THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING ON BAPTISM
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of
Saint Paul's Institute of Biblical Studies
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Divinity
by
Samuel L. Dixon
September 1977
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5A BRIEF HISTORY OF BAPTISMAL PRACTICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Gentile and Jewish Rite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3John's Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Christian Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Sprinkling and Pouring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Arguments for Sprinkling and Pouring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Immersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14CANDIDATES SUBJECT TO BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Proofs for Infant Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Infant Baptism Refuted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18NEW TESTAMENT FORMULA USED IN BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Great Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Fulfillment of the Great Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Early Christians were Baptized in the name of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Explanation of Matthew 28:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25THEORIES ON WATER BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Opposition to Baptismal Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26New Testament Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29OTHER BAPTISMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Baptism of Suffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Baptism in the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
ii
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Bible Dictionary Articles on Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33NON-IMMERSIONIST VIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Theological Dictionary Articles on Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Baptism, Wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58The Meaning of baŒptoµ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Baptism, Believers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Baptism, Infant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Baptism, Modes of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Baptismal Regeneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Baptism of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Baptism of the Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
iii
PREFACE
This writing was originally written in 1977 to fulfill the degree requirement for the Master ofDivinity degree. The content of this thesis has not been altered except for minor spelling and sentencestructure. In 1977 this thesis was typed using an electric typewriter but the original edition has beenretyped using a wordprocessor program and computer.
New to this thesis are the Appendix. I decided to add some of the Bible dictionary andtheological materials which have become available via Bible Study software. Material in eachappendix was pasted into this document from various Bible software programs which are listed at theend of each article or listed in a footnote. Some of the materials contained in the Appendix such asThe Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, and The New International Dictionary of New TestamentTheology was not available to me in 1977. With there being no religious libraries available in myhometown during the time I researched and wrote this thesis most of the books in the bibliographywere purchased and make up my ministerial library.
I trust that through your reading this material that it will broaden your knowledge on thesubject of baptism as taught in the New Testament. I have tried to present this material as objectiveas possible citing the pro and con's and providing as much documentation as possible and drawingmy conclusions from the clear teachings of the Word of God rather than the traditions and teachingsof man. Paul stated: "Let God be true but every man a liar." (Rom.3:4) Read this writing with anopen mind and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you and guide you into the truth of baptism as taught inthe New Testament.
Samuel L, DixonJuly 1999
iv
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Today as in times past there are lengthy discussions, writings and sermons on the proper modeand formula which should be used in water baptism. In order to gain a general insight to the subjectunder discussion it will be necessary to consider some of the theories and beliefs of the religiousworld concerning baptism. After examining some of these beliefs with their supporting argumentsit will be necessary to go directly to the Scriptures to see what revelations God has given to mankindon this controversial subject. Every Bible believing Christian should be willing to say with theApostle Paul: "...let God be true, but every man a liar."1
Various religious sects teach baptism differently in regards to the mode and the importanceof the rite. Some believe that sprinkling water on an individual is the proper method, others believethat pouring water on the candidate is sufficient while others hold that immersion is the only true formof baptism. It will be necessary to determine the origin of each method under discussion and see ifthe Scriptures support the method of baptism used.
An understanding of the definition of the term "baptism" is essential in order to comprehendthe questions and beliefs that have developed through the ages. Doctor Chafer refers to baptism as"real" referring to the infilling of the Holy Spirit and that which is "ritual" referring to water baptism.2 The word "baptism" according to Vine is translated from
baptisma...baptism, consisting of the processes of immersion,submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip), is used (a) of John'sbaptism, (b) of Christian baptism, (c) of the overwhelming afflictionsand judgments to which the Lord voluntarily submitted on the Cross...(d) of the sufferings His followers would experience, not of avicarious character, but in fellowship with the sufferings of theirMaster....3
The above defines baptism in its noun form but Vine goes on to define the word in its verb tense as:
1Romans 3:4.
2Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol VII, "Doctrinal Summarization" (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p. 32.
3Vine, W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, (Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House, n.d.), pp. 98, 99.
2
to baptize, primarily a frequentative form of bapto, to dip, was used among theGreeks to signify the dyeing of a garment, or the drawing of water by dipping a vesselinto another, etc.4
The dictionary gives the following information:
baptism, N. OFr. baptesme, from LL. baptisma, from Gr. baptismos, that which isdipped; from baptizein, to dip.5
From all of the definitions given it is safe to conclude that baptism represents a dipping or submersioninto water. Water baptism is a rite used to initiate an individual into Christian service and theChristian family.
Chapters two and three of this writing will be concerned with the historical development ofthe practices and modes of baptism among the Jews and the Christian church. The doctrinal aspectof baptism will be discussed in chapters four and five. Chapter six will touch lightly on the doctrineof the baptism of the Holy Spirit as taught in the New Testament along with some modern conceptsof this doctrine. Chapter 7 will be a summary of all the material presented in this writing. It is hopedthat after one has read this writing a better understanding will be acquired concerning the varioustheories and practices concerning primarily water baptism. It is further desired that one will haveattained a better understanding on what the New Testament teaches on the subject of baptism.
4Ibid., p. 99.
5Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, "Baptism," (Cleveland: The WorldPublishing Company, 1974), p. 148.
Chapter 2
A BRIEF HISTORY OF BAPTISMAL PRACTICES
The Gentile and Jewish Rite
According to most scholars a form of baptism with water was practiced among the Gentilesand Jews long before Christianity came into existence. Louis Berkof states:
The Egyptians, the Persians and the Hindus, all had their religious purifications. Sometimes they took the form of a bath in the sea, and sometimes they were affectedby sprinkling.1
It is further stated by the above author that: "These heathen purifications have very little in common,even in their external form, with our Christian baptism."2 Beasley-Murray warns us not to becomeblinded by accepting "animistic views of the supernatural nature of water...."3 In essence it may besaid that the rituals observed by the Gentiles really has no effect on the beliefs and practices of theChristian church and baptism.
There does not seem to be full agreement as to the practice of the Hebrew purification ritesand their relationship to Christian baptism. The Broadman Bible Commentary states:
There was a Jewish proselyte baptism in the first century, and the likelihood is that itwas practiced before John's time....It is not likely that orthodox Judaism would haveadopted a Christian rite. Since Christianity was cradled in Judaism, no problem wouldbe faced in the development of baptism from Jewish practice.4
Another commentary has the following to say in support of the Jewish rite of baptism:There is nothing distinctively Christian about water baptism. The Jews baptized
1Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 1939), p. 622.
2Ibid.
3G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 2.
4Clifton J. Allen, ed., The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol VIII (Nashville: BroadmanPress, 1969), p. 91.
4
Gentile proselytes as a sign of washing away their ceremonial uncleanness. Otherreligions have practiced water baptism. The only uniquely Christian baptism is thebaptism with the Holy Spirit.5
To further confirm the fact that the Jews did practice a form of baptism the following quotation isnecessary.
Baptism was practiced by Jews when making proselytes, and few remedial andpurifying purposes and thus the outward form was no innovation by John, althoughthe significance was new. Even the Qumran community observed a ritualisticbaptism, though certainly not for the same reason that John baptized....6
Another writer states that "Baptism was no new thing for the Jews. They practiced ritual ablutions."7
John's Baptism
The book of Saint Matthew chapter three gives a very good account of the ministry of Johnthe Baptist. He was commissioned by God to prepare the way for the coming Messiah. As revealedin the Scriptures John began to preach a message of repentance to the people. Those who repentedof their sins were baptized by John in the Jordan River. One writer described John's baptizingministry in the following manner:
John immersed the entire man in the water in the Jordan River. This mode of baptismsymbolized a complete moral cleansing. It was a public confession of sin and of theneed of a Saviour-Messiah. The one receiving this rite had to first give evidence ofgenuine repentance, a sorrow for sin and a determination to turn away from it....John'snew rite was not a means to secure the remission of sins....It was humiliating for a Jewto be considered a pagan and submit himself to this rite publicly, thus making
5Charles W. Carter, ed., The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Vol. IV, (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 21.
6Charles F. Pfeiffer, ed., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962),p. 934.
7Balmer H. Kelly, ed., The Layman's Bible Commentary, Vol. XVI, (Atlanta: John KnoxPress, 1961), p. 20.
5
confession of his sins.8
In spite of their pride many Jews were baptized by John because of their hope for the comingMessiah. It should also be remembered that no prophet had spoken to Israel for nearly four hundredyears. To hear John preach of the coming Messiah stirred the hearts of some of the people becauseduring this time the nation was under Roman rule. Most Jews understood the prophets to speak ofa national deliverance under the Messiah's rule. John baptized the people and informed them thatthere was one greater than he coming. This message of hope encouraged the people to humblethemselves and submit to baptism.
Today there are two schools of thought regarding John's baptism. It is believed by some thatJohn's baptism was under the Law while others believe that his baptism was Christian baptism. Doctor Ironside writing about John's baptism of repentance states:
This is quite distinct from Christian baptism (Acts 19:1-7). By it the Jew expressedhis repentance and his need of forgiveness. It could not speak to the people of thedeath of Christ....It expressed self-judgment, and so it was called a "baptism untorepentance."9
Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology states that John's baptism is similar to Christian baptismin certain points but different in other points.
The baptism of John, like Christian baptism (a) was instituted by God Himself, Matt.21:25; John 1:33; (b) was connected with a radical change of life, Luke 1:1-17; John1:20-30; (c) stood in sacramental relation to the forgiveness of sins, Matt. 3:7,8; Mark1:4; Luke 3:3 (comp. Acts 2:38) and (d) employed the same material element, namely,water.10
There are four points in which John's baptism is believed to be different from Christian baptism. Many hold to the belief that his baptism belonged to the dispensation of the Law and pointed toChrist. It emphasized repentance and was primarily concerned with the Jews which "represented theOld Testament particularism rather than the New Testament universalism." The baptism of John did
8J. W. Shepherd, The Christ of the Gospels, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 1939), p. 63.
9H.A. Ironside, Baptism What Saith the Scriptures?, (Neptune: Loizeaux Brother, Inc.,1930), p. 12.
10Berkhof, op. cit., p. 623.
6
not have the spiritual gifts accompanying it because the Spirit had not been poured out as on the dayof Pentecost.11
Doctor Rice who opposes John's baptism being dispensational but Christian advances histheory with the following argument.
The baptism administered by John the Baptist was not distinctly Jewish, was not apart of the ceremonial law, and did not belong to an Old Testament dispensation atall. In fact, the word baptism or baptizing is not even mentioned in the OldTestament. Nor is there a single reference in the Old Testament to any ceremony likethe baptism of John.12
To further advance this theory Doctor Rice informs the reader that Jesus received John's's baptismas well as the disciples and there is no record of them ever being re-baptized.13 Since no re-baptizingwas performed it is concluded that John's baptism was Christian. This is the only proof given thatJohn's baptism was Christian.
From my studying of the Word of God I must conclude that the baptism of John was notChristian because it began before the ministry of Jesus Christ. This ministry was given to John byGod. John the Baptist was the last of the Old Testament prophets therefore his ministry was underthe Law. Jesus said: "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of Godis preached, and everyman presseth into it." [Luke 16:16] It may be further concluded that thebaptism administered by John was neither Jewish nor truly Christian because Jesus also said: "for allthe prophets and the law prophesied until John." [Matthew 11:13] John's ministry ushered in a newday which was the promised Messiah had come into the world to open the way for man's direct accessto God for salvation through Christ.
Christian Baptism
Since most religious people do not fully accept John's baptism as a Christian baptism itbecomes necessary to define and examine the origin of Christian baptism. The New Testament is theonly acceptable source of material to begin our study. Jesus prior to ascending into heaven told the
11Ibid., pp. 623, 624.
12John R. Rice, Bible Baptism, (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1943),p.12.
13Ibid., p. 15.
7
disciple to: "...go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and ofthe Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commandedyou....[Matthew 28:19,20] Berkhof speaking of Christ on the subject of Christian baptism said: "He(Jesus) instituted Christian baptism and made it binding for all following generations."14 Accordingto the Acts of the Apostles the early church practiced water baptism upon all who believed in Jesusas the Saviour. The baptismal rite consisted of dipping the entire individual under the water. PhilipSchaff confirms the above statement when he wrote: "The usual form of baptism was immersion."15 After A.D. 100 some began changing the mode from immersion to sprinkling or pouring water uponthe candidate.
Sprinkling and Pouring. Modern terminology describes these two rites as aspersion and affusion. Schaff states that baptism by immersion was practiced in the ancient church and is still observed inthe East (the Greek Orthodox Church).
But sprinkling, also, or copious pouring rather , was practiced at an early day withsick and dying persons, and in all such cases where total or partial immersion wasimpracticable.16
Berkhof in speaking of the early church fathers concerning baptism said: "While immersionwas practiced, it was not the only mode, and certainly was not considered to be of the essence ofbaptism."17 However, Schaff gives more information on the change of the baptismal method whenhe quotes from "the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" better known as the Didache.
Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in living(running) water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and ifthou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour...water upon the
14Berkhof, op. cit., p. 624.
15Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol I, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 1910), p. 468.
16Schaff, op. cit., p. 469.
17Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House,1937), p. 248.
8
head thrice, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.18
One should note from the above quotation that immersion was the original mode of baptizing thecandidate. Sprinkling and pouring water upon the candidate was to be performed only when enoughwater for immersion was not available. Even though the Didache permitted sprinkling and pouringwater upon the candidate Philip Schaff does not fail to mention that:
The validity of this baptism was even doubted by many in the third century; andCyprian wrote in its defense, taking the ground that the mode of application of waterwas a matter of minor importance, provided that faith was present in the recipient andministrant.19
I would like to add that according to Walafrid Strabo sprinkling and pouring "were still exceptionalin the ninth century."20 These methods did not come into full use until the end of the thirteenthcentury. The great theologian Thomas Aquinas is quoted as saying "...it may be safer to baptize byimmersion, yet pouring and sprinkling are also allowable."21
After considering all the facts from history it is safe to conclude that baptism in the form ofsprinkling and pouring began around the third century A.D. These modes did not become anacceptable form of baptism until the early thirteenth century.
Arguments for Sprinkling and Pouring. Religious organizations that practice these modes of baptismbase their beliefs on the Greek usage of the words translated "baptism," the Hebrew customs amongthe Levitical system, historical practices and human reasoning. Doctor Hodge states in his SystematicTheology that the classical Greek usage of the word "bapto" has the following meanings:
(1) To dip. (2) To dye by dipping. (3) To dye without regard to the mode in whichit is done... (4) It also means to glid.... (5) To wet, moisten, or wash. (6) To temperas a hot iron is tempered; this may be done by plunging or pouring.... (7) To
18Schaff, The History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 247.
19Ibid., p.p. 249, 250.
20Ibid., p. 250.
21Ibid.
9
imbue....22
The classical use of baptizo has five different usages according to Doctor Hodge which are:
(1) To immerse, or submerge.... (2) To overflow or to cover with water.... (3) Towet thoroughly, to moisten. (4) To pour upon or drench. (5) In any way to beoverwhelmed or overpowered.23
Those holding the view of sprinkling and pouring usually give a different meaning to the riteof baptism than those who practice immersion. The Reformed theologians define baptism as a symbolof purification.24 This baptism is closely associated with the Old Testament purification rites. Berkhof clearly explains their position when he wrote:
But Scripture clearly represents purification as the essential thing in the symbolism ofbaptism, Ezek. 36:25; John 3:25,26; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; Heb. 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21. And this can be symbolized by sprinkling or pouring as well as by immersion, Lev.14:7; Num. 8:7; Ezek. 36:25; Heb. 9:19-22; 10:22. Consequently the mode ofbaptism is quite immaterial: it may be administered by immersion, but also by pouringor sprinkling....The word (baptizo) employed by Jesus does not necessarily mean 'toimmerse,' but may also mean 'to purify by washing.'25
To further uphold this position the New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible which reflects theReformed doctrine defines baptism as: "The rite of washing with water as a sign of religiouspurification and consecration."26
Those opposing the doctrine of immersion say that John the Baptist could not have possiblyhave baptized all the people who came to his baptism. Doctor Clarke gives the following remarks
22Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III, (n.d.; rpt; Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), p. 527.
23Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 527.
24Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 628.25Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1938), pp. 169, 170.
26The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "Baptism," (Philadelphia: WestminsterPress, 1970), p. 91.
10
to disprove immersion as the true mode of baptism.
"They were all dipped," say some. Can any man suppose that it was possible for Johnto dip all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the country round aboutJordan?... Those who are dipped or immersed in water, in the name of the holyTrinity I believe to be evangelically baptized: those who are washed or sprinkled withwater, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, I believe tobe equally so; the repetition of such a baptism I believe to be profane.27
John Murray, who also opposes immersion as the mode of baptism speaking of Johnimmersing the people says: "...the expression 'in the river Jordon' proves nothing respecting the modeof John's baptism."28 He even goes as far as to say "...that even such an expression as 'going downinto the water' does not necessarily imply immersion."29He further states that John the Baptist neededmuch water because people traveled to his preaching from long distance and their animals neededwater to drink. Since water was prized in Palestine he needed a place where there was plenty ofwater to avoid depriving the communities of their needed water supply.30
Enough theories have been presented to show the basic reasons for religious leaders acceptingthese modes of baptism rather than immersion. Seemly most object to immersion because of thetraditions of the church and the use of the word "baptism" in classical Greek usage. Human reasoningis an important factor also in rejecting immersion as the valid form of baptism. I do not accept thehuman reasoning that John the Baptist could not have possibly baptized all the people because Johndid have a number of disciples who could have helped with the baptizing just as the disciples of Jesusbaptized people in Judea (John 4:1-3).
Immersion. John Calvin, the author of the Calvinistic doctrine which is taught in most Protestanttheology, wrote:
But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thriceor once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water--these details are of
27Adam Clarke, Christian Theology, (1835; rpt. Salem: Convention Book Store, 1967),pp. 253, 254.
28John Murray, Christian Baptism, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), p. 28.
29Ibid.
30Ibid., pp. 27, 28.
11
no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity ofcountries. Yet the word "baptize" means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite ofimmersion was observed in the ancient church.31
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible which is published by the Methodist who practice sprinklingstates that the Greek word "and its cognates clearly implies immersion, but Luke 11:38 shows thatthis meaning is not demanded.32 Geoffrey W. Bromiley confirms that baptism refers to a goingunderneath the water when he wrote that the word baptism derived
from the Greek baptisma, "baptism" denotes the action of washing or plunging inwater, which from the earliest days (Acts 2:41) has been used as the rite of Christianinitiation...It consists in a going in or under the baptismal water in the name of Christ(Acts 19:5) or more commonly the Trinity (Matt. 28:19). Immersion was fairlycertainly the original practice and continued in general use up to the Middle Ages.33
The Davis Dictionary of the Bible gives further evidence of the practice of immersion by stating:
A large and influential segment of Protestantism insists that immersion is the onlyvalid mode of baptism. It is their contention that the word baptizo invariably meansimmersion, and that there can be no question that the form of baptism used by theapostles and the early church was complete immersion.34
Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and the father of the Reformation, alsobelieved in immersion. Schaff quoting Luther states:
As to the mode of baptism, he (Luther) gives here, as elsewhere, his preference toimmersion, which then still prevailed in England and in some parts of the Continent. "Baptism," he says, "is that dipping into water whence it takes its name. For in Greek
31John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. II ed. John T. McNeill,(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), p. 1320.
32The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, "Baptism," (Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1962), p. 348.
33Geoffrey W. Bromiley, "Baptism" Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Everett Harrison ed.(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960). p. 83.
34The Davis Dictionary of the Bible, "Baptism" (1898; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker BookHouse, 1972), p.80.
12
to baptize signifies to dip. and baptism is a dipping.35
Most of the previous quotations were quoted from those who do not practice immersion asan ordinance in their churches. Regardless of what religious bodies teach all seem to acknowledgethe fact that baptism does imply immersion in spite of their practices.
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines baptism as: "(2) of the Christianordinance, to immerse, submerge, to baptize...."36 Doctor Pendleton, a Baptist theologian, gives awealth of information concerning baptism in his book titled Christian Doctrines. Some importantpoints given to support baptism as being by immersion are:
1. Greek lexicons give immerse, dip, or plunge, as the primary and ordinary meaningof baptizo. Here it is proper to say that baptizo and baptisma, being Greek words are,in the Common Version of the Scriptures, anglicized, but not translated.37
It is also interesting to note that according to Doctor Pendleton King James commanded thetranslators not to translate "old ecclesiastical words" but were to render them in their anglicizedform.38
Doctor Pendleton in his second argument quotes some of the pedobaptist who acknowledgethat immersion is the primary meaning of the Greek word baptizein. Doctor George Campbell whowas a distinguished Presbyterian of Scotland is quoted from his notes on Matthew 3:11 as saying:
The word baptizein (infinitive mode of baptizo), both in sacred authors and inclassical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse and was rendered by Tertullian, theoldest of the Latin Fathers, tingers, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was byimmersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning.39
35Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VII, p.218.
36George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testamentwith Lexicon and Synonyms, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 18.
37James Madison Pendleton, Christian Doctrines, (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1878), pp.342, 343.
38Ibid., p. 343.
39Ibid., p. 346.
13
Doctor Chalmers is quoted as saying:
The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion; and though we regard it asa point of indifferency whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way orby sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in theApostles' days was by an actual submerging of the whole body under water....40
After reviewing all of the information presented I must conclude that history and the Greekimplies that baptism does mean to be immersed. This argument may be summarized in the followingquotations:
It is generally agreed, however, that at a very early period the ordinary mode ofbaptism was by immersion or partial immersion at some convient place (such as thebanks of a river) where water was abundantly available. Later baptisteries wereerected.41
That baptism is performed correctly only by a complete dipping of the candidate isargued from the following: (1) Baptizo, the Greek verb translated "baptize" is definedby the Greek-English lexicons of Liddell and Scott, and Thayer as "to dip, dip under,"and "to dip, to immerse, submerge," respectively; (2) The Greek Orthodox Church(which should know Greek) has always practiced only immersion; (3) Only immersionfits the symbolism of a burial used in Rom. 6:3-5 and Col. 2:12; (4) That Newexamples of baptism were immersion is indicated by the language used in suchpassages as Mark 1:9-10 and Acts 8:38.42
40Pendleton, op. cit., p. 346.
41The Funk & Wagnails New Encyclopedia, Vol. III, "Baptism" (New York: Funk &Wagnails, Inc., 1973), p. 177.
42The New Combined Bible Dictionary and Concordance, "Baptism" (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 53.
Chapter 3
CANDIDATES SUBJECT TO BAPTISM
As in other subjects of theology there is division concerning who should be baptized. Oneschool claims that infants are subject to water baptism while the other school claims that waterbaptism is for believers only. In order to really understand the beliefs on this controversial subjectthe arguments for and against infant baptism must be presented. One should recognize that historyrecords infant baptism as being promoted by Augustine. He taught and believed "that children whichdie unbaptized are lost..."1 No Scripture has been found to justify the above theory.
The Proofs for Infant Baptism
Those adhering to this belief have several reasons to support their position. However noneof them teach infant baptism because they believe that unbaptized infants will be lost. Baker'sDictionary of Theology speaking of infant baptism states:
...there are two lines of biblical study which are thought to give convincing reasonsfor the practice. The first is a consideration of detailed passages or statements fromthe Old and New Testaments. The second is a consideration of the whole underlyingtheology of baptism as it comes before us in the Bible.2
The Old Testament and New Testament proofs given are: (1) During the time of the floodNoah and his family were saved by being in the ark (1 Peter 3:20,21); (2) God gave Abraham thesign of circumcision which was to be administered to all males under the covenant and Paul comparesbaptism with circumcision (Gen. 17 compared with Col. 2:11,12); (3)When God delivered theIsraelites through the waters which was a foreshadow of baptism (1 Cor. 10:1,2); (4) Peter on theday of Pentecost preached that "The promise is unto you and your children;" (5) Children areaddressed in Ephesians, Colossians and 1 John and (6) Paul speaking to the Corinthians stated thatchildren born in a household with one person saved are "holy" which is proof of their covenantrelationship. The Bible Dictionary speaking in favor of infant baptism states that:
1Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p. 248.
2Baker's Dictionary of the Bible, "Baptism, Infant" p. 87.
14
15
baptism is not primarily a sign of repentance and faith on the part of the baptized. Itis not a sign of anything that we do at all. It is a covenant sign (like circumcision, butwithout blood-shedding), and therefore a sign of the work of God on our behalf whichprecedes and makes possible our own responsive movement.3
Louis Berkhof writing in defense of infant baptism wrote the following:
Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of Scripture, but on a series ofconsiderations. The covenants made with Abraham was primarily a spiritualcovenant, though it also had a national aspect, Rom. 4:16-18; Gal. 3:8,9,14. Thiscovenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the "new covenant" of thepresent dispensation, Rom. 4:13-18; Gal. 3:15-18; Heb. 6:13-18. Children shared inthe blessings of the covenant, received the sign of circumcision....The "new covenant"is represented in Scripture as more gracious than the old, Isaiah 54:13; Jer. 31:34;Heb. 8:11, and therefore would hardly exclude children....Moreover, wholehouseholds were baptized and it is unlike that these contained no children, Acts 16:15;16:33; 1 Cor. 1:6.4
Another writer stating the position for infant baptism states:
Many Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church practice infant baptism. This is felt to be necessary for the removal of sins inherited from parents and justifiedby the analogy of infant membership in the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). Col. 2:11 is appealed to as evidence that, just as male babies were circumcised, so allinfants of Christian parents should be baptized (sprinkled).5
Infant Baptism Refuted
In spite of theological reasoning given for infant baptism those opposing it base their proofsdirectly from the Bible teachings on baptism. (1) According to the Word of God a person is requiredto have faith and believe the gospel prior to being baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:36; 19:4,5). (2) According to the Scriptures only those who believed (translated "received") were candidates forbaptism (Acts 2:41; 8:12). (3) Baptism itself is a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ and
3Baker's Dictionary of the Bible, "Baptism" p. 87.
4Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrines, p. 171.
5The New Combined Bible Dictionary and Concordance, p. 54.
16
the rising of the individual from a life of sin to a "deliverance of the believer who pledges himself toGod."6 Once an individual has been baptized it is his duty to "walk in the newness of life." A childor infant does not meet these conditions. (4) One must accept Christ according to the Scripturesbefore baptism is administered (Acts 16:29-34). (5) Jesus blessed children but did not baptize any. If Jesus and the disciples had practiced infant baptism then it seems to be strange that the disciplesbecame displeased when the parents brought their children to Jesus to be blessed (Matt. 19:13-15). (6) Circumcision and baptism are not the same rite. Circumcision did not include females whereinwater baptism includes both males and females. (See Acts 8:12 for proof.) Colossians 2:11 in theAmplified Bible states:
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, but in a(spiritual) circumcision (performed by) Christ by stripping off the body of the flesh(the whole corrupt, carnal nature with its passions and lusts).
