Your ShelfYour Projects

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM

2%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 14, 1878

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 7.

Read the full edition

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
Some questions have been presented to me on the subject of Baptism which I would like to answer in full, going somewhat beyond the extent of the questions to determine their relations as well as their most direct bearings.
The influences brought to bear upon us even from childhood, of association and education, are so many, so varied, and often so subtle, that it seems impossible to find an investigator who is entirely free from prepossession or prejudice. But this should lead us, not to excuse this unhappy state of things because so many are involved in the same difficulty, but, rather, to distrust our positions and always to be willing to have them tested anew by the great detector—the Bible.
Brought up under the influence of the Presbyterian Church, I had no views of Baptism which I could call my own, that is, which were received by conviction instead of tradition. At the age of twenty-three I made a profession of faith, and was then requested to read “Dwight’s Theology.” At that time I had never read a work or heard a sermon on Baptism which was opposed to the faith of the church of my parents. By carefully and prayerfully examining the arguments of Dr. Dwight, and all the passages referred to by him together with their contexts, I became thoroughly convinced that his conclusions were not just.
On the mode of Baptism (as it is improperly expressed), a very extended argument seems hardly needed at this day. The Baptist authors, Carson and others, though they have not exhausted the subject, have well established the principles from which safe conclusions may be drawn. The Baptist denomination, as also the “Christian,” is worthy of our high regards for the service they have done to the cause of truth on this subject, under reproach, opposition, and often persecution, if not always open and violent, none the less keen and cutting to the conscientious and sensitive, when it comes from those who ought to be friends, and to whom Christian charity would indicate a different course.
The “Disciples” also, led out by Alexander Campbell, have shown an earnestness and zeal worthy of commendation in their efforts to extend the truth concerning the action and subjects of baptism. But they have, unfortunately, so related these to certain errors, especially that of antinomianism, as greatly to detract from the value of their efforts on these important points. Because of the prevalence of this “antinomian delusion,” as Rev. Andrew Fuller aptly called it, the relations of Baptism need now to be specially considered. However, first the inquiry arises,

WHAT IS BAPTISM?

