Baptism

Dr. 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 pourin! or sprin"lin!. The third denies that immersion is Scriptural. It is not o#ten that !enuine scholars now !o to the e$treme o# sayin! that immersion is not baptism. Dr. Shedd in his %ommentary on Romans endea&ors to show that 'aul in Romans ()* did not connect baptism and burial. But this species o# e$e!etical !ymnastics is so rare as not to be ta"en seriously by the student o# Scripture. There is a much lar!er number o# writers who #reely admit that immersion is the proper meanin! o# baptize but who insist that another meanin! is permissible also in special cases. +ence it is ar!ued one cannot properly insist on immersion alone as baptism. Dr. A. 'lummer is a #ine e$ample o# this type o# scholars who wish to #ind some Scriptural ,usti#ication #or modern practices in %hristian worship. -ritin! in the new +astin!s Dictionary o# the Bible he says) "The mode o# usin! it was commonly immersion. The symbolism o# the ordinance re.uired this. It was an act o# puri#ication/ and hence the need o# water. A death to sin was e$pressed by a plun!e beneath the water and a risin! a!ain to a li#e o# ri!hteousness by the return o# li!ht and air/ and hence the appropriateness o# immersion". That would seem conclusi&e i# he had not added) "But immersion was a desirable symbol rather than an essential " mentionin! the stoc" ob,ections about household baptism. The Baptists are by no means alone in claimin! that nothin! but immersion is tau!ht in Scriptures. In #act the o&erwhelmin! bul" o# modern scholarship is with the Baptist contention on this point. The trouble is not so much here as in the conclusion #rom this #act. The Romanist will say) "0es but the church had the ri!ht to chan!e the mode o# the ordinance." +e #alls behind the doctrine o# an in#allible church. The appeal to Scripture does not reach him. The 1utherans and do many other 'aedobaptists admit it #reely but a##irm that the #orm is a matter o# indi##erence and claim that pourin! and sprin"lin! are more con&enient and more suitable to model conditions and customs. It is denied by them that the #orm is essential to obedience to this command. This is the position o# the ma,ority o# 'aedobaptists. The wise line o# ar!ument with those who hold this &iew is to show that the #orm is essential to the symbol that the &ery idea o# baptism is destroyed when the #orm is bro"en that an ordinance is meant in the nature o# the case to be unchan!eable/ in accord to ma"e it clear that one lo&es the Bible must #ollow the Bible teachin!. It is ,ust at this point that most o# the irritation arises in the discussion o# this sub,ect. In our &iew we assume that no is baptized at all who is not immersed on a pro#ession o# #aith. This is considered arro!ance by many who di##er #rom us and it is #re.uently said that we ma"e immersion essential to sal&ation. I# we e$pect to reach those who disa!ree with us we must ta"e pains to be understood and to ma"e it clear that our stress on immersion is not because we consider it essential to sal&ation but essential to the ordinance. Baptism is not essential to sal&ation but we insist that when one is 2

baptized he should be really baptized. Baptists also #eel &ery stron!ly the beauty o# the symbolism o# baptism as a death and resurrection. -e are unwillin! to see the pictured truth o# the ordinance destroyed by the substitution o# some other act. Besides we contend that the command o# 3esus cannot be obeyed unless the thin! commanded by +im is done. The Substitution of Sprinkling for Immersion It is a commonplace amon! scholars that the counsel o# Ra&enna in 2422 was the #irst counsel to put sprin"lin! on a par with immersion. This permission to use sprin"lin! says the Scha##5+erzo! %yclopedia o# Reli!ious 6nowled!e "was #a&ored by the !rowin! rarity o# adult baptism." 7p to this time sprin"lin! was only allowed in the case o# the sic" and !radually #or in#ants. It was the doctrine o# baptismal re!eneration that led both to in#ant baptism and sprin"lin!. The belie# that only the baptized were sa&ed caused somethin! to be done that would answer #or baptism to insure sal&ation. 1uther too" the side o# immersion and tried to stem the tide toward sprin"lin! but he #ailed. %al&in considered it a matter o# indi##erence. Roman %atholics stand by the council o# Ra&enna. The %ontinental Anabaptists were di&ided as to immersion. 8odern ad&ocates o# sprin"lin! stand #or a rite that !ained its triumph at the close o# 8iddle A!es The Greek Church The 9ree" %hristians did not accept the decision o# Ra&enna and did not cease the practice o# immersion. This is a &ery stri"in! testimony to the meanin! o# baptize since the 9ree"s are credited with "nowin! the meanin! o# words in their own lan!ua!e. It is true they practice trine immersion but this #act has no bearin! on the .uestion o# immersion or sprin"lin!. The Early Fathers There is such a wealth o# testimony here that one hesitates what to use. I ha&e be#ore me as I write the 9ree" 1e$icon o# the Roman and Byzantine 'eriod #rom 2*: B% to AD 22:: by 'ro#. ;.A. Sophocles himsel# a nati&e 9ree". This boo" is the standard authority #or this period o# the 9ree" lan!ua!e and is in&aluable in the study o# ecclesiastical terms. +e in accordance with all 9ree" le$icons !i&es "dip immerse plun!e" as the meanin! o# the word. +e re#ers to Barnabas I!natius 3ustin 8artyr Ireneus Ori!en %yril 9re!ory ;piphanius etc< to pro&e the mode. 8oreo&er Barnabas and the Shepherd o# +ermas both spea" o# "!oin! down into the water" and "comin! up out o# the water." Tertullian uses the 1atin word "mer!ito " "to plun!e." -hen the teachin! o# the Twel&e came to li!ht there was much ado made because this document o# the second century permitted pourin! when immersion could not be done. This is true. Already the doctrine o# baptismal re!eneration had arisen and so much stress was laid upon baptism that when there was not enou!h water #or immersion pourin! was allowed. But this is not the Scripture teachin!. =o such emphasis is laid upon baptism by the =ew Testament. 8oreo&er in the Teachin! o# the Twel&e when pourin! is allowed a di##erent word is used #rom "baptizo." The word used is "e"cheo " a

