|
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2001
Panel on Doctrine
Report
Baptism
Page 8
THE MODE OF BAPTISM
-
The words(baptô and baptizô)
It has often been contended
that the word baptism necessarily means "immersion". Alexander Carson
inhis Baptism: Its Modes and Subjects has stated that while baptô
has two meanings (i.e. to dip and to dye) "baptizô in
the whole history of the Greek language has but one. It not only signifies
to dip or immerse, but it never has any other meaning."
Baptism: Its Modes and Subjects, first published Philadelphia
1845, re-published Kregel 1981, p 19 Itis significant here that
Carson seems to regard dipping as equivalent to immersing. In fact we frequently
dip without immersing and, as we shall see,we find dipping without immersing
in the New Testament. AH Strong is more emphatic, "This is immersion and
immersion only."Systematic Theology, Philadelphia
1909, Vol III, p 993. Baptist scholars writing duringthe second half
of the twentieth century have been more careful in theirarguments for 'immersion
only'. So, for example, in his major work, Baptismin the New Testament
, Beasley-Murray makes only two brief referencesto immersion as the proper
mode for baptism (one of which is a footnote).Baptismin the New Testament
, Paternoster 1962, pp 133, 263n.Seealsohis Baptism Today and Tomorrow
, Macmillan 1966, pp 24, 170n. In both cases the argument is
based on Paul's theology, not on an exegesis of Greek words, nor on the practice
of the early church as we haveit in the Book of Acts. Much more recently
Grudem in his Systematic Theology commenting on baptizô
has stated, "The sense 'immerse'is appropriate and probably
required for the word in several New Testament passages" (
italics added).Systematic Theology, IVP 1994,
pp 967-969. We would not disagree. Our contention is thatthe senses
'dip', 'wash' or 'sprinkle' are also appropriate and are required
for the word in several New Testament passages. Whether thesense 'immerse'
is required in the particular examples given by Grudembaptised
by John; Acts 8.36ff, the Ethiopian baptised by Philip;
John 3.23,John baptising at Aenon; pp 967f. is amatter for debate.
Grudem's main argument, as with Beasley-Murray, is basedon Pauline theology.
The crucial point here is that we have two significantBaptist scholars who
no longer insist that baptizô must be understoodin the sense
of 'immersion' .Bearing in mind, however, that arguments forimmersion based
on the use ofbaptizô still persist at a morepopular level it
will be helpful to explore the matter further.
The Old Testament (SEPTUAGINT)
baptô (occurring
some seventeentimes)
There are three examples
of baptô where it probably carries the idea of immersion.
- Leviticus 11.32. Articles
made unclean are to be "put in water" (Heb. bô). No doubt this
would involved the immersion of the articles in water.
- Job 9.31. The
"plunge"ofa man into a lime pit so that even his clothes detest him again
suggestsimmersion (Heb. tâbal).
- Psalm 68.23 translates
a Hebrewword (mâchats) meaning "to smite through" but is used
in the sense of "to plunge" (NIV).
There are two occurrences
of baptô in Daniel (4.33; 5.21) where it translates an Aramaic
verb. In both theseverses we have exactly the same phrase concerning Nebuchadnezzar:
"his bodywas drenched with the dew of heaven". baptô (Heb.
tseba) could mean here drenched, moist or wet; it can hardly mean immersed
–not in the literal sense.
All the remaining examples
of baptô translate the Hebrew
tâbal asdoes baptizô (in 2 Kings 5.14, above) and
all carry the senseof "to dip" or "to be moist with",e.g. Lev 14.6 and 51
where a live birdis dipped in the blood of the one bird which has been killed
over fresh water.It is difficult to see how one bird could be immersed in
the blood of anotherbird.
baptizô (only
two examples in the Septuagint)
- Isaiah 21.4 where
baptizô (Heb. bâ'ath, 'to tremble') is used in a figurative
sense.NIVtranslates "fear makes me tremble".
- 2 Kings 5.14,
the washingof Naaman in the Jordan (Heb. tâbal). It is worth
noting herethat Elisha's instructions to Naaman were, "Go wash yourself seven
timesin the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed"(v
10).This reads very much like a ritual washing in the Jordan. Naaman's servant
repeated the prophet's words, "Wash and be cleansed" (v 13). The NIV translates
v 14: "So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seventimes…"
-
The New Testament
baptô (occurring
only inLuke 16.24; John 13.26 x 2; Revelation 19.13)
In all four instances the
word carries the sense of "to dip". For example, Lk 16.24: "send Lazarus
to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue."
baptizô (occurs
someseventyfive to eighty times)
Our purpose here is simply
topoint out that the word baptizô is used in the New Testament
without the sense of being "immersed". Two examples will suffice.
