A
Baptist Page Article
Baptism by A.T. Robertson
In
the modern world there are three attitudes towards immersion in the Scriptures.
One is that immersion alone is meant by the word "baptize."
The second is that the word means either immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.
The third denies that immersion is Scriptural. It is not often that genuine
scholars now go to the extreme of saying that immersion is not baptism.
Dr. Shedd, in his Commentary on Romans, endeavors to show
that Paul, in Romans 6:4, did not connect baptism and burial. But this
species of exegetical gymnastics is so rare as not to be taken seriously
by the student of Scripture. There is a much larger number of writers
who freely admit that immersion is the proper meaning of baptize, but
who insist that another meaning is permissible also in special cases.
Hence, it is argued, one cannot properly insist on immersion alone as
baptism. Dr. A. Plummer is a fine example of this type of scholars who
wish to find some Scriptural justification for modern practices in Christian
worship. Writing in the new Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, he
says:
The mode of using it was commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this. It was an act of purification; and hence the need of water. A death to sin was expressed by a plunge beneath the water, and a rising again to a life of righteousness by the return of light and air; and hence the appropriateness of immersion.
That would seem conclusive, if he had not added: "But immersion was a desirable symbol, rather than an essential," mentioning the stock objections about household baptism. The Baptists are by no means alone in claiming that nothing but immersion is taught in Scriptures. In fact, the overwhelming bulk of modern scholarship is with the Baptist contention on this point. The trouble is not so much here, as in the conclusion from this fact. The Romanist will say: "Yes, but the church had the right to change the mode of the ordinance." He falls behind the doctrine of an infallible church. The appeal to Scripture does not reach him. The Lutherans, and do many other Paedobaptists, admit it freely, but affirm that the form is a matter of indifference, and claim that pouring and sprinkling are more convenient, and more suitable to model conditions and customs. It is denied by them that the form is essential to obedience to this command. This is the position of the majority of Paedobaptists. The wise line of argument with those who hold this view is to show that the form is essential to the symbol, that the very idea of baptism is destroyed when the form is broken, that an ordinance is meant in the nature of the case to be unchangeable; in accord to make it clear, that one loves the Bible must follow the Bible teaching. It is just at this point that most of the irritation arises in the discussion of this subject. In our view we assume that no is baptized at all who is not immersed on a profession of faith. This is considered arrogance by many who differ from us, and it is frequently said that we make immersion essential to salvation. If we expect to reach those who disagree with us, we must take pains to be understood, and to make it clear that our stress on immersion is not because we consider it essential to salvation, but essential to the ordinance. Baptism is not essential to salvation, but we insist that, when one is baptized, he should be really baptized. Baptists also feel very strongly the beauty of the symbolism of baptism as a death and resurrection. We are unwilling to see the pictured truth of the ordinance destroyed by the substitution of some other act. Besides, we contend that the command of Jesus cannot be obeyed unless the thing commanded by Him is done.
The
Substitution of Sprinkling for Immersion
It is a commonplace among scholars that the counsel of Ravenna in
1311 was the first counsel to put sprinkling on a par with immersion.
This permission to use sprinkling, says the Schaff-Herzog Cyclopedia
of Religious Knowledge, "was favored by the growing rarity of
adult baptism." Up to this time, sprinkling was only allowed in the
case of the sick, and gradually for infants. It was the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration that led both to infant baptism and sprinkling. The belief
that only the baptized were saved caused something to be done that would
answer for baptism to insure salvation. Luther took the side of immersion
and tried to stem the tide toward sprinkling, but he failed. Calvin considered
it a matter of indifference. Roman Catholics stand by the council of Ravenna.
The Continental Anabaptists were divided as to immersion. Modern advocates
of sprinkling stand for a rite that gained its triumph at the close of
Middle Ages
The
Greek Church
The Greek Christians did not accept the decision of Ravenna, and did
not cease the practice of immersion. This is a very striking testimony
to the meaning of baptize, since the Greeks are credited with knowing
the meaning of words in their own language. It is true, they practice
trine immersion, but this fact has no bearing on the question of immersion
or sprinkling.