Circumcision in the New Testament refers to a change in the heart through the power of the HolySpirit. (7) Salvation under the New Testament does not rest on a covenant made with parentsbecause the covenant for this age is for believers only and the children only partake of this covenantby having faith in Christ. John 3:16 and 36 give ample proof. John 1:12 states that those who cometo Christ by believing on His name are born into a relationship with the Father and the Son. (8) Onthe day of Pentecost Peter not only gave the promise to the believers children but to "all that are afaroff." (9) The Scriptures make it very clear that the gospel invitation is not only to the believer andhis family but is to everyone who is willing to accept Christ as Saviour and Lord, Rev. 3:20; John14:21 and Acts 17:30. (10) Just as circumcision was a sign to the Jews the filling of the Holy Spiritis the sign to those who believe and accept Christ, Mark 16:16-18.
Schaff gives a very good summary for those who accept the Biblical and early practices of thechurch after Pentecost by saying:
In reviewing the patristic doctrine of baptism which was sanctioned by the Greek andRoman, and with some important modifications, also by the Lutheran and Anglicanchurches, we should remember that during the first three centuries, and even in theage of Constatine, adult baptism was the rule, and that the actual conversion of thecandidate was required as a condition before administering the sacrament (as is stillthe case on missionary ground).7
The Reformed and other churches practicing infant baptism teach infant regeneration which notproven in the Scriptures. Only believers in Christ are to be baptized because baptism rests on the faith
6Beasley-Murray, op. cit., p. 362.
7Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II p. 255.
17
of the subjects being baptized. Infants are incapable of having this faith and belief in Christ thereforebaptizing them does not serve any purpose in regards to salvation or faith. To further supportbelievers baptism Doctor Herbert Lockyer states:
...we have no hint or record anywhere in the New Testament nor in early churchhistory, that baptism was ever allowed to those who were not already professedbelievers...about A.D. 200 Tertullian of Carthage strongly denounced infant baptism,which was just beginning to come into fashion, for the sensible reason that the childmay afterward give up all his faith when he developed views of his own. The customdid not become general until the fifth century. Neither Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine,Jerome, nor Ambrose, who all lived at the end of the fourth century, were baptizeduntil they became believers, although one or both of their parents were Christians.8
8Herbert Loycker, All the Doctrines of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1964), pp. 258, 259.
Chapter 4
NEW TESTAMENT FORMULA USED IN BAPTISM
Within this chapter the Biblical formula for baptizing candidates will be considered. Throughout the remaining chapters "baptism" will be used in the sense of immersion except for thebaptism of the Spirit. It is my belief that God inspired the Scriptures. Since I do believe in the verbalinspiration of the Scriptures defined by Doctor Lockyer as "...God not only gave the thoughts, butthe very words expressed by the writers of the Bible." Therefore the word "baptize" is interpretedfrom its primary and root meaning.
The Great Commission
After the resurrection of Christ the disciples saw Him many times. It is recorded that Jesus"...showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive...."1 Jesus spentforty days ministering to the disciples after His resurrection. Just before ascending into heaven to sitat the right hand of God He instructed the disciples to do four things. First they were commandedto "tarry in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). Afterreceiving the power of God which is the filling of the Holy Spirit they were to be witnesses of Hisresurrection beginning at Jerusalem, in all Judea, Samaria and to the various parts of the earth. Second they were to "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19). According to Vine's Expository Dictionaryof New Testament Words and the New International Version along with many other moderntranslations the word "teach" means to "disciple." With this concept in mind the apostles were tomake disciples of all nations where they preached the gospel. One Bible dictionary defines a discipleas: "literally a learner, one who follows one's teaching."2 To further expand the commission givenby Jesus the disciples were to make people followers of Jesus' teachings. The early disciples had thetask of giving religious instruction to all nations. Third the person accepting the teachings of Jesuswas to be baptized (immersed) with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HolyGhost, Matt. 28:19. According to the writer of Mark the individual desiring to be baptized was tofirst become a believer in Christ. In part this verse states: "Whoever believes and is baptized will besaved..." (NIV) If an individual refuses to believe then that individual will be condemned. This is inagreement with John 3:36 which states: "And he who believes on-has faith in, clings to, relies on--theSon has (now possesses) eternal life. But whoever disobeys--is unbelieving toward, refuses to trustin, disregards, is not subject to--the Son will never see (experience) life. But instead the wrath ofGod abides on him. God's displeasure remains on him. His indignation hangs over him continually"
1Acts 1:3 (The New International Version).
2The New Combined Bible Dictionary and Concordance, "Disciple" p. 134.
18
19
(Amplified Bible). The fourth instruction stated by Jesus was to teach the believers to "observeeverything that I have commanded you..." (Amplified Bible). With this promise Jesus assured theapostles that He would be with them "to the very end of the Age" (NIV).
Fulfillment of the Great Commission
Did the apostles really fulfill the commission given to them by Christ? Yes, the apostlesobeyed the commission given to them by Christ after they had waited in Jerusalem and were filledwith the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost one hundred and twenty of the disciples were in theupper room when the Holy Spirit was poured out fulfilling the prophecy of John the Baptist. Thepower of God moved on the hearts of these believers and they began to speak with other tongues(languages) as the Spirit gave them utterance. A crowd of Jews soon gathered with dome mockingwhile others became serious. According to Acts 2:5-8 some of the Jews were from various countriesbut were hearing the disciples speaking in their own dialects. This caused some to becomebewildered but God through the apostle Peter began to give an explanation of what was happening. Peter preached the gospel just as Christ had commanded. Conviction fell on thousands of the hearerswho cried out: "brethren, what shall we do?" (Amplified Bible). Peter answered: "Repent-changeyour views, and purpose to accept the will of God in your inner selves instead of rejecting it-and bebaptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of and release from yoursins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...Therefore those who accepted and welcomedhis message were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls" (Acts 2:38,41 Amplified Bible).
Early Christians were Baptized in the name of Jesus
The book of the Acts of the Apostles records the history of the early Christian church andreveals that all candidates of the original church were baptized in the name of Jesus. All Scripturesteaching or illustrating baptism in the name of Jesus will be studied individually. One encyclopediastates that the early practice of baptism was performed "usually in the name of Christ...."3 Todaymany religious leaders attempt to explain away the meaning of being baptized in the name of Jesus. One writer states: "by the authority of" means the same as "in the name of" therefore does not provethat the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but instead used the Matthew 28:19 formulain baptizing.4 Before accepting this view it should be remembered that Jesus promised the disciplesthat He would bring things to their remembrance through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was to
3Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, "Baptism" p/ 176.
4Finis J. Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, (Atlanta: Dake Bible Sales, Inc.,1963), pp. 34, 135.
20
guide them into all truth, John 16:13. Jesus told Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom ofheaven, and whatever you bind-that is, declare to be improper and unlawful-on earth must be alreadybound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth-declare lawful-must be what is already loosed inheaven" (Matt. 16:19 Amplified Bible). That which the apostles taught and commanded wasapproved by the Spirit because they were speaking through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Inconsidering the doctrines of the early church it is necessary to compare scripture with scripture andrightly divide the word of truth.
When the Holy Spirit filled the one hundred and twenty followers of Jesus on the day ofPentecost a new age was introduced. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the fulfillment of theprophecy of John the Baptist recorded in Matthew 3:11. The second chapter of the Acts of theApostles records the beginning of the Christian church. This was the fulfillment of Matthew 16:16where Jesus had prophesied to Peter that "...you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church;and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (New American Standard Version, Matt. 16:18). Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It is commonly accepted that the kingdom ofheaven is a symbol of the church or the body of believers in Christ who have subjected themselvestot he rule of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit in their hearts.5 Throughout the first twelvechapters of the book of Acts Peter is seen using the keys to open the gospel to the various classesbeing saved. On the day of Pentecost when the Jews cried out: "...Brethren, what we do?" Peterunlocked the door by answering: "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christfor the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Doctor Clarkeexplains the above quotation in the following words:
Take on you the public profession of the religion of Christ by being baptized in hisname; and thus acknowledge yourselves to be his disciples and servants.6
Another commentator commenting on these passages of Scriptures says:
...baptism in the name of Jesus Christ suggests an early formula used in baptism whichmeant that the person undergoing the rite had believed in Christ,7
Around seven years after the day of Pentecost the gospel was preached to the Samaritans. Philip the deacon-evangelist was the individual used by God to perform this task. When the peopleof Samaria heard the gospel and saw the signs worked by Philip they were baptized by him in the
5The New Combined Bible Dictionary and Concordance, "Kingdom of God" p. 267.
6Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, Vol. V (Nashville: Abingdon Press, n.d.), p. 699.
7The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 10 p. 30.
21
name of Jesus Christ. These believers did not receive e the filling of the Holy Spirit but
When the apostles in Jerusalem learned that Samaria had welcomed the message ofGod, they sent them Peter and John who, on coming down there, prayed for thebelievers to receive the Holy Spirit, for thus far they had been baptized in the nameof the Lord Jesus; the Spirit had not yet fallen upon any one of them (Acts 8:14-16,Modern Language Version).
It is interesting to note that the Broadman Bible Commentary states: "The Samaritans had beenproperly baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus..." (Vol. 10, p. 57). Taking this statement at facevalue the writer is acknowledging that being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus is the properformula. Note that not only did Peter baptize the early believers in the name of Jesus Christ but Philipseven years after Pentecost baptized the Samaritans in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Ten years after Peter preached the gospel on the day of Pentecost and three years after theSamaritans were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus we find the gospel being preached to theGentiles. While Peter was preaching to Cornelius and those present the Holy Spirit filled the listeners. This amazed Peter and the Jews who were with him. Since the Spirit was poured out among theGentiles Peter asked the question: "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who havereceived the Holy Spirit just as we have?"8 Seems like no one had any objection to the question askedbecause Peter "...commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."9
As stated previously there are those who try to explain the meaning of the earlier believersbeing baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The following quotation is taken from an article titled"Some Observations on the Nature and Importance of Baptism" and is used to illustrate the theorytaught to water down baptism in the name of Jesus.
But the apostles baptized the Gentiles according to the precept of our Lord, in thename of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. XXVIII.19. Forsince it was very much controverted among the Jews about the true Messias, it wasnot without cause, yea, nor without necessity, that they baptized in the name of Jesus,that by that seal might be confirmed this principle truth in the Gospel, and that thosethat were baptized might profess it - that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias. Butamong the Gentiles the controversy was not concerning the true Messias, butconcerning the true God. Among them, therefore, it was needful that baptism should
8Acts 10:47 (Revised Standard Version).
9Acts 10:48 (RSV).
22
be conferred in the name of the true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.10
There is no Biblical proof for the above assumption concerning the Gentiles not being baptized in thename of Jesus Christ. It seems that the Wesleyan theologians are the ones who deny that theseGentiles were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. The Wesleyan Bible Commentary gives thefollowing explanation to support their belief that the Gentiles were not baptized in the name of JesusChrist. John Wesley is quoted as stating:
In the name of the Lord - Which implies the Father who anointed Him, and the Spiritwith which He was anointed, to His office. But these Gentiles...were baptized intothe belief and profession of the sacred Three; though doubtless the apostlesadministered the ordinance in that very form which Christ Himself had prescribed.11
The commentator adds the following to the above quotation: "Certainly, in the light of Wesley'sexplanation, no ground remains for a Unitarian interpretation of this passage."12 Of course these areonly the conclusions of men who are unwilling to accept the clear teachings of the Scriptures. Thisis the fruit of relying on human reasoning rather than on the leading of the Spirit of truth which ispromised to all who will believe. Further light is thrown on the passages of Scripture related when read in some of the modern translations of the New Testament. The Greek Interlinear renders Acts10:48 as: "And he commanded them in the name of Jesus Christ to be baptized..."13 The NewInternational Version renders this verse in the following manner: "So he ordered that they bebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Other modern versions supporting the command to be baptizedin the name of Jesus Christ are: The Amplified Bible, Today's English Version, The Revised StandardVersion, The American Standard Version, and The New American Standard Version. Most of theseversions are suppose to reflect the latest discoveries and conclusions of textual criticism. Not onlydo the above versions reflect that the Gentiles were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but somecommentators accept this verse as it stands. The New Bible Commentary Revised states: "Hecommanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; the same expression as in Acts 2:38."14
10Clarke's Commentary, Vol IV p. 348.
11The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Vol. IV p. 551.
12Ibid.
13The Greek-English New Testament, (Washington: Christianity Today, 1975), p. 379.
14D. Guthrie, ed., The New Bible Commentary Revised, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 986.
23
Another commentary states: "...Cornelius, his kinsmen, and neighbors were baptized in the name ofJesus Christ."15
It must be concluded that Peter had the keys which were used on the day of Pentecost, atSamaria and among the Gentiles. All three classes were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ andreceived the filling of the Holy Spirit.
The last mention of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in the Acts of the Apostles is that ofPaul and the disciples at Ephesus. Paul came to Ephesus, found certain disciples who had notreceived the filling of the Holy Spirit. After questioning them he discovered that they had beenbaptized by John the Baptist. These disciples accepted the teaching of Paul and were re-baptized inthe name of the Lord Jesus. This passage of Scripture is used to teach re-baptism for those who havepreviously been baptized in any title other than the name of Jesus Christ. It is a fact that these menof Ephesus were re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ just as all the early believers in Christ hadbeen baptized in since the day of Pentecost. Being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is the onlyformula used in the New Testament among the early believers.
Explanation of Matthew 28:19
Before forming hasty conclusions one should examine the words of the great commissionbaptismal formula before teaching it as a doctrine. Jesus instructed the disciples to baptize all nationsin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The key to understanding this verseis the fact that the word "name" is singular and not plural. Jesus did not say baptize in the Father, Sonand Holy Spirit. His specific instructions was to baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son andHoly Spirit. Peter literally fulfilled his Lord's command by baptizing believers in the name of JesusChrist. It must be remembered that there are not three gods but only one God therefore His namemust be one. Paul taught that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus Christ16 This is inagreement with the teachings of Jesus because He told Philip "...he that hath seen me hath seen theFather...I am in the Father and the Father in me...."17 If Jesus was in the Father and the Father wasin Him then the two were one therefore having the same name. The angel announced to Mary: "andshe shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their
15The Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 10 p. 70.
16Colossians 2:6,9.
17John 14:9,11.
24
sins."18 Jesus verified that He had come in the name of His father when He told the Pharisees: "I amcome in my Father's name...."19 If Jesus came in His father's name then the name of the Father wouldhave to be Jesus Christ because God gave Jesus His name prior to His human birth. Jesus was andis the revelation of God because God is revealed to mankind through Jesus Christ. Paul was inspiredto write: "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanksto God and the Father by him."20 Everything the Christian does should be done in the name of JesusChrist including being baptized in His name. One writer summarizes the fulfillment of the greatcommission by stating:
There is no record in Acts or the Epistles of the disciples merely quoting thecommand of Matthew 28"19. No one fulfills a command by quoting it. The disciplesdid not quote the command, they obeyed it. The command of Jesus is to baptize inthe Name (not names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This isthe Name of the Godhead bodily and it finds its glorious fulfillment in the Name of theLord Jesus Christ. A Triune Name for the Triune God.21
18Matthew 1:21.
19John 5:43.
20Colossians 3:17.
21Kevin J. Conner, The Book of Acts, Vol. 1 (Portland: The Center Press, Bible Temple,Inc., 1973), pp. 48, 49.
Chapter 5
THEORIES ON WATER BAPTISM
Today there are two major beliefs concerning the rite of baptism with regards to its effect onsalvation. Some believe that water baptism is necessary in order for one to be saved. This belief iscommonly called "Baptismal Regeneration." Those opposing this doctrine say that baptism has norelation to salvation but is a symbol of the believer's's death, resurrection and rising to walk innewness of life associating himself with Christ. Each of these beliefs will be given separateconsideration with the Scripture rendering the final verdict.
The Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration
In order to understand what is meant by "Baptismal Regeneration" it is necessary to definethe term "regeneration." Vine defines the term as:
..new birth (palin, "again," genesis, "birth"), is used of spiritual regeneration, Tit. 3:5,involving the communication of a new life, the two operating powers to producewhich are "the word of truth," James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, John3:5,6; the loutron, the laver, the washing, is explained in Eph. 5:26, "having cleansedit by the washing (loutron) of water with the word,22
Doctor Charles Hodge defines regeneration in the following manner
The sense usually attached to it, in our day, is that inward change is the state of thesoul wrought by the Holy Spirit, by which it passes from death into life; by which itis born again so as to become a child of God and an heir of eternal life.23
The most appropriate definition given on "baptismal regeneration" is that by Doctor Hodge when hestated:
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is the doctrine that this inward saving changeis effected in baptism; so that those who are baptized are the subjects of that new birthwhich Christ declares to be necessary to salvation; and those who are not baptized
22Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 949.
23Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III pp. 599,600.
25
have not experienced that new birth and are not in a state of salvation.24
From the above quotations it can be seen that those teaching "baptismal regeneration" believe thatthe act of being baptized in water produces regeneration in the life of the person being baptized. Without water baptism they believe that no one is regenerated.
Opposition to Baptismal Regeneration
Many of the Scriptures used to teach regeneration by baptism are not interpreted properly butare taken out of their context. Doctor Augustus Strong quoting Alexander Campbell who promotedthe doctrines of baptismal regeneration states their belief in the following manner.
I am bold to affirm that every one of them, who in belief of what the apostle spokewas immersed, did, in the very instant in which he was put under water, receive theforgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. In and by the set of immersion,as soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant our former or old sinsare washed away....Immersion and regeneration are Bible names for the same act....Itis not our faith in God's promise of remission, bout our going down into the water,that obtains the remission os sins.25
Baptismal regeneration is foreign in the teachings of the Scripture. According to the plainteachings of the Word of God one is not saved by water baptism. A person is saved by faith and notby works. Mark 16:16 states: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but that believethnot shall be damned." It should be noted that "believing" comes before baptism. Jesus affirms thisfact in His teaching when He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, andbelieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but ispassed from death unto life." (John 5:24) Jesus taught on many occasions that a person is saved bybelieving the gospel and believing that He is the Son of God. (John 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 6:40,47) Evenwith the teachings of the Apostles baptism was never taught as the regenerative act but believing isthe key message. Peter preaching to the Gentiles said, "To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness,that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) Thisverse makes it very clear that our sins are forgiven by believing in Christ. The Apostle Paul did notteach baptismal regeneration but told the jailer, "...Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shaltbe saved." (Acts 16:31) Paul taught the people in Antioch, "...that through this man is preached untoyou the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye
24Ibid., p. 600.
25Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, "Baptism," (Valley Forge: JudsonPress, 1907), p. 947.
26
27
could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38,39)
After examining the teachings of the Word of God it must be concluded that baptismalregeneration is not taught in the Scriptures. Many passages of Scripture in the New Testament teachthat men are saved by faith and not by works. All of the Old Testament believers were saved by faithin the promised seed. Those individuals were not saved by keeping the law because no flesh couldbe justified by the law. Abraham the father of the faithful was saved by faith. Paul taught in Galatianschapter three that all who believe are children of Abraham and are "heirs according tot he promise."
New Testament Teaching
Since one is saved by faith in Christ the question may be asked, Why be baptized? Manyanswer this by saying because it is a command given by Jesus. The question can still be asked, Whatis the purpose of being baptized? There are a few Scriptures which give the answer to thesequestions. One of the key verses in 1 Peter 3:21 which states: "The like figure whereunto evenbaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a goodconscience toward, ) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The great point needing to be understoodin this verse is whether baptism does or does not save an individual. It should be noted in 1 Peter3:20 that water did not save Noah but the ark was the means by which he and his family and all theanimals were saved. Dake's Annotated Reference Bible states:
So baptism in water does not save the soul, but faith in the death, burial, andresurrection of Jesus Christ, that which baptism is a figure of, does save the soul(Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Eph. 1:14; Col. 1:20-22). A mere figure can have nopower to save, but the reality of the figure can. Peter, lest some should trust in waterbaptism to save the soul, makes it very clear that baptism does not save one from thefilth or moral depravity of the flesh...(Baptism) testifies figuratively to the salvationthat comes by faith.26
Baptism in water does not save but is "the answer of a good conscience toward God." Pastor Beallstates:
Originally, water baptism was an expression of repentance and faith. It was anobedience in response to the Lordship of Christ, and through it, believers had a metingwith God which changed their hearts and lives. The Holy Spirit was given, eitherright after baptism, or immediately before. The Gospel offered a complete salvation,and men experienced the benefits of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection throughrelating directly to the Lord in repentance, faith, water baptism, and the Baptism in
26Finnis Jennings Dake, Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, (Atlanta: Dake Bible Sales,Inc., 1963), p. 267.
28
the Holy Spirit.27
Mr. Stibbs clearly defines the meaning of baptism by saying:
...the water of Christian baptism speaks of the death which fell upon Christ, a deathdue to sinners, which believers into Christ are both saved from, and saved by, andthrough which they enter into the enjoyment of new life before God.28
All of the above definitions concerning water baptism are in agreement with one another and theteachings of the New Testament. When John the Baptist began to preach he commanded the peopleto repent and believe on the one to come after him. (Matt. 3:5-9) Throughout the book of Actspeople were commanded to repent of their sins. (Acts 2:38; 8:12,13) People during the early daysof the church believed the gospel message and then demonstrated their belief by being baptized. Acts10:47 records the Apostle Peter commanding the Gentiles to be baptized in water even though theyhad received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since all persons baptized during the Apostolic era believedin Christ prior to being baptized it is in order to conclude with the Apostle Paul that baptism issymbolic of our death, burial and resurrection with Christ. The Old man is buried in the watery graveand upon coming up out of the water the believer is to walk in the newness of life. (Rom. 6:3-6)
27James Lee Beall, Rise to Newness of Life, (Detroit: Evangel Press, 1974), p. 105.
28Alan M. Stibbs, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, Vol. 17, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959), p. 144.
Chapter 6
OTHER BAPTISMS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
In previous chapters we examined the doctrine of water baptism. This chapter is going tobriefly examine some of the other usages of the word "baptism" in the New Testament. Writers ofthe New Testament used the term "baptism" to refer to more than simply baptism in water. The otherpassages are going to be considered briefly which are the baptism of suffering and the baptism of theHoly Spirit. The latter phrase is one that has come under attack recently due to a difference in theinterpretations given by the various schools of theology.
Baptism of Suffering
One day while Jesus was going up to Jerusalem for the last time two men and their mothermade a request. The men wanted to know if one could sit on the right hand and the other on the lefthand of Jesus when He came into His glory. (Mark 10:35-37) Jesus made it very clear that these mendid not know what they were asking for. He asked them: "...Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" (Mark 11:38) The request to be on theright and left hand of Jesus was not granted but Jesus did say: "...Ye shall indeed drink of the cupthat I drink of and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized." (Mark 11:39,40) To better understand what Jesus meant by drinking of the cup and being baptized with the baptismwhich He was to experience we turn to one commentator who states?
Cup has been an Old Testament symbol for suffering, especially one for enduring thewrath of God. as well as for joy....Baptism is again an Old Testament picture of oneundergoing the wrath of God (see Ps. Lxix. 15), although, of course, in later Judaismit took on other meanings of a purificatory nature (Mk. vii. 4).29
Jesus made it very clear that the cup and baptism which He was to undergo was that of suffering. He said: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished."(Luke 12:50) This baptism referred to the suffering and His death on the cross. The apostles didreceive the baptism of suffering. Believers in Christ also receive this same baptism because theApostle Peter was inspired to write one epistle devoted to the subject of the Christian and suffering. In order for believers to reign with Christ they must also suffer with Him.
29R.A.Cole, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol. 2 p. 170.
29
Baptism in the Spirit
John the Baptist was the first person recorded in the New Testament mentioning a baptismwith the Spirit. He said:
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me ismightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. (Matt. 3:11)
Jesus before ascending into heaven made it very clear that the disciples were to be baptized with theHoly Spirit. The writer of the book of Acts records Jesus telling the disciples:
...John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost notmany days hence. (Acts 1:5)
Chapter two in the books of Acts records the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit fulfilling theprophecies of both John the Baptist and Jesus the Messiah. This great event is recorded on the dayof Pentecost...
suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filledall the house where they were sitting....and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:2,4)
Throughout the book of the Acts of the Apostles individuals constantly received the filling of theHoly Spirit prior to being baptized in water but most of the time after they had been baptized inwater. All believers in Christ are baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ because Paulwrote:
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles,whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor.12:13).
The Apostle John wrote: "For as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sonsof God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12) To become a son of God one has to befilled with the Holy Spirit because Paul also wrote: "...if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he isnone of his." (Rom. 8:9) Jesus taught that believers in Him would receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus said:
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers ofliving water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him shouldreceive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yetglorified.) [John 7:38,39]
Some hold to the belief that the baptism of or in the Holy Spirit only occurred twice which
30
were on the day of Pentecost and ten years later when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. Sincethe baptism of the Spirit is believed to be limited to just those two time periods then believers todayare no longer baptized with the Spirit but instead are filled with the Spirit upon accepting Christ astheir Saviour. According to the Scriptures a believer is baptized and also filled with the Spirit of God. Paul wrote that there is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 4:5) Everyone usuallyaccepts this one baptism to refer to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Others believe this baptism reallyrefers to the baptism in water and that of the Spirit corresponding to John 3:5 where Jesus said: "...Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enterinto the kingdom of God." Regardless of whether one wants to accept Ephesians 4:5 as the Spiritbaptism or the dual interpretation of water and Spirit it must be concluded that the baptism of theSpirit is essential in order for one to benter the kingdom of God. The writer of Hebrews stated:
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection;not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towardGod, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of the laying on of hands, and of resurrectionof the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 6:1,2)
Some of the modern translations render the term "baptisms" as "washings" however the Greek NewTestament has the Greek word meaning "baptisms" and is so translated in the interlinear.30 It mustbe concluded however that John the Baptist and Jesus both taught a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Afterthe day of Pentecost all believers were filled with the Spirit and Paul taught those in the faith to befilled with the Spirit. (Eph. 5:18) Some use the term "baptism" and "filled with the Spirit"interchangeably. Every born again child of God has received the baptism in or with the Spirit andmust be filled with the Spirit of God in order to live a victorious life in Christ so the he may be ableto say with Paul, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1)
30The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975), pp. 648, 649.
31
Chapter 7
CONCLUSION
Baptism was not a new rite initiated during the time of John the Baptist. Long before Johnthe Baptist was born the Jews were using baptisms in a form of bathing for Gentile proselytes desiringto come into the Jewish faith. Baptism was also performed in the form of Jewish ceremonialwashings. Pagan religions also required their priest to observe a form of baptism. Going throughpurification rites was nothing new to the Gentile world.