- Luke 11.38: "the Pharisees,
noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised".
This was a ritual washing of hands prior to a meal. It is quite unreasonable
to suggest that the Pharisees were looking for a ritual immersion prior to
a meal.
- Much the same
can besaid for Mark 7.4: "When (the Pharisees) come from the market-place
theydo not eat unless they wash." A ritual immersion prior to every
meal?!
- Some practical difficulties
Acts 2.41: The baptism
ofabout three thousand on the day of Pentecost. While there is nothing here
to prove or disprove baptism by immersion the practicalities of baptising
three thousand people by immersion in Jerusalem do raise interesting questions.
Acts 8.38: "Philip and
the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptised him." The "going
downinto the water" does not constitute the baptism. They both went down,
andPhilip was not a candidate for baptism. The baptism may or may not have
beena baptism by immersion. We simply do not know. We do know that they were
ona desert road and that most desert streams would not be deep.
Acts
16.33: The Philippian jailer.The text reads as if the jailer and all his
household were baptised "without delay in the prison itself"
TheActsof the Apostles, IVP 1980, p 274.
and during the night. It is difficult to know what facilities wouldbe available
in those circumstances for a household baptism and whether therewould be
facilities for baptism by immersion in the prison. John Stott suggests:"perhaps
it took place in a well or fountain in the prison courtyard, or perhaps using
the same bowl from which he had cleaned their wounds. Thus, as Chrysostom
pointed out, the washing was reciprocal: 'he washed them and was washed;those
he washed from their stripes, himself was washed from his sins.'"
The Message of Acts, IVP 1990, p 267.
- Pauline theology (Romans
6.3-5)
The
main passage which has a possible bearing on the mode of baptism is Romans
6.3-5. It is worth quoting this in full.
"…all
of us who werebaptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death. We
were thereforeburied with him through baptism into death in order that, just
as Christ wasraised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too
may live a newlife. If we have been united with him like this in his death,
we will certainlyalso be united with him in his resurrection. For we know
that our old selfwas crucified with him so that the body of sin might be
done away with, thatwe should no longer be slaves to sin –because anyone
who has died hasbeen freed from sin."
It is always important to
understandthe main thrust of a Bible passage before using some of its component
partsto support a thesis. Paul is dealing in this passage with a rather insidious
argument which, if allowed to go by default, would have seriously damaged
and ultimately destroyed the Gospel of God's grace. The argument was as follows:
the grace of God is sufficient to coverall our sin; the more sin, the more
grace; sin is a good thing because it promotes grace; let us, therefore,continue
in sin. Paul's response is robust :we have been united to Christin his death,
burial and resurrection; everyone united to Christ is, 'byvirtue of the efficacy
of Christ's death and the power of his resurrection',
Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980,p
27. freed from the dominion of sin andlives a new life which
is wholly incompatible with a life of sin.
It is important to grasp that Paul's answer
to the antinomianism being propounded is not water baptism but union with
Christ. Paul is building on the foundation he has already established in
the previous chapter (5.12-23). As we were 'in Adam', so we are 'in Christ'
summarisesthe teaching there. It is because the believer is in Christ and
Christ isin the believer that antinomianism is an impossibility. What then
is thesignificance of the word 'baptism' in this context, and does it tell
us anythingabout the mode of baptism? There are several possibilities.
Our baptism by the Spirit
intoChristChristian Baptism,
Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, pp 26-30;J Brown, Analytical Exposition
of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to theRomans, Grand Rapids 1981.
It
is possible to understandthe reference to baptism in Romans 6 in the light
of 1 Cor 12.13: "we wereall baptised by one Spirit into one body". In which
case Paul is saying inthe Romans passage that we were baptised (by the Spirit)
into Christ, intohis death, burial and resurrection. The advantage of this
approach is thatwe are able to take the passage at face value. It really
is baptism that effectsour union with Christ, i.e. the baptism by the Spirit.
We really are buriedwith him through baptism, i.e. baptism by the Spirit.
According to this approachit will be obvious (a) that baptism is not symbolic,
and (b) that the Romans'passage has no bearing on the mode of water baptism.