It is often claimed that words, when used in the Scriptures, have a different meaning from that which they have when used elsewhere, and this claim is especially made in regard to the word baptizein, the Greek infinitive to baptize. Our understanding of language is gained only through our knowledge of the meaning of its terms. If these are not clearly defined, then we can have no clear understanding of the language. If words in the Bible do not have the meaning which is established by usage and given in the lexicons of the languages in which they were written, then it follows evidently that we cannot understand the things which are professedly revealed, unless we have a special lexicon to give these unusual meanings of the words. Such a claim really destroys the efficiency and sufficiency of the word of God as a revelation. By connection with a certain doctrine or ordinance, a term may come to have a technical or restricted application, but its meaning is not thereby changed.
This is illustrated in the common use of the word millennium. Webster says, “A thousand years; used to denote the thousand years of the twentieth chapter of Revelation.” No particular thousand years can be indicated by the meaning of the word, yet in all discussions of the Scriptures, it is at once understood that it refers to that thousand years mentioned in the Scriptures. While the word has acquired such a restricted application as to direct the mind to that particular period, its signification is not at all changed by that use. True, by that use we have been accustomed to associate with the word the idea of peace, &c., but such ideas have no necessary connection with the term. They are but the result of a certain accepted description of the thing specified. A millennium may be either of joy or of sorrow. Neither is indicated by the word, and it is only by arbitrary association that we attach the idea of joy and peace to the millennium, for the term itself could never convey any such idea to the mind.
And such is the case with the word Baptism. When spoken in Christian lands, and especially in discussions of the Scriptures, the mind at once turns to the ordinance of Christian Baptism. But in the phrase “Christian Baptism,” we have added to the word Baptism all that we have associated in our minds with the act or thing as a Christian ordinance. Of course much that is foreign to the simple meaning of the term is attached to it by association. When searching for the meaning of a term we ought to free it from all such associations or foreign elements. In this case the word had an established meaning before it was used to designate a Christian ordinance. And if the ordinance was not made to conform to the meaning of the word, then the word so used did not convey a correct idea to the mind of the hearer or reader; and such a use would be well calculated to create confusion.
We cannot suppose that the Institutor of the ordinance designed to be obscure in his directions for the discharge of a gospel duty. Then the question arises, Was there any word in use in our Saviour’s time which would specify any particular action in the administration of this ordinance? We answer, There was; and such a word was chosen by him; one having an established and unmistakably definite signification.
It should be borne in mind that it is not safe to trust to modern dictionaries for the meaning of words adopted from other languages. They aim to give the signification of words as they are now used. And here it is proper to remark that usage takes precedence of the lexicon as authority. When use has established the meaning of a term, the dictionary gives that meaning. A dictionary cannot make meanings. It is a standard only so far as it gives correctly the meaning established by the best usage. If we wish to ascertain the true meaning of words in other languages, we must resort to the usages and the lexicons of those languages. We have an illustration of this in point. We have an old English dictionary published in Scotland in which the only definition given of baptize is “to christen.” That was the idea attached to the word at the time when and place where the book was published. But insert that definition in a Scripture text, as Mark 16 or Acts 2, and it is found to be, not only erroneous, but ridiculous.
Again, we should never try to settle the meaning of the word by our ideas of the intention of the ordinance. The intention of ordinances is always more or less a subject of controversy; and the occasion of controversy is increased by confusion in regard to the meaning of the terms used. We do not learn the meaning of words by the intention of ordinances; but we learn, rather, what the ordinance is by the meaning of the words which define it.
There are eight words in the Greek of the New Testament referring to the several actions which are supposed to be admissible in the administration of the ordinance of Baptism. These are:—
1. Baptizo. This word is never translated in the Authorized Version, that is, in our Bible, commonly known as King James’ Translation. It always appears under its anglicized form, baptize. We pass this for the present to briefly consider the others.
2. Rantizo. This word is used six times in the New Testament and is translated sprinkle every time. It has no other meaning. It is found in Heb. 9:13, 19, 21; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2.
3. Proschusis. This occurs but once in the New Testament, Heb. 11:28, rendered sprinkling. The lexicons give it the definitions of pouring upon, and sprinkling.
4. Ekcheo. This word is used eighteen times, and is translated pour out and shed forth. The lexicons give this definition. Ekchuno is considered a form of the same word, having the same signification, and is rendered in the same manner. It occurs ten times.
5. Epicheo is used but once, Luke 10:34, and is rendered pour in.
6. Katacheo occurs twice, Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:3, and is rendered pour.
7. Kerannumi (kerao) occurs three times, Rev. 14:10, and 18:6 twice. In the first-named text it is rendered poured out, and in the latter is used thus: “In the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.” The lexicons give it the definition, to mix, mingle, or pour out, as “from one vessel to another.”
8. Ballo. This word has the definition of throw or cast. It is used one hundred and twenty-five times; rendered cast ninety times; pour out twice, Matt. 26:12, and John 13:5.
Of the seven words last noticed, not one of them is ever used in referring to the ordinance of Baptism. The word ekcheo is supposed to be an exception, but it is not; for the ordinance is a subject of commandment, but the baptism of the Spirit, to which the word is applied, is not a subject of precept. But this will be noticed more particularly hereafter.