John's baptism was not new to the Jews but it did come as a shock to them when John theBaptist commanded them to repent and be baptized. Israelites never experienced being baptizedbecause they were born under the covenant which God had made with Abraham. John's baptismsymbolized repentance, confession of sin and the need of moral cleansing. His baptism did not putpeople in the kingdom of God but was a "preparation to receive the salvation" which was offered byChrist. John's baptism was not Christian baptism as some may believe. John was the last of the OldTestament prophets therefore his baptism was under the Law. His baptizing did prepare the way forthe new covenant which was sealed by the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Christian baptism began on the day of Pentecost after Christ had ascended into heaven andsent the Holy Spirit upon the 120 in the upper room. Water was always used in Christian baptism. Early believers were always immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Later in church historybaptism was performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Along with thechange in the baptismal formula soon the rite was changed from immersion to sprinkling and pouring. Many of the early church fathers began to believe in baptismal regeneration. They began to believethat water baptism saved the individual therefore in order for infants to be saved then they had to be baptized. This was contrary to the teaching of the Apostles because in the beginning of the churchthe Apostles taught believers baptism. No one was allowed to be baptized until they had believed inChrist, repented of their sins and then were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Following waterbaptism the believer was admonished to receive the filling of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the HolySpirit was prophesied by John the Baptist and foretold by Christ. This baptism of the Spirit wasfulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Today all believers are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christand are to be filled with the Spirit. The New Testament does teach one to be baptized (immersed)in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin. This baptism (immersion) is to takeplace only after one has accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour. Baptism is an outward sign of an inwardwork of the Holy Spirit within the heart of the believer. Since infants are not capable of repentingbaptism is to be limited to those who have repented of their sins and have believed on Christ.
32
33
Appendix A
Bible Dictionary Articles on Baptism
BAPTISM
(bap'-tiz-m) (THE BAPTIST INTERPRETATION):-------------------I. MEANING OF BAPTISM.. 1. Terminology.. 2. Proselyte Baptism.. 3. Greek Usage.. 4. New Testament Usage.. 5. The Didache.. 6. Baptismal RegenerationII. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISMIII. THE PRESENT OBLIGATIONLITERATURE-------------------This article is not a discussion of the whole subject, but is merely a presentation of the Baptist
interpretation of the ordinance. The origin and history of the ordinance, as a whole, do not comewithin the range of the present treatment.
I. Meaning of Baptism.-- The verb used in the New Testament is (baptizo).1. Terminology: The substantives baptisma and baptismos occur, though the latter is not used
in the New Testament of the ordinance of baptism except by implication (<Heb 6:2>, "the teachingof baptisms") where the reference is to the distinction between the Christian ordinance and the Jewishceremonial ablutions. Some documents have it also in <Col 2:12> (compare <Heb 9:10>, "diverswashings") for a reference purely to the Jewish purifications (compare the dispute about purifying in<Jn 3:25>). The verb baptizo appears in this sense in <Lk 11:38> (margin) where the Phariseemarveled that Jesus "had not first bathed himself before breakfast" (noon-day meal). The Mosaicregulations required the bath of the whole body <Lev 15:16> for certain uncleannesses. Tertullian(de Baptismo, XV) says that the Jew required almost daily washing. Herodotus (ii. 47) says that ifan Egyptian "touches a swine in passing with his clothes, he goes to the river and dips himself (bapto)from it" (quoted by Broadus in Comm. on Matthew, 333). See also the Jewish scrupulosity illustratedin Sir 34:25 and Jth 12:7 where baptizo occurs.
The same thing appears in the correct text in <Mk 7:4>, "And when they come from themarket-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not." Here baptizo is the true text. The use ofrhantizo ("sprinkle") is due to the difficulty felt by copyists not familiar with Jewish customs. See alsothe omission of "couches" in the same verse. The couches were "pallets" and could easily be dippedinto water. It is noteworthy that here rhantizo is used in contrast with baptizo, showing that baptizodid not mean sprinkle. The term baptismos occurs in Josephus (Ant, XVIII, v, 2) in connection with
34
John's baptism (compare also Irenaeus 686 B about Christ's baptism). In general, however, baptismais the substantive found for the ordinance. The verb baptizo is in reality a frequentative or intensiveof bapto ("dip"). Examples occur where that idea is still appropriate, as in <2 Kin 5:14> (LXX) whereNaaman is said to have "dipped himself seven times in the Jordan" (ebaptisato). The notion ofrepetition may occur also in Josephus (Ant, XV, iii, 3) in connection with the death of Aristobulus,brother of Mariamne, for Herod's friends "dipped him as he was swimming, and plunged him underwater, in the dark of the evening." But in general the term baptizo, as is common with such forms inthe late Greek, is simply equivalent to bapto (compare <Lk 16:24>) and means "dip," "immerse," justas rhantizo, like rhaino, means simply "sprinkle."
If baptizo never occurred in connection with a disputed ordinance, there would be nocontroversy on the meaning of the word. There are, indeed, figurative or metaphorical uses of theword as of other words, but the figurative is that of immersion, like our "immersed in cares,""plunged in grief," etc. It remains to consider whether the use of the word for a ceremony orordinance has changed its significance in the New Testament as compared with ancient Greek
It may be remarked that no Baptist has written a lexicon of the Greek language, and yet thestandard lexicons, like that of Liddell and Scott, uniformly give the meaning of baptizo as "dip,""immerse." They do not give "pour" or "sprinkle," nor has anyone ever adduced an instance wherethis verb means "pour" or "sprinkle." The presumption is therefore in favor of "dip" in the NewTestament.
2. Proselyte Baptism: Before we turn directly to the discussion of the ceremonial usage, aword is called for in regard to Jewish proselyte baptism. It is still a matter of dispute whether thisinitiatory rite was in existence at the time of John the Baptist or not. Schurer argues ably, if notconclusively, for the idea that this proselyte baptism was in use long before the first mention of it inthe 2nd century. (Compare The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Div ii, II, 319 ff; alsoEdersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, appendix, xii, Baptism of Proselytes). It matters nothing at allto the Baptist contention what is true in this regard. It would not be strange if a bath was requiredfor a Gentile who became a Jew, when the Jews themselves required such frequent ceremonialablutions. But what was the Jewish initiatory rite called proselyte baptism? Lightfoot (HoraeHebraicae, <Mt 3:7>) gives the law for the baptism of proselytes: "As soon as he grows whole of thewound of circumcision, they bring him to Baptism, and being placed in the water they again instructhim in some weightier and in some lighter commands of the Law. Which being heard, he plungeshimself and comes up, and, behold, he is an Israelite in all things." To this quotation Marcus Dods(Presbyterian) Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes) adds: "To use Pauline language, hisold man is dead and buried in the water, and he rises from this cleansing grave a new man. The fullsignificance of the rite would have been lost had immersion not been practiced." Lightfoot saysfurther: "Every person baptized must dip his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at onedipping. And wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it meansnothing else than the washing of the whole body." Edersheim (op. cit.) says: "Women were attendedby those of their own sex, the rabbis standing at the door outside." Jewish proselyte baptism, aninitiatory ceremonial rite, harmonizes exactly with the current meaning of baptizo already seen. Therewas no peculiar "sacred" sense that changed "dip" to "sprinkle."
3. Greek Usage: The Greek language has had a continuous history, and baptizo is used todayin Greece for baptism. As is well known, not only in Greece, but all over Russia, wherever the Greek
35
church prevails, immersion is the unbroken and universal practice. The Greeks may surely be creditedwith knowledge of the meaning of their own language. The substitution of pouring or sprinkling forimmersion, as the Christian ordinance of baptism, was late and gradual and finally triumphed in theWest because of the decree of the Council of Trent. But the Baptist position is that this substitutionwas unwarranted and subverts the real significance of the ordinance. The Greek church does practicetrine immersion, one immersion for each person of the Trinity, an old practice (compare termergitamur, Tertullian ii. 79 A), but not the Scriptural usage. A word will be needed later concerningthe method by which pouring crept in beside immersion in the 2nd and later centuries. Before we turndirectly to the New Testament use of baptizo it is well to quote from the Greek Lexicon of theRoman and Byzantine Periods by Professor E. A. Sophocles, himself a native Greek. He says (p.297): "There is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put uponthis verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks." We expect therefore to find in the New Testament"dip," as the meaning of this word in the ceremonial sense of an initiatory Christian rite. Thayer'sLexicon likewise defines the word in this ceremonial Christian use to mean "an immersion in water,performed as a sign of the removal of sin."
Baptists could very well afford to rest the matter right here. There is no need to call for thetestimony of a single Baptist scholar on this subject. The world of scholarship has rendered itsdecision with impartiality and force on the side of the Baptists in this matter. A few recentdeliverances will suffice. Dr. Alfred Plummer (Church of England) in his new Commentary onMatthew (p. 28) says that the office of John the Baptist was "to bind them to a new life, symbolizedby immersion in water." Swete (Church of England) in his Commentary on Mark (p. 7) speaks of "theadded thought of immersion, which gives vividness to the scene." The early Greek ecclesiasticalwriters show that immersion was employed (compare Barnabas, XI, 11): "We go down into the waterfull of sins and filth, and we come up bearing fruit in the heart." For numerous ecclesiastical examplessee Sophocles' Lexicon.
4. New Testament Usage: But the New Testament itself makes the whole matter perfectlyplain. The uniform meaning of "dip" for baptizo and the use of the river Jordan as the place forbaptizing by John the Baptist makes inevitable the notion of immersion unless there is some directcontradictory testimony. It is a matter that should be lifted above verbal quibbling or any effort todisprove the obvious facts. The simple narrative in <Mt 3:6> is that "they were baptized of him in theriver Jordan." In <Mk 1:9-10> the baptism is sharpened a bit in the use of eis and ek. Jesus "wasbaptized of John in (eis) the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of (ek) the water, he saw." Soin <Acts 8:38> we read: "They both went down into (eis) the water, both Philip and the eunuch; andhe baptized him. And when they came up out of (ek) the water, the Spirit .... caught away Philip."If one could still be in doubt about the matter, Paul sets it at rest by the symbolism used in <Rom6:4>, "We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raisedfrom the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life." Thesubmergence and emergence of immersion thus, according to Paul, symbolize the death and burialto sin on the one hand and the resurrection to the new life in Christ on the other. Sanday and Headlam(Church of England) put it thus in their Commentary on Romans (p. 153): "It expresses symbolicallya series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Immersion = Death. Submersion =Burial (the ratification of death). Emergence = Resurrection." In <Col 2:12> Paul again says: "havingbeen buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working
36
of God, who raised him from the dead." The same image is here presented. Lightfoot (Church ofEngland) on Colossians (p. 182) says: "Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new.As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and pastsins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and new life."
There is nothing in the New Testament to offset this obvious and inevitable interpretation.There are some things which are brought up, but they vanish on examination. The use of "with" afterbaptize in the English translation is appealed to as disproving immersion. It is enough to reply thatthe Committee of the American Standard Revision, which had no Baptist member at the final revision,substituted "in" for "with." Thus: "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance" (<Mt 3:11>;compare also <Mk 1:8>). The use of both "with" and "in" in <Lk 3:16> is a needless stickling for theuse of the Greek en with the locative case. In <Mk 1:8> en is absent in the best MSS, and yet theAmerican Revisers correctly render "in." In <Acts 1:5> they seek to draw the distinction between themere locative and en and the locative. As a matter of fact the locative case alone is amply sufficientin Greek without en for the notion of "in."
Thus in <Jn 21:8> the translation is: "But the other disciples came in the little boat." Thereis no en in the Greek, but "the boat" is simply in the locative case. If it be argued that we have theinstrumental case (compare the instrumental case of en as in <Rev 6:8>, "kill with sword"), theanswer is that the way to use water as an instrument in dipping is to put the subject in the water, asthe natural way to use the boat <Jn 21:8> as an instrument is to get into it. The presence or absenceof en with baptizo is wholly immaterial. In either case "dip" is the meaning of the verb The objectionthat three thousand people could not have been immersed in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost issuperficial. Jerusalem was abundantly supplied with pools. There were 120 disciples on hand, mostof whom were probably men (compare the 70 sent out before by Jesus). It is not at all necessary tosuppose that the 12 (Matthias was now one of them) apostles did all the baptizing. But even so, thatwould be only 250 apiece. I myself have baptized 42 candidates in a half-hour in a creek where therewould be no delay. It would at most be only a matter of four or five hours for each of the twelve.Among the Telugus this record has been far exceeded. It is sometimes objected that Paul could nothave immersed the jailer in the prison; but the answer is that Luke does not say so. Indeed Lukeimplies just the opposite: "And he took (took along in the Greek, para) them the same hour of thenight, and washed their stripes; and was baptized." He took Paul and Silas along with him and founda place for the baptism, probably, somewhere on the prison grounds. There is absolutely nothing inthe New Testament to controvert the unvarying significance of baptizo.
5. The "Didache": Appeal has been made to the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which maybelong to the first half of the 2nd century. Here for the first time pouring is distinctly admitted as anordinance in place of immersion. Because of this remarkable passage it is argued by some that, thoughimmersion was the normal and regular baptism, yet alongside of it, pouring was allowed, and that inreality it was a matter of indifference which was used even in the 1st century. But that is not the trueinterpretation of the facts in the case. The passage deserves to be quoted in full and is here given inthe translation of Philip Schaff (Presbyterian) in his edition of the Didache (pp. 184 ff): "Nowconcerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into (eis) the nameof the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. And if thou hast not livingwater, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water). But if thou hastneither, pour water thrice upon the head in (eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
37
Holy Ghost."There is thus no doubt that early in the 2nd century some Christians felt that baptism was so
important that, when the real baptism (immersion) could not be performed because of lack of water,pouring might be used in its place. This is absolutely all that can be deduced from this passage. It isto be noted that for pouring another word (ekcheo) is used, clearly showing that baptizo does notmean "to pour." The very exception filed proves the Baptist contention concerning baptizo. Now inthe New Testament baptizo is the word used for baptism. Ekcheo is never so used. Harnack in a letterto C. E. W. Dobbs, Madison, Ind. (published in The Independent for February 9, 1885), under dateof January 16, 1885 says: " (1) Baptizein undoubtedly signifies immersion (eintauchen). (2) No proofcan be found that it signifies anything else in the New Testament and in the most ancient Christianliterature. The suggestion regarding `a sacred sense' is out of the aquestion." This is the whole pointof the Baptists admirably stated by Adolph Harnack. There is no thought of denying that pouringearly in the 2nd century came to be used in place of immersion in certain extreme cases. The meaningof baptizo is not affected a particle by this fact. The question remains as to why this use of pouringin extreme cases grew up. The answer is that it was due to a mistaken and exaggerated estimate putupon the value of baptism as essential to salvation. Those who died without baptism were felt bysome to be lost. Thus arose "clinic" baptisms.
6. Baptismal Regeneration: (For the doctrine of baptismal regeneration see Justin Martyr, FirstApology, 61.) Out of this perversion of the symbolism of baptism grew both pouring as an ordinanceand infant baptism. If baptism is necessary to salvation or the means of regeneration, then the sick,the dying, infants, must be baptized, or at any rate something must be done for them if the realbaptism (immersion) cannot be performed because of extreme illness or want of water. The Baptistcontention is to protest against the perversion of the significance of baptism as the ruin of the symbol.Baptism, as taught in the New Testament, is the picture of death and burial to sin and resurrectionto new life, a picture of what has already taken place in the heart, not the means by which spiritualchange is wrought. It is a privilege and duty, not a necessity. It is a picture that is lost whensomething else is substituted in its place. See BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
II. The Subjects of Baptism.-- It is significant that even the Teaching of the Twelve apostleswith its exaggerated notion of the importance of baptism does not allow baptism of infants. It says:"Having first taught all these things." Instruction precedes baptism. That is a distinct denial of infantbaptism. The uniform practice in the New Testament is that baptism follows confession. The people"confessing their sins" were baptized by John <Mt 3:6>. It is frankly admitted by Paedobaptistscholars that the New Testament gives no warrant for infant baptism. Thus Jacobus(Congregationalist) in the Standard Bible Dictionary says: "We have no record in the New Testamentof the baptism of infants." Scott (Presbyterian) in the one-volume Hastings Dictionary of the Biblesays: "The New Testament contains no explicit reference to the baptism of infants or young children."
Plummer (Church of England), Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), says: "Therecipients of Christian baptism were required to repent and believe." Marcus Dods (Presbyterian),Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, says: "A rite wherein by immersion in water theparticipant symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure life, his death to a pasthe abandons, and his new birth to a future he desires." It would be hard to state the Baptistinterpretation in better terms. Thus no room is found in the New Testament for infant baptism whichwould symbolize what the infant did not experience or would be understood to cause the regeneration
38
in the child, a form of sacramentalism repugnant to the New Testament teaching as understood byBaptists. The dominant Baptist note is the soul's personal relation to God apart from ordinance,church or priest.
The infant who dies unbaptized is saved without baptism. The baptized individual, child (forchildren are often baptized by Baptists, children who show signs of conversion) or man, is convertedbefore his baptism. The baptism is the symbol of the change already wrought. So clear is this to theBaptist that he bears continual protest against that perversion of this beautiful ordinance by those whotreat it as a means of salvation or who make it meaningless when performed before conversion.Baptism is a preacher of the spiritual life. The Baptist contention is for a regenerated churchmembership, placing the kingdom before the local church. Membership in the kingdom precedesmembership in the church. The passages quoted from the New Testament in support of the notionof infant baptism are wholly irrelevant, as, for instance, in <Acts 2:39> where there is no such ideaas baptism of infants. So in <1 Cor 7:14>, where note husband and wife. The point is that themarriage relation is sanctified and the children are legitimate, though husband or wife be heathen. Themarriage relation is to be maintained. It is begging the question to assume the presence of infants inthe various household baptisms in Acts. In the case of the family of Cornelius they all spake withtongues and magnified God <Acts 10:46>. The jailer's household "rejoiced greatly" <Acts 16:34>.We do not even know that Lydia was married. Her household may have been merely her employesin her business. The New Testament presents no exceptions in this matter.
III. The Present Obligation.-- The Baptists make one more point concerning baptism. It isthat, since Jesus himself submitted to it and enjoined it upon His disciples, the ordinance is ofperpetual obligation. The arguments for the late ecclesiastical origin of <Mt 28:19> are notconvincing. If it seem strange that Jesus should mention the three persons of the Trinity in connectionwith the command to baptize, one should remember that the Father and the Spirit were bothmanifested to Him at His baptism. It was not a mere ceremonial ablution like the Jewish rites. It wasthe public and formal avowal of fealty to God, and the names of the Trinity properly occur. The newheart is wrought by the Holy Spirit. Reconciliation with the Father is wrought on the basis of thework of the Son, who has manifested the Father's love in His life and death for sin. The fact that inthe acts in the examples of baptism only the name of Jesus occurs does not show that this was theexact formula used.
It may be a mere historical summary of the essential fact. The name of Jesus stood for theother two persons of the Trinity. On the other hand the command of Jesus may not have beenregarded as a formula for baptism; while in no sense sacramental or redemptive, it is yet obligatoryand of perpetual significance. It is not to be dropped as one of the Jewish excrescences onChristianity. The form itself is necessary to the significance of the rite. Hence, Baptists hold thatimmersion alone is to be practiced, since immersion alone was commanded by Jesus and practicedin the New Testament times. Immersion alone sets forth the death to sin, and burial in the grave theresurrection to new life in Christ. Baptism as taught in the New Testament is "a mould of doctrine,"a preacher of the heart of the gospel. Baptists deny the right of disciples of Jesus to break that mould.The point of a symbol is the form in which it is cast. To change the form radically is to destroy thesymbolism. Baptists insist on the maintenance of primitive New Testament baptism because it aloneis baptism, it alone proclaims the death and resurrection of Jesus, the spiritual death and resurrectionof the believer, the ultimate resurrection of the believer from the grave. The disciple is not above his
39
Lord, and has no right to destroy this rich and powerful picture for the sake of personal convenience,nor because he is willing to do something else which Jesus did not enjoin and which has noassociation with Him. The long years of perversion do not justify this wrong to the memory of Jesus,but all the more call upon modern disciples to follow the example of Jesus who himself fulfilledrighteousness by going into the waters of the Jordan and receiving immersion at the hands of Johnthe Baptist.
LITERATURE.-- The Greek Lexicons, like Suicer, Liddell and Scott, Sophocles, Thayer,Preuschen; the Biblical. Dictionaries; the Critical Commentaries on the New Testament; books ofantiquities like Smith's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities; the new The New Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia of Religious Knowledge; Binghara's Antiquities of the Christian Church; Schaff'sCreeds of Christendom; Neale's History of the Holy Eastern Church; Lives of Christ, like Edersheim'sLife and Times of Jesus the Messiah, or a survey of the customs of the Jews like Schurer's Historyof the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ; books on John the Baptist like Reynolds' John theBaptist, Feather's Last of the Prophets, Robertson's John the Loyal; special treatises on Baptism likeWall's History of Infant Baptism, Stanley's Christian Institutions, Dargan's Ecclesiology, Conant'sBaptizein, Mozley's Review of the Baptismal Controversy, Christian's Immersion, Broadus'Immersion, Frost's The Moral Dignity of Baptism, Whitsitt's a Question in Baptist History, Lofton'sThe Baptist Reformation, Lambert's The Sacraments of the New Testament, Dale's Classic Baptismand Christian and Patristic Baptism, Kirtley's Design of Baptism, Forester's The Baptist Position,Frost's Baptist Why and Why Not, Ford's Studies in Baptism.
A. T. ROBERTSON (from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, ElectronicDatabase Copyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)
BAPTISM
(NON-IMMERSIONIST VIEW):-------------------I. THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES FOR THE RITEII. PRE-CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.. 1. Baptism of Proselytes.. 2. Baptism of John.. 3. Baptism in the Pagan MysteriesIII. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.. 1. The administration of the Rite.. 2. The Mode of Using the Water...... (1) Immersion...... (2) Affusion...... (3) Aspersion.. 3. Who May Perform Baptism.. 4. Who May Receive Baptism...... (1) Baptism of Infants
40
...... (2) Baptism for the DeadIV. THE FORMULA OF BAPTISMV. THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM.. 1. The Doctrine of Infant BaptismLITERATURE-------------------Baptism (baptisma, baptismos, baptizein) has been from the earliest times the initiatory rite
signifying the recognition of entrance into or of presence within the Christian church. We find theearliest mention of the ceremony in the Epistle to the <Gal 3:27>, written about 20 years after thedeath of Jesus. There and in <1 Cor 1:13; 12:13> Paul takes for granted that everyone who becomesa Christian (himself included) must be baptized. The rite seems also to have existed among thediscipleship of Jesus before His death. We are told <Jn 4:1-2> that, although Jesus Himself did notbaptize, His disciples did, and that their baptisms were more numerous than those of John.
I. Scriptural Names for the Rite.-- The words commonly used in the New Testament to denotethe rite are the verb baptizo, and the nouns baptisma and baptismos; but none are employed in thissense alone. The verb is used to denote the ceremonial purification of the Jews before eating, bypouring water on the hands <Lk 11:38; Mk 7:4>; to signify the sufferings of Christ <Mk 10:38-39;Lk 12:50>; and to indicate the sacrament of baptism. It is the intensive form of baptein, "to dip," andtakes a wider meaning. The passages <Lk 11:38> and <Mk 7:4> show conclusively that the worddoes not invariably signify to immerse the whole body. Some have held that baptismos invariablymeans ceremonial purification, and that baptisma is reserved for the Christian rite; but the distinctioncan hardly be maintained. The former certainly means ceremonial purification in <Mk 7:4>, and in<7:8> (the King James Version); but it probably means the rite of baptism in <Heb 6:2>. Exegetesfind other terms applied to Christian baptism. It is called `the Water' in <Acts 10:47>: "Can any manforbid `the Water, ' that these should not be baptized?"; The layer of the water in <Eph 5:26> theRevised Version, margin (where baptism is compared to the bridal bath taken by the bride before shewas handed over to the bridegroom); and perhaps the laver of regeneration in <Tit 3:5> the RevisedVersion, margin (compare <1 Cor 6:11>), and illumination in <Heb 6:4; 10:32>.
II. Pre-Christian Baptism.-- Converts in the early centuries, whether Jews or Gentiles, couldnot have found this initiatory rite, in which they expressed their new-born faith, utterly unfamiliar.
1. The Baptism of Proselytes: Water is the element naturally used for cleansing the body andits symbolical use entered into almost every cult; and into none more completely than the Jewish,whose ceremonial washings were proverbial. Besides those the Jew had what would seem to theconvert a counterpart of the Christian rite in the baptism of proselytes by which Gentiles entered thecircle of Judaism. For the Jews required three things of strangers who declared themselves to beconverts to the Law of Moses: circumcision, baptism, and to offer sacrifice if they were men: the twolatter if they were women. It is somewhat singular that no baptism of proselytes is forthcoming untilabout the beginning of the 3rd century; and yet no competent scholar doubts its existence. Schureris full of contempt for those who insist on the argument from silence. Its presence enables us to seeboth how Jews accepted readily the baptism of John and to understand the point of objectors whoquestioned his right to insist that all Jews had to be purified ere they could be ready for the Messianickingdom, although he was neither the Messiah nor a special prophet <Jn 1:19-23>.
2. The Baptism of John: The baptism of John stood midway between the Jewish baptism of
41
proselytes and Christian baptism. It differed from the former because it was more than a symbol ofceremonial purification; it was a baptism of repentance, a confession of sin, and of the need of moralcleansing, and was a symbol of forgiveness and of moral purity. All men, Jews who were ceremoniallypure and Gentiles who were not, had to submit to this baptism of repentance and pardon. It differedfrom the latter because it only symbolized preparation to receive the salvation, the kingdom of Godwhich John heralded, and did not imply entrance into that kingdom itself. Those who had receivedit, as well as those who had not, had to enter the Christian community by the door of Christianbaptism (acts <John 19:3-6>). The Jewish custom of baptizing, whether displayed in their frequentceremonial washings, in the baptism of proselytes or in the baptism of John, made Christian baptisma familiar and even expected rite to Jewish converts in the 1st century.
3. Baptism in the Pagan Mysteries: Baptism, as an initiatory rite, was no less familiar to gentileconverts who had no acquaintance with the Jewish religion. The ceremonial washings of the priestsof pagan in the religions have been often adduced as something which might familiarize gentileconverts with the rite which introduced them into the Christian community, but they were notinitiations. A more exact parallel is easily found. It is often forgotten that in the earlier centuries whenChristianity was slowly making its way in the pagan world pagan piety had deserted the officialreligions and taken refuge within the Mysteries, and that these Mysteries represented the popularpagan religions of the times. They were all private cults into which men and women were receivedone by one, and that by rites of initiation which each had to pass through personally. When admittedthe converts became members of coteries, large or small, of like-minded persons, who had becomeinitiated because their souls craved something which they believed they would receive in and throughthe rites of the cult. These initiations were secret, jealously guarded from the knowledge of alloutsiders; still enough is known about them for us to be sure that among them baptism took animportant place (Apuleius Metamorphoses xi). The rite was therefore as familiar to pagan as toJewish converts, and it was no unexpected requirement for the convert to know that baptism was thedoorway into the church of Christ. These heathen baptisms, like the baptism of proselytes, were forthe most part simply ceremonial purifications; for while it is true that both in the cult of the Mysteriesand beyond it a mode of purifying after great crimes was baptizing in flowing water (Eurip. Iph. inTauri 167) or in the sea, yet it would appear that only ceremonial purification was thought of. Norwere ceremonial rites involving the use of water confined to the paganism of the early centuries. Sucha ceremony denoted the reception of the newly-born child into pagan Scandinavian households. Thefather decided whether the infant was to be reared or exposed to perish. If he resolved to preservethe babe, water was poured over it and a name was given to it.
