Baptism*
In the modern world there are three attitudes towards immersion in the
Scriptures. One is that immersion alone is meant by the word "baptize."
The second is that the word means either immersion, pouring, or
sprinkling. The third denies that immersion is Scriptural. It is not
often that genuine scholars now go to the extreme of saying that
immersion is not baptism. Dr. Shedd, in his Commentary on Romans,
endeavors to show that Paul, in Romans 6:4, did not connect baptism and
burial.
But this species of exegetical gymnastics is so rare as not to be taken
seriously by the student of Scripture. There is a much larger number of
writers who freely admit that immersion is the proper meaning of
baptize, but who insist that another meaning is permissible also in
special cases. Hence, it is argued, one cannot properly insist on
immersion alone as baptism. Dr. A. Plummer is a fine example of this
type of scholars who wish to find some Scriptural justification for
modern practices in Christian worship. Writing in the new Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible, he says:
"The mode of using it was commonly
immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this. It was an act
of purification; and hence the need of water. A death to sin was
expressed by a plunge beneath the water, and a rising again to a life
of righteousness by the return of light and air; and hence the
appropriateness of immersion".
That would seem conclusive, if he had not added: "But immersion was a
desirable symbol, rather than an essential," mentioning the stock
objections about household baptism. The Baptists are by no means alone
in claiming that nothing but immersion is taught in Scriptures. In
fact, the overwhelming bulk of modern scholarship is with the Baptist
contention on this point. The trouble is not so much here, as in the
conclusion from this fact. The Romanist will say: "Yes, but the church
had the right to change the mode of the ordinance." He falls behind the
doctrine of an infallible church. The appeal to Scripture does not
reach him. The Lutherans, and do many other Paedobaptists, admit it
freely, but affirm that the form is a matter of indifference, and claim
that pouring and sprinkling are more convenient, and more suitable to
model conditions and customs. It is denied by them that the form is
essential to obedience to this command. This is the position of the
majority of Paedobaptists. The wise line of argument with those who
hold this view is to show that the form is essential to the symbol,
that the very idea of baptism is destroyed when the form is broken,
that an ordinance is meant in the nature of the case to be
unchangeable; in accord to make it clear, that one loves the Bible must
follow the Bible teaching. It is just at this point that most of the
irritation arises in the discussion of this subject. In our view we
assume that no is baptized at all who is not immersed on a profession
of faith. This is considered arrogance by many who differ from us, and
it is frequently said that we make immersion essential to salvation. If
we expect to reach those who disagree with us, we must take pains to be
understood, and to make it clear that our stress on immersion is not
because we consider it essential to salvation, but essential to the
ordinance. Baptism is not essential to salvation, but we insist that,
when one is baptized, he should be really baptized. Baptists also feel
very strongly the beauty of the symbolism of baptism as a death and
resurrection. We are unwilling to see the pictured truth of the
ordinance destroyed by the substitution of some other act. Besides, we
contend that the command of Jesus cannot be obeyed unless the thing
commanded by Him is done.
The Substitution of Sprinkling for Immersion
It is a commonplace among scholars that the counsel of Ravenna in 1311
was the first counsel to put sprinkling on a par with immersion. This
permission to use sprinkling, says the Schaff-Herzog Cyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, "was favored by the growing rarity of adult
baptism." Up to this time, sprinkling was only allowed in the case of
the sick, and gradually for infants. It was the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration that led both to infant baptism and sprinkling. The belief
that only the baptized were saved caused something to be done that
would answer for baptism to insure salvation. Luther took the side of
immersion and tried to stem the tide toward sprinkling, but he failed.
Calvin considered it a matter of indifference. Roman Catholics stand by
the council of Ravenna. The Continental Anabaptists were divided as to
immersion. Modern advocates of sprinkling stand for a rite that gained
its triumph at the close of Middle Ages
The Greek Church
The Greek Christians did not accept the decision of Ravenna, and did
not cease the practice of immersion. This is a very striking testimony
to the meaning of baptize, since the Greeks are credited with knowing
the meaning of words in their own language. It is true, they practice
trine immersion, but this fact has no bearing on the question of
immersion or sprinkling.
