Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1976
| [1] I am aware that Josephus says they "bathe in cold water" -- but he also says this happens every morning after exercizing. This doesn’t sound much like baptism. He later says converts are made partakers "of the waters of purification" (whatever that means). And finally, he says that some of them "undertake to foretell things to come, by reading in the holy books, and using several sorts of purifications." These statements are certainly too vague to base one’s dogmatics upon. See Whiston’s Edition, pp. 674-676. |
Having disposed the idea that baptism originated in late Judaistic times as a divinely-appointed rite introduced by John, or as a humanly-conceived invention required by the Jews (or Essenes[1]), attention must be directed to the earliest biblical baptisms on record.
Ritual baptism is as old as the law. The law is replete with ceremonial purifications. These are baptisms. That fact must not be missed. John’s baptism was nothing new to the Jews. From the days of Moses they had known the ceremony of baptism. There can be no question about this since the New Testament itself calls the Old Testament purifications "baptisms."
The phrase translated "meats and drinks, and divers washings" in Hebrews 9:10 is decidedly obscured by the Authorized Version. The words "divers washings" do not adequately convey the sense of the original. First the term "divers" is foreign to contemporary usage, in which it would be translated "different kinds of." "Washings" never was a good translation, for the original word is "baptismois," i.e., "baptisms." The writer of Hebrews, to put it simply, refers to the "different kinds of baptisms" required by the Old Testament law. It is crucial to note that the law never required immersions, but frequently required "sprinklings."
Nor is there any doubt about the mode of these different kinds of "baptisms." The writer of Hebrews fully describes them in this same ninth chapter (vv. 13, 19, 21). The following comparisons show clearly that all three Old Testament baptisms of which he wrote were unmistakably sprinklings:
Hebrews 9:13 - Numbers 19:17-18
Hebrews 9:19 - Exodus 24:6, 8
Hebrews 9:21 - Leviticus 8:19; 16:14
|
In both the Old Testament passages, and in the Book of Hebrews these baptisms are designated as "sprinklings." This argument is impossible to refute. Even if one were disposed to rip the tenth verse from its context (to which it is inseparably linked) he could find no ceremonial laws in the Old Testament requiring "different kinds of immersions." The law simply knew nothing of immersions, not to speak of different kinds of them.
In addition it is obvious that the words "different kinds of" indicate that the Old Testament baptisms were not all of the same sort. Immersions must, of necessity, be all alike. In what respect can one immersion differ from another? Moreover, if it is impossible to find the requirement for even one kind of immersion in the Old Testament law, how much more difficult will it be to find "different kinds" of them?
The point, however, is that there were Old Testament baptisms of "different kinds." How then did they differ?
The aspersionist (sprinkler) has no difficulty in answering this question. He merely accepts the testimony of the Old Testament and the interpretation of it in Hebrews 9, that these baptisms were variously,
| [2] Cf. Hebrews 9:13, 19, 21. |
The immersionist cannot demonstrate what these "different kinds of baptisms" were. He cannot even show an Old Testament requirement for immersions. It should be apparent to every fair-minded reader that there is no satisfactory explanation of this passage from the immersionist viewpoint.
These facts are plain then: John’s baptism was not something new. Baptism was practised at least as early as the days of Moses (Hebrews says so). There is no Old Testament requirement for immersion. But, baptisms were required and performed by sprinkling. These sprinklings were of "different kinds" depending upon the element used.
It is significant that biblical baptism, in its origin, was performed by sprinkling and not by immersion. Unless, therefore, one should discover unmistakable evidence that a change in mode was effected, he is obligated to consider other references to baptism as being performed in like manner. Not only do the Scriptures fail to record any such alteration in mode, they consistently link Old Testament and New Testament baptisms to one another and use the same word to describe both.
After this Jesus and his disciples went into the countryside of Judea, and there he was staying with them and baptizing. John also was baptizing in Aenon, near Salim, because there were many streams there, and people kept coming to receive baptism (for John had not yet been thrown into prison). Then some of John’s disciples got into a controversy with a Jew in regard to purification; so they came to John and said to him: Rabbi, see! The man who was with you on the other side of Jordan, and to whom you yourself have borne testimony, is now baptizing, and everybody is coming to him.[3]
| [3] The New Testament in Modern English, trans. by Helen Montgomery, (Judson Press: Philadelphia, 1924). |
This passage is usually thought of as the immersionist’s fort. Baptist Churches en masse are named "Aenon." Triumphantly verse 23 is read as settling the whole question of mode. If John needed "much water" to baptize, then most assuredly, he must have baptized by immersion. Else, why should he require so much? But it is not quite such an open and shut case as might meet the eye at first glance. The translation by Helen Montgomery (quoted above) was published by Judson Press, a Baptist Board of Publication. It therefore, should show no signs of prejudice in favor of the affusionist (pourer). However, Montgomery has endeavored to be faithful to the Greek text. Notice that the "much water" phrase has been changed. Instead, she translates "many streams." The original says "hudata polla," which when literally translated is "many waters," an expression even more indefinite than the "many streams" of Montgomery. But her true translation of polla as "many," of course throws the old argument into a cocked hat.