The Early Fathers
There is such a wealth of testimony here that one hesitates what to
use. I have before me, as I write, the Greek Lexicon of the Roman and
Byzantine Period from 140 BC to AD 1100, by Prof. E.A. Sophocles,
himself a native Greek. This book is the standard authority for this period
of the Greek language, and is invaluable in the study of ecclesiastical
terms. He, in accordance with all Greek lexicons, gives "dip, immerse,
plunge" as the meaning of the word. He refers to Barnabas, Ignatius,
Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Origen, Cyril, Gregory, Epiphanius, etc…
to prove the mode. Moreover, Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas both
speak of "going down into the water" and "coming up out
of the water." Tertullian uses the Latin word "mergito,"
"to plunge."
When the teaching of the Twelve came to light, there was much ado made
because this document of the second century permitted pouring when immersion
could not be done. This is true. Already, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration
had arisen, and so much stress was laid upon baptism that when there was
not enough water for immersion, pouring was allowed. But this is not the
Scripture teaching. No such emphasis is laid upon baptism by the New Testament.
Moreover, in the Teaching of the Twelve, when pouring is allowed a different
word is used from "baptizo." The word used is "ekcheo,"
a word never used in the New Testament in connection with baptism. Now
the fact that "ekcheo" is used for pouring, as distinguished
from "baptizo," proves that "baptizo" does not mean
pour.
Ancient Greek
"Baptizo" is not used as often as "bapto" from
which it is derived. But each means to dip, to plunge. Both words are
used in figurative expressions also, as all words are. Once can be plunged
in grief, immersed in cares, etc. Liddell and Scott's Standard Greek
Lexicon (seventh edition) gives not a single example that permits
pouring or sprinkling. What the precise difference is between "bapto"
and "baptizo" has not been determined. In practical usage no
real distinction can be observed, saved "baptizo" is more common
in later Greek; "bapto" is the earlier idiom. We have the same
situation concerning "raino" and "rantizo," to sprinkle.
The ancient Greeks uses "raino," and later Greek uses its derivative,
"rantizo," but with no real difference in sense.
Contemporary
Greek
The Biblical Greek is based on the Universal Dialect, which was occasioned
by the spread of the Macedonized Attic by the by the conquests of Alexander
the Great, Plutarch, Dio, Cassius, Lucian, Philo, Josephus, Polybius,
Diodorus, Strabo, all use "baptizo," and all use it in the sense
of dip. These writers wrote in the language which lay immediately behind
Biblical Greek, and were in a sense contemporaries of Biblical Greek.
Plutarch speaks of dipping ("baptizo") himself into the lake.
Josephus (Antiquities XV.,3,3) tells of young Aristobulus, brother
of Mariamne, who went swimming with some of Herod's servants. At the proper
time, in the dark of the evening, they "dipped him as he was swimming,"
and so he was drowned. The word "baptizo" is here used for "dipped."
The Septuagint
Both
"bapto" and "baptizo" are used in the Septuagint translation
in literal and figurative senses, but always with the sense of dip. In
2 Kings 5:14, we read of Naaman: "Then went he down, and dipped himself
seven times in the Jordan." There the Septuagint uses "baptizo"
for "dipped."
The New Testament
The New Testament is based immediately on the Dialect. Prof. Sophocles
(Lexicon for Roman and Byzantine Periods) says of "baptizo":
"There is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of
the New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks."
The word assumes a technical application to a special ordinance in the
New Testament, but the act used as an ordinance is the original and persistent
meaning of the word. The Jews had ablutions before John the Baptist introduced
the ordinance of baptism. Some of those ablutions were immersions, but
there is no evidence that the Jewish Proselyte baptism of later times
(which was also immersion) existed before the time of Christ. In Luke
11:38 we are told that the Pharisee marveled at Jesus because "He
had not first washed before dinner." The word for wash is "baptizo,"
and refers to the Pharisaic scrupulosity about ceremonial defilements.
To make sure of ceremonial purity, a whole bath was felt to be necessary.