The Early Fathers
There is such a wealth of testimony here that one hesitates what to
use. I have before me, as I write, the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and
Byzantine Period from 140 BC to AD 1100, by Prof. E.A. Sophocles,
himself a native Greek. This book is the standard authority for this
period of the Greek language, and is invaluable in the study of
ecclesiastical terms. He, in accordance with all Greek lexicons, gives
"dip, immerse, plunge" as the meaning of the word. He refers to
Barnabas, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Origen, Cyril, Gregory,
Epiphanius, etc… to prove the mode. Moreover, Barnabas and the
Shepherd
of Hermas both speak of "going down into the water" and "coming up out
of the water." Tertullian uses the Latin word "mergito," "to plunge."
When the teaching of the Twelve came to light, there was much ado made
because this document of the second century permitted pouring when
immersion could not be done. This is true. Already, the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration had arisen, and so much stress was laid upon
baptism that when there was not enough water for immersion, pouring was
allowed. But this is not the Scripture teaching. No such emphasis is
laid upon baptism by the New Testament. Moreover, in the Teaching of
the Twelve, when pouring is allowed a different word is used from
"baptizo." The word used is "ekcheo," a word never used in the New
Testament in connection with baptism. Now the fact that "ekcheo" is
used for pouring, as distinguished from "baptizo," proves that
"baptizo" does not mean pour.
Ancient Greek
"Baptizo" is not used as often as "bapto" from which it is derived. But
each means to dip, to plunge. Both words are used in figurative
expressions also, as all words are. Once can be plunged in grief,
immersed in cares, etc. Liddell and Scott's Standard Greek Lexicon
(seventh edition) gives not a single example that permits pouring or
sprinkling. What the precise difference is between "bapto" and
"baptizo" has not been determined. In practical usage no real
distinction can be observed, saved "baptizo" is more common in later
Greek; "bapto" is the earlier idiom. We have the same situation
concerning "raino" and "rantizo," to sprinkle. The ancient Greeks uses
"raino," and later Greek uses its derivative, "rantizo," but with no
real difference in sense.
Contemporary Greek
The Biblical Greek is based on the Universal Dialect, which was
occasioned by the spread of the Macedonized Attic by the by the
conquests of Alexander the Great, Plutarch, Dio, Cassius, Lucian,
Philo, Josephus, Polybius, Diodorus, Strabo, all use "baptizo," and all
use it in the sense of dip. These writers wrote in the language which
lay immediately behind Biblical Greek, and were in a sense
contemporaries of Biblical Greek. Plutarch speaks of dipping
("baptizo") himself into the lake. Josephus (Antiquities XV.,3,3) tells
of young Aristobulus, brother of Mariamne, who went swimming with some
of Herod's servants. At the proper time, in the dark of the evening,
they "dipped him as he was swimming," and so he was drowned. The word
"baptizo" is here used for "dipped."
The Septuagint
Both "bapto" and "baptizo" are used in the Septuagint translation in
literal and figurative senses, but always with the sense of dip. In 2
Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman: "Then went he down, and dipped himself
seven times in the Jordan." There the Septuagint uses "baptizo" for
"dipped."
The New Testament
The New Testament is based immediately on the Dialect. Prof. Sophocles
(Lexicon for Roman and Byzantine Periods) says of "baptizo": "There is
no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the New
Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks."