>

word ne&er used in the =ew Testament in connection with baptism. =ow the #act that "e"cheo" is used #or pourin! as distin!uished #rom "baptizo " pro&es that "baptizo" does not mean pour. Ancient Greek "Baptizo" is not used as o#ten as "bapto" #rom which it is deri&ed. But each means to dip to plun!e. Both words are used in #i!urati&e e$pressions also as all words are. Once can be plun!ed in !rie# immersed in cares etc. 1iddell and Scott?s Standard 9ree" 1e$icon @se&enth editionA !i&es not a sin!le e$ample that permits pourin! or sprin"lin!. -hat the precise di##erence is between "bapto" and "baptizo" has not been determined. In practical usa!e no real distinction can be obser&ed sa&ed "baptizo" is more common in later 9ree"/ "bapto" is the earlier idiom. -e ha&e the same situation concernin! "raino" and "rantizo " to sprin"le. The ancient 9ree"s uses "raino " and later 9ree" uses its deri&ati&e "rantizo " but with no real di##erence in sense. Contemporary Greek The Biblical 9ree" is based on the 7ni&ersal Dialect which was occasioned by the spread o# the 8acedonized Attic by the by the con.uests o# Ale$ander the 9reat 'lutarch Dio %assius 1ucian 'hilo 3osephus 'olybius Diodorus Strabo all use "baptizo " and all use it in the sense o# dip. These writers wrote in the lan!ua!e which lay immediately behind Biblical 9ree" and were in a sense contemporaries o# Biblical 9ree". 'lutarch spea"s o# dippin! @"baptizo"A himsel# into the la"e. 3osephus @Anti.uities BC. 4 4A tells o# youn! Aristobulus brother o# 8ariamne who went swimmin! with some o# +erod?s ser&ants. At the proper time in the dar" o# the e&enin! they "dipped him as he was swimmin! " and so he was drowned. The word "baptizo" is here used #or "dipped." The Septuagint Both "bapto" and "baptizo" are used in the Septua!int translation in literal and #i!urati&e senses but always with the sense o# dip. In > 6in!s D)2* we read o# =aaman) "Then went he down and dipped himsel# se&en times in the 3ordan." There the Septua!int uses "baptizo" #or "dipped." The New Testament The =ew Testament is based immediately on the Dialect. 'ro#. Sophocles @1e$icon #or Roman and Byzantine 'eriodsA says o# "baptizo") "There is no e&idence that 1u"e and 'aul and the other writers o# the =ew Testament put upon this &erb meanin!s not reco!nized by the 9ree"s." The word assumes a technical application to a special ordinance in the =ew Testament but the act used as an ordinance is the ori!inal and persistent meanin! o# the word. The 3ews had ablutions be#ore 3ohn the Baptist introduced the ordinance o# baptism. Some o# those ablutions were immersions but there is no e&idence that the 3ewish 'roselyte baptism o# later times @which was also immersionA e$isted be#ore the time o# %hrist. In 1u"e 22)4E we are told that the 'harisee mar&eled at 3esus because "+e had not #irst washed be#ore dinner." The word #or wash is "baptizo " and re#ers to the 'harisaic scrupulosity about ceremonial de#ilements. To ma"e

