Baptism.-A Review by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · May 17, 1883

Baptism.—A Review.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

A CORRESPONDENT in the East sends us a copy of the Christian Intelligencer of April 11, with the request that we notice an article which it contains, entitled, “The Mode of Baptism,” as it has troubled some honest investigators. We accordingly quote the principal part of the article and notice its statements in detail.

The writer begins by expressing his regret that a certain writer of Sunday-school notes “should seem to countenance the idea that Philip baptized the eunuch by immersion, as is done in his remarks on Acts 8:38, where ‘into the water’ is emphasized by being printed in italics, and within quotation marks.” He then says:—

“The Greek proposition eis signifies motion toward, and never indicates the actual going into a place unless it is repeated, once in composition with the verb, and once governing the noun. When Peter and John ran together to the sepulcher, after our Lord’s resurrection, John outran Peter, and came first to the sepulcher, eis to mnemeion, yet went he not in, ou mentoi eiselthen. The phrase, if completed, would read ou mentoi eis eis to mnemeion, as it does when Peter is described when arriving, and actually going into the sepulcher, kai eiselthen eis to mnemeion.

“The same remark applies to the preposition ek, which signifies motion from, and never indicates actual coming from within a place, unless it is repeated, as before noted, in composition with the verb, as well as governing the noun. Here also a single example may suffice. Luke 4:22, ‘the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth,’ tois ekporeuomenois ek tou stomatos autou. This form of expression is invariable.

“Now in the account of the baptism of the eunuch by Philip, if Luke had meant that they actually went into the water, still more that they went under the water, he would have twice used the preposition eis. But he does not. The phrase is katebesan eis to hudor, the exact meaning of which is they went down to the water. So if it had been meant that they actually came out of the water, the phrase would have been exebesan ek tou hudatos. But it is anebesan ek tou hudatos, and means exactly they came up, or back, from the water. The Revision, with all its pretensions to scholarship, has failed to note this point.”

There is but one fault that can be found with this criticism, and that is that it is not true. There is an old saying that “one swallow does not make a spring.” The author of the above should have remembered this and pushed his investigations further, before he made such sweeping assertions. Because a thing occurs in a certain way once, we are not justified in saying that it will be so every time. That is the most foolish kind of reasoning. It is as if a man who had never before seen a horse, should see a span of white horses, and should then stoutly maintain that all horses are white. This is just the condition of the writer of this article; he has found that sometimes the prepositions are repeated when motion into or out of a place is meant, and makes the rash assertion that “this form of expression is invariable.” We shall see. If it can be shown that eis

unrepeated ever indicates “the actual going into a place,” then his whole argument, or assumption, falls to the ground. Turning to the lexicons we find the following in reference to the preposition eis:—

“The radical signification is, direction towards, motion to, into, or on; into;”—Pickering.

“1. Of PLACE, which is the primary and most frequent use, into, viz.:—

“(a) After verbs implying motion of any kind, into, or also to, towards, upon any place or object.”—Robinson.

“Preposition. On, into, upon,” etc.—Greenfield.

“Direction towards, motion to, on, or into……In composition eis retains its chief signification, into.”—Liddell & Scott.

These definitions from standard authorities are alone sufficient to settle the matter; but to make assurance doubly sure, we will quote a few examples. In all the following instances the construction is precisely the same as in Acts 8:38; the preposition occurs but once, and is not compounded with the verb:—

Matt. 2:11: Kai elthontes eis teen oikian, “and when they were come into the house.”

Matt. 2:12: Anechoreesan eis teen choran autou, “they departed into their own country.”

Matt. 2:14: Anechoreesan eis Aiguptou, “[he] departed into Egypt.” Our critic would have us read in this instance, “he went toward, or near to, Egypt.”

Matt. 2:22: Anechoreesan eis ta meree tees Galilaias, “he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.”

In this last instance let us try our author’s statement that eis unrepeated always means “toward,” and never “into,” and see how it will work. We would then have it, “he turned aside toward Galilee,” but did not go into it. This is another point which “the Revision, with all its pretensions to scholarship has failed to note.” But, unfortunately for the newest version, the next verse says that “he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth,” which is a long distance inside the borders of Galilee.

Passing by many similar instances, we come to Matt. 8:31, 32, another good text on which to test the definition of our new lexicographer. In the sentence, “If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine,” the preposition eis occurs but once. Perhaps, however, it will be claimed that the demons did not actually go into the swine, but went toward them, and drove them along toward the sea. Very well, we will try the next verse, and see how it fared with the swine. We read, “and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea.” The Greek is, ormeesen eis teen thalassan, the preposition occurring but once. Then according to the newest version, we must understand that the swine simply ran toward the sea, but did not go into it. The only trouble with this explanation is that the next clause says that “they perished in the waters.” Then they must have gone into the water, after all. We are strongly reminded of the proverb: “The legs of the lame are not equal.” Prov. 26:7, first clause, only.