The word assumes a technical application to a special ordinance in the
New Testament, but the act used as an ordinance is the original and
persistent meaning of the word. The Jews had ablutions before John the
Baptist introduced the ordinance of baptism. Some of those ablutions
were immersions, but there is no evidence that the Jewish Proselyte
baptism of later times (which was also immersion) existed before the
time of Christ. In Luke 11:38 we are told that the Pharisee marveled at
Jesus because "He had not first washed before dinner." The word for
wash is "baptizo," and refers to the Pharisaic scrupulosity about
ceremonial defilements. To make sure of ceremonial purity, a whole bath
was felt to be necessary. In Mark 7:4 we read that when they come "from
market, except they wash, they eat not." There again "baptizo" is used
for wash. Some ancient documents here read "rantizo," sprinkle, showing
clearly that "baptizo" and "rantizo" mean different things. The reading
"rantizo" doubtless arose from the difficulty felt by those not Jews in
thinking that everybody would go to the trouble of taking a bath after
coming from the market before meals. In Luke 16:24 "bapto" is
translated dip, "that he may dip the tip of his finger in water."
"Baptizo" is used in the figurative sense in the New Testament, but
always in harmony with the original and literal meaning of the word.
The baptism of death, of fire, of the cloud, of the Holy Spirit, all
preserved the same imagery of the literal usage. The way to learn the
real meaning of a word is not from the metaphor, but from the literal
sense. We have seen from the use of the word "baptizo" in Greek writers
of all ages, from the time of Homer till Modern Greek, that "bapto" and
"baptizo" mean to dip. So then, the presumption is all in favor of this
idea in the Bible, unless the connection makes it impossible, and
renders a peculiar sense proper which does not elsewhere exist. We have
seen that the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament "bapto" and
"baptizo" mean to dip or immerse in a literal and figurative sense.
What, then, is the sense when "baptizo" is used for the ordinance of
baptism? We observe at once that "rantizo", to sprinkle, and "eccheo,"
to pour, or both used in the New Testament, but never in connection
with the ordinance of baptism. The word "baptizo" is consistently used
throughout. We should expect "baptizo" to have one meaning, since we
have observed this to true of it elsewhere. This one meaning should run
through all the figurative uses of the word also. We suggest that one
use successively, pour, sprinkle, immerse in every instance in the New
Testament where the word baptize, or baptism, occurs. The result will
completely remove pour and sprinkle from serious consideration. Dip or
immerse will suit every time. The circumstances surrounding the
ordinance of baptism naturally suggest immersion. Jesus went down into
the water. And came up out of the water (Mark 1:10).
The baptism took place while down in the water. If the word "baptizo"
elsewhere always means immerse, certainly there is nothing here to make
it otherwise. The New Testament descriptions of various baptisms
suggest an immersion. Moreover, Paul has drawn a picture of what
baptism is like. In Romans 6:4 he tells us that baptism is like death,
burial and resurrection. (See also Col. 2:12). The very symbolism of
baptism demands going down into and rising from the water. It is
impossible to picture burial and resurrection by pouring or sprinkling.
Immersion does do it, and nothing else does. The argument is complete,
as complete as it is possible to make any argument. No real objection
can be found in Scriptures. The number baptized at Pentecost does not
show immersion to be impossible. Baptist missionaries among the Telugus
have duplicated this experience several times. The water was at hand
also, for Jerusalem was well-supplied with large pools, and always had
plenty of water. The baptism of the jailer at Philippi is entirely
possible. It is not state when the baptism took place. Baptism by
immersion is common in jails now. Water can be found in plenty when it
is wanted. But, one may say, suppose water could not be found, then
what? Do nothing. Baptism is not essential for salvation. A man in a
desert can wait till he gets out of the desert, if he ever does. If we
do not know that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan, we do not know
anything about the Bible.
What Will You Do?
If Jesus was immersed, you wish to be immersed also. You ought not to
be willing to do something else. If He went all the way from Nazareth
to the Jordan to be immersed by John, we ought not to say anything
about convenience now. It is not a question of what we would rather do.
Jesus was immersed. Will you be content with doing something else for
your own convenience, and offer that to Him for obedience? It is not a
question of salvation, for we are not saved by baptism. But why do
anything if you are not willing to do what Jesus did, and what He
commands? He has commanded us to be immersed. He had nowhere commanded
pouring or sprinkling.
* From Baptism,
A.T. Robertson, Baptist Argus (Louisville, Kentucky), 1900.