sure o# ceremonial purity a whole bath was #elt to be necessary. In 8ar" F)* we read that when they come "#rom mar"et e$cept they wash they eat not." There a!ain "baptizo" is used #or wash. Some ancient documents here read "rantizo " sprin"le showin! clearly that "baptizo" and "rantizo" mean di##erent thin!s. The readin! "rantizo" doubtless arose #rom the di##iculty #elt by those not 3ews in thin"in! that e&erybody would !o to the trouble o# ta"in! a bath a#ter comin! #rom the mar"et be#ore meals. In 1u"e 2()>* "bapto" is translated dip "that he may dip the tip o# his #in!er in water." "Baptizo" is used in the #i!urati&e sense in the =ew Testament but always in harmony with the ori!inal and literal meanin! o# the word. The baptism o# death o# #ire o# the cloud o# the +oly Spirit all preser&ed the same ima!ery o# the literal usa!e. The way to learn the real meanin! o# a word is not #rom the metaphor but #rom the literal sense. -e ha&e seen #rom the use o# the word "baptizo" in 9ree" writers o# all a!es #rom the time o# +omer till 8odern 9ree" that "bapto" and "baptizo" mean to dip. So then the presumption is all in #a&or o# this idea in the Bible unless the connection ma"es it impossible and renders a peculiar sense proper which does not elsewhere e$ist. -e ha&e seen that the Septua!int translation o# the Old Testament "bapto" and "baptizo" mean to dip or immerse in a literal and #i!urati&e sense. -hat then is the sense when "baptizo" is used #or the ordinance o# baptismG -e obser&e at once that "rantizo" to sprin"le and "eccheo " to pour or both used in the =ew Testament but ne&er in connection with the ordinance o# baptism. The word "baptizo" is consistently used throu!hout. -e should e$pect "baptizo" to ha&e one meanin! since we ha&e obser&ed this to true o# it elsewhere. This one meanin! should run throu!h all the #i!urati&e uses o# the word also. -e su!!est that one use successi&ely pour sprin"le immerse in e&ery instance in the =ew Testament where the word baptize or baptism occurs. The result will completely remo&e pour and sprin"le #rom serious consideration. Dip or immerse will suit e&ery time. The circumstances surroundin! the ordinance o# baptism naturally su!!est immersion. 3esus went down into the water. And came up out o# the water @8ar" 2)2:A. The baptism too" place while down in the water. I# the word "baptizo" elsewhere always means immerse certainly there is nothin! here to ma"e it otherwise. The =ew Testament descriptions o# &arious baptisms su!!est an immersion. 8oreo&er 'aul has drawn a picture o# what baptism is li"e. In Romans ()* he tells us that baptism is li"e death burial and resurrection. @See also %ol. >)2>A. The &ery symbolism o# baptism demands !oin! down into and risin! #rom the water. It is impossible to picture burial and resurrection by pourin! or sprin"lin!. Immersion does do it and nothin! else does. The ar!ument is complete as complete as it is possible to ma"e any ar!ument. =o real ob,ection can be #ound in Scriptures. The number baptized at 'entecost does not show immersion to be impossible. Baptist missionaries amon! the Telu!us ha&e duplicated this e$perience se&eral times. The water was at hand also #or 3erusalem was well5supplied with lar!e pools and always had plenty o# water. The baptism o# the ,ailer at 'hilippi is entirely possible. It is not state when the baptism too" place. Baptism by immersion is common in ,ails now. -ater can be #ound in plenty when it is wanted. But one may say suppose water could not be #ound then whatG Do nothin!. Baptism is not essential #or sal&ation. A man in a desert can wait till he !ets out o# the desert i# he e&er does. I# we do not "now

that 3esus was immersed in the 3ordan we do not "now anythin! about the Bible. What Will ou !o" I# 3esus was immersed you wish to be immersed also. 0ou ou!ht not to be willin! to do somethin! else. I# +e went all the way #rom =azareth to the 3ordan to be immersed by 3ohn we ou!ht not to say anythin! about con&enience now. It is not a .uestion o# what we would rather do. 3esus was immersed. -ill you be content with doin! somethin! else #or your own con&enience and o##er that to +im #or obedienceG It is not a .uestion o# sal&ation #or we are not sa&ed by baptism. But why do anythin! i# you are not willin! to do what 3esus did and what +e commandsG +e has commanded us to be immersed. +e had nowhere commanded pourin! or sprin"lin!. * Hrom Baptism A.T. Robertson Baptist Ar!us @1ouis&ille 6entuc"yA 2I::. About the author# A.T. Robertson was 'ro#essor o# =ew Testament Interpretation Southern Baptist Theolo!ical Seminary @2EID52I4*A. +e is well "nown #or his writin!s on the 9ree" =T. See more articles by A.T. Robertson at www.theolo!ue.or!