III. Christian Baptism.-- In the administration of the rite of Christian baptism three things haveto be looked at: the act of baptizing; those who are entitled to perform it; and the recipients or thoseentitled to receive it.
1. The Administration of the Rite: A complete act of baptizing involves three things: what hasbeen called the materia sacramenti; the method of its use; and the forma sacramenti, the baptismalformula or form of words accompanying the use of the water. The materia sacramenti is water andfor this reason baptism is called the Water Sacrament. The oldest ecclesiastical manual of disciplinewhich has descended to us, the Didache, says that the water to be preferred is "living," i.e. runningwater, water in a stream or river, or fresh flowing from a fountain; "But if thou hast not living water,baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm" (c. 7). In those directions the
42
prescriptions of the ceremonial for the Jewish baptism of proselytes are closely followed. The earliercanons of the church permit any kind of water, fresh or salt, provided only it be true and natural water(aqua vera et naturalis).
(1) Immersion.-- The use of the water is called ablutio.According to the rules of by far the largest portion of the Christian church the water may be
used in any one of three ways:2. The Mode of Using the Water: Immersion, where the recipient enters bodily into the water,
and where, during the action, the head is plunged either once or three times beneath the surface;affusion, where water was poured upon the head of the recipient who stood either in water or on dryground; and aspersion where water was sprinkled on the head or on the face. It has frequently beenargued that the word baptizein invariably means "to dip" or immerse, and that therefore Christianbaptism must have been performed originally by immersion only, and that the two other forms ofaffusion and aspersion or sprinkling are invalid-- that there can be no real baptism unless the methodof immersion be used. But the word which invariably means "to dip" is not baptizein but baptein.Baptizein has a wider signification; and its use to denote the Jewish ceremonial of pouring water onthe hands <Lk 11:38; Mk 7:4>, as has already been said, proves conclusively that it is impossible toconclude from the word itself that immersion is the only valid method of performing the rite. It maybe admitted at once that immersion, where the whole body including the head is plunged into a poolof pure water, gives a more vivid picture of the cleansing of the soul from sin; and that completesurrounding with water suits better the metaphors of burial in Roman <6:4> and <Col 2:12>, and ofbeing surrounded by cloud in <1 Cor 10:2>.
(2) Affusion.-- On the other hand affusion is certainly a more vivid picture of the bestowal ofthe Holy Spirit which is equally symbolized in baptism. No definite information is given of the modein which baptism was administered in apostolic times. Such phrases as "coming up out of the water,""went down into the water" <Mk 1:10; Acts 8:38> are as applicable to affusion as to immersion. Theearliest account of the mode of baptizing occurs in the Didache (c. 7), where it is said: "Nowconcerning Baptism, thus baptize ye: having first uttered all these things, baptize in the name of theFather, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. But if thou hast not living water,baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour waterupon the head thrice in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost." This seems to say that tobaptize by immersion was the practice recommended for general use, but that the mode of affusionwas also valid and enjoined on occasions.
What is here prescribed in the Didache seems to have been the practice usually followed inthe early centuries of the Christian church. Immersion was in common use: but affusion was alsowidely practiced: and both were esteemed usual and valid forms of baptizing. When immersion wasused then the head of the recipient was plunged thrice beneath the surface at the mention of eachname of the Trinity; when the mode was by affusion the same reference to the Trinity was kept bypouring water thrice upon the head. The two usages which were recognized and prescribed by thebeginning of the 2nd century may have been in use throughout the apostolic period although definiteinformation is lacking. When we remember the various pools in Jerusalem, and their use forceremonial washings it is not impossible to suppose that the 3,000 who were baptized on the day ofPentecost may have been immersed, but, when the furnishing and conditions of Palestinian houses andof oriental jails are taken into account, it is difficult to conceive that at the baptisms of Cornelius and
43
of the jailer, the ceremony was performed otherwise than by affusion.It is a somewhat curious fact that if the evidence from written texts, whether ancient canons
or writings of the earlier Fathers, be studied by themselves, the natural conclusion would seem to bethat immersion was the almost universal form of administering the rite; but if the witness of theearliest pictorial representation be collected, then we must infer that affusion was the usual methodand that immersion was exceptional; for the pictorial representations, almost without exception,display baptism performed by affusion, i.e. the recipient is seen standing in water while the ministerpours water on the head. It may therefore be inferred that evidence for the almost universal practiceof immersion, drawn from the fact that baptisms took place in river pools (it is more than probablethat when we find the names of local saints given to pools in rivers, those places were their favoriteplaces of administering the rite), or from the large size of almost all early mediaeval baptisteries, isby no means so conclusive as many have supposed, such places being equally applicable to affusion.It is also interesting to remember that when most of the Anabaptists of the 16th century insisted onadult baptism (re-baptism was their name for it) immersion was not the method practiced by them.During the great baptismal scene in the market-place of the city of Munster the ordinance wasperformed by the ministers pouring three cans of water on the heads of the recipients. They baptizedby affusion and not by immersion. This was also the practice among the Mennonites or earliestBaptists. This double mode of administering the sacrament-- by immersion or by affusion-- prevailedin the churches of the first twelve uries, and it was not until the 13th that the practice of aspersio orsprinkling was almost universally employed.
(3) Aspersion.-- The third method of administering baptism, namely, by aspersio or sprinkling,has a different history from the other two. It was in the early centuries exclusively reserved for sickand infirm persons too weak to be submitted to immersion or affusion. There is evidence to show thatthose who received the rite in this form were somewhat despised; for the nicknames clinici andgrabatorii were, unworthily Cyprian declares, bestowed on them by neighbors. The question was evenraised in the middle of the 3rd century, whether baptism by aspersio was a valid baptism and Cyprianwas asked for his opinion on the matter. His answer is contained in his lxxvth epistle (lxix Hartel'sed.). There he contends that the ordinance administered this way is perfectly valid, and quotes insupport of his opinion various Old Testament texts which assert the purifying effects of watersprinkled <Ezek 36:25-26; Num 8:5-7; 19:8-9,12-13>. It is not the amount of the water or themethod of its application which can cleanse from sin: "Whence it appears that the sprinkling also ofwater prevails equally with the washing of salvation .... and that where the faith of the giver andreceiver is sound, all things hold and may be consummated and perfected by the majesty of God andby the truth of faith." His opinion prevailed. Aspersio was recognized as a valid, though exceptional,form of baptism. But it was long of commending itself to ministers and people, and did not attain toalmost general use until the 13th century.
The idea that baptism is valid when practiced in the one method only of immersion canscarcely be looked on as anything else than a ritualistic idea.
3. Who May Perform Baptism: The Scripture nowhere describes or limits the qualificationsof those who are entitled to perform the rite of baptism. We find apostles, wandering preachers <Acts8:38>, a private member of a small and persecuted community <Acts 9:18> performing the rite. Soin the sub-apostolic church we find the same liberty of practice. Clement of Alexandria tells us thatthe services of Christian women were necessary for the work of Christian missions, for they alone
44
could have access to the gynaeceum and carry the message of the gospel there (Strom., III, 6). Suchwomen missionaries did not hesitate to baptize. Whatever credit may be given to the Acts of Paul andTheckla, it is at least historical that Theckla did exist, that she was converted by Paul, that she workedas a missionary and that she baptized her converts. Speaking generally it may be said that as asacrament has always been looked upon as the recognition of presence within the Christian church,it is an act of the church and not of the individual believer; and therefore no one is entitled to performthe act who is not in some way a representative of the Christian community-- the representativecharacter ought to be maintained somehow.
As soon as the community had taken regular and organized form the act of baptism wassuitably performed by those who, as office-bearers, naturally represented the community. It wasrecognized that the pastor or bishop (for these terms were synonymous until the 4th century at least)ought to preside at the administration of the sacrament; but in the early church the power ofdelegation was recognized and practiced, and elders and deacons presided at this and even at theEucharist. What has been called lay-baptism is not forbidden in the New Testament and has thesanction of the early church. When superstitious views of baptism entered largely into the church andit was held that no unbaptized child could be saved, the practice arose of encouraging the baptism ofall weakling infants by nurses. The Reformed church protested against this and was at pains torepudiate the superstitious thought of any mechanical efficacy in the rite by deprecating its exerciseby any save approved and ordained ministers of the church. Still, while condemning lay-baptism asirregular, it may be questioned whether they would assert any administration of the rite to be invalid,provided only it had been performed with devout faith on the part of giver and receiver.
4. Who May Receive Baptism: The recipients of Christian baptism are all those who make apresumably sincere profession of repentance of sin and of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour;together with the children of such believing parents. The requirements are set forth in the accountsgiven us of the performance of the rite in the New Testament, in which we see how the apostlesobeyed the commands of their Master. Jesus had ordered them to "make disciples of all the nations,baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" <Mt 28:19>-- to"preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he thatdisbelieveth shall be condemned" <Mk 16:15-16>. The apostle Peter said to the inquirers on the Dayof Pentecost, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto theremission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"; and 3,000 were added to thechurch through the initiatory rite of baptism. The Samaritans, who believed on Jesus through thepreaching of Philip, were admitted to the Christian community through baptism; though in this caseone of the baptized, Simon Magus, after his reception, was found to be still in "the bond of iniquity"<Acts 8:12,23>. The jailer and all his, Lydia and her household, at Philippi, were baptized by Paulon his and her profession of faith on Jesus, the Saviour. There is no evidence in any of the accountswe have of apostolic baptisms that any prolonged course of instruction was thought to be necessary;nothing of classes for catechumens such as we find in the early church by the close of the 2nd century,or in modern missionary enterprise. We find no mention of baptismal creeds, declarative orinterrogative, in the New Testament accounts of baptisms. The profession of faith in the Lord Jesus,the Saviour, made by the head of the family appears, so far as the New Testament records afford usinformation, to have been sufficient to secure the baptism of the "household"-- a word which in thesedays included both servants and children.
45
(1) Baptism of infants.-- This brings us to the much-debated question whether infants are tobe recognized as lawful recipients of Christian baptism. The New Testament Scriptures do not in somany words either forbid or command the baptism of children. The question is in this respect on allfours with the change of the holy day from the seventh to the first day of the week. No positivecommand authorizes the universal usage with regard to the Christian Sabbath day; that the changeis authorized must be settled by a weighing of evidence. So it is with the case of infant baptism. It isneither commanded nor forbidden in so many words; and the question cannot be decided on such abasis. The strongest argument against the baptizing of infants lies in the thought that the conditionsof the rite are repentance and faith; that these must be exercised by individuals, each one for himselfand for herself; and that infants are incapable either of repentance or of faith of this kind.
The argument seems weak in its second statement; it is more dogmatic than historical; andwill be referred to later when the doctrine lying at the basis of the rite is examined. On the other handa great deal of evidence supports the view that the baptism of infants, if not commanded, was at leastpermitted and practiced within the apostolic church. Paul connects baptism with circumcision andimplies that under the gospel the former takes the place of the latter <Col 2:12>; and as children werecircumcised on the 8th day after birth, the inference follows naturally that children were also to bebaptized. In the Old Testament, promises to parents included their children. In his sermon on the Dayof Pentecost Peter declares to his hearers that the gospel promise is "to you and to your children" andconnects this with the invitation to baptism <Acts 2:38-39>. It is also noteworthy that children sharedin the Jewish baptism of proselytes.
Then we find in the New Testament narratives of baptisms that "households" were baptized--of Lydia <Acts 16:15>, of the jailer at Philippi <Acts 16:32>, of Stephanas <1 Cor 1:16>. It is neversaid that the children of the household were exempted from the sacred rite. One has only to rememberthe position of the head of the household in that ancient world, to recollect how the household wasthought to be embodied in its head, to see how the repentance and faith of the head of the householdwas looked upon as including those of all the members, not merely children but servants, to feel thathad the children been excluded from sharing in the rite the exclusion would have seemed such anunusual thing that it would have at least been mentioned and explained. Our Lord expressly madevery young children the types of those who entered into His kingdom <Mk 10:14-16>; and Paul sounites parents with children in the faith of Christ that he does not hesitate to call the children of thebelieving husband or wife "holy," and to imply that the children had passed from a state of"uncleanness" to a state of "holiness" through the faith of a parent.
All these things seem to point to the fact that the rite which was the door of entance into thevisible community of the followers of Jesus was shared in by the children of believing parents. Besidesevidence for the baptism of children goes back to the earliest times of the sub-apostolic church.Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of John, and it is difficult to drawany other conclusion from his statements than that he believed that the baptism of infants had beenan established practice in the church long before his days (Adv. Haer., II, 22; compare 39). Thewitness of Tertullian is specially interesting; for he himself plainly thinks that adult baptism is to bepreferred to the baptism of infants. He makes it plain that the custom of baptizing infants existed inhis days, and we may be sure from the character and the learning of the man, that had he been ableto affirm that infant-baptism had been a recent innovation and had not been a long-established usagedescending from apostolic times, he would certainly have had no hesitation in using what would have
46
seemed to him a very convincing way of dealing with his opponents.Tertullian's testimony comes from the end of the 2nd century or the beginning of the 3rd
century. Origen, the most learned Christian writer during the first three centuries and who comes alittle later than Tertullian, in his 14th Homily on Luke bears witness to the fact that the baptism ofinfants was usual. He argues that original sin belongs to children because the church baptizes them.At the same time it is plain from a variety of evidence too long to cite that the baptism of infants wasnot a universal practice in the early church. The church of the early centuries was a mission church.It drew large numbers of its members from heathendom. In every mission church the baptism of adultswill naturally take the foremost place and be most in evidence. But is is clear that many Christianswere of the opinion of Tertullian and believed that baptism ought not to be administered to childrenbut should be confined to adults. Nor was this a theory only; it was a continuous practice handeddown from one generation to another in some Christian families. In the 4th century, few Christianleaders took a more important place than Basil the Great and his brother Gregory of Nyssa. Theybelonged to a family who had been Christians for some generations; yet neither of the brothers wasbaptized until after his personal conversion, which does not appear to have come until they hadattained the years of manhood. The whole evidence seems to show that in the early church, down tothe end of the 4th century at least, infant and adult baptism were open questions and that the twopractices existed side by side with each other without disturbing the unity of the churches. In the laterPelagian controversy it became evident that the theory and practice of infant baptism had been ableto assert itself and that the ordinance was always administered to children of members of the church.
(2) Baptism for the dead.-- Paul refers to a custom of "baptizing for the dead" <1 Cor 15:29>.What this "vicarious baptism" or "baptism for the dead" was it is impossible to say, even whether itwas practiced within the primitive Christian church. The passage is a very difficult one and has calledforth a very large number of explanations, which are mere guesses. Paul neither commends it nordisapproves of it; he simply mentions its existence and uses the fact as an argument for theresurrection. See BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.
IV. The Formula of Baptism.-- The Formula of Christian baptism, in the mode whichprevailed, is given in <Mt 28:19>: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of theHoly Ghost." But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptismuntil the time of Justin Martyr: and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended andexplanatory form. He says that Christians "receive the washing with water in the name of God, theRuler and Father of the universe, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit" (1 Apol.,61). In every account of the performance of the rite in apostolic times a much shorter formula is inuse. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost "in the name of Jesus" <Acts 2:38>;and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him <Acts10:48>.
Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians:"Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" <1 Cor 1:13>. The Samaritans were baptized "into thename of the Lord Jesus" <Acts 8:16>; and the same formula (a common one in acts of devotion) wasused in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. In some instances it is recorded that before baptism theconverts were asked to make some confession of their faith, which took the form of declaring thatJesus was the Lord or that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. It may be inferred from a phrase in <1Pet 3:21> that a formal interrogation was made, and that the answer was an acknowledgment that
47
Jesus Christ was Lord. Scholars have exercised a great deal of ingenuity in trying to explain how,with what appear to be the very words of Jesus given in the Gospel of Mt, another and much shorterformula seems to have been used throughout the apostolic church.
Some have imagined that the shorter formula was that used in baptizing disciples during thelifetime of Our Lord <Jn 4:1-2>, and that the apostles having become accustomed to it continued touse it during their lives. Others declare that the phrases "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "of the LordJesus" are not meant to give the formula of baptism, but simply to denote that the rite was Christian.Others think that the full formula was always used and that the narratives in the Book of Acts and inthe Pauline Epistles are merely brief summaries of what took place-- an idea rather difficult to believein the absence of any single reference to the longer formula. Others, again, insist that baptism in thename of one of the persons of the Trinity implies baptism in the name of the Three. While othersdeclare that Matthew does not give the very words of Jesus but puts in His mouth what was thecommon formula used at the date and in the district where the First Gospel was written. Whateverexplanation be given it is plain that the longer formula became universal or almost universal in thesub-apostolic church. Justin Martyr has been already. quoted. Tertullian, nearly half a century later,declares expressly that the "law of baptism has been imposed and the formula prescribed" in <Mt28:19> (De Bapt., 13); and he adds in his Adversus Praxean (c. 26): "And it is not once only, butthrice, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names." Theevidence to show that the formula given by Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming;but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, thatit was revived. The historian Socrates informs us that some of the more extreme Arians "corrupted"baptism by using the name of Christ only in the formula; while injunctions to use the longer formulaand punishments, including deposition, threatened to those who presumed to employ the shorterwhich meet us in collections of ecclesiastical canons (Apos. Canons, 43, 50), prove that the practiceof using the shorter formula existed in the 5th and 6th centuries, at all events in the East.
V. The Doctrine of Baptism.-- The sacraments, and baptism as one of them, are alwaysdescribed to be (1) signs representing as in a picture or figure spiritual benefits <1 Pet 3:21>, and also(2) as seals or personal tokens and attestations confirmatory of solemn promises of spiritual benefits.Hence, the sacrament is said to have two parts: "the one an outward and sensible sign, used accordingto Christ's appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified." It is held,moreover, that when the rite of baptism has been duly and devoutly performed with faith on the partof both giver and receiver, the spiritual benefits do follow the performance of the rite. The questiontherefore arises: What are the spiritual and evangelical blessings portrayed and solemnly promised inbaptism? In the New Testament we find that baptism is intimately connected with the following: withremission of sins, as in <Acts 22:16> ("Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins"), and in <Heb10:22>; with regeneration or the new birth, as in <Tit 3:6> and <Jn 3:5> (this idea also entered intothe baptism of proselytes and even into the thought of baptism in the Mysteries; neophytes weretaught that in the water they died to their old life and began a new one (Apuleius Meta. xi)); withingrafting into Christ, with union with Him, as in <Gal 3:27>-- and union in definite ways, in Hisdeath, His burial and His resurrection, as in Roman <6:3-6>; with entering into a new relationshipwith God, that of sonship, as in <Gal 3:26-27>; with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, as in <1 Cor12:13>; with belonging to the church, as in <Acts 2:41>; with the gift of salvation, as in <Mk 16:16;Jn 3:5>.
48
From these and similar passages theologians conclude that baptism is a sign and seal of ouringrafting into Christ and of our union with Him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption and lifeeternal; that the water in baptism represents and signifies both the blood of Christ, which takes awayall our sins, and also the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit against the dominion of sin and thecorruption of our human nature; and that baptizing with water signifies the cleansing from sin by theblood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin and rising from sin to newnessof life by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ. Or to put it more simply: Baptism teaches thatall who are out of Christ are unclean by reason of sin and need to be cleansed. It signifies that just aswashing with water cleanses the body so God in Christ cleanses the soul from sin by the Holy Spiritand that we are to see in this cleansing not merely pardon but also an actual freeing of the soul fromthe pollution and power of sin and therefore the beginnings of a new life.
The sacrament also shows us that the cleansing is reached only through connection with thedeath of Christ, and further that through the new life begun in us we become in a special way unitedto Christ and enter into a new and filial relationship with God. Probably all Christians, reformed andunreformed, will agree in the above statement of the doctrinal meaning in the rite of baptism; and alsothat when the sacrament is rightly used the inward and spiritual grace promised is present along withthe outward and visible signs. But Romanists and Protestants differ about what is meant by the rightuse of the sacrament. They separate on the question of its efficacy. The former understand by theright use simply the correct performance of the rite and the placing no obstacle in the way of the flowof efficacy. The latter insist that there can be no right use of the sacrament unless the recipientexercises faith, that without faith the sacrament is not efficacious and the inward and spiritualblessings do not accompany the external and visible signs. Whatever minor differences divideProtestant evangelical churches on this sacrament they are all agreed upon this, that where there isno faith there can be no regeneration. Here emerges doctrinally the difference between those who giveand who refuse to give the sacrament to infants.
The Doctrine of Infant Baptism: The latter taking their stand on the fundamental doctrine ofall evangelical Christians that faith is necessary to make any sacrament efficacious, and assuming thatthe effect of an ordinance is always tied to the precise time of its administration, insist that only adultscan perform such a conscious, intelligent, and individually independent act of faith, as they believeall Protestants insist on scriptural grounds to be necessary in the right use of a sacrament. Thereforethey refuse to baptize infants and young children.
The great majority of evangelical Protestants practice infant baptism and do not think, dueexplanations being given, that it in any way conflicts with the idea that faith is necessary to theefficacy of the sacrament. The Baptist position appears to them to conflict with much of the teachingof the New Testament. It implies that all who are brought up in the faith of Christ and within theChristian family still lack, when they come to years of discretion, that great change of heart and lifewhich is symbolized in baptism, and can only receive it by a conscious, intelligent and thoroughlyindependent act of faith. This seems in accordance neither with Scripture nor with human nature. Weare told that a child may be full of the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb <Lk 1:15>; that littlechildren are in the kingdom of Christ <Mt 19:14>; that children of believing parents are holy <1 Cor7:14>.
Is there nothing in the fact that in the New Testament as in the Old Testament the promiseis "to you and your children"? Besides, the argument of those who oppose the baptism of infants, if
49
logically carried out, leads to consequences which few of them would accept. Faith is as essential tosalvation, on all evangelical theology, as it is for the right use of the sacrament; and every one of thearguments brought against the baptism of infants is equally applicable to the denial of their salvation.Nor can the Baptist position be said to be true to the facts of ordinary human nature. Faith, in itsevangelical sense of fiducia or trust, is not such an abrupt thing as they make it. Their demand forsuch a conscious, intelligent, strictly individualist act of faith sets aside some of the deepest facts ofhuman nature. No one, young or old, is entirely self-dependent; nor are our thoughts and trust alwaysor even frequently entirely independent and free from the unconscious influences of others.
We are interwoven together in society; and what is true generally reveals itself still morestrongly in the intimate relations of the family. Is it possible in all cases to trace the creative effectsof the subtle imperceptible influences which surround children, or to say when the slowly dawningintelligence is first able to apprehend enough to trust in half-conscious ways? It is but a shallow viewof human nature which sets all such considerations on the one side and insists on regarding nothingbut isolated acts of knowledge or of faith. With all those thoughts in their minds, the great majorityof evangelical churches admit and enjoin the baptism of infants. They believe that the children ofbelieving parents are "born within the church and have interest in the covenant of grace and a rightto its seal." They explain that the efficacy of a sacrament is not rigidly tied to the exact time ofadministration, and can be appropriated whenever faith is kindled and is able to rest on the externalsign, and that the spiritual blessings signified in the rite can be appropriated again and again with eachfresh kindling of faith. They declare that no one can tell how soon the dawning intelligence mayawaken to the act of appropriation. Therefore these churches instruct their ministers in dispensing thesacrament to lay vows on parents that they will train up the infants baptized "in the knowledge andfear of the Lord," and will teach them the great blessings promised to them in and through thesacrament and teach them to appropriate these blessings for themselves. They further enjoin theirministers to admonish all who may witness a baptismal service to look back on their own baptism inorder that their faith may be stirred afresh to appropriate for themselves the blessings whichaccompany the proper use of the rite.
LITERATURE.-- The literature on the subject of baptism is very extensive. It may besufficient to select the following: J. S. Candlish, The Sacraments, 10th thousand, 1900; J. C. W.Augusti, Denkwurdigkeiten aus d. christ. Archaologie, V, 1820; Hofling, Das Sakrament der Taufe,1846-48; J. B. Mozley, Review of the Baptismal Controversy, 2nd edition, 1895; W. Goode, TheDoctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants, 1849; W. Wall,History of Infant Baptism, 1705; E. B. Underhill, Confessions of Faith .... of Baptist Churches ofEngland (Hanserd Knollys Soc., IX), 1854. T. M. LINDSAY(from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (C) 1996 byBiblesoft)
50
BAPTISM
A ritual practiced in the New Testament church that is still used in various forms by differentdenominations and branches of the Christian church. Baptism involves the application of water to thebody of a person. It is frequently thought of as an act by which the believer enters the fellowship ofthe church. Widely differing interpretations of the act exist among Christian groups. They havedifferent views on the nature of baptism, who should be baptized, and the appropriate method bywhich baptism should be administered.
The Nature of Baptism. Three major positions on the nature of baptism exist among Christiangroups.
The sacramental view-- According to this belief, baptism is a means by which God conveysgrace. By undergoing this rite, the person baptized receives REMISSION of sins, and is regeneratedor given a new nature and an awakened or strengthened faith. Both Roman Catholics and Lutheranshave this view of the nature of baptism.
The traditional Roman Catholic belief emphasizes the rite itself-- that the power to conveygrace is contained within the sacrament of baptism. It is not the water but the sacrament asestablished by God and administered by the church that produces this change.
The Lutherans, on the other hand, concentrate on the faith that is present in the person beingbaptized. They also emphasize the value of the preaching of the word. Preaching awakens faith in abeliever by entering the ear to strike the heart. Baptism enters the eye to reach and move the heart.
One Scripture especially important to the advocates of the sacramental view of baptism is<John 3:5>: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Theyalso believe that the act of baptism itself produces a change in the life of the believer.
The covenantal view-- Other Christian groups think of baptism not as a means by whichsalvation is brought about, but as a sign and seal of the COVENANT. The covenant is God's pledgeto save man. Because of what He has done and what He has promised, God forgives and regenerates.On the one hand, baptism is a sign of the covenant. On the other, it is the means by which peopleenter into that covenant.
The benefits of God's covenant are granted to all adults who receive baptism and to all infantswho, upon reaching maturity, remain faithful to the vows made on their behalf at baptism. Thecovenant, rather than the sacrament or another person's faith, is seen as the means of salvation; andbaptism is a vital part of this covenant relationship.
In the covenantal view, baptism serves the same purpose for New Testament believers thatcircumcision did for Old Testament believers. For the Jews, circumcision was the external and visiblesign that they were within the covenant that God had established with Abraham. Converts to Judaism(or proselytes) also had to undergo this rite. But now under the new covenant, baptism instead ofcircumcision is required.
Circumcision refers to a cutting away of sin and a change of heart <Deut. 10:16; Ezek.44:7,9>. Similarly, baptism also depicts a washing away of sin <Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5> and a spiritualrenewal <Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12>. In fact, these two procedures are clearly linked in <Colossians2:11-12>: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by puttingoff the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, inwhich you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the
51
dead."The symbolical view-- This view stresses the symbolic nature of baptism by emphasizing that
baptism does not cause an inward change or alter a person's relationship to God in any way. Baptismis a token, or an outward indication, of the inner change which has already occurred in the believer'slife. It serves as a public identification of the person with Jesus Christ, and thus also as a publictestimony of the change that has occurred. It is an act of initiation. It is baptism into the name ofJesus.