Look more closely at the term hudata as well. Is there any way of determining just what these "waters" were? Montgomery guesses "streams," but the context provides more accurate information. If Baptists who attend a church named "Aenon" only knew what the word means, they would be faced with a serious problem, for the word means "springs" or "fountains"! Dr. William Hodges says,
Aenon, being the plural of fountain, or spring, probably took its name from the many springs or fountains there. And this agrees with the Greek hudata polla; many waters, many springs or fountains, instead of much water in one body.[4] |
Christy writes,
Unfortunately for those who are accustomed to find here proof of immersion, these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, as they do to this day, offer little or no facilities for immersion.[5] |
To think that John would leave the Jordan river (the largest source of water supply in Palestine) for any other area in order to find more water is, upon reflection, unthinkable. But it is interesting to ask why John did leave Jordan at this time. Christy proposes the following idea,
The thought that was no doubt in the mind of John leading to this change of location was the contrast of the cool clear water of these "many springs" with the foul, muddy flood of the Jordan "overflowing all its banks," as it usually did at this season of the year (Joshua 3:15), and then the insistent requirement of the law, that he should use clean water for baptism, altogether render it easy to account for his presence at this time. Here again, simply the use of the correct translation is sufficient to remove all the difficulty. John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water or many springs there, as there are at this time, and that is all there is of it. It really proves nothing either way, except perhaps, that John was endeavoring to comply with the law, which, as he knew said that "he should sprinkle them with clean water".[6] |
All this is but introductory to the primary reason for turning to this passage. The purpose of this chapter is to discover whether it is possible to determine the mode of Johannic baptism. Haying answered preliminary objections that might be raised in regard to John 3:22-26, the truly significant aspect of the passage must now be underlined. To begin with, note how the terms "baptize" and "purify," are used interchangeably. The evangelist mentions John baptizing in Aenon merely as a background for what follows. During this activity an incident occurred which occasioned an informative discussion. The apostle writes first that a Jew and some of John’s disciples got into a controversy in regard to "purification." Then he brings the reader near so that he may listen to the conversation. And, lo and behold, as one does so he discovers that the argument about "purification" concerns Baptism! The discussion concerns Christ and how he is "baptizing" and everyone is coming to him. Without a doubt, the two words "purification" and "baptism" are equated as naturally as "bishop" and "elder" in Paul’s letter to Titus. One may say what he wishes, but it looks as though the Baptist "fort" of John 3, not only has collapsed, but has turned its guns upon its defenders, for it has been pointed out already that the Old Testament "purifications" were "sprinklings" (cf. Num. 8:7 for the method). But should added evidence be required the reader is referred to the following passages where uniformly through the ceremonial law, the method of purification was by sprinkling and never by immersion:
1. Lev. 14:6-7 -- In the case of leprosy.
2. Ps. 51:7.
| [7] See Appendix 2. |
3. Num. 19:11-13 -- In case of defilement with a dead body.[7]
4. Lev. 13:44 -- In case of defilement with leprosy.
5. Lev. 15:11 and 11:29-44 -- was interpreted by the Pharisees to mean that they would not eat without cleansing. (See Mk. 7:34.) They "baptized" their hands, etc.
6. Num. 8:7.
7. Ezk. 36:25-27.
| [8] Cf. Hebrews 9:13, 14, 22, 23. |
And note, in Hebrews 9 the "different kinds of baptisms" are said to be purifications.[8]
Besides all of these passages which refer to sprinklings there is yet one extremely important incident which shows positively that the law required baptism and that John performed it by means other than immersion. This, being as important as it is, we have reserved its study for the next chapter.
| [3] Acts 8:26. |
Because the context is explicit, mentioning that trip along a "desert road,"[3] one might imagine that there would have been no more question.
|
The next baptism for consideration is that of the apostle Paul. In every account, that of Luke, and those of Paul, one finds either Ananias saying, "Stand up and be baptized" or the statement, "he stood up and was baptized." This reads literally "standing up, he was baptized" (see Acts 22:12-16 and Acts 9:17-18). How can Saul have been immersed if he was baptized on the spot as he stood up?
To say that the story of Acts 16 allows immersion is nearly incredible. Look at the circumstances. It was midnight, and in that "same hour" they were baptized. Sometime after twelve o’clock midnight it is supposed that Paul and Silas went out to a river and immersed the Philippian jailer and his household. A very unlikely hour! Moreover, recall how Paul and Silas had been lashed not many hours before. Immersion would be quite a task for two men in this condition at this hour. How much more likely that the scriptural mode of sprinkling was used as the jailer was baptized with water from the same vessel that contained’ the water he used to wash their stripes.
But some have argued that the text says, "he brought them out"; therefore, they say, all this took place outside and that it is in accord with the context to suppose that they did go out to some body of water and perform an immersion. But, that is not what these words indicate. The context clearly states that Paul and Silas were thrust into the "inner prison," and that the jailer "sprang in." It was from within this "inner prison" that the jailer "brought them out."
|
Vine & Fig Tree
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[e-mail to V&FT]
[V&FT Home Page]