-
Our baptism with water effecting our union with Christ
The
concept that it is the sacrament itself, i.e. baptism with water, which effects
either regeneration or union with Christ is a concept that was rejected at
the time of the Reformation. It has also been rejected earlier in this Report.
It is not an appropriate interpretation of Romans 6. CK Barrett writes,"There
is no sacramental opus operatum by means of which Christianscan assure
themselves, independently of faith and of their own moral seriousness, that
they have risen from death to enjoy the life of the Age to Come."
The Epistle to the Romans, A&C Black 1957, p 123.
- Our baptism
with water as a symbolic representation of our union with Christ
According to
this view baptism, inRomans 6, is presented as "the symbolic representation,
or the pictorial enactmentof, a deeper spiritual reality, namely, our union
with Christ; our union withHim in…His burial and in His resurrection".
Romans: Exposition of Chapter 6: The new Man, Banner of Truth
1972, p 33. First we go down into thewater (a picture of burial),
then we come up out of the water (a pictureof resurrection).It is in the
light of this symbolic representation thatmany Baptists insist on baptism
by immersion only. The symbolic representation,it is claimed, reflects the
practice, and the only practice, of the earlychurch.
There are, however, difficulties in the
'symbolic representation' approach when accompanied by the conclusion that
only baptism by immersion accords with the New Testament practice and, therefore,
that baptism by immersion is required by the symbolic representation in Romans
6. It is difficult, for example, to apply the symbolism, as Romans 6 requires,
to every aspect of our union with Christ. Paul is quite clear here. It is
through baptism (which represents our union with Christ) that we have died
with him, have been buried with him, have been raised with him. Macleod comments
that while "going down into the water is an adequate symbol of the Lord's
death…it is not an adequate symbol of burial (or more precisely, of
entombment, because Jesus was not buried, he was entombed)…"
A Faith to Live By, Christian Focus 1998, p 214.
More importantly it is possible to hold,
as many do, the 'symbolic representation' view without concluding that baptism
byimmersion is to be insisted upon as the only or the most appropriate mode
of baptism. While baptism by immersion may provide an appropriate backcloth
to Paul's teaching in Romans 6 it must also be pointed out that there are
other more common backcloths which require baptism by pouring and sprinkling.
(a) Baptism is presented as a washing.
See for example the words of Ananias to Saul (Acts 22.16): "Get up, be baptised
and wash your sins way." As the Church of Scotland Report states, "The connexion
between this washing and the death of Christ is seen in passages such as1
Cor 6.11, 'but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God;" and Eph.5.25f,'Christ
also loved the Church and gave himself up for it, that He might sanctifyand
cleanse it by the washing of water by the Word, that He might presentit to
Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle…but thatit should
be holy and without blemish.' In these passages Christ's work isdescribed
as a cleansing of the Church and of believers, in language reminiscentof
the Old Testament ideas of covenant and sacrifice… In Heb 10.22the
language is undoubtedly taken from the priest's cleansing: 'Let us drawnear
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold
fast the profession of our faith without wavering.' (The washing and theconfession
of faith again recall Baptism.) According to this Epistle, Christcleanses
us through His blood and enables us to draw near to God; and thisonce-for-all
cleansing which Christ accomplished on the Cross is appliedto us in the once-for-all-cleansing
in Baptism… It is possible thereis a direct reference to Baptism in
Revelation 1.5, if the reading 'washedus from our sins' be preferred to the
alternative 'loosed us'; but in anycase baptismal allusions can be seen throughout
the book in the referencesto the faithful who have washed their robes in
the blood of the Lamb, andwear white garments (as baptismal candidates did
in the early Church)."The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism
, The Saint Andrew Press 1958,pp22-23. We may add to the list of referencesTitus
3.5f.
(b) Baptism is represented as a pouring
and a sprinkling. John the Baptist contrasted his own water baptism with
Jesus'Spirit baptism: "I baptise you with water…He will baptise you
withthe Holy Spirit" (Matt 3.11). Jesus confirmed this (Acts 1.5). He then
speaksof this baptism in terms of a power coming upon them (Acts 1.8). Peter
speaksof the same baptism twice in terms of a pouring out (2.18,33), and
Luke writesabout the Holy Spirit having been "poured out" and as having "come
upon"(10.44;11.15). Moreover, as J Murray points out, the Old Testament anticipation
of the gift (baptism) of the Spirit "is expressed in terms of pouring out,
shedding forth and sprinkling – never immersion".ChristianBaptism
, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p 21.