According to the symbolic view, baptism is not so much an initiation into the Christian life asinto the Christian church. A distinction is drawn between the invisible or universal church, whichconsists of all believers in Christ, and the visible or local church, a gathering of believers in a specificplace.
This position explains that the church practices baptism and the believer submits to it becauseJesus commanded that this be done and He gave us the example by being baptized Himself. Thus,baptism is an act of obedience, commitment, and proclamation.
According to this understanding of baptism, no spiritual benefit occurs because of baptism.Rather than producing REGENERATION of faith, baptism always comes after faith and the salvationthat faith produces. The only spiritual value of baptism is that it establishes membership in the churchand exposes the believer to the values of this type of fellowship.
The Subjects of Baptism. Another issue over which Christian groups disagree is the questionof who should be baptized. Should only those who have come to a personal, conscious decision offaith be baptized? Or, should children be included in this rite? And if children are proper subjects,should all children, or only the children of believing parents, be baptized?
Infant baptism-- Groups that practice baptism of infants baptize not only infants but alsoadults who have come to faith in Christ. One of the arguments proposed in favor of baptizing infantsis that entire households were baptized in New Testament times <Acts 16:15,33>. Certainly suchhouseholds or families must have included children. Consequently, groups who hold this positionbelieve this practice should be extended to the present day.
A second argument cited is Jesus' treatment of children. Jesus commanded the disciples tobring the children to Him. When they did so, He blessed them <Mark 10:13-16>. Because of thisexample from Jesus, it would seem inconsistent to deny baptism to children today.
A third argument put forth by covenant theologians is that children were participants in theOld Testament covenant: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and yourdescendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and yourdescendants after you" <Gen. 17:7>. They were present when the covenant was renewed <Deut.29:10-13; Josh. 8:35>. They had a standing in the congregation of Israel and were present in theirreligious assemblies <Joel 2:16>. The promises of God were given to the children as well as adults<Is. 54:13; Jer. 31:34>. Circumcision was administered to infants in The Old Testament. Sincebaptism has now replaced circumcision, it is natural that it should be administered to children,according to those who practice infant baptism.
Those who believe in baptismal regeneration (Catholics especially) argue that baptism ofinfants is necessary. In traditional Roman Catholic teaching, unbaptized infants who die cannot enterheaven in this state, but are instead consigned to a state of limbo. If this fate is to be avoided, theymust be baptized in order to remove the guilt of their sins and receive new life.
52
Although Lutherans also believe in baptismal regeneration, they are not as certain that God'sgrace is communicated through this sacrament. They believe that God may have some method,perhaps not yet revealed to us, of producing faith in the unbaptized. But this, if it is true, would applyonly to children of believers. Lutherans are careful to affirm that this whole area of belief is a mystery,known only to God.
A final argument presented in support of infant baptism is the historical evidence. Infantbaptism has been practiced in the church from early times, certainly as early as the second century,according to those groups that baptize infants.
An issue which divides those groups that practice infant baptism is the question of whichinfants should be baptized. In general, the covenant theologians (Presbyterians, Lutherans, and thevarious Reformed groups) insist that only the children of believing parents (hence, members of thecovenant) should be included. Roman Catholics, however, tend to baptize even infants and childrenwhose parents have not made such a commitment. These different positions on this question showhow these groups feel about the role of personal faith in one's salvation.
For Roman Catholics, this question presents no real difficulty, since they believe the sacramentof baptism has power in itself to bring about salvation. The only faith necessary is that someone hasenough faith to bring and present the child. Faith is also necessary for the person administeringbaptism. He must believe that the sacrament has saving power.
Lutherans, however, with their strong emphasis on faith as the means of salvation, face a moredifficult problem. It is obvious that an infant does not have faith. One way of handling this problemis to resort to the concept of unconscious faith. Reasoning power and self-consciousness, they pointout, must not be thought of as faith. Luther observed that a person does not cease to have faith whenhe is asleep or when he is preoccupied or working strenuously. Thus Lutherans believe the Bibleteaches the implicit faith of infants <Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 1 John 2:13>. If Jesus could speak of"these little ones who believe in Me," <Matt. 18:6>, and if John the Baptist was filled with the HolySpirit even from his mother's womb, then little children can have implicit faith. Lutherans also believethat the faith necessary for the salvation of children can be communicated through their parents.
For the covenant theologians, the problem of the faith of children is not a difficult issue. It isa potential faith. So also is the salvation. God promises to give the benefits signified in baptism to alladults who receive it by faith. This same promise is extended to all infants who, when they grow tomaturity, remain faithful to the vows that were made on their behalf at the time of their baptism. Inthis view, baptism's saving work depends on the faith that will be, rather than upon the faith that is.
Believer's baptism-- Those who hold to this view believe that baptism should be restricted tothose who actually exercise faith. This approach excludes infants, who could not possibly have suchfaith. The proper candidates for baptism are those who already have experienced the new birth on thebasis of their personal faith and who give evidence of this salvation in their lives.
Both positive and negative arguments are advanced in support of this view. The positiveapproach argues from evidence in the New Testament. In every instance of New Testament baptismin which the specific identity of the persons was known, the persons being baptized were adults.Further, the condition required for baptism was personal, conscious faith. Without this, adherents ofbeliever's baptism point out, baptism was not administered. This is especially evident in the Book ofActs <2:37-41; 8:12; 10:47; 18:8; 19:4-5>, as well as <Matthew 3:2-6> and <28:19>. In the NewTestament church repentance and faith came first, followed by baptism.
53
The negative arguments given to support believer's baptism are generally responses to thearguments for infant baptism. One of these revolves around the household baptism issue. Paul spokethe word to the Philippian jailer and all the people in his house. And the jailer "rejoiced, havingbelieved in God with all his household" <Acts 16:34>. Crispus, the synagogue ruler, also "believedon the Lord with all his household" <Acts 18:8>. Those who hold to believer's baptism only point outthat these passages do not state specifically that infants were included among those baptized. All thepeople in these households could have been adults.
The other argument concerns Jesus' blessing of the children. The believer's baptism positionon this incident from Jesus' life is that baptism is not mentioned or even implied. These childrenillustrate simplicity and trust, like that which all believers should display. Jesus blessed the children,these groups agree, but this was not baptism. Many believer's baptism groups do practice a ritualknown as child dedication, which is more nearly a dedication of the parents than of the child.
The Form of Baptism. The final major issue is the method or form of baptism-- whether byimmersion, pouring, or sprinkling. On this issue, Christian groups organize into two major camps--those which insist upon the exclusive use of immersion, and those which permit and practice otherforms.
The immersionist position-- This group insists that immersion is the only valid form ofbaptism. One of their strongest arguments revolves around the Greek word for baptism in the NewTestament. Its predominant meaning is "to immerse" or "to dip," implying that the candidate wasplunged beneath the water. But there are also other arguments that strongly suggest that immersionwas the form of baptism used in the early church.
The Didache, a manual of Christian instruction written in A. D. 110-120, stated thatimmersion should be used generally and that other forms of baptism should be used only whenimmersion was not possible.
In addition, the circumstances involved in some of the biblical descriptions of baptism implyimmersion. Thus, John the Baptist was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, "because there was muchwater there" <John 3:23>. Jesus apparently went down into the water to be baptized by John <Matt.3:16>. The Ethiopian said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" <Acts 8:36>.
The symbolism involved in baptism also seems to argue that immersion was the biblical mode,according to those groups that practice immersion exclusively. <Romans 6:4-6> identifies baptismwith the believer's death (and burial) to sin and resurrection to new life, as well as the death andresurrection of Christ. Only immersion adequately depicts this meaning, according to the immersionistposition.
The pluralistic position-- Holders of this view believe that immersion, pouring, and sprinklingare all appropriate forms of baptism. They point out that the Greek word for baptism in the NewTestament is sometimes ambiguous in its usage. While its most common meaning in classical Greekwas to dip, to plunge, or to immerse, it also carried other meanings as well. Thus, the question cannotbe resolved upon linguistic grounds.
These groups also argue from inference that immersion must not have been the exclusivemethod used in New Testament times. For example, could John have been physically capable ofimmersing all the persons who came to him for baptism? Did the Philippian jailer leave his jail to bebaptized? If not, how would he have been immersed? Was enough water for immersion brought toCornelius' house? Or, did the apostle Paul leave the place where Ananias found him in order to be
54
immersed?Those groups that use sprinkling or pouring also point out that immersion may not be the best
form for showing what baptism really means. They see the major meaning of baptism as purification.They point out that the various cleansing ceremonies in the Old Testament were performed by avariety of means-- immersion, pouring, and sprinkling <Mark 7:4; Heb. 9:10>. Others note the closeassociation between baptism and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which was from above. Thus, intheir view, true baptism requires the symbolism of pouring rather than immersion. (from Nelson'sIllustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
BAPTISM
BAPTISM. The application of water as a rite of purification or initiation; a Christiansacrament. See Sacraments.
The word baptism is the English form of the Gk. baptismos. The verb from which this nounis derived-- baptizo-- is held by some scholars to mean "to dip, immerse." But this meaning is heldby others to be not the most exact or common but rather a meaning that is secondary or derived. Bythe latter it is claimed that all the term necessarily implies is that the element employed in baptism isin close contact with the person or object baptized. The Gk. prepositions en and eis have played aprominent part in discussions respecting the mode of baptism.
The scope of this article is limited mainly to Christian baptism, but as preliminary to this briefmention is made of Jewish baptism, John's baptism, the baptism of Jesus, and the baptism of Christ'sdisciples:
Jewish Baptism. Baptisms, or ceremonial purifications, were common among the Jews. Notonly priests and other persons but also clothing, utensils, and articles of furniture were thusceremonially cleansed <Lev. 8:6; Exo. 19:10-14; Mark 7:3-4; Heb. 9:10>.
John's Baptism. The baptism of John was not Christian, but Jewish. It was, however,especially a baptism "for repentance." The only faith that it expressed concerning Christ was that Hiscoming was close at hand. Those who confessed and repented of their sins and were baptized by Johnwere thus obedient to his call to "make ready the way of the Lord" <Matt. 3:3>.
Because the disciples Paul met at Ephesus <Acts 19:1-7> were "acquainted only with thebaptism of John" <18:25>, i.e., were ignorant of the Christian message and the baptism of the HolySpirit, save as a prophesied event <19:4>, they did not "receive the Holy Spirit, when [they] believed"<19:2>. They had heard only John's message and received only John's baptism, which wereintroductory and merely preparatory. Faith in them could not bring the free gift of the Holy Spirit.The moment they heard and believed the new message of a crucified, risen, and ascended Savior, theyreceived the blessing of that message-- the gift of the Holy Spirit, which included His baptizingministry.
Baptism of Jesus. The baptism that Jesus received from John was unique in its significanceand purpose. It could not be like that which John administered to others, for Jesus did not makeconfession; He had no occasion to repent. Neither was it Christian baptism, the significance of which
55
we shall consider later. Jesus Himself declared the main purpose and meaning of this event in Hiswords "It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness" <Matt. 3:15>. It was an act of ceremonialrighteousness appropriate to His public entrance upon His mission as the Christ, which included Histhreefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King, especially the second, for the essence of His redemptivework lies in His consecration as a Priest, the Great High Priest. In this office He offered not "theblood of goats and bulls," but Himself to put away sin <Heb. 9:13-26>. It is this consecration to Hisredemptive priesthood that comes into clearest view in His baptism in the Jordan. By "fulfilling allrighteousness" our Lord meant the righteousness of obedience to the Mosaic law. The Levitical lawrequired all priests to be consecrated when they began to be about thirty years of age <Num. 4:3;Luke 3:23>. The consecration was twofold-- first the washing (baptism), then the anointing <Exo.29:4-7; Lev. 8:6-36>. When John on the Jordan's bank "washed" (baptized) Jesus, the heavens wereopened, and the Holy Spirit came upon Him. This was the priestly anointing of Him who was not onlya Priest by divine appointment but an eternal Priest <Ps. 110:4> who was thus divinely consecratedfor the work of redemption <Matt. 3:16; Acts 4:27; 10:38>.
Baptism of Christ's Disciples. That Christ Himself baptized His disciples is a matter, to saythe least, involved in doubt. Although it is probable that at the beginning of His ministry our Lordbaptized those who believed in Him, He not long afterward delegated this work to His disciples <John4:1-2>. The office of Christ was and is to baptize with the Holy Spirit. His disciples administered thesymbolical baptism, He that which is real <Matt. 3:11>.
Christian Baptism. This may be considered under two heads: Baptist and non-Baptist views.Baptist Views. Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water as a sign of his
previous entrance into the communion of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. In other words,baptism is a token of the regenerated soul's union with Christ.
Obligation. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by Christ <Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16>, practicedby the apostles <Acts 2:38>, submitted to by members of NT churches <Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:11-12>,and subsequently practiced as a rite in Christian churches. No church hierarchy has the right to modifyor dispense with this command of Christ because only the local church (no other visible church ofChrist) is known in the NT, and it is purely an executive, not a legislative body.
Significance. Symbolizing regeneration through union with Christ, baptism portrays not onlyChrist's death and resurrection and their purpose in atoning for sin in delivering sinners from sin'spenalty and power, but also betokens the accomplishment of that purpose in the person baptized<Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:27; Col. 3:3>. By that external rite the believer professes his death to sin andresurrection to spiritual life. He also gives witness to the method by which God's purpose has beenwrought for him, namely, by union with Christ. The rite sets forth the fact that the believer hasreceived Christ and in faith given himself to Him <Rom. 6:5; Col. 2:12>.
Proper Subjects of Baptism. Only those who give credible evidence of regeneration, and whothus by faith have entered into the communion of Christ's death and resurrection, are consideredproper candidates for the rite. Biblical authority for this view is given in the command of Christ thatthose are to be baptized who have previously been made disciples <Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:41>, orpreviously repented and believed <2:37-38; 8:12; 18:8>. It is also proved from the nature of thechurch as a company of regenerated believers <John 3:5; Rom. 6:13> and the symbolism of theordinance itself <Acts 10:47; Rom. 6:2-5; Gal. 3:26-27>. Since it is intended only for the regenerate,baptism can never be the means of regeneration. It is the appointed sign, but never the condition, of
56
forgiveness of sins.Mode. This is immersion only as confirmed from the meaning of the original Gk. word baptizo
in Greek writers and church Fathers, and in the NT. Immersion was a doctrine and practice of theGreek church.
Administration. Many Baptists, and others practicing believer's baptism, require the rite to beperformed properly as a prerequisite to membership in the local church and participation in the Lord'sSupper.
Non-Baptist Views. The views of other Christian groups on the subject of baptism vary fromthose like most Quakers, who deny the present-day validity of the rite at all, to Roman Catholics andothers who attach to it regenerating efficacy.
Obligation. Most Christians believe that the rite, in one form or another, for one purpose oranother, is permanently obligatory and rests upon Christ's command <Matt. 28:19> and the practiceof the early church.
Significance. The Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox churches, most Lutheran bodies,and many in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal church hold that baptism is thedirect instrument of regeneration. Roman Catholics subscribe so strongly to this view that,accordingly, they also hold that all adults or infants who die unbaptized are excluded from heaven.Many evangelical churches believe that baptism is not only the rite of initiation into the church ofChrist but a sign and seal of divine grace symbolizing spiritual cleansing or purification <Acts 22:16;Rom. 6:4-11; Titus 3:5>. For example, the Westminster Confession, art. 28, says: "Baptism is asacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of theparty baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of graceof his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto Godthrough Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life; which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment,to be continued in His Church until the end of the world." As circumcision was the sign and seal ofthe Abrahamic covenant and practiced under the Mosaic covenant, so baptism is construed as the signand seal of the New Covenant of the gospel. Baptism, under the new economy, takes the place ofcircumcision under the old <Col. 2:10-12>.
Proper Subjects of Baptism. In contrast to those holding Baptist views that exclude all exceptadult believers from the rite, many believe it should be administered to children who have believingparents or sponsors to care for their Christian nurture. This is contended to be scriptural since Paulexpressly teaches that believers in Christ are under the gracious provisions of the covenant that Godmade with Abraham <Gal. 3:15-29>. Under the Abrahamic covenant circumcision was administeredto children as a sign of their participation in the relation in which their parents stood to God. It iscontended that children of Christian parentage have a similar right to the ordinance, which isconstrued as having replaced circumcision.
Mode. Non-Baptists deny that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and admitsprinkling, pouring, and immersion as legitimate. All that is held essential is the application of water"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Administration. The administration of baptism is commonly regarded as exclusively aprerogative of the ministerial office. The wise and proper observance of church order has deemed thisnecessary, although in extreme cases it is held that a layman (or even a laywoman) can perform therite. The same view is held among Lutherans and others who hold strongly to the doctrine of
57
baptismal regeneration.bibliography: K. Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism (1948); O. Cullmann,
Baptism in the New Testament (1959); J. Warns, Baptism (1958); J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in theFirst Four Centuries (1960); R. E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (1960); G. R.Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (1962); K. Aland, Did the Early Church BaptizeInfants? (1963); T. J. Conant, The Meaning and Use of BAPTIZEIN (1977).(from New Unger's Bible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)
58
Appendix B
Theological Dictionary Articles on Baptism
Baptism, Wash Baptism belongs to the general group of practices connected with washing (Water). Hence,
besides the key words bapto4/baptizo4 which indicate (mostly total) immersion, attention must be paid to the actions described by the words louo4 and nipto4, namely complete and partial washings.Apart from the literal meaning of purifying (Pure), there was already before the NT period a figurativeuse of the term. At first it meant the provision of cultic purity, and then in the NT it was extended toexpress the complete renewal of human existence. ba&ptw G966 (bapto4), dip; âáááááá G970 (baptizo4), dip, immerse, submerge, baptize; âââââââââ G968(baptismos), dipping, washing; ââââââââ G967 (baptisma) baptism. CL
In secular Greek bapto4 means (a) dip, (b) dip into a dye, and so dye, and (c) draw (water).baptizo4 is an intensive form of bapto4 and means
(a) dip, and (b) cause to perish (as by drowning a man or sinking a ship). While there is some evidence that bapto4 was occasionally used in secular Greek of a ritual bath,
there is none to show that baptizo4 was so employed (perhaps because of its association with the ideaof perishing). Far commoner words for religious ablutions were louo4, wash (the whole body) andnipto4, wash or rinse (members of the body) and rhaino4, sprinkle (Blood, Art. ¼¼¼¼¼¼¼ ). OT
1 In the LXX bapto4 usually translates the OT Heb. t[a4bal, dip (13 times; on 3 occasions bapto4 represents other vbs.). baptizo4 occurs only 4 times: in Isa. 21:4 it is used metaphorically of destruction, but in 2 Ki. 5:14 it is used in the mid. of Naaman’s sevenfold immersion in the Jordan(the only passages as equivalent for Heb. t[a4bal). This is significant, because in this case there is nosuggestion of Naaman’s destruction. The use of baptizo4 in the story of Naaman may have beendecisive for its later use in the mid. to signify taking a ritual bath for cleansing (so J. Ysebaert, GreekBaptismal Terminology, 1962, 27 f.). The vb. has this meaning in Sir. 34:25 31:25; Jud. 12:7. Despiteassertions to the contrary, it seems that baptizo4, both in Jewish and Christian contexts, normallymeant “immerse,” and that even when it became a technical term for baptism, the thought ofimmersion remains. The use of the term for cleansing vessels (as in Lev. 6:28 Aquila [cf. 6:21]; cf.baptismos in Mk. 7:4) does not prove the contrary, since vessels were normally cleansed byimmersing them in water. The metaphorical uses of the term in the NT appear to take this for granted,e.g. the prophecy that the Messiah will baptise in Spirit and fire as a liquid (Matt. 3:11), the “baptism”
59
of the Israelites in the cloud and the sea (1 Cor. 10:2), and in the idea of Jesus’ death as a baptism(Mk. 10:38 f. baptisma; Lk. 12:50; cf. Ysebaert, op. cit., 41 ff.). The Pauline representation ofbaptism as burial and resurrection with Christ is consonant with this view, even if it does not demandit.
2 The Jewish “baptizing sects” do not appear to have used t[a4bal and baptizo4 for theirlustrations. This holds good even of the Qumran Sect. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the common term isra4h[as[ (Gk. louo4), bathe; na4za=h (Gk. rhantizo4), sprinkle, also occurs twice, although theadherents of the Sect actually immersed themselves for purification. It is unlikely that the latter termwas retained with the former in view of the stress laid by the Sect on inward as well as outwardcleansing and the conjunction of these where repentance (Conversion) and ablution were united.(Note the common association of sprinkling and cleansing from sin in the OT, e.g. Num. 19:18 f.; Ps.51:7 (50:9); Ezek. 36:25.) It is disputed whether the lustrations of the Sectaries should in any sensebe classed with baptism, seeing that the lustrations were perpetually repeated and baptism is receivedbut once; nevertheless there is much in favour of regarding the first lustration of a novice as havingthe character of initiation into full membership of the Community (see especially 1QS 2:25-3:12). Inany case, it is of importance to observe that the lustrations of Qumran had a more than purelyceremonial significance. Where they were accompanied by penitence and submission to the will ofGod, they were viewed as effective for the cleansing of moral impurity. Josephus attests that in hisday the Essenes (of whom the Qumran Sectaries were at least forerunners) were assisted in theirdivinations by “using several sorts of purifications,” and those among them who were marriedsubjected their brides to special lustrations with a view to early conception and child-birth (War, 2,8, 12 f. (159 f.)). If these practices were developments of earlier views, there must nevertheless havebeen sacramental elements in the earlier stages from which they developed.
3 A Gentile convert to Judaism at the beginning of the Christian era was required to receivecircumcision, to undergo a ritual bath and to offer sacrifice. For this so-called “proselyte baptism”the Heb. and Aram. texts employ the term t[a4bal. The few references to it in Gk. literature employbapto4 but not baptizo4. This may be accidental, but it is consonant with the avoidance by Gk.writers of baptizo4 when describing the rites of purification. The extent to which the practice andunderstanding of proselyte baptism influenced the baptism of John and early Christian baptism is amuch debated question. The earliest references to proselyte baptism belong to the latter half of the1st cent. A.D. While they indicate the probability of its being a pre-Christian institution, theuncertainty they manifest as to the significance of the rite and especially its relation to circumcision,suggest that its adoption was gradual and that its interpretation was still evolving during the 1st cent.A.D.
In assessing the significance of proselyte baptism, it is essential to note the importance attachedby the Jews to circumcision. The oft-quoted saying in Yeb. 2:29, “One who has become a proselyteis like a child newly born” (Soncino Talmud ed., 22a), should be compared with that in Pes. 91b,“One who separates himself from his uncircumcision is like one who separates himself from thegrave.” The decisive turn from heathenism is taken in circumcision; the bath fits the newly made Jewto enter upon his first act of worship, i.e. sacrifice. If it be legitimate to infer from these sayings, thatconversion from heathenism to Judaism was viewed as an entry upon life from the dead and that thiswas the source for the Christian doctrine of the new life of a convert to Christ, it should be observedthat in Judaism the concept is only secondarily associated with proselyte baptism, and that the
60
Christian understanding of baptism in terms of dying and rising is determined by its character as abaptism to the Messiah who died and rose, and thereby inaugurated the “age to come.” In Christianbaptism the emphasis falls on the redemptive action of the Messiah and the convert’s relation to him.
NT
1 Philology and statistics give the following picture for the NT. bapto4 occurs only 4 times (twicein Jn. 13:26, and also in Lk. 16:24 and Rev. 19:13), and only with the meaning “dip.” baptizo4 is atechnical term for baptism, and in all the Gospels it occurs chiefly in the account of John’s baptism,in particular that of Jesus. But while in Matt. it occurs outside ch. 3 only at 28:19 (the command tobaptize), its use in the other Gospels is more widespread. Nevertheless, it refers almost entirely toJohn’s baptism. It is only in the Synoptics that John is described as the baptiste4s (used as a noun,Matt. 7 times, Mk. twice, Lk. 3 times). On the other hand, in Acts baptizo4 is almost always used ofChristian baptism (18 out of 21 passages; 3 refer to John’s baptism). Apart from this, the vb. occursonly twice more in Rom. 6:3, 9 times in 1 Cor. (especially 1:13-17) and in Gal. 3:27. Of thesubstantival forms baptismos occurs only once in Mk. and twice in Heb., and baptisma occurs 4 timeseach in Mk. and Lk., 6 times in Acts and twice in Matt., referring to John’s baptism. Only in Rom.6:4; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12 and 1 Pet. 3:21 is it used of Christian baptism. Furthermore, it is striking howthese words are never found in 1 and 2 Thess., the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles and Rev., with theexception of Heb. 6:2; 9:10; 1 Pet. 3:21. John’s baptism is universally described by the vb. baptizo4;this is also true of Christian baptism throughout the NT.
2 The baptism of John. John administered a “repentance-baptism for the forgiveness of sins” (Mk.1:4) in anticipation of the baptism of Spirit and fire that the Messiah would exercise (Matt. 3:11). Isa.4:2-5 and Mal. 3:1-6 suggest that this Messianic baptism was symbolic of a universal judgment thatwould refine the people of God and fit them for the Kingdom, but consume the wicked that theyshould not participate in it. The baptism of John had, therefore, two focal points: it marked the “turn”(repentance means conversion) of a Jew to God, associating him with the penitent people andassuring him of forgiveness and cleansing, and it anticipated the Messianic baptism with Spirit andfire, assuring him a place in the Kingdom (cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT, 1962, 31 ff.).It is a plausible conjecture that the lustrations of Jewish groups like the Essenes suggested to Johna means whereby the OT predictions of cleansing in the last times, prior to the great Messianicpurgation, should be fulfilled, and that the rite was viewed by him in a manner comparable to the actsof prophetic symbolism performed by the prophets who were before him.
3 Jesus’ baptism and the command to baptize. Christian baptism is rooted in the redemptive actionof Jesus. His submission to the baptism of John (Mk. 1:9) demonstrated and effected his solidaritywith sinful men. The divine response of an opened heaven and voice of approval showed it to be theinitiation of the movement of salvation, and gave promise of the revelation of the Kingdom in thecompleted action of the Messiah. The authorization of baptism during the ministry of Jesus (Jn. 4:1ff.) was provisional. The command to baptize falls of necessity in the resurrection era, whenredemption has been achieved, universal authority accorded to the risen Lord, and the mission of thechurch to the world begun (Matt. 28:18 ff.).
4 The early church. (a) Baptism seems to have accompanied the proclamation of the gospel from the beginning of the
church’s mission (Acts 2). Luke’s understanding of Christian baptism appears in Acts 2:38. Baptism
61
is conversion-baptism; it is administered “in the name of Jesus Christ,” i.e. in relation to Jesus Christand with the use of his name, so that the baptized calls on the name of Christ (Acts 22:16) even asthe name is called over him, signifying to whom he belongs (cf. Jas. 2:7); it is “for the forgiveness ofsins” and with a view to the gift of the Holy Spirit. Variations from this norm (notably Acts 8:14 ff.;10:44 f.; 19:1 ff.) reflect the variety of circumstances and of experiences of the Spirit in a period oftransition.
