailer at Philippi and his household, which is recorded in Acts 16:33-34 : “ And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, and set meat before them, and rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God.” It is quite plain that the jailer and his household were baptized some where within the precincts of the prison, for they were baptized immediately after the way of salvation had been fully explained, and before Paul and Silas had been brought up into the jailer’s house. It can hardly be contended that there was any facility for immersion in this Roman prison. There was not even a bath. The cleanliness that is characteristic of the modern prison was altogether unknown in ancient times. The consideration that is now extended to prisoners is an outcome of the Christianity for which Paul and Silas suffered at Philippi. The jailer and his household could not have been immersed, because there was no provision that could have been made at midnight for such a performance. So that we are driven to the conclusion in this case, as in the others, that the evidence against immersion is decisive.
What is the net result of our study of these passages? It is just this, that it cannot be proved that in a solitary instance the Apostles and their co-workers understood Baptism to mean immersion. The Baptist, in order to vindicate his position, has to prove beyond doubt that Baptism in every case was by immersion. If we can show that in any one case Baptism was not by immersion, the Baptist contention is overthrown. Now I think we have shown that, not in one case only, but in every case, the evidence is decidedly against immersion. For my part, I am satisfied that not one of these cases of Christian Baptism that we have examined gives any countenance to the doctrine of Baptism by “ immersion and nothing but immersion.”