- Isaiah 32.15: "till the
Spiritis poured upon us from on high"
- Joel 2.28: "I will
pourout my Spirit on all people"
- Ezekiel 36.25-27: "I
will sprinkle clean water on you… I will put my Spirit
in you."
It does
seem a little strange to insist that the outward sign must be immersion
when the inward graceis spoken of in terms of pouring and sprinkling! Moreover,
baptism not only signifies our union with Christ, the washing away of sin,
the gift of theHoly Spirit, it also signifies the blood ofChrist applied
to our lives. It is not without significance that the New Testamentuses the
idea of sprinkling in connection with the blood of Christin its application
(Heb 9.13,14,22;10.22; 12.24; 1 Pet 1.2). As Murray observes,"It would be
strange if the baptism with water which represents the sprinklingof the blood
of Christ could not properly and most significantly be performedby sprinkling.
Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and
Reformed 1980,p21.
- Our baptism
with wateras a SIGN of our union with Christ
CEB Cranfield observes,
"all that Paul wishes to convey (in Romans 6.3-5) is the simple fact that
the persons concerned have received Christian baptism. But at the same time
the expression which he uses implies…that baptism has to do with a
decisive personal relationship between the individual believer and Christ
(and) that the relationship to Christ with which baptism has to do includes,
in particular, a relationshipto his death".
The Epistle tothe Romans Vol I, T & T Clark 1975, p 301.
Commenting on the meaning of Paul's claim Cranfield further comments:
"Notthat it actually relates the person concerned to Christ's death, since
thisrelationship is already an objective reality before baptism takes place…but
that it points to and is a pledge of, that death which the person has already
died – in God's sight…"The Epistle to the Romans
Vol I, T & T Clark 1975, p 303. If Cranfield and others
are correctit will again be obvious that the Romans passage has no bearing
on the modeof baptism.
IN CONCLUSION
We need to be consistent.
It seemsvery strange that people should on the one hand adopt a dogmatic
approachto the mode of one sacrament yet adopt a very loose approach to the
mode ofour other sacrament, the Lord's Supper.
That is particularly so when we are more certain about the latter
than weare about the former. We know that the early Christians celebrated
the Lord'sSupper in the course of a meal and that unleavened bread and wine
were used.The New Testament makes that clear. Yet we do not insist that the
Lord'sSupper must be celebrated in the course of a meal and that unleavened
bread and wine be used. Indeed there is widespread agreement that the mode
is of no significance. Precisely whether baptism was practised by immersion
or by sprinkling or pouring is a matter for personal or corporate judgement.
It depends on one's conclusions after the evidence has been assessed. That
that is the case should be obvious from the wide disagreement that prevails
among equally godly and scholarly Christians.
It is the view of this Panel that sprinkling,
pouring or immersion are all appropriate modes of baptism, that each of these
modes reflects some aspect of the Christian faith signified by baptism, and
that each of these modes represents the full Christian experience, including
union with Christ, the application of the blood of Christ, the washing away
of sin, and the gift of the Spirit. We identify with Macleod's plea: "I respect
immersion, but I am asking that there should be a place for our mode too.
There is no stress in the New Testament on the mode of baptism, any morethan
there is any stress in the case of the Lord's Supper on the fact thatthe
bread used was unleavened bread."A Faith to Live By
, Christian Focus 1998, p 214.
An important element in all this is that
baptism take place in the company of the local congregation to which thecandidate
for baptism will be committed. It is more important that a personbe baptised
in the presence of that congregation by sprinkling or pouringthan that he
be baptised by immersion in the presence of a representativegroup of church
members or even a group of personal friends. Baptism afterall represents
not only my incorporation into Christ, it represents my belongingto both
the universal Church and to the local congregation in which I live,and move
and have my being. To magnify the mode of baptism and minimise thesignificance
of baptism at this point, or at any point, is to misrepresentthe New Testament
approach and, therefore, to mislead.
1. Introduction
2. Institution of Baptism
3. Origins of Water Baptism
4. The Baptism of Children: Old Testament Evidence
5. The Baptism of Children: New Testament Evidence
6. The Baptism of Children: Extra Biblical Evidence
7. The Proper Subjects of Baptism
8. The Mode of Baptism
9. The Way Forward
|