(b) For Paul’s interpretation of baptism Gal. 3:27 is significant. Baptism is “to Christ” (a shorthandexpression for “in the name of Christ”); it relates the believer to Christ in such a way that he is “inChrist” (cf. v. 26). From this basic view flow the other features of baptism that appear in Paul.Baptism “to Christ” is baptism “to his death” (Rom. 6:3 ff.); it relates the believer to Christ’sredemptive action, so that Christ’s death on Golgotha was his death, and it entails an end (“death”)to the life of estrangement from God and the beginning of life in Christ. Baptism to Christ is baptismto the church, for to be in Christ is to be a member of the body of Christ (Gal. 3:27 ff.; 1 Cor. 12:13).Baptism to Christ is baptism in the Spirit of Christ (“We were all immersed in one Spirit . . . and wereall saturated in (the outpouring of) one Spirit,” 1 Cor. 12:13), for the Spirit and Christ are inseparable(Rom. 8:9 f.; 2 Cor. 3:17). Baptism to Christ is for life after the pattern of Christ’s dying to sin andrising for righteousness (“We were buried with him through baptism . . . that we might walk in a newlife,” Rom. 6:4; see further the baptismal ethics of Col. 3:3-13). Baptism to Christ is for life in thekingdom to be revealed in the day of Christ (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30). The latter passages strictlyrefer not to baptism but to the baptism of the Spirit with which baptism in water is associated in theapostolic writings (cf. the alleged utterance of Thecla when about to die, “In the name of Jesus ChristI baptize myself for the last day!” Act. Paul 3:34 [Henn.—Schn., II, 262]).
This eschatological relation of baptism made possible the adoption by the church of the custom,apparently reflected in 1 Cor. 15:29, of baptizing the living for the dead, that the latter might sharein the kingdom of God. The practice could hardly be reconciled with the Pauline proclamation, andwas cited by Paul as part of his polemic: people who deny the resurrection of the dead ought not toget baptized for the dead! Baptism to Christ is subordinate to the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 1:17). Paulas an apostle usually left it to others to administer (1 Cor. 1:14 ff.). This is not to minimize baptism,but to clarify its function. It is an embodiment of the gospel of grace and the supreme occasion forconfessing it, hence the climactic point of the restoration of relations between God and the repentantsinner. Many of the confessional declarations in the epistles are thought to have originated asbaptismal confessions (e.g. Rom. 10:9; Phil. 2:6-11; Eph. 4:4-6; Col. 1:13-20), and from suchbeginnings the later creeds of Christendom developed.
(c) The relation between “washing” and the “Word” is reflected in Eph. 5:26; cf. 4:5. In harmonywith this 1 Pet. 3:21 defines baptism as “an appeal to God for a clear conscience” or “an answer toGod from a clear conscience” (the interpretation is uncertain). On either view it is the occasion of thebaptized addressing himself to God in response to the gospel. And in this context the power of theresurrection is known (“Baptism saves . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”).
In Tit. 3:5 and Jn. 3:5 baptism is associated with regeneration (Birth). In both passages theoperation of the Spirit is to the fore. In the former (a baptismal hymn?) the pertinent clause shouldbe rendered, “He saved us through the washing characterised by the regeneration and renewalwrought by the Holy Spirit” (cf. M. Dibelius-H. Conzelmann, HNT, XIII, 111 f.). The latter passageaffirms the necessity of a “new beginning” from God (“from above”) through submission to baptism
62
and through the recreative work of the Holy Spirit. The Christian reader knows that while these twothings were for Nicodemus separated as present demand and future hope, through the lifting up ofJesus on the cross (vv. 14 f.) and the sending of the Holy Spirit (v. 8, cf. 7:39) the two “baptisms”have been brought together.
(d) In the light of this apostolic teaching, modern confessional watchwords about baptism like“declarative,” “symbolic,” “self-operative” etc. are inadequate. In Acts and the epistles baptismappears as a divine-human event, even as the “turning” to God, with which it is invariably associated,is a divine-human event. Both elements are given due weight—the divine and the human. Sincebaptism signifies union with Christ (Gal. 3:27), all that Christ wrought for man in his redeeming actsand bestows by virtue of them is conjoined with baptism in the apostolic writings. This includes unionwith Christ (Fellowship) in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:1 ff.; Col. 2:11 f.), forgiveness of sinsand cleansing from sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), bestowal of the Spirit (Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 12:13),membership in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27), renewal by the Spirit (Tit. 3:5), thepromise of the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). Rightly to estimate this teaching requires the recognitionthat in the apostolic writings these benefits of Christ and his saving grace are given to faith. Inparticular this is true of union with Christ (Eph. 3:17), participation in his death and resurrection (Gal.2:20; 5:24; Col. 2:12), forgiveness and cleansing (1 Jn. 1:9), the gift of the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14),renewal by the Spirit (Jn. 1:13), life in the kingdom of God (Jn. 20:31). This coincidence of divineaction for faith and in baptism presumes that God’s gracious giving to faith belongs to the contextof baptism, and that his gift in baptism is to faith. This coincidence of divine action for faith and inbaptism comes to expression in the definition of baptism in 1 Pet. 3:21, where baptism appears as atrysting place for the Redeemer and the penitent, who addresses him on the basis of the gospel.
A word of caution is, however, required. The Acts of the Apostles show that all statements aboutthe action of God in baptism must make allowance for the divine freedom in bestowing salvation andthe Spirit. This is illustrated even in the initial sending of the Spirit to the church, for at Pentecost theSpirit was outpoured on a company of men and women who had not received Christian baptism (i.e.baptism in the name of Jesus), and we do not know how many of them had received any otherbaptism. The complicated phenomena regarding baptism and the Spirit in the stories of the Samaritanbelievers (Acts 8:14 ff.), Cornelius and his company (10:44 ff.) and the Ephesian “disciples” (19:1ff.) doubtless were not solitary in the primitive church. They illustrate that life is more complex thanformulations of doctrine, and that God is able to meet every variation from the norm. That holds goodof the church of all ages, from the apostolic to our own.
5 Infant baptism. The belief that the apostles commanded the baptism of infants as well as ofresponsible persons is attested as early as Origen (3rd cent. A.D.), and apart from some notableexceptions it became the unquestioned conviction of Christendom until the present century. The riseof the critical study of the Bible caused a widespread change of opinion, so that by 1940 the majorityof NT scholars (as distinct from systematic theologians) were agreed that in the apostolic age baptismwas administered to believers only. In recent years this view has been contested, above all by J.Jeremias, O. Cullmann and in the Reports of the Church of Scotland on Baptism. It is maintained thatthe traditional arguments for the apostolic institution of infant baptism are vindicated alike by soundtheology and by modern biblical and archaeological research. For example, the conviction thathousehold baptisms (Acts 11:14; 16:33; 18:8) included infants is strengthened by the contention thatthe term oikos (house) had gained an almost technical significance among Jews and had especial
63
reference to little children. The terminology of Jewish proselyte baptism is believed to be employedin 1 Cor. 7:14, with the presumption that Jewish customs related to the baptism of young childrenof proselytes were accepted by the primitive church. The saying of Jesus concerning little children andthe kingdom of God (Mk. 10:14) has been given form-critical evaluation: the story is said to reflectthe Sitz-im-Leben of a church seeking to answer the question, “Should we baptize our children?” andthe answer is implied, “Yes, bring them to baptism as they were once brought to Jesus.” Thisconclusion is supported by the belief that the command, “Do not forbid them,” reflects an earlyliturgical use of the term in baptism. (Hinder, art. êêêêê.)
The reformed view of the one covenant with its continuing sacraments, stressing the close relation
between circumcision and baptism, is supported by typological exegesis, hinted at in 1 Cor. 10:1 ff.(where baptism is seen as symbolized by the passing through the Red Sea), and evidence from earlyChristian burial inscriptions is adduced as proof of the baptism of infants in the earliest church.
These views have met with differing reactions. Some, like Kurt Aland, consider the rise of infantbaptism to be not earlier than the close of the 2nd cent. A.D. (cf. K. Aland, Did the Early ChurchBaptize Infants?, 1963). The present writer believes that infant baptism is excluded from the horizonof the apostolic writers, not alone by its apparent lack of mention in their writings, but by theirequation of the gift of baptism with the gift of faith. In the NT it is not merely a “blessing” that isgiven to the baptized, but Christ and his full salvation, so that A. Schlatter could rightly affirm: “Thereis no gift or power which the apostolic documents do not ascribe to baptism” (Theologie des NT, II,495). This is comprehensible only in a milieu where baptism and conversion are inseparable, as in theprimitive church (cf. Acts 2:41; 16:33), so that the effect of the one may be predicated of the other.Where it is believed that the instinct of the church has been right in administering baptism to infantsas well as to those of riper years, the present writer would contend that there must be recognized amodification of baptismal doctrine and provision must be made at a later stage in life for an occasionfor confession of faith. This has been a subject of discussion in various churches of the reformation,including the Church of England (see its reports Confirmation Today, 1944; The Theology ofChristian Initiation, 1948; Baptism Today, 1949; Baptism and Confirmation Today, 1955; Baptismand Confirmation, 1959).
6 The nouns baptismos, baptisma and baptiste4s. (a) baptismos, dipping, immersion, has in classical literature the connotation of perishing, like the
vb. baptizo4. In Mk. 7:4 it represents Jewish ritual cleansing (by immersion) of vessels, and in Heb.9:10 it refers to the purification of persons. Presumably this reflects the Jewish usage of the term.Among Greek-speaking Jews it was probably used for proselyte baptism, since Josephus employs itfor John’s baptism. In Heb. 6:2 “instruction about washings” (baptismoi) appears to concern thecontrast between Christian baptism and all other religious washings, including the OT ablutions andevery kind of initiatory bath, Jewish and pagan, known to the readers.
(b) baptisma appears for the first time in the NT. No instance of its occurrence in pagan andJewish literature has yet been found. In view of the fact that its earliest employment is for the baptismof John, it could conceivably have been coined by John’s disciples. More plausibly, it is a Christianinnovation, and was applied by Christian writers to John’s baptism in the conviction that the lattershould be bracketed with Christianity rather than with Judaism. It is often affirmed that baptismos
64
denotes the act of immersion and baptisma includes the result (e.g. A. Oepke, TDNT I 545). Of thisthere is no evidence. It is more likely that baptisma was formed on the analogy of its Heb. equivalentt[ebîlâh. Apart from the general preference of Jewish Christians for Gk. terms phonetically similarto Heb. equivalents, it may well have been adopted by them to express their consciousness thatChristian baptism was a new thing in the world, differing from all Jewish and pagan purificatory rites(so Ysebaert, op. cit., 52). (c) ho baptiste4s is the surname given in the Synoptic Gospels to Johnthe Baptizer (e.g. Matt. 3:1). It draws attention to the characteristic element in his ministry, namelythe demand for repentance-baptism, and still more to the novelty of administering baptism to others,instead of leaving them to baptize themselves, as happened with all OT ablutions and in Jewishproselyte baptism.
7 The importance attached to baptism in the NT, above all in the Pauline exposition of its relationto union with Christ and participation in his death and resurrection, has led some scholars to theconviction that this interpretation stems directly from the Hellenistic Mystery Religions. R.Reitzenstein indeed was prepared to ascribe such influence even to the baptism of John (DieVorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe, 1929, 279). A dependence of the forerunner and of the earlychurch on the Mystery Religions, however, is very difficult to substantiate and is highly unlikely.Christian baptism is firmly set within the tradition of Jewish cultic acts of cleansing, above all in theactivity of John, and its interpretation is rooted in the apostolic gospel (cf. I Corinthians 15:3 f,“Christ died for our sins . . . was buried . . . has been raised . . .,” with Romans 6:3 f, “We werebaptized to his death . . . buried with him . . . that as Christ was raised we should walk . . .”). Thelanguage used of baptism in Paul’s writings flows from his basic understanding of redemption in andthrough Christ. Some of the most significant elements of his doctrine of salvation are absent from theMystery Religions (e.g. the nature of Christ’s death as for sin; the ethical implications of the believer’sbaptism to sin; the dying and rising with Christ; the once-for-all event of Christ’s death andresurrection; the insistence on faith in relation to baptism). It is, moreover, of great importance tonote that the links that have been observed between Paul’s teaching and the practices of the MysteryReligions belong to later developments within those religions which did not take place till theChristian faith had been proclaimed throughout the ancient world. For a detailed discussion of theissues see G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries, 1967.
—G. R. Beasley-Murray lou&w G3374 (louo4), wash; Pðððððð G666 (apolouo4), wash, wash away; ëëëëëëë G3373 (loutron), bath, washing. CL
In Gk. literature louo4 means wash, (mid.) wash oneself, take a bath; generally it indicates washingthe whole body, in contrast to nipto4 which is used for washing parts of the body, and plyno4 whichis used of inanimate objects, especially clothes. apolouo4 is a strengthened form of louo4, having thesame meaning but stressing the removal of dirt. The sub. loutron means the place where one has abath, the bath-house, or the water for a bath, or simply the bath.
Washing for ritual purification was common among ancient peoples of the Orient. The commonterm for cleansing was louo4; apolouo4 rarely appears in this connection; rhaino4 and its cognatesare employed for aspersion. The origin of religious lustrations lies in animistic religion, when men
65
believed that certain waters were impregnated with the power of deity, and that this power was communicated to persons and objects plunged in them. Recourse was had to suchwashing to safeguard a person, when approaching a deity in view of the power of holiness to destroya man, and to seek protection on those occasions, when men are peculiarly exposed to demonicassault, above all in circumstances connected with birth and death. When the nature of religious beliefchanged, the lustrations were, in measure, spiritualized and extended in their application. Thus,washing was required before prayer, in preparation for initiation into religious cults, after bloodshedin war, manslaughter and crimes of any kind (see J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 1962,15 ff.). OT
1 Similar phenomena, relating both to ideas and terminology of cleansing, may be traced in the OT,though all has been sublimated. When Aaron enters the Most Holy Sanctuary on the Day ofAtonement, he has to bathe his body in water and put on “holy garments” (Lev. 16:4), offer asacrifice (v. 6), and burn incense in the sanctuary “that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seatwhich is upon the testimony, lest he die” (v. 13). This washing prior to the High Priest’s appearing“before the Lord” is thus part of the conditions under which he may approach the divine holiness andlive. The processes of birth, sickness and death all entail ritual uncleanness. Purification by washingin water is required after sexual intercourse (Lev. 15), menstruation and birth (Lev. 15), after contactwith leprosy (Lev. 13, 14) and with death (Num. 5:1 ff.; 19:11 ff.). The conviction of Israel’sexclusive relationship with Yahweh possibly lent to these rites a polemic aspect. If Israel’s neighboursresorted to magical rites to secure the aid of the gods in the critical moments of life, the answer ofIsrael’s priests to these, as to all worship of foreign gods and contact with animals sacred toidolatrous cults, was to urge cleansing from them all and to be exclusively devoted to the Lord (cf.W. Eichrodt, Theology of the OT, I, 1961, 166). The more painstakingly scrupulous they were in theirobservance of these ritual washings on the one hand, the more obvious it becomes, on the other, thatin addition to these they cherished the hope of a radical purging by God in the last days. He himselfwould sprinkle water on his people, and give them a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:25); hewould open up a fountain to purify them from sin and uncleanness (Zech. 13:1), and he would purgethem with fire and fuller’s bleach (Mal. 3:1 ff.).
In the LXX these words occur most often in the Pentateuch: louo4 occurs only c. 45 times,particularly in Lev., and almost always represents the Heb. ra4h[as[; it is used generally of ritualpurification. rhantizo4 and its derivatives are used of sprinkling (Num. 19:13; Ps. 51:7 (50:9) Blood).On nipto4 see below. It is worth noting that Josephus prefers the compound apolouo4 for ritualwashing (e.g. Ant. 11, 5, 6 (163)). He always uses it, when he is talking about the Essenes’lustrations. louo4, the other hand, only appears in this context, when he describes the ritual bath ofBanus the Eremite (Life, 2(7)). loutron only occurs twice in the LXX, referring to animals’ bathing(Cant. 4:2; 6:6) and in Sir. 34:25, referring to a ritual washing. Josephus uses it in War, II, 8, 13(161) of a bath that married Essenes take with their wives to aid conception.
2 The Qumran Sect regularly employs ra4h[as[ (Gk. louo4) for its ritual washing, rather thant[a4bal ( âââââ /baptizo4). It also uses na4za=h (Gk. rhantizo4 Blood) “sprinkle,” although the“washing” apparently involves immersion (cf. e.g. 1QS 3:8 f.: “It is by humiliating himself under allGod’s ordinances that his flesh can be cleansed, by sprinkling (na4za=h) with water for impurity and
66
by sanctifying himself with water of purity”). This preference for terms indicative of washing andsprinkling is probably due to their long association in Israel’s religious history with cleansing fromsin and defilement. The Sectaries laid great stress on the necessity for repentance, if the ritual bathwas to be efficacious for religious cleansing (cf. 1QS 3:4 f.: a man who persists in the stubbornnessof his heart “cannot be cleared by mere ceremonies of atonement, nor cleansed by any waters ofablution, nor sanctified by immersion in lakes or rivers, nor purified by any bath. . . . Unclean, uncleanhe remains so long as he rejects the government of God and refuses the discipline of communion withhim”). NT
1 (a) louo4 occurs only 5 times in the NT. In Acts 16:33 it has a purely nonreligious meaning, butin Jn. 13:10 it relates to washing for purification and entails a contrast between washing the entirebody (louo4) and rinsing individual limbs (nipto4). Despite claims often made, it is improbable thatany reference to Christian baptism is intended in this passage.
(b) It is otherwise with Heb. 10:22. Christians have their “hearts sprinkled (rhantizo4) from an evilconscience” and “bodies washed (louo4) with pure water.” We are not to interpret this as a contrastbetween internal cleansing by the blood of Christ’s sacrifice and external cleansing by baptism. If thesprinkling and the washing do not both refer to cleansing waters, as in Ezek. 36:25 and the Qumranwritings, the cleansing blood of Christ is thought of as effective in baptism, even as the cleansingpower of baptism is the shed blood of Christ. It is the doctrine of Rom. 6:1 ff. expressed in terms ofsacrifice (Priest NT).
(c) In Acts 22:16 apolousai indubitably relates to baptism. The similarity of language in 1 Cor.6:11 indicates that it, too, has in view the cleansing of sins in baptism. Observe also the aor. tense ofthe verbs, pointing to a single occasion of washing, sanctification and justification. “In the name ofthe Lord Jesus” reflects the use of the Name in baptismal formulae. “In the Spirit of our God” linksthe action of the Spirit with baptism as in 1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 2:38 etc. Some MSS of Rev. 1:5 readlousanti (“to him who has washed us from our sins”) instead of lysanti (“to him who has redeemedus from our sins”). It may be a scribal error arising out of the similarity of the two words in Gk., butit has perhaps also been influenced by Rev. 7:14 (although there the Greek has plyno4).
The admittedly infrequent use of louo4 and its cognates in the NT instead of the common termbaptizo4 has its analogy and sufficient explanation in the Qumran writings. The traditional associationof these terms with cleansing through ablution emphasizes the symbolism of washing away sins inbaptism.
2 loutron in literary Gk. signifies the place where a bath is taken, whether the house for bathing,water for bathing, or simply the bath. The occurrence in the LXX is rare (see above, OT 1.). Inappears twice in the NT in contexts which apparently relate to baptism: Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5. In bothpassages it denotes the act rather than the place of washing. Eph. 5:26 may allude to the ceremonialbath taken by a bride in preparation for marriage ( âââââââ OT 2; cf. A. Oepke, TDNT, IV, 296 f.). Forthe bride of Christ (Marriage, art. íýýýý ), the counterpart to this bath is baptism, in which the membersof the body are cleansed “by the washing of water by the Word.” In the enactment of this rite theword of the gospel is enshrined and it is expressed in the confession “Jesus is Lord” (Rom. 10:9)given on that occasion.
67
In Tit. 3:5 baptism is defined as the “washing (loutron) for the regeneration and and renewal thatthe Spirit effects.” Observe that it is not the washing that effects renewal. The washing is the occasionwhen the Spirit creatively works in the individual, just as he made the community of disciples theBody of Christ at Pentecost (Acts 2:33) and at the end will produce a new creation (Matt. 19:28).
—G. R. Beasley-Murray
ni&ptw G3782 (nipto4), wash. CL
In Gk. literature nipto4 means “wash,” when the object is part of the body, in contrast with louo4,when the whole body is the object; plyno4, wash things, especially clothes; and rhaino4, sprinkle. Inreligious contexts nipto4 is commonly used of the ceremonial washing of hands, e.g. before prayeror sacrifice. OT
A similar use of nipto4 appears in the LXX, both in a secular sense (e.g. Gen. 18:4) and forreligious washings (note especially the laver provided for priests for use in the performance of theirduties, Ex. 30:17 ff.). Philo often mentions religious cleansing of the body, though he prefers thecompound term eknipto4. His manifest preference for expressions denoting partial ablution indicatesa greater interest in these forms of ritual washing than in the kind of ritual bathing that was customaryamong the Essenes. This accords with the extension of ritual washings among the Jews in lateJudaism. The prescriptions relating to priests washing their hands amidst religious duties wasextended to a demand that Jews generally rinse their hands before meals, a custom that someattributed to Solomon but others to Hillel and Shammai (SB I 695).
NT
Reference to this custom is made in the NT by the evangelist (Mk. 7:3). The disciples of Jesuswere criticized by Pharisees for eating with unwashed (aniptos), i.e. ceremonially unclean, hands (Mk.7:2). In their defence Jesus not only rejects the tradition that included the custom (vv. 5ff.), but deniessome fundamental presuppositions concerning uncleanness which it involves (vv. 14 ff.).
The narrative of the foot-washing (Jn. 13) may contain a reference to current Jewish teaching onpurification: “He who has bathed does not need to wash but is completely clean” (v. 10), i.e. he whohas taken a complete bath (louo4) does not need lesser ritual washings before a meal (nipto4). Theinsertion of “except for his feet” after “wash” is almost certainly due to a later scribe, who did notunderstand that the action of Jesus in washing the feet of the disciples represented a complete bath(louo4). If v. 7 hints that more is involved in the act than a lesson in humility (vv. 13 ff.) and that itcannot be understood until after the crucifixion, it is likely that we are to interpret it as an actedparable of the Lord’s humiliation unto death, rather than an exposition of the unrepeatability ofbaptism, or of the complete cleansing given in baptism (louo4) as compared with the repeatedcleansing in the eucharist (nipto4). It is enough to draw a secondary lesson from the incident without
68
baŒptoµ [to dip] baptéŒzoµ [to baptize], baptismoŒs [baptizing], baŒptisma
[baptism], baptisteµ s [Baptist, Baptizer]
multiplying refinements. 1 —G. R. Beasley-Murray
A. The Meaning of baŒptoµ and baptéŒzoµ. baŒptoµ, “to dip in or under,” “to dye,” “toimmerse,” “to sink,” “to drown,” “to bathe,” “wash.” The T uses baŒptoµ only in the literal sense,.“to dip” (Lk. 16:24), “to dye” (Rev. 19:13), and baptéŒzoµ only in a cultic sense, mostly “tobaptize.”
B. Religious Washings in Hellenism.1. The General Facts. Sacral baths are found in the Eleusinian cults, in Egyptian religion, in Isis
worship, and in the mysteries. Baptisms of blood are post-Christian.2. baptéŒzein in Sacral and Similar Contexts. This usage is rare; it may be found in some papyri,
Plutarch, and the Hermetic writings, but not in any technical sense.3. The Meaning of the Rites. One underlying theme is that of washing and cleansing. Various
liquids, including water, may be used to wash away uncleanness before God. Water, however, giveslife, and hence another theme is vivification by way of symbolic drowning, .., in the Nile; the drowningconnects one who drowns with the god and thus confers divinity. Yet the idea of purification ispredominant, though this is cultic, not moral, and thus comes under criticism, ..., from Plato, Philo,and Josephus. It must be stressed, of course, that the term baptéŒzein itself has no great culticsignificance.
C. bapt(éŒz)ein in the OT and Judaism. In the LXX baŒptein (baptéŒzein occurs only in2 Kgs. 5:14) is used for “to dip” in Judg. 2:14; Josh. 3:15; Lev. 4:6; 11:32. Naaman’s dipping in theJordan in 2 Kgs. 5:14 possibly has some sacramental significance. Later, baptéŒzein becomes atechnical term for lustrations (. Jdt. 12:7). It then comes to be used for the washing of proselytes,though it is hard to say when this practice originated; it seems intrinsically unlikely that it would havestarted after Christian baptism. Like other lustrations it is a continuation of the T rites of purification,which are cultic but not magical, having the legal goal of ritual purity. A proselyte is put in a newposition and from this point must keep the law. There is no thought here of death and regeneration,and the Hebrew term (t\bl) behind baptéŒzein does not signify sinking, drowning, or perishing.
D. The Baptism of John. This baptism (Mk. 1:4ff.; Jn. 1:25ff.; Acts 1:5; 11:16, etc.) is apowerful messianic awakening from which Christianity springs. As presented in the Gospels it doesnot seem to be a child of Near Eastern syncretism. The nearest analogies are in Judaism, especiallyproselyte baptism. Like this, John’s baptism makes great demands on the elect people. Unlike it, ithas a more urgent ethical and eschatological thrust. John is preparing the people for God’s imminent
1Colin Brown, ed, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, "Baptism"(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999) CD-ROM edition.
69
coming. His baptism is an initiatory rite for the gathering of the messianic community. He himselfactively baptizes, so that the passive use of baptéŒzein now becomes more common than the middlefound elsewhere. Cleansing, connected with repentance, is the main point, with a suggestion ofpurification for the coming aeon. The contrast with the baptism of the Spirit and fire shows that thereis at least some influence of the idea of life-giving inundation, but the eschatological dimension rulesout individualistic death and regeneration.
E. Christian Baptism.1. Jesus lets himself be baptized but does not himself baptize (. Jn. 3:22; Jn. 4:2). The sinlessness
of Jesus does not exclude his baptism (Mt. 3:14-15) since his concept of messiahship includesidentification with sinners (.. Jn. 1:29). If Jesus does not personally baptize, he endorses John’sbaptism (Mk. 11:30) but with a focus on his own death as a “being baptized” (Mk. 10:38-39) (... theOT figure in Pss. 42:7; 69:1; Is. 43:2; Cant. 8:7).
2. Christian baptism is practiced from the very first (Acts 2:38ff.). This is not just because John’sdisciples come into the church. It plainly rests on a command of the risen Lord irrespective of criticalobjections to Mt. 28:18, 20.