In Mark 7:4 we read that when they come "from market, except they
wash, they eat not." There again "baptizo" is used for
wash. Some ancient documents here read "rantizo," sprinkle,
showing clearly that "baptizo" and "rantizo" mean
different things. The reading "rantizo" doubtless arose from
the difficulty felt by those not Jews in thinking that everybody would
go to the trouble of taking a bath after coming from the market before
meals. In Luke 16:24 "bapto" is translated dip, "that he
may dip the tip of his finger in water." "Baptizo" is used
in the figurative sense in the New Testament, but always in harmony with
the original and literal meaning of the word.
The baptism of death, of fire, of the cloud, of the Holy Spirit, all preserved
the same imagery of the literal usage. The way to learn the real meaning
of a word is not from the metaphor, but from the literal sense. We have
seen from the use of the word "baptizo" in Greek writers of
all ages, from the time of Homer till Modern Greek, that "bapto"
and "baptizo" mean to dip. So then, the presumption is all in
favor of this idea in the Bible, unless the connection makes it impossible,
and renders a peculiar sense proper which does not elsewhere exist. We
have seen that the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament "bapto"
and "baptizo" mean to dip or immerse in a literal and figurative
sense. What, then, is the sense when "baptizo" is used for the
ordinance of baptism? We observe at once that "rantizo", to
sprinkle, and "eccheo," to pour, or both used in the New Testament,
but never in connection with the ordinance of baptism. The word "baptizo"
is consistently used throughout. We should expect "baptizo"
to have one meaning, since we have observed this to true of it elsewhere.
This one meaning should run through all the figurative uses of the word
also. We suggest that one use successively, pour, sprinkle, immerse in
every instance in the New Testament where the word baptize, or baptism,
occurs. The result will completely remove pour and sprinkle from serious
consideration. Dip or immerse will suit every time. The circumstances
surrounding the ordinance of baptism naturally suggest immersion. Jesus
went down into the water. And came up out of the water (Mark 1:10).
The baptism took place while down in the water. If the word "baptizo"
elsewhere always means immerse, certainly there is nothing here to make
it otherwise. The New Testament descriptions of various baptisms suggest
an immersion. Moreover, Paul has drawn a picture of what baptism is like.
In Romans 6:4 he tells us that baptism is like death, burial and resurrection.
(See also Col. 2:12). The very symbolism of baptism demands going down
into and rising from the water. It is impossible to picture burial and
resurrection by pouring or sprinkling. Immersion does do it, and nothing
else does. The argument is complete, as complete as it is possible to
make any argument. No real objection can be found in Scriptures. The number
baptized at Pentecost does not show immersion to be impossible. Baptist
missionaries among the Telugus have duplicated this experience several
times. The water was at hand also, for Jerusalem was well-supplied with
large pools, and always had plenty of water. The baptism of the jailer
at Philippi is entirely possible. It is not state when the baptism took
place. Baptism by immersion is common in jails now. Water can be found
in plenty when it is wanted. But, one may say, suppose water could not
be found, then what? Do nothing. Baptism is not essential for salvation.
A man in a desert can wait till he gets out of the desert, if he ever
does. If we do not know that Jesus was immersed in the Jordan, we do not
know anything about the Bible.
What Will You Do?
If Jesus was immersed, you wish to be immersed also. You ought not
to be willing to do something else. If He went all the way from Nazareth
to the Jordan to be immersed by John, we ought not to say anything about
convenience now. It is not a question of what we would rather do. Jesus
was immersed. Will you be content with doing something else for your own
convenience, and offer that to Him for obedience? It is not a question
of salvation, for we are not saved by baptism. But why do anything if
you are not willing to do what Jesus did, and what He commands? He has
commanded us to be immersed. He had nowhere commanded pouring or sprinkling.
From Baptism, Baptist Argus (Louisville,
Kentucky), 1900. As found in Chapter 15 of The Best of A.T. Robertson,
edited by David S. Dockery, Timothy and Denise George, Broadman and Holman
Publishers, 1996.)
Baptist Page Articles are offered as a service to the readers of The Baptist Page. You are given permission to reprint this in any form available. We only ask that this paragraph remain with the article.
©1997-2001 The Baptist Page - www.baptistpage.com