We come now to consider the word baptizo. This is defined immerse in all the lexicons. We say, in all, for we have never seen or even heard of an exception. We might give authorities to any length in justification of this statement, but we forbear, as it would only lengthen our remarks needlessly, contenting ourselves with some quotations from Prof. Moses Stuart. We choose to offer Prof. Stuart as authority for several reasons: 1. He occupies a prominent position in the Presbyterian denomination, and his admissions will therefore carry more weight than the claims of Baptist authors, though their testimony may be in perfect agreement. 2. His ability and learning were unquestioned; he long stood as a distinguished teacher in a theological school. 3. His writings being of recent date, he was in possession of all the advantages of the investigation on this subject, ancient and modern. Of the Greek he says:—
“Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this. My proof of this position, then, need not necessarily be protracted; but for the sake of ample confirmation, I must beg the reader’s patience while I lay before him, as briefly as may be, the results of an investigation which seems to leave no room for doubt.”
He then proceeds to quote Greek authors, beginning with Homer, and gives thirty-seven instances of the use of the original with this signification. Giving five instances from Hippocrates, he remarks:—
“And in the same way in all parts of his book, in instances almost without number.”
Closing his list of citations, he adds:—
“It were easy to enlarge this list of testimonies to this use; but the reader will not desire it.”
Leaving the classics and coming to the records of the church, he says:—
“The passages which refer to immersion are so numerous in the fathers, that it would take a little volume merely to recite them.”
The investigations of others, especially of Dr. Carson and Prof. Conant, were no less exhaustive than that of Prof. Stuart, and all give the same results. And while we consider the vast number of instances given where it refers unmistakably to immersion,there is no instance found where the Greek word baptizo means anything but immerse. Now where the lexicons are agreed, and the usage is uniform and unvarying, we think the question is settled beyond all chance of reasonable dispute; Baptism is immersion, and that only.
Of the figurative use of the word baptizo, Prof. Stuart says:—
“Inasmuch, now, as the more usual idea of baptizo is that of overwhelming, immerging, it was very natural to employ it in designating severe calamities and sufferings.”
It is a great mistake, yet made by many, to suppose that, because words are used in figures of speech, therefore they have a figurative meaning. There is no such thing as the figurative meaning of words. They must have a definite and fixed meaning in order to an understanding of the figures which they represent to us. The use of a word in a figure of speech works no change in its signification.
Having given such decided testimony from Prof. Stuart in favor of immersion, we should not do him justice did we not notice the reasons he gave for deviating in his religious views and practice from the meaning of the word. The paragraphs following contain the gist of his reasoning on the subject:—
“For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always. I say usually and not always; for to say more than this, the tenor of some of the narratives, particularly Acts 10:47, 48; 16:32, 33; and 2:41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples without the distinct conviction that immersion was not used on these occasions, but washing or affusion.”
We must again commend the frankness of his admission, but are constrained to express our conviction that he viewed the texts specified rather in the light of his theology than of any necessary construction, to find in them an argument for affusion. On Acts 2, he states what appears to him probable, but which every one knows is not necessary, and adds:—
“I concede that there are some points here which are left undetermined, and which may serve to aid those who differ from me in replying to these remarks.”
On Acts 10, he thinks Peter’s words imply this:—
“Can any one forbid that water should be brought in, and these persons be baptized?”
And yet he is constrained to say:—
“I admit that another meaning is not necessarily excluded which would accord with the practice of immersion.”
On Acts 16:33, he speaks more at length and is more unfortunate in his statement:—
“Here it is said that the jailor, after the earthquake and other occurrences, and when brought under deep convictions of sin, took Paul and Silas at midnight, and washed them from their stripes, i. e., washed off the blood which flowed from the wounds made by their stripes; and straightway (παραχρῆμα, forthwith) he was baptized, and ALL HIS. Where was this done? At the jail, or in the jail, where he met Paul and Silas; at any rate within the precincts of the prison; for after the whole transaction was completed, he brought Paul and Silas to his house, and gave them refreshments.”
Yet here also he admits that there might have been a bath in the jail wherein they were immersed; and so admits that his construction of the text is not necessary. The order of the events is not fully and correctly stated by him. It is as follows:—
1. He brought them out of the prison. Verse 30.
2. They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Verse 32.
3. He washed their stripes, and he and all his were baptized. Verse 33.
4. He brought them into his house, and set meat before them. Verse 34.
Thus the record does not give countenance to the idea that all this took place in the jail; for he brought them out, and they preached to all that were in his house, before his baptism. And after his baptism he brought them into his house and gave them food. The baptism took place neither in the prison nor in his house.
But we appeal to every candid, God-fearing reader, against all such reasonings. While it is admitted that the meaning of the word is immerse, and it is admitted that the texts may be explained in harmony with that meaning, genuine reverence for the word of God should lead every inquirer to search for that exposition which is in harmony with the evident meaning of the word used, and not to inquire if an exposition may not also be found not in harmony with the meaning of the word used. The latter course is subversive of divine revelation, and is calculated to engender strife and cause division. For, it must be confessed, the nearer we keep to the literal meaning of the text, the greater is the probability of uniformity in our faith and practice. And when we diverge from the true meaning of the words of the revelation, and admit supposed meanings, confusion is the unavoidable result, for each one is equally authorized to bring in his own supposition. But “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” We ought, then, to pursue that course which will shut out confusion, and bring peace and union to the household of faith.
(To be Continued.)