3. Syntactically baptéŒzein is linked with baŒptisma in Acts 19:4. The means is expressed bythe dative (Mk. 1:8: water; Mk. 1:8: the Holy Spirit, or en, “in” (Mt. 3:11 etc.), and once eis (Mk.1:9). The goal is normally expressed by eis, “unto” (i.e., “for”) or “into,” as in Mt. 3:11; Gal. 3:27,etc. “Into” Christ, or the triune name, is not mystical but has a more legal flavor (. the commercial useof “in the name” for “to the account” and the invocation and confession of Christ’s name in baptism[Acts 22:16; .. 19:3]).
4. The Saving Significance of Baptism into Christ. The goal of baptism is eternal life, but notprimarily by way of vivification. In spite of 1 Pet. 3:20-21; Jn. 3:5-6; Tit. 3:5, the thought of thecleansing bath is more fundamental (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22). Biblical piety rules outmagical evaluations of religious objects and actions. Hence baptism has no purely external efficacyand in itself is unimportant (1 Cor. 1:17; Heb. 9:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:21). As the action of God or Christ,it derives its force from God’s reconciling work or Christ’s atoning death (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-26;Tit. 3:4-5). It places us objectively in Christ and removes us from the sphere of death (Adam).Imputed righteousness impels us to ethical renewal, for forensic justification (in Paul) leads on tospiritual fellowship with Christ; only a distinction of thought, but no real leap or transition isdemanded. Baptism is participation in Christ’s death and resurrection which effects a transition to thenew creation, though translation into the reality of the present aeon is still a task. Paul may well havetaken over the current terminology of the mysteries here, but the content, i.e., the historicalrelationship, the eschatological new creation, and nonmystical justification, is different. With Christ’sdeath, baptism has a once-for-all character. What we have is more a Christ metaphysics than a Christmysticism, and if there are spiritual connections there is no magical transformation of human nature.1 Cor. 10:1 ff. combats a materialistic (as distinct from an objective) view, and while 1 Cor. 15:29seems to suggest a baptism for the dead, this is probably a tactical argument, or even an allusion tosome non-Christian practice in the mysteries. The close connection with Christ’s death andresurrection is mostly found in Paul, but the connection with the gift of the Spirit is common toChristian thinking. The Spirit may be given prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-45), but more often at orafter baptism. The link with forgiveness and the ethical element remain, as in John’s relating ofbaptism to regeneration (Jn. 3:5; cf Tit. 3:5), since this still stresses faith and retains the connection
70
with salvation history. Infant baptism, which cannot be supported from NT examples, makes sensewithin this objective interpretation but represents a departure from apostolic Christianity when linkedwith the later hyperphysical rather than eschatological-christological views.
F. Baptism as a Syncretistic Mystery. After NT days the eschatological context ceased to bea leaven and was treated as an appendage. In consequence baptism tended to become a syncretisticmystery with a primary stress on the matter (Ignatius, Barnabas, Tertullian), the rite (Didache,Hermas), the institutional ministry (Ignatius, Tertullian), the timing (either postponement or in earliestinfancy), and the question of second repentance for serious postbaptismal sin.
baptismoŒs, baŒptisma. “Immersion” or “baptism”; baptismoŒs denotes only the act,baŒptisma (not found outside the NT) the institution. baptismoéŒ in Mk. 7:4 are Leviticalpurifications and in Heb. 6:2 all kinds of lustrations. baŒptisma is the specific term for John’sbaptism (Mt. 3:7; Mk. 11:30; Lk. 7:29; Acts 1:22; 10:37), which is a baptism of repentance for theremission of sins (Mk. 1:4); it is also a term for Christian baptism, which is connected with Christ’sdeath in Rom. 6:4 and with the atonement in 1 Pet. 3:21, and is a basis of unity in Eph. 4:5. Christ’sdeath is itself his baŒptisma in Mk. 10:38-39; Lk. 12:50. As a special term, perhaps coined in theNT, baŒptisma shows us that Christian baptism is regarded as new and unique.baptisteµs. The nickname for John in Mt. 3:1; Mk. 6:25; Lk. 7:20, etc., apparently coined for him,and thus showing that his appearing as the messianic precursor was unique, a baptizer beingindispensable for a baptism to which the word gives its content. (Josephus uses the term for John;the mysteries speak of baptisms by gods and priests, but rabbinic disciples at proselyte baptismsare only witnesses.) [A. OEPKE, I, 529-46]2
Baptism
Deriving from the Greek baptisma, "baptism" denotes the action of washing or plunging in water,which from the earliest days (Acts 2:41) has been used as the rite of Christian initiation. Its originshave been variously traced to the OT purifications, the lustrations of Jewish sects, and parallelpagan washings, but there can be no doubt that baptism as we know it begins with the baptism ofJohn. Christ himself, by both precedent (Matt. 3:13) and precept (Matt. 28:19), gives us authorityfor its observance. On this basis it has been practiced by almost all Christians, though attempts havebeen made to replace it by a baptism of fire or the Spirit in terms of Matt. 3:11.
In essence the action is an extremely simple one, though pregnant with meaning. It consists in agoing in or under the baptismal water in the name of Christ (Acts 19:5) or more commonly theTrinity (Matt. 28:19). Immersion was fairly certainly the original practice and continued in generaluse up to the Middle Ages. The Reformers agreed that this best brought out the meaning of baptism
2Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged One-Volume Edition "Baptism"(Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., nd), Logos eletronic format.
71
as a death and resurrection, but even the early Anabaptists did not think it essential so long as thesubject goes under the water. The type of water and circumstances of administration are notimportant, though it seems necessary that there should be a preaching and confession of Christ asintegral parts of the administration (cf. Acts 8:37). Other ceremonies may be used at discretion solong as they are not unscriptural and do not distract from the true action, like the complicated andrather superstitious ceremonial of the medieval and modern Roman Church.
Discussion has been raised concerning the proper ministers and subjects of the action. In the firstinstance there may be agreement with Augustine that Christ himself is the true minister ("he shallbaptize you," Matt. 3:11). But Christ does not give the external baptism directly; he commits thisto his disciples (John 4:2). This is taken to mean that baptism should be administered by those towhom there is entrusted by inward and outward calling the ministry of word and sacrament, thoughlaymen have been allowed to baptize in the Roman Church, and some early Baptists conceived thestrange notion of baptizing themselves. Normally baptism belongs to the public ministry of thechurch.
As concerns the subjects, the main difference is between those who practice the baptism of thechildren of confessing Christians and those who insist upon a personal confession as a prerequisite.This point is considered in the two separate articles devoted to the two positions and need not detainus in this exposition of positive baptismal teaching. It may be noted, however, that adult baptismscontinue in all churches, that confession is everywhere considered important, and that Baptists oftenfeel impelled to an act of dedication of children. Among adults it has been a common practice torefuse baptism to those unwilling to leave doubtful callings, though the attempt of one sect to imposea minimum age of thirty years did not meet with common approval. In the case of children, therehas been misgiving concerning the infants of parents whose profession of Christian faith is veryobviously nominal or insincere. The special case of the mentally imparied demands sympathetictreatment, but there is no warrant for prenatal or forced baptisms, and even less for baptism ofinanimate objects such as was practiced in the Middle Ages.
A clue to the meaning of baptism is given by three OT types: the flood (I Pet. 3:19-20), the Red Sea(I Cor. 10:1-2), and circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). These all refer in different ways to the divinecovenant, to its provisional fulfillment in a divine act of judgment and grace, and to the coming anddefinitive fulfillment in the baptism of the cross. The conjunction of water with death and redemptionis particularly apt in the case of the first two; the covenantal aspect is more particularly emphasizedin the third.
When we come to the action itself, there are many different but interrelated associations. The mostobvious is that of washing (Titus 3:5), the cleansing water being linked with the blood of Christ onthe one side and the purifying action of the Spirit on the other (see I John 5:6, 8), so that we arebrought at once to the divine work of reconciliation. A second is that of initiation, adoption, or,more especially, regeneration (John 3:5), the emphasis again being placed on the operation of theSpirit in virtue of the work of Christ.
72
These various themes find common focus in the primary thought of baptism (in the destructive, yetalso life-giving, power of water) as a drowning and an emergence to new life, i.e., a death andresurrection (Rom. 6:3-4). But here again the true witness of the action is to the work of God in thesubstitutionary death and resurrection of Christ. This identification with sinners in judgment andrenewal is what Jesus accepts when he comes to the baptism of John and fulfills when he takes hisplace between two thieves on the cross (Luke 12:50). Here we have the real baptism of the NT, whichmakes possible the baptism of our identification with christ and underlies and is attested by theoutward sign. Like preaching and the Lord's Supper, "baptism" is an evangelical word telling us thatChrist has died and risen again in our place, so that we are dead and alive again in him, with him,and through him (Rom. 6:4, 11).
Like all preaching, however, baptism carries with it the call to that which we should do in responseor correspondence to what Christ has done for us. We, too must make our movement of death andresurrection, not to add to what Christ has done, nor to complete it, nor to compete with it, but ingrateful acceptance and application. We do this in three related ways constantly kept before us byour baptism: the initial response of repentance and faith (Gal. 2:20); the lifelong process ofmortification and renewal (Eph. 4:22-23); and the final dissolution and resurrection of the body (ICor. 15). This rich signification of baptism, which is irrespective of the time or manner of baptism,is the primary theme that ought to occupy us in baptismal discussion and preaching. But it must beemphasized continually that this personal acceptance or entry is not independent of the once for alland substitutionary work of Christ, which is the true baptism.
It is forgetfulness of this point which leads to misunderstanding of the so-called grace of baptism.This may be by its virtual denial. Baptism has no grace apart from its psychological effects. It isprimarily a sign of something that we do, and its value may be assessed only in explicable religiousterms. The fact that spiritual gifts and even faith itself are true gifts of the Holy Spirit, with anelement of the mysterious and incalculable, is thus denied.
On the other hand, it may be by distortion or exaggeration. Baptism means the almost automaticinfusion of a mysterious substance which accomplishes a miraculous but not very obvioustransformation. It is thus to be regarded with awe, and fulfilled as an action of absolute necessityto salvation except in very special cases. the true mystery of the Holy Spirit yields beforeecclesiastical magic and theological sophistry.
But when baptismal grace is brought into proper relationship to the work of God, we are helped onthe way to a fruitful understanding. First, and above all, we remember that behind the externalaction there lies the true baptism, which is that of the shed blood of Christ. Baptismal grace is thegrace of this true reality of baptism, i.e., of the substitutionary work of Christ, or of Christ himself.Only in this sense can we legitimately speak of grace, but in this sense we can and must.
Second, we remember that behind the external action there lies the inward operation of the Spiritmoving the recipient to faith in Christ's work and accomplishing regeneration to the life of faith.Baptismal grace is the grace of this internal work of the Spirit, which cannot be presumed (for the
73
Spirit is sovereign) but which we dare to believe where there is a true calling on the name of theLord.
Third, the action itself is divinely ordianed as a means of grace, i.e., a means to present Christ andtherefore to fulfill the attesting work of the Spirit. It does not do this by the mere performance of theprescribed rite; it does it in and through its meaning. Nor does it do it alone; its function isprimarily to seal and confirm, and therefore it does it in conjunction with the spoken and writtenword. It need not do it at the time of administration; for, under the gracious sovereignty of theSpirit, its fruition may come at a much later date. It does not do it automatically; for, whereas Christis always present and his grace remains, there are those who respond to neither word nor sacramentand therefore miss the true and inward meaning and power.
when we think in these terms, we can see that there is an ought to be a real, though not a magical,baptismal grace which is not affected greatly by the detailed time or mode of administration. Theessentials are that we use it (1) to present Christ, (2) in prayer to the Holy Spirit, (3) in trustfuldependence upon his sovereign work, and (4) in conjunction with the spoken word. Restored to thisevangelical use, and freed especially from distorting and unhelpful controversy, baptism mightquickly manifest again its power as a summons to live increasingly, or even to begin to live, the lifewhich is ours in Christ crucified and risen for us.
See also BAPTISM, BELIEVERS'; BAPTISM, INFANT; BAPTISM, MODES OF; BAPTISMALREGENERATION; BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD.
Bibliography. G.W. Bromiley, Baptism and the Anglican Reformers; J. Calvin, Institutes 4; W.F.Flemington, The NT Doctrine of Baptism; Reports on Baptism in the Church of Scotland; G.R.Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the NT; A. Oepke, TDNT, I, 529-46.
Baptism, Believers
Text: Where the gospel is first preached or Christian profession has lapsed, baptism is alwaysadministered on confession of penitence and faith. In this sense believers' baptism, i.e., the baptismof those who make a profession of faith, has been an accepted and persistent phenomenon in thechurch. Yet there are powerful groups among Christians who think that we should go further thanthis. Believers' baptism as they see it is not merely legitimate; it is the only true baptism accordingto the NT, especially, though not necessarily, in the form of immersion.
This is seen first from the precept which underlies its institution. When Jesus commanded theapostles to baptize, he told them first to make disciples and said nothing whatever about infants(Matt. 28:19). In other words, preaching must always precede baptism, for it is by the word and notthe sacrament that disciples are first made. Baptism can be given only when the recipient hasresponded to the word in penitence and faith, and it is to be followed at once by a course of moredetailed instruction.
74
That the apostles understood it in this way is evident from the precedents which have come downto us in Acts. On the day of Pentecost, for example, Peter told the conscience-stricken people torepent and be baptized; he did not mention any special conditions for infants incapable ofrepentance (Acts 2:38). Again, when the Ethiopian eunuch desired baptism, he was told that therecould be no hindrance so long as he believed, and it was on confession of faith that Philip baptizedhim (Acts 8:36ff.). Even when whole households were baptized, we are normally told that they firstheard the gospel preached and either believed or received an endowment of the Spirit (cf. Acts10:45; 16:32-33). In any case, no mention is made of any other type of baptism.
The meaning of baptism as developed by Paul in Rom. 6 supports this contention. It is in repentanceand faith that we are identified with Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. To infantswho cannot hear the word and make the appropriate response, it thus seems to be meaningless andeven misleading to speak of baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ. baptism into the deathand resurrection of Christ. The confessing believer alone knows what this means and can work it outin his life. In baptism, confessing his penitence and faith, he has really turned his back on the oldlife and begun to live the new life in Christ. He alone can look back to a meaningful conversion orregeneration and thus receive the confirmation and accept the challenge that comes with baptism.To introduce any other form of baptism is to open the way to perversion or misconception.
To be sure, there is no direct prohibition of infant baptism in the NT. But in the absence of directioneither way it is surely better to carry out the sacrament or ordinance as obviously commanded andpracticed than to rely on exegetical or theological inference for a different administration. This isparticularly the case in view of the weakness or irrelevance of many of the considerations advanced.
Christ's blessing of the children, for example, shows us that the gospel is for little ones and that wehave a duty to bring them to Christ, but it says nothing whatever about administering baptismcontrary to the acknowledged rule (Mark 10:13ff.). Again, the fact that certain characters may befilled with the Spirit from childhood (Luke 1:15) suggests that God may work in infants, but it givesus no warrant to suppose that he normally does so, or that he does so in any given case, or thatbaptism may be given before this work finds expression in individual repentance and faith. Again,the children of Christians enjoy privileges and perhaps even a status which cannot be ascribed toothers. They are reckoned in some sense "holy" by God (I Cor. 7:14). But here too there is noexpress connection with baptism or the baptismal identification with Jesus Christ in death andresurrection.
Reference to the household baptisms of Acts is of no greater help. The probability may well be thatsome of these households included infants, yet this is by no means certain. Even if they did, it isunlikely that the infants were present when the word was preached, and there is no indication thatany infants were actually baptized. At very best this could only be a hazardous inference, and thegeneral drift of the narratives seems to be in a very different direction.
Nor does it serve to introduce the OT sign of circumcision. There is certainly a kinship between thesigns. But there are also great differnces. The fact that the one was given to infant boys on a fixed
75
day is no argument for giving the other to all children some time in infancy. They belong, if not todifferent covenants, at least to different dispensations of the one covenant: the one to a preparatorystage, when a national people was singled out and its sons belonged naturally to the people of God;the other to the fulfillment, when the Israel of God is spiritual and children are added by spiritualrather than natural regeneration. In any case, God himself gave a clear command to circumcise themale descendants of Abraham; he has given no similar command to baptize the male and femaledescendants of Christians.
Theologically, the insistence upon believers' baptism in all cases seems better calculated to servethe true significance and benefit of baptism and to avoid the errors which so easily threaten it. Onlywhen there is personal confession before baptism can it be seen that personal repentance and faithare necessary to salvation through Christ, and that these do not come magically but through hearingthe word of God. With believers' baptism the ordinance achieves its significance as the mark of astep from darkness and death to light and life. The recipient is thus confirmed in the decision whichhe has taken, brought into the living company of the regenerate, which is the true church, andencouraged to walk in the new life which he has begun.
This means that in believers' baptism faith is given its proper weight and sense. The need for faithis recognized, of course, in infant baptism. It is contended that infants may believe by a special workof the Spirit, or that their present or future faith is confessed by the parents or sponsors, or that theparents or sponsors exercise vicarious faith, or even that faith is given in, with, or under theadministration. Some of these notions are manifestly unscriptural. In others there is a measure oftruth. But none of them meets the requirement of a personal confession of personal faith asinvariably fulfilled in believers' baptism.
Again, believers' baptism also carries with it a genuine, as opposed to a spurious, baptismal grace.The expression of repentance and faith in baptism gives conscious assurance of forgiveness andregeneration and carries with it an unmistakable summons to mortification and renewal. Properlyunderstood, this may also be the case with infant baptism, as in the Reformed churches. But a gooddeal of embarrassed explanation is necessary to make this clear, and there is always the risk of afalse understanding, as in the medieval and Romanist view of baptismal regeneration. Baptism onprofession of faith is the only effective safeguard against the dangerous notion that baptism itselfcan automatically transfer the graces which it represents.
To the exegetical and theological considerations there may also be added some less important butnoteworthy historical arguments. First, there is no decisive evidence for a common Jewish practiceof infant baptism in apostolic times. Second, the patristic statements linking infant baptism with theapostles are fragmentary and unconvincing in the earlier stages. Third, examples of believers'baptism are common in the first centuries, and a continuing, if supressed, witness has always beenborne to this requirement. Fourth, the development of infant baptism seems to be linked with theincursion of pagan notions and practices. Finally, there is evidence of greater evangelisticincisiveness and evangelical purity of doctrine where this form of baptism is recognized to be thebaptism of the NT. G. W. BROMILEY
76
See also BAPTISM; BAPTISM, INFANT; BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
Bibliography. K. Barth, The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism and Church DogmaticsIV/4; A. Booth, Paedobaptism Examined; A. Carson, Baptism in Its Modes and Subjects; J. Gill,Body of Divinity; J. Warns, Baptism; K. Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? D. Moody,The World of Truth.
Baptism, Infant
In a missionary situation the first subjects of baptism are always converts. But throughout Christianhistory, attested as early as Irenaeus and Origen with a reference back to the apostles, it has alsobeen given to the children of professing believers. This has not been solely on grounds of tradition,or in consequence of a perversion, but for what have been regarded as scriptural reasons.
To be sure, there is no direct command to baptize infants. But there is also no prohibition. Again,if we have no clear-cut example of an infant baptism in the NT, there may well have been such inthe household baptisms of Acts, and there is also no instance of the child of Christians beingbaptized on profession of faith. In other words, no decisive guidance is given by direct precept orprecedent.
Yet there are two lines of biblical study which are thought to give convincing reasons for thepractice. The first is a consideration of detailed passages or statements from the OT and NT. Thesecond is a consideration of the whole underlying theology of baptism as it comes before us in theBible.
To begin with the detailed passages, we naturally turn first to the types of baptism found in the OT.All these favor the view that God deals with families rather than individuals. When Noah is savedfrom the flood, his whole family is received with him into the ark (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20-21). WhenAbraham is given the covenant sign of circumcision, he is commanded to administer it to all themale members of his house (Gen. 17; cf. Col. 2:11-12 for the connection between baptism andcircumcision). At the Red Sea it is all Israel (men, women, and children) which passes through thewaters in the great act of redemption that foreshadows not only the sign of baptism but the work ofGod behind it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-2).
In the NT the ministry of our Lord is particularly rich in relevant statements. He himself becomesa child, and as such is conceived of the Holy Spirit. The Baptist, too, is filled with the Spirit fromhis mother's womb, so that he might have been a fit subject for baptism no less than circumcisionvery early in life. Later, Christ receives and blesses the little ones (Matt. 19:13-14) and is angrywhen his disciples rebuff them (Mark 10:14). He says that the things of God are revealed to babesrather than the wise and prudent (Luke 10:21). He takes up the statement of Ps. 8:2 about the praiseof sucklings (Matt. 21:16). He warns against the danger of offending against little ones that believe
77
in him (Matt. 18:6), and in the same context says that to be Christians we have not to become adultsbut to become as children.
In the first preaching in Acts it is noticeable that Peter confirms the covenant procedure of the OTwith the words: "The promise is unto you, and to your children." In the light of the OT backgroundand the similar procedure in proselyte baptisms, there is little reason to doubt that the householdbaptisms would include any children who might belong to the families concerned.
In the epistles children are particularly addressed in Ephesians, Colossians, and probably 1 John.We also have the important statement in 1 Cor. 7:14 in which Paul speaks of the children ofmarriages that have become "mixed" by conversion as "holy." This cannot refer to their civil status,but can only mean that they belong to the covenant people, and therefore will obviously have a rightto the covenant sign.
It will be noted that in different ways all these statements bring before us the covenant membershipof the children of professing believers. They thus introduce us directly to the biblical understandingof baptism that provides the second line of support for baptizing infants.
As the Bible sees it, baptism is not primarily a sign of repentance and faith on the part of thebaptized. It is not a sign of anything that we do at all. It is a covenant sign (like circumcision, butwithout blood-shedding), and therefore a sign of the work of God on our behalf which precedes andmakes possible our own responsive movement.
It is a sign of the gracious election of the Father who plans and establishes the covenant. It istherefore a sign of God's calling. Abraham no less than his descendants was first chosen and calledby God (Gen. 12:1). Israel was separated to the Lord because he himself had said: "I will be yourGod, and ye shall be my people" (Jer. 7:23). Of all disciples it must be said: "Ye have not chosenme, but I have chosen you" (John 15:16). The elective will of God in Christ extends to those who arefar off as well as nigh, and the sign of it may be extended not only to those who have responded, butto their children growing up in the sphere of the divine choice and calling.
But baptism is also a sign of the substitutionary work of the Son in which the covenant is fulfilled.As a witness of death and resurrection, it attests the death and resurrection of the One for the manywithout whose vicarious action no work even of repentance and faith can be of any avail. It preachesChrist himself as the One who is already dead and risen, so that all are dead and risen in him (IICor. 5:14; Col. 3:1) even before the movements of repentance and faith which they are summonedto make in identification with him. This substitutionary work is not merely for those who havealready believed. It may and must be preached to all, and the sign and seal given both to those whoaccept it and to the children who will be brought up with the knowledge of what God has alreadydone for them once for all and all-sufficiently in Christ.
Finally, baptism is a sign of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit by which individuals arebrought into the covenant in the responsive movement of repentance and faith. But the Holy Spirit
78
is sovereign (John 3:8). He works how and when and in whom he pleases. He laughs at humanimpossibilities (Luke 1:37). He is often present before his ministry is perceived, and his operationis not necessarily coextensive with our apprehension of it. He does not disdain the minds of theundeveloped as fit subjects for the beginning, or if he so disposes the completion, of his work. Solong as there is prayer to the Spirit, and a readiness to preach the evangelical word when theopportunity comes, infants may be regarded as within the sphere of this life-giving work which it isthe office of baptism to sign and seal.
Where infant baptism, or paedobaptism, as it is sometimes called, is practiced, it is right andnecessary that those who grow to maturity should make their own confession of faith. But they doso with the clear witness that it is not this which saves them, but the work of God already done forthem before they believed. The possibility arises, of course, that they will not make this confession,or do so formally. But this cannot be avoided by a different mode of admininstration. It is a problemof preaching and teaching. And even if they do not believe, or do so nominally, their prior baptismas a sign of the work of God is a constant witness to call or finally to condemn them.
On the mission field adult baptism will naturally continue. In days of apostasy it can and will becommon even in evangelized lands. Indeed, as a witness to the fact that our response is reallydemanded it is good for the church that there should always be a Baptist section within it. But oncethe gospel has gained an entry into a family or community, there is good scriptural and theologicalground that infant baptism should be the normal practice. G. W. BROMILEY
See also Baptism; Baptism, Believers'.
Bibliography. G. W. Bromiley, The Baptism of Infants; J. Calvin, Institutes 4.16; O. Cullmann,Baptism in the NT; P.C. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism; Reports on Baptism inthe Church of Scotland; W. Wall, The History of Infant Baptism; J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in theFirst Four Centuries; H. Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, III.
Baptism, Modes of
Text: There are, generally speaking, two opinions regarding the proper manner of administeringbaptism: that only immersion is lawful and that the mode is a matter of indifference. It would notbe correct to identify the immersionist as the Baptist position, for some Baptists do not accept thenecessity of immersion. The early Anabaptists as a rule baptized by pouring, and still today certainwriters who strongly condemn infant baptism are indifferent as to mode (e.g., Karl Barth).
The immersionist position is founded on three arguments. (1) It is argued that the word baptizeinmeans "to immerse" and therefore the command to baptize is itself a command to immerse. Baptizeinin classical usage generally meant "to dip." Immersionists maintain that this meaning continuesunaltered in NT usage and that this is confirmed by the use of the prepositions "in" and "into" with
79
baptizein and by certain circumstantial references to baptism being administered in places wherelarge supplies of water could be found (Luke 3:3; John 3:23). (2) Because baptism signifies unionwith Christ in his burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), immersionists contend that onlysinking under and coming up out of the water adequately express the symbolism of the sacrament.(3) Immersionists lay claim to the testimony of the early church, for which immersion was theprimary mode.
The second position is essentially a negative one. It denies the immersionist insistence that baptismis rightly administered only by immersion; instead, it contends that in the NT baptism, in its externalform, is simply a washing, a cleansing, which can as well be effected by pouring (affusion) orsprinkling (aspersion) as by immersion.
While there is widespread agreement that baptizein in classical Greek means "to immerse," becausebaptizein has become a technical theological term in the NT it is maintained that the classical andsecular usage cannot by itself be normative. The term diatheke, for example, universally means"testament" in the Greek of the NT period, but it cannot be given that meaning in its NT usage. Thatin its biblical and theological use baptizein has come to mean simply "to wash" or "to purify withwater" is indicated by certain occurrences of the term in the LXX and NT where baptizein cannotmean immerse (Sir. 34:25; Luke 11:38; Acts 1:5; 2:3-4, 17; 1 Cor. 10:1-2; Heb. 9:10-23). The lasttext in particular is a reminder that the purificatory water rites of the OT, the biblical antecedentsof baptism, were never immersions. It is further maintained that it is at least implausible that certainbaptisms recorded in the NT were immersions (Acts 2:41; 10:47-48; 16:33). Nor, it is contended,can appeal be made to the use of the prepositions "in" and "into" which are ambiguous and, ifpressed, in Acts 8:38 would require the immersion of both subject and minister.