If the reader wishes to examine other texts where eis is used alone, he can try the following, and see if he thinks that “toward,” or “near to,” would improve the sense: Matt. 4:1, 12; 5:1, 25, 29, 30; 9:1; 12:9; 13:36, 47, 54; 14:22; Acts 22:4, 10, 11, 25, 24; 1 Pet. 3:22, and many other passages.

Now for the other preposition. We have seen that Philip and the eunuch could go into the water, even though the narrative contains only one preposition. But having seen them in the water, we shall be obliged to leave them there, if it is true that ek never means “out of” unless it also occurs twice. Again we refer to the lexicons to settle the matter. Of the preposition ek we read:—

“1. Of motion out of, forth, from forth or out of with all verbs of motion such as express taking away, separating.”—Liddell & Scott.

“Its primary signification is from, out of, away from . . . from among, etc.”—Pickering.

“A preposition governing the genetive, with the primary signification out of, from, of; spoken of such objects as before were in or within another, but are now separated from it . . .

“1. OF PLACE, which is the most frequent use, out of, from, viz.:—

“(a) After verbs implying motion of any kind out of, or from any place or object.”—Robinson.

Following are a few instances of its use. We give only the English, simply stating that in every case the preposition occurs but once, as in Acts 8:38.

Matt. 2:15: “Out of Egypt have I called my Son.”

Matt. 24:17: “Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house.”

Mark 9:7: “And a voice came out of the cloud.”

John 4:54: “When he was come out of Judea into Galilee.”

John 13:1: “When Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world.”

We quote again from the article:—

“But if it be admitted that the criticism on the use of the preposition, as above, is correct, it is impossible that the inspired writers should have had at all in their minds the idea of going into, or going under the water.”

But it is not admitted, for the good reason that the criticism is no criticism at all; and so we say that it is not only possible but certain that the inspired writers had in their minds the idea both of going into, and going under, the water. Even so zealous an advocate of sprinkling as Dr. Clarke, admits that the eunuch was plunged under the water.

But it may be asked, “Since the preposition eis does sometimes mean ‘toward,’ as well as ‘into,’ is it not possible that it means ‘toward’ in Acts 8:38?” We reply, no; and for reasons that we shall proceed to give. If we did not know the meaning of the word “baptize,” or if this were the only place where baptism was mentioned, we might allow the claim; for, let it be distinctly understood that we do not base the argument for immersion on the preposition in Acts 8:38, or in any other place. That is only corroborative evidence; our direct proof is more to the point. And let it also be distinctly noted that the so-called argument for sprinkling is all of this nature; it is all negative. Even if the article that we have noticed were true, and allowing that Acts 8:38 should read “they went down to the water,” “came up from the water;” it would not prove that they did not also go in. The advocates of sprinkling, like our critic, labor hard to prove a point that would profit them nothing even if it were established.

In conclusion we offer a few points of direct evidence:—

1. Our Saviour did not coin the word “baptize;” it was in use before the time of his first advent.

2. When he used the word baptize, to indicate an ordinance in the church, he must have used it in the sense in which it was generally used; for if he had not, no one would have known what he meant, unless he had given a new definition, which he did not do.

3. The authors of the lexicons do not make the meaning of words to suit themselves; they simply tell the meaning with which the word is used. If it be a word from a so-called “dead language,” the lexicons give the meaning which it had when that language was spoken.

4. The Greek lexicons define baptizo, of which baptize is the English form, untranslated, “to dip, to plunge,” etc. Liddell & Scott give it, to dip repeatedly, to dip under, and give as examples of its use, “over head and ears in debt,” “overwhelmed with questions.”

5. The idea of sprinkling does not attach to the word at all, except as it is forced upon it in support of a practice inherited from the Catholic Church. Whenever the idea of sprinkling is conveyed, a different word is employed. Here we can say of a truth, “This form of expression is invariable.”

6. The signification of the ordinance shows plainly the meaning of the word. Paul says: “Know ye not, that so many of us were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism,” etc. Rom. 6:3, 4. That is, we show our faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, and our determination to be dead to sin, and to live in newness of life, by being “buried” in water as a symbol of Christ’s burial in the earth. Christ was completely hidden from sight in the tomb; so we must be completely submerged in the water, in order to have the symbol fit the reality.

7. This idea is established beyond cavil in the next verse: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” The text is too plain to need comment. A seed is not planted unless it is covered up. The disciples of Christ did not carelessly throw a few handfuls of earth on his body, but reverently laid it in the ground, completely covering it from view. Then unless we are likewise completely buried, planted, submerged in the watery grave, we are not in the likeness of Christ’s death. Sprinkling has no likeness whatever to the burial and resurrection of Christ. And there it necessarily follows:—

7. That baptism is immersion and nothing else, and one who has not been immersed has not obeyed the command of Christ to be baptized. We are sure that this conclusion cannot be honestly evaded. We shall have more to say about the importance of this matter hereafter. E. J. W.