While baptism certainly signifies union with Christ in his death and resurrection, it is denied thatthis has relevance for the mode. In Rom. 6:6 union with Christ in his crucifixion and in Gal. 3:27being clothed with Christ are included in the signification of baptism, but no mode illustrates theseaspects of the symbolism of baptism. Further, water is a singularly unlikely symbol for the earth intowhich one is buried, as the immersionist contends. Actually, sprinkling is as well established in Ezek.36:25 and Heb. 9:10, 13-14; 10:22.
It is conceded that immersion was the primary mode in the early church, but it is pointed out thatother modes were permitted (cf. Didache 7; Cyprian, Epistle to Magnus 12), the earliest artisticrepresentations depict baptism by pouring (affusion), and that some of the influences contributingto the popularity of immersion well may not have been healthy. In general, the nonimmersionistcontends that rigor in matters of form is contrary to the spirit of NT worship, contrary to theuniversal indifference to the mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper, and subject to the scandal that,in principle, the immersionist depopulates the church of most of its membership and most of itsfinest sons and daughters. R.S. RAYBURN
See also Baptism.
80
Bibliography. A. Carson, Baptism, Its Mode and Its Subjects; T.J. Conant, The Meaning and Useof Baptizein; J. Warns, Baptism; J. Gill, Body of Divinity; A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology; A.Oepke, TDNT, I, 529, 46; B.B. Warfield, "How Shall We Baptize?" in Selected Shorter Writings ofBenjamin B. Warfield, II; W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology; R.L. Dabney, Lectures in SystematicTheology; R. Watson, Theological Institutes; R.G. Rayburn, What About Baptism? J. Murray,Christian Baptism.
Baptismal Regeneration
Twice in the NT a connection is made between water, or washing in water, and regeneration. In John3:3 we are told that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God. Andin Titus 3:5 we read that we are saved "by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the HolySpirit." In view of these passages, of the inter-relationship of baptism with Christ's resurrection, andof the fact that it is the sacrament of initiation, it is inevitable that there should be some equationbetween baptism and regeneration. This equation is most strongly made in the phrase "baptismalregeneration."
The phrase as such is not wholly objectionable so long as the following points are kept clearly inview. The new life of the Christian is in Christ born, crucified, and risen for us. Incorporation intoChrist is the work of the Holy Spirit. The true baptism behind the sacramental rite is this savingaction of Christ and the Holy Ghost. The rite itself, in conjunction with the word, attests this workand is a means used by the Holy Spirit to its outworking in the believer. Baptism is not regeneration,however, nor is regeneration baptism, except in this deeper sense and context.
Unfortunately, medieval theology was tempted into a twofold isolation, that of the believer'sregeneration from the substitutionary work of Christ, and that of the rite from baptism in its full andbasic sense. In these circumstances the relationship between baptism and regeneration wasnecessarily misunderstood. "Regeneration" became the supernatural transformation of the believerand "baptism" a divinely appointed means of operation automatically efficacious so long as no bar(e.g., of insincerity) is opposed. The presuming of an absolute necessity of baptism, the emptyingof regeneration of any true significance, and the whole problem of postbaptismal sin were evilswhich resulted from this perverted doctrine.
The Reformers clearly saw and rejected this perversion. But they did not make the mistake ofbreaking the relationship and treating baptism only as a symbolic rite with psychological effects.Rather, they tried to work back to the true and biblical understanding currupted in the Romanistscheme. This certainly involves the danger of fresh misunderstanding, as emerges in the famousGorham controversy in England. Hence the actual phrase "baptismal regeneration" is much betteravoided. But in the long run the best antidote to perversion is the true and positive doctrine. G. W.
81
BROMILEY 3
Bibliography. G. W. Bromiley, Baptism and the Anglican Reformers; J. B. Mozley, The BaptismalControversy; J. C. S. Nias, Gorham and the Bishop of Exeter; A. Oepke, TDNT, I, 529-46; K. Barth,Church Dogmatics IV/4.
Appendix C
Baptism of the Holy Spirit
BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT
BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT. This momentous spiritual operation is set forth in the NT as thebasis of all the believer's positions and possessions "in Christ" (<Eph. 1:3; Col. 2:10; 3:1-4>; etc.).The operation is prophetic in the gospels (<Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16-17; John 1:33-34>,where Christ is the baptizer), historic in the Acts (cf. <1:5> with <11:16>), and doctrinal in theepistles (<1 Cor. 12:13>, where the Spirit is named specifically as the agent; <Rom. 6:3-4; Gal.3:26-27; Col. 2:9-12; Eph. 4:5>). The Spirit's baptizing work, placing the believer "in Christ,"occurred initially at Pentecost at the advent of the Spirit, who baptized believing Jews "into Christ."In <Acts 8>, Samaritans were baptized in this way for the first time; in chap. 10, Gentiles likewisewere so baptized, at which point the normal agency of the Spirit as baptizer was attained. Accordingto the clear teaching of the epistles, every believer is baptized by the Spirit into Christ the momenthe is regenerated. He is also simultaneously indwelt by the Spirit and sealed eternally, with theprivilege of being filled with the Spirit, as the conditions for filling are met. No subject in all therange of biblical theology is so neglected, on one hand, or misunderstood and abused, on the other,as this. The baptism of the Spirit is widely confused with regeneration and with the indwelling,sealing, and filling ministries of the Spirit, as well as with water baptism and a so-called "secondblessing." (m.f.u.; r.k.h.)
bibliography: J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970); M. F. Unger, Baptizing Workof the Holy Spirit (1974); R. E. O. White, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (from New Unger'sBible Dictionary) (originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (C) 1988.)
3Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, "Baptismal Regeneration"(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), The Bible Library electronic edition.
82
BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The expression "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is based on a number of predictions found in ourfour Gospels and in connection with these the record of their fulfilment in the Book of Acts.
1. The Biblical Material: The passages in the Gospels are as follows: <Mt 3:11>: "I indeedbaptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoesI am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." The last clause is autoshumas baptisei en pneumati hagio kai puri. In <Mk 1:8> and <Lk 3:16> we have the declarationin a slightly modified form; and in <Jn 1:33> John the Baptist declares that the descent of the Spiritupon Jesus at the baptism of the latter marked out Jesus as "he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit."Again in <Jn 7:37-38> we read: "Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood andcried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as thescripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water." Then the evangelist adds in<Jn 7:39>: "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive: for theSpirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified." These are the specific references inthe four Gospels to the baptisms of the Holy Spirit. In Acts we find direct reference by Luke to thepromised baptism in the Holy Spirit. In <Acts 1:5> Jesus, just before the ascension, contrasts John'sbaptism in water with the baptism in the Holy Spirit which the disciples are to receive "not manydays hence," and in <Acts 1:8> power in witnessing for Jesus is predicted as the result of thebaptism in the Holy Spirit. On the evening of the resurrection day Jesus appeared to the disciplesand "he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit" <Jn 20:22>. This wasprobably not a wholly symbolic act but an actual communication to the disciples, in some measure,of the gift of the Spirit, preliminary to the later complete bestowal.
We observe next the fulfilment of these predictions as recorded in Acts. The gift of the HolySpirit on the Day of Pentecost and the miraculous manifestations which followed are clearly thechief historical fulfilment of the prediction of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Among themanifestations of the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost were first those which were physical, suchas "a sound as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting"<Acts 2:2>, and the appearance of "tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon eachone of them" <Acts 2:3>. Secondly, there were spiritual results: "And they were all filled with theHoly Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" <Acts 2:4>.In <Acts 2:16> ff Peter declares that this bestowment of the Holy Spirit is in fulfilment of theprediction made by the prophet Joel and he cites the words in <Acts 2:28> ff of Joel's prophecy.
There is one other important passage in Acts in which reference is made to the baptism of theHoly Spirit. While Peter was speaking to Cornelius <Acts 10:44> the Holy Spirit fell on all thatheard the word and they of the circumcision who were with Peter "were amazed" "because that onthe Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." When giving the brethren at Jerusaleman account of his visit to Cornelius, Peter dec ares that this event which he had witnessed was abaptism of the Holy Spirit <Acts 11:16>: "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said,John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit."
We consider next the significance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit from various points of view.(1) From the point of view of Old Testament teaching as to the gift of the Spirit.-- The prophecy
of Joel quoted by Peter indicates something extraordinary in the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost.
83
2. Significance of Baptism of the Holy Spirit: The Spirit now comes in new forms ofmanifestation and with new power. The various classes mentioned as receiving the Spirit indicatethe wide diffusion of the new power. In the Old Testament usually the Spirit was bestowed uponindividuals; here the gift is to the group of disciples, the church. Here the gift is permanentlybestowed, while in the Old Testament it was usually transient and for a special purpose. Here againthe Spirit comes in fulness as contrasted with the partial bestowment in Old Testament times.
(2) From the point of view of the ascended Christ.-- In <Lk 24:49> Jesus commands thedisciples to tarry in the city "until ye be clothed with power from on high," and in <Jn 15:26> Hespeaks of the Comforter "whom I will send unto you from the Father," "he shall bear witness of me";and in <Jn 16:13> Jesus declares that the Spirit when He comes shall guide the disciples into alltruth, and He shall show them things to come. In this verse the Spirit is called the Spirit of truth. Itwas fitting that the Spirit who was to interpret truth and guide into all truth should come in fulnessafter, rather than before, the completion of the life-task of the Messiah. The historical manifestationof Divine truth as thus completed made necessary the gift of the Spirit in fulness. Christ Himself wasthe giver of the Spirit. The Spirit now takes the place of the ascended Christ, or rather takes thethings of Christ and shows them to the disciples. The baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost thus becomesthe great historic event signalizing the beginning of a new era in the kingdom of God in which thewhole movement is lifted to the spiritual plane, and the task of evangelizing the world is formallybegun.
(3) The significance of the baptism of the Spirit from the point of view of the disciples.-- It canscarcely be said with truth that Pentecost was the birthday of the church. Jesus had spoken of Hischurch during His earthly ministry. The spiritual relation to Christ which constitutes the basis of thechurch existed prior to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But that baptism established the church inseveral ways. First in unity. The external bond of unity now gives place to an inner spiritual bondof profound significance. Secondly, the church now becomes conscious of a spiritual mission, andtheocratic ideals of the kingdom disappear. Thirdly, the church is now endued with power for itswork. Among the gifts bestowed were the gift of prophecy in the large sense of speaking for God,and the gift of tongues which enabled disciples to speak in foreign tongues. The account in thesecond chapter of Acts admits of no other construction. There was also bestowed power inwitnessing for Christ. This was indeed one of the most prominent blessings named in connection withthe promise of the baptism of the Spirit. The power of working miracles was also bestowed (<Acts3:4> ff; <5:12> ff). Later in the epistles of Paul much emphasis is given to the Spirit as thesanctifying agency in the hearts of believers. In Acts the word of the Spirit is chiefly Messianic, thatis, the Spirit's activity is all seen in relation to the extension of the Messianic kingdom. The occasionfor the outpouring of the Spirit is Pentecost when men from all nations are assembled in Jerusalem.The symbolic representation of tongues of fire is suggestive of preaching, and the glossolalia, orspeaking with tongues which followed, so that men of various nations heard the gospel in their ownlanguages, indicates that the baptism of the Spirit had a very special relation to the task ofworld-wide evangelization for the bringing in of the kingdom of God.
3. Finality of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit: The question is often raised whether or not thebaptism of the Holy Spirit occurred once for all or is repeated in subsequent baptisms. The evidenceseems to point to the former view to the extent at least of being limited to outpourings which tookplace in connection with events recorded in the early chapters of the Book of Acts. The following
84
considerations favor this view:(1) In the first chapter of Acts Jesus predicts, according to Luke's account, that the baptism of
the Holy Spirit would take place, "not many days hence" <Acts 1:5>. This would seem to point toa definite and specific event rather than to a continuous process.
(2) Again, Peter's citation in <Acts 2:17--21> of Joel's prophecy shows that in Peter's mind theevent which his hearers were then witnessing was the definite fulfilment of the words of Joel.
(3) Notice in the third place that only one other event in the New Testament is described as thebaptism of the Holy Spirit, and for special reasons this may be regarded as the completion of thePentecostal baptism. The passage is that contained in <Acts 10:1--11:18> in which the record isgiven of the following events: (a) miraculous vision given to Peter on the housetop <Acts10:11--16> indicating that the things about to occur are of unique importance; (b) the speaking withtongues <Acts 10:45-46>; (c) Peter declares to the brethren at Jerusalem that the Holy Ghost fellon the Gentiles in this instance of Cornelius and his household "as on us at the beginning" <Acts11:15>; (d) Peter also declares that this was a fulfilment of the promise of the baptism of the HolySpirit <Acts 11:16-17>; (e) the Jewish Christians who heard Peter's account of the matteracknowledged this as proof that God had also extended the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles<Acts 11:18>. The baptism of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon Cornelius and his household is thusdirectly linked with the first outpouring at Pentecost, and as the event which signalized the openingof the door of the gospel formally to Gentiles it is in complete harmony with the missionarysignificance of the first great Pentecostal outpouring. It was a turning point or crisis in theMessianic kingdom and seems designed to complete the Pentecostal gift by showing that Gentilesas well as Jews are to be embraced in all the privileges of the new dispensation.
(4) We observe again that nowhere in the epistles do we find a repetition of the baptism of theSpirit. This would be remarkable if it had been understood by the writers of the epistles that thebaptism of the Spirit was frequently to be repeated. There is no evidence outside the Book of Actsthat the baptism of the Spirit ever occurred in the later New Testament times. In <1 Cor 12:13>Paul says, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, .... and were all made to drink ofone Spirit." But here the reference is not to the baptism of the Spirit, but rather to a baptism intothe church which is the body of Christ. We conclude, therefore, that the Pentecostal baptism takenin conjunction with the baptism of the Spirit in the case of Cornelius completes the baptism of theHoly Spirit according to the New Testament teaching. The baptism of the Spirit as thus bestowedwas, however, the definite gift of the Spirit in His fulness for every form of spiritual blessingnecessary in the progress of the kingdom and as the permanent and abiding gift of God to Hispeople. In all subsequent New Testament writings there is the assumption of this presence of theSpirit and of His availability for all believers. The various commands and exhortations of theepistles are based on the assumption that the baptism of the Spirit has already taken place, and that,according to the prediction of Jesus to the disciples, the Spirit was to abide with them forever <Jn14:16>. We should not therefore confound other forms of expression found in the New Testamentwith the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When Christians are enjoined to "walk by the Spirit" <Gal5:16> and "be filled with the Spirit" <Eph 5:18>, or when the Spirit is described as an anointing(chrisma) as in <1 Jn 2:20--27>, and as the "earnest of our inheritance" (arrabon). as in <Eph1:14>, and when various other similar expressions are employed in the epistles of the NewTestament, we are not to understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These expressions indicate
85
aspects of the Spirit's work in believers or of the believer's appropriation of the gifts and blessingsof the Spirit rather than the historical baptism of the Spirit.
4. Relation of Baptism of the Spirit to Other Baptisms: Three final points require brief attention,namely, the relation of the baptism of the Spirit to the baptism in water, and to the baptism in fire,and to the laying on of hands.
(1) We note that the baptism in fire is coupled with the baptism in the Spirit in <Mt 3:11> andin <Lk 3:16>. These passages give the word of John the Baptist. John speaks of the coming Onewho "shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire" <Lk 3:16>. This baptism in fire is often takenas being parallel and synonymous with the baptism in the Spirit. The context however in bothMatthew and Luke seems to favor another meaning. Jesus' Messianic work will be both cleansingand destructive. The "you" addressed by John included the people generally and might naturallyembrace both classes, those whose attitude to Jesus would be believing and those who would refuseto believe. His action as Messiah would affect all men. Some He would regenerate and purifythrough the Holy Ghost. Others He would destroy through the fire of punishment. This view isfavored by the context in both gospels. In both the destructive energy of Christ is coupled with Hissaving power in other terms which admit of no doubt. The wheat He gathers into the garner and thechaff He burns with unquenchable fire.
(2) The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not meant to supersede water baptism. This is clear fromthe whole of the history in the Book of Acts, where water baptism is uniformly administered toconverts after the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit, as well as from the numerous references to waterbaptisms in the epistles. The evidence here is so abundant that it is unnecessary to develop it indetail. See <Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 1:14--17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1 Pet3:21>.
(3) In <Acts 8:17> and <19:6> the Holy Spirit is bestowed in connection with the laying on ofthe hands of apostles, but these are not to be regarded as instances of the baptism of the Spirit inthe strict sense, but rather as instances of the reception by believers of the Spirit which had alreadybeen bestowed in fulness at Pentecost.
LITERATURE.-- Arts. on Holy Spirit in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes) andHastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels; article on "Spiritual Gifts" in EncyclopaediaBiblica; Moule, Veni Creator; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; Kuyper, The Work of theHoly Spirit. See also HOLY SPIRIT.
E. Y. MULLINS (from International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, Electronic DatabaseCopyright (C) 1996 by Biblesoft)
Baptism of the Spirit
Among the greatest blessings conferred by the Christian gospel is the personal indwelling andenduement of the divine Spirit. First conceived as the invisible energy of God active in nature andin history, but occassionally coming upon artists, prophets, leaders, or kings with enabling power,the Spirit of God was promised as the personal and permanent equipment of Messiah for his work(Isa. 11:1-2; 61:1-3). Other prophets extended a similar promise to all God's people (Joel 2:28-29;
86
cf. Ezek. 36:26-27).
In the NT. In due time the prophet John, seeking to prepare the Jews for the Messiah, emphasizedone aspect of this remarkable prophecy. He warned of a radical inward and personal purification,accompaning an outward national purgation by judgment. The one alternative he offered to suchan immersion (baptism) in "Spirit and fire" was to accept his baptism in water as a symbol of totalrepentance and reformation of life (Matt. 3:11-12; Luke 3:7-17).
In this way the promise of the Spirit first became associated with the language of baptism, abaptism with the Holy Spirit. But far more authoritative and compelling in establishing thisconnection of the coming of the Spirit with water baptism was the model experience of Jesus. In themoment of his baptism, all four Gospels insist, the Spirit descended like a dove and abode upon him(Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32; cf. Acts 10:38). Thenceforth water baptism and thereception of the Spirit must ever be linked in Christian minds.
John's contrast of baptism with water and baptism with Holy Spirit, as alternatives, was given adeeper significance, however, when his words were repeated by Jesus (Acts 1:5), echoed by Peter(Acts 11:16), recalled again by the evangelist John (1:26, 33) and by Paul (Acts 19:4-6; cf. I Cor.12:13). In these references the Christian's reception of the Holy Spirit is no longer the alternativeto a water baptism of repentance, but at least its fitting analogue, more probably its supplement andfulfillment. Since for Judaism, for John, and for the apostolic church baptism by water was a riteof initiation into the people of God, the initial experience of the Spirit's indwelling and enduementcame to be called a "baptism in" or "with" the Holy Spirit.
In Greek, the preposition is here ambiguous: en may be local, meaning "within" water or Spirit;or, following Hebrew idiom, it may be instrumental, meaning "by means of" water or Spirit. But, asin the parallel phrases, "baptism in or with fire" or "suffering" (see Mark 10:38-39), the differencebetween "in" and "with" is more theoretical then practical.
This Judaic and Johannine background explains the strange, and possibly misleading, expression"baptism in or with the Holy Spirit." For it carries with it the suggestion that God's Spirit is anelement, an energy or instrument, rather than a person. The outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-29;Acts 2:17, 33) similarly reflects the OT thought of the Spirit as God's invisible power, manifest onlyin its results. When the fully Christian conception of the Spirit is reached, as a divine person, asChrist's "other self" (John 14:17; 16:7; II Cor. 3:17; "the Spirit of Jesus," Acts 16:7), then to speakof "pouring" or "baptism in" the Spirit would seem no longer completely appropriate.
This distinction between the Spirit as person and the Spirit as element or energy is of practicalimportance, lest a careless use of words lead us to suppose we can manipulate the Spirit's powerrather than surrendering to the Spirit's will (see I Cor. 12:11). That danger noted, the phrase"baptism in the Spirit" is not more vague or nebulous than "baptism into Christ" (Gal. 3:27),"baptized into his death" and resurrection (Rom. 6:3, 5), "baptized into one body" (of Christ, I Cor.12:13). In NT though baptism signified an experience so deep, radical, transforming, and effectual
87
that only such telescopic phrases could describe its immeasurable consequences.
In particular, the indwelling and enduement with the Holy Spirit, which became available throughChrist to all who believe, came inevitably to be linked with, and described in the language of, thatcrucial public step by which individuals first became Christians and were accepted as members ofthe Spirit-filled, Spirit-led, Spirit-empowered church of Christ. Quite naturally the experience cameto be described as being baptized in or with the Holy Spirit.
In Modern Experience. In modern discussion, however, a slightly different phrase, "the baptism ofthe Spirit," has replaced the scriptural phrases, especially in Pentecostal and charismatic circles.In its most common use this new expression has tended to place less emphasis upon the indwellingof the Spirit, with the illumination of mind (John 14:26; 16:8-15), the refinement of character (thefruit of the Spirit, Gal. 5:22-23; love, I Cor. 12:27-13:13), and the gifts of peace, power, and joythat the Spirit bestows. Instead, while not denying these, the phrase has become associatedspecifically with the initial and continuing enduement of individuals by the Spirit with miraculouspowers, gifts, abilities, and emotional resources, manifest in spiritual healing, speaking in unknowntongues, prophesying, leadership, exuberant emotion, and other forms of equipment for Christianservice.
Alongside this difference of emphasis as to what qualities of life and service most clearlydemonstrate the power of the Spirit, opinion is divided also on how and when the initial receptionof the Spirit may be expected.
Some insist that the earliest experience of the Spirit coincides with conversion. They resist anysuggestion that so vital an experience could depend in any degree upon a merely ritual event likewater baptism. They underline the necessary ministry of the Spirit in bringing any soul to Christ.Without the Spirit no one can call Jesus Lord (I Cor. 12:3), or be born into the kingdom (John 3:5),or become Christ's at all (Rom. 8:9). Thus, to receive the Spirit is an essential part of salvationitself.
Some insist that in the NT pattern of initiation reception of the Spirit accompanies baptism in water.These argue that apostolic baptism was certainly no mere ritual but a deliberate, and often perilous,public and irrevocable commitment to the lordship of Christ. It was accompanied by the confessionof Christ before men, which was essential to saving faith (Rom. 10:9; cf. Matt. 10:32-33), on thepart of each repentant believer. Defending the close association of the experience of the Spirit withsuch a baptism in water, they point to the plain implication of the metaphor itself, "baptism" of theSpirit. They insist that Christ's own baptismal experience sets the norm for every Christian baptism.And they recall, beside the oft-repeated words of John linking water baptism with the promisedbaptism of the Spirit, Peter's clear instruction and promise at Pentecost: "Repent, and be baptized...and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38-39).
With perhaps a little more hesitation, defenders of the view that Spirit baptism ought to accompanywater baptism draw attention to Paul's action at Ephesus, which sought to repair a baptism which
88
had not conferred the Spirit by one that did (Acts 19:1-6). They also suggest that, on this view,expressions like "born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5), "washed... sanctified ... justified in thename of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 6:11), and "the washing of regeneration and renewal in the HolySpirit" (Titus 3:5) are more easily understood.
Others again insist that the baptism of the Spirit is an experience subsequent to conversion andentirely independent of water baptism, possibly replacing it. It is a second blessing, an "infilling"of the Spirit, supplementing conversion as the young Christian advances to maturity. These wouldargue that the supposed NT pattern has certainly not been familiar in the historic church. Theyemphasize that Pentecost was for the first disciples later than, and consequent upon, introductionto Jesus. They recall that some already Christians are urged to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph.5:18). Above all, they point to the poverty of spiritual experience of many professing (and baptized)Christians as proof that something more than conversion and baptism are needed for a Spirit-filledlife.
Differing exegesis and theological debate must not be allowed to obscure the primary truth: thatthe Spirit of the living Christ seeks to enrich, enable, empower, and use Christians in everygeneration. The spirtual significance of apostolic baptism and of that prevalent in the modernchurch is so different that for most Christians the "fullness of the Spirit" will be an experience longsubsequent to baptism. But how we describe the experience is less important than that we open mind,heart, and will to the power and joy which the Spirit offers to confer. The contemporary church andthe modern world sadly need Christians baptized with the Spirit.
See also HOLY SPIRIT; CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT: PENTECOSTALISM; SPIRITUAL GIFTS.
Bibliography. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Holy Spirit of God; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the HolySpirit; T. A. Smail, Reflected Glory; H. Berkhof, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 4
4Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, "Baptism of the Spirit" (GrandRapids: Baker Book House, 1984), The Bible Library electronic edition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Clifton J., ed. The Broadman Bible Commentary, 12 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969
Beall, James Lee, Rise to Newness of Life, Detroit: Evangel Press, 1974.
Beasley-Murray, C.N., Baptism in the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 1962.
Berkhof, Louis, The History of Christian Doctrines, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1937.
_____, Summary of Christian Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1938.
_____, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939.
Berry, George Ricker, The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament with Lexicon and Synonyms, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Everett Harrison, ed. Grand Rapids: BakerBook House, 1960.
Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962
Calvin, John, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. John T. McNeil, ed. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, rpt. 1960.
Carter, Charles W., ed. The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, 6 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.
Clarke, Adam, Christian Theology, Salem: Convention Book Store, 1835 rpt. 1967.
Conner, Kevin J., The Book of Acts, 2 vols. Portland: The Center Press, Bible Temple, Inc., 1973.
Dake, Finis J., Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Atlanta: Dake Bible Sales, Inc., 1963.
Davis Dictionary of the Bible, The, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1898 rpt, 1972.
Funk & Wagnails New Encyclopedia, The, 31 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnails, Inc. 1973.
Gehman, Henry Snyder, ed. The New Westminister Dictionary of the Bible, Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1970.
89
Greek-English New Testament, The, Christianity Today, 1975.
Guthrie, D., ed. The New Bible Commentary Revised, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, rpt. 1975.
Ironside, R.A., Baptism What Saith the Scriptures?, Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1930.
Kelly, Balmer E., ed. The Layman's Bible Commentary, 25 vols. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1964.
Lockyer, Herbert, All the Doctrines of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964.
Murray, John, Christian Baptism, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.
New Combined Bible Dictionary and Concordance, The, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961.
Pendleton, James Madison, Christian Doctrine, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1878.
Pfeiffer, Charles F., ed. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1 vol. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
Rice, John R., Bible Baptism, Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1943.
Schaff, Phillip, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910.
Shepherd, J.W., The Christ of the Gospels, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1939.
Stibbs, Alan M., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 20 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1959.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. in 1. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907.
Vine, W.E., Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Iowa Falls: Riverside Book andBible House, n.d.
Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary, Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1974
Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, The, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975.
90
91
![Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament ... · A Theology of the Old Testament Final Pages [Half-Title Page] ... x Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5c3b5fb493f3c37a684f93c1/everlasting-dominion-a-theology-of-the-old-testament-a-theology-of-the.jpg)
![Block, D. - Syllabus - Old Testament Theology [2009]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/53f67b32dab5ca464a8b482c/block-d-syllabus-old-testament-theology-2